NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-90

Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan

Developed Pursuant to the Elwha River 

Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act,

Public Law 102-495

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-NWFSC Series

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series to issue scientific 

and technical publications. Manuscripts have been peer 

reviewed and edited. Documents published in this series 

may be cited in the scientific and technical literature.

The NMFS-NWFSC Technical Memorandum series of the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFSF/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest & 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which has since been 

split into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series is now being used by the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center.

Reference throughout this document to trade names does 

not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, NOAA.

This document should be referenced as follows:

Ward, L., P. Crain, B. Freymond, M. McHenry, D. Morrill,

G. Pess, R. Peters, J.A. Shaffer, B. Winter, and B. Wunderlich. 

2008. Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan–Developed 

pursuant to the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act, Public Law 102-495. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-90, 168 p.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-90

Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan

Developed Pursuant to the Elwha River 

Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act,

Public Law 102-495

Larry Ward,1 Patrick Crain,2 Bill Freymond,3

Mike McHenry,1

 Doug Morrill,1 George Pess,

Roger Peters,4

 J. Anne Shaffer,5 Brian Winter,2

and Bob Wunderlich4

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Environmental Conservation Division

2725 Montlake Boulevard East

Seattle, Washington 98112

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

51 Hatchery Road

Port Angeles, Washington 98363

Olympic National Park

600 East Park Avenue

Port Angeles, Washington 98362

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

48 Devonshire Road

Montesano, Washington 98563

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

510 Desmond Drive

Lacey, Washington 98503

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

332 East 5th Street

Port Angeles, Washington 98362

April 2008

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

1

2

3

4

5
ii

Most NOAA Technical Memorandums

NMFS-NWFSC are available online at the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov)

Copies are also available from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone orders (1-800-553-6847)

e-mail orders (orders@ntis.fedworld.gov)
Table of Contents 

List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................v 

List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................................vii 

Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................ix 

Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................................xvii 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................................xix 

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

Project Background.......................................................................................................................................5 

Overview ..................................................................................................................................................5 

Expected Conditions.................................................................................................................................7 

Implementation of Fish Windows ............................................................................................................7 

Role of Hatcheries....................................................................................................................................8 

Harvest Management..............................................................................................................................14 

Fisheries Restoration Periods .................................................................................................................15 

Stock Selection and Restoration Strategies.................................................................................................18 

Restoration Design .................................................................................................................................18 

Stock Selection .......................................................................................................................................20 

Selection Criteria ....................................................................................................................................21 

Restoration Strategies.............................................................................................................................22

Outplanting Strategies ............................................................................................................................25 

Brood Collection Strategies....................................................................................................................28 

Phase Out of Artificial Supplementation................................................................................................30 

Chinook Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach .................................................................................31 

Winter Steelhead Proposed Restoration Approach.................................................................................37 

Summer Steelhead Proposed Restoration Approach ..............................................................................46 

Coho Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach ......................................................................................46 

Chum Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach .....................................................................................50 

Pink Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach........................................................................................54 

Sockeye Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach .................................................................................59 

Coastal Cutthroat Trout Proposed Restoration Approach ......................................................................61 

iii
Bull Trout/Dolly Varden Proposed Restoration Approach.....................................................................62 

Lamprey Proposed Restoration Approach..............................................................................................71 

Habitat Restoration .....................................................................................................................................75 

History of Impacts..................................................................................................................................75 

Current Conditions .................................................................................................................................76 

Response to Dam Removal.....................................................................................................................77 

Goals of Habitat Restoration ..................................................................................................................78 

Past Habitat Restoration Efforts.............................................................................................................78 

Proposed Habitat Restoration Strategies and Treatments.......................................................................79 

Recovery Estimates.....................................................................................................................................83 

Chinook Salmon .....................................................................................................................................86 

Steelhead.................................................................................................................................................89 

Coho Salmon ..........................................................................................................................................90 

Chum Salmon .........................................................................................................................................92 

Pink Salmon............................................................................................................................................93 

Other Species..........................................................................................................................................94 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ......................................................................................................95 

Adaptive Management and Monitoring Objectives................................................................................95 

Hypotheses Development.......................................................................................................................96 

Conceptual Design for Monitoring.......................................................................................................102 

Adaptive Management Strategy ...........................................................................................................112 

References.................................................................................................................................................117 

Appendix A: Hatchery Production Matrices.............................................................................................129 

Appendix B: Chinook Salmon Harvest Management...............................................................................161 

Harvest Management within the Elwha River and Freshwater Bay.....................................................161 

Harvest Management within the State of Washington .........................................................................162 

Harvest Management within Alaska and Canada under the Pacific Salmon Treaty ............................164 

Harvest and Escapement of Elwha Chinook Salmon ...........................................................................166 

iv
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Location of Elwha River watershed. ............................................................................................2 

Figure 2. Elwha River peak flow events. .....................................................................................................6 

Figure 3. Modeled Lake Mills surface elevations, Elwha River discharge, and suspended sediment 

concentrations: 1968–1971 flow scenario.....................................................................................................9 

Figure 4. Elwha River drawdown schedule and fish windows. .................................................................10 

Figure 5. Regional fish culture facilities....................................................................................................13 

Figure 6. Chinook salmon outplanting locations.......................................................................................29 

Figure 7. Redds being pumped ..................................................................................................................43 

Figure 8. Eggs and fry collect in the downstream portions of the capture net...........................................43 

Figure 9. Captured eggs and fry awaiting transport to the hatchery for rearing. .......................................44 

Figure 10. Life history versus dam removal timing for Elwha River wild steelhead. ...............................45 

Figure 11. Predicted recovery of Elwha River Chinook salmon stocks using a spawner-recruit model. ..88 

Figure 12. Transformed Sunset Falls data and curve fitting relationships to predict recovery periods 

for Elwha River Chinook salmon................................................................................................................89 

Figure 13. Predicted recovery of Elwha River steelhead stocks using spawner-recruit model. ................90 

Figure 14. South Fork Skykomish River steelhead returns at the Sunset Falls trap and haul facility, 

1958–1993 ..................................................................................................................................................91 

Figure 15. Predicted recovery of Elwha River coho salmon stocks using spawner-recruit model............92 

Figure 16. South Fork Skykomish River coho salmon at the Sunset Falls trap and haul facility, 

1958–1993 ..................................................................................................................................................93 

Figure 17. Predicted recovery of Elwha River chum salmon stock using spawner-recruit model ............93 

Figure 18. Predicted recovery of Elwha River pink salmon stock using spawner-recruit model ..............94

v
vi
List of Tables 

Table 1. Preferred options for Elwha River anadromous fish restoration....................................................3 

Table 2. Reservoir sediments.......................................................................................................................8 

Table 3. Habitat strata. ...............................................................................................................................20 

Table 4. Fish stocks utilized for restoration...............................................................................................21 

Table 5. Elwha River fish restoration strategies. .......................................................................................24 

Table 6. Chinook salmon restoration strategies before dam removal........................................................36 

Table 7. Chinook salmon restoration strategies during dam removal........................................................36 

Table 8. Chinook salmon restoration strategies after dam removal...........................................................36 

Table 9. Winter steelhead restoration strategies before dam removal. ......................................................41 

Table 10. Winter steelhead restoration strategies during dam removal. ....................................................41 

Table 11. Winter steelhead restoration strategies after dam removal. .......................................................41 

Table 12. Coho salmon restoration strategies before dam removal. ..........................................................49 

Table 13. Coho salmon restoration strategies during dam removal...........................................................49 

Table 14. Coho restoration strategies after dam removal. .........................................................................49 

Table 15. Chum salmon restoration strategies before dam removal..........................................................53 

Table 16. Chum salmon restoration strategies during dam removal..........................................................53 

Table 17. Chum salmon restoration strategies after dam removal.............................................................53 

Table 18. Pink salmon restoration strategies before dam removal. ...........................................................60 

Table 19. Pink salmon restoration strategies during dam removal. ...........................................................60 

Table 20. Pink salmon restoration strategies after dam removal. ..............................................................60 

Table 21. Current relative habitat conditions in lower, middle, and upper Elwha River...........................76 

Table 22. Nearshore habitat restoration summary. ....................................................................................81 

Table 23. 1914–1923 hatchery egg takes and approximate adults used. ...................................................84 

Table 24. Production estimates. .................................................................................................................84 

Table 25. EFRP interim restoration targets................................................................................................97 

Table 26. EFRP interim Chinook salmon hatchery targets before, during, and after dam removal. .........99 

Table 27. EFRP monitoring strategy relative project priority..................................................................113 

Table 28. Adaptive management strategy decision matrix. .....................................................................115 

Table A-1. Estimated Chinook salmon production before, during, and after dam removal. ...................130 

Table A-2. Chinook salmon restoration strategies before dam removal..................................................130 

vii
Table A-3. Chinook salmon restoration production numbers before dam removal.................................131 

Table A-4. Chinook salmon restoration strategies during dam removal..................................................132 

Table A-5. Chinook salmon restoration production numbers during dam removal.................................133 

Table A-6. Chinook salmon restoration strategies after dam removal.....................................................134 

Table A-7. Chinook salmon restoration production numbers after dam removal....................................135 

Table A-8. Estimated winter steelhead production before, during, and after dam removal. ...................136 

Table A-9. Winter steelhead restoration strategies before dam removal. ................................................137 

Table A-10. Winter steelhead restoration production numbers before dam removal. .............................138 

Table A-11. Winter steelhead restoration strategies during dam removal...............................................139 

Table A-12. Winter steelhead restoration production numbers during dam removal..............................140 

Table A-13. Winter steelhead restoration strategies after dam removal..................................................141 

Table A-14. Winter steelhead restoration production numbers after dam removal. ................................142 

Table A-15. Estimated coho salmon production before, during, and after dam removal. .......................143 

Table A-16. Coho salmon restoration strategies before dam removal.....................................................144 

Table A-17. Coho salmon restoration production numbers before dam removal....................................145 

Table A-18. Coho salmon restoration strategies during dam removal.....................................................146 

Table A-19. Coho salmon restoration production numbers during dam removal....................................147 

Table A-20. Coho salmon restoration strategies after dam removal........................................................148 

Table A-21. Coho salmon restoration production numbers after dam removal.......................................149 

Table A-22. Estimated chum salmon production before, during, and after dam removal. ......................150 

Table A-23. Chum salmon restoration strategies before dam removal....................................................150 

Table A-24. Chum salmon restoration production numbers before dam removal...................................151 

Table A-25. Chum salmon restoration strategies during dam removal....................................................152 

Table A-26. Chum salmon production numbers during dam removal.....................................................153 

Table A-27. Chum salmon restoration strategies after dam removal.......................................................154 

Table A-28. Chum salmon production numbers after dam removal........................................................155 

Table A-29. Estimated pink salmon production before, during, and after dam removal.........................156 

Table A-30. Pink salmon restoration strategies before dam removal. .....................................................156 

Table A-31. Pink salmon restoration production numbers before dam removal. ....................................157 

Table A-32. Pink salmon restoration strategies during dam removal......................................................158 

Table A-33. Pink salmon restoration production numbers during dam removal. ....................................158 

Table A-34. Pink salmon restoration strategies after dam removal. ........................................................159 

Table A-35. Pink salmon restoration production numbers after dam removal. .......................................159 

Table B-1. Natural escapement and hatchery broodstock for Elwha River Chinook salmon..................167 

viii
Executive Summary 

In 1992 the U.S. Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration 

Act (Public Law 102-495). The Elwha Act provided funding for the federal acquisition of the 

Elwha and Glines Canyon dams and required a specific plan to achieve full restoration of the 

Elwha River ecosystem and fisheries. The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI et al. 1994) 

subsequently published the Elwha Report, which found that only through removal of both dams 

could full restoration be achieved. The need to protect users of the river’s water from adverse 

impacts of dam removal was also recognized. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (LEKT), 

Olympic National Park (ONP) of the National Park Service, the Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center (NWFSC) of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) worked 

together to develop the scientific framework for restoring the ecosystem and fisheries on the 

Elwha River. This technical memorandum presents that framework, known as the Elwha River 

Fish Restoration Plan (EFRP or the Elwha Plan). 

The plan identifies research, methodologies, and strategies required to preserve and 

restore Elwha River fish populations before, during, and after removal of the Elwha and Glines 

Canyon dams. Included are descriptions of fish stock restoration, artificial propagation and 

habitat restoration methods, population recovery objectives, and monitoring and adaptive 

management needs. 

Following the Introduction and Project Background, the plan contains four additional 

sections. The first section, Stock Selection and Restoration Strategies, describes methods 

proposed to preserve and restore Elwha River fish populations. This section introduces the use 

of artificial propagation for certain stocks as a primary and effective means to meet plan 

preservation and restoration objectives. Included are broodstock selection criteria, restoration 

and outplanting strategies, broodstock collection strategies, and summaries for selected species: 

Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), chum (O. keta), pink (O. gorbuscha), 

and sockeye (O. nerka) salmon; steelhead/rainbow trout (O. mykiss); coastal cutthroat (O. clarkii 

clarkii); native char (Salvelinus spp.); and lamprey (Lampetra spp.). The section also covers 

restoration program phasing, the role of natural recolonization in the recovery strategy, and 

provides further details regarding hatchery approaches for the various species and any special 

issues for individual species. 

The second section, Habitat Restoration, describes the history of various impacts on 

habitat within the Elwha watershed, current habitat conditions, expected habitat response to dam 

removal, habitat restoration goals, and past and proposed restoration efforts. 

The third section, Recovery Estimates, provides potential production estimates and 

population rebuilding curves for Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon and steelhead. 

ix
The fourth section, Monitoring and Adaptive Management, discusses hypothesis 

development and the four objectives of the Elwha plan: 1) recolonization, 2) genetic structure, 3) 

fish health, and 4) ecosystem recovery. It covers monitoring parameters, frequency, project 

priorities, and how the plan will be adjusted over the course of restoration efforts. 

The document has two appendices. The first contains hatchery production matrices; the 

second discusses Chinook salmon harvest management. Summaries of each section follow. 

Stock Selection and Restoration Strategies 

Since 1995 the DOI has worked to identify the most appropriate strategies for fisheries 

restoration in the Elwha River. After more than a decade of refinement, these restoration 

strategies include selection of stocks, methods for preserving populations during dam removal, 

methods for reintroducing populations into the watershed following dam removal, and alternative 

actions if preferred strategies fail. 

A critical component of the overall restoration strategy is the preservation of existing 

populations during the time the dams are being removed. Although natural recolonization is an 

integral part of the overall restoration strategy, sediment levels in the mainstem Elwha River 

below Glines Canyon Dam are expected to reach levels that may cause direct mortality to fish. 

Hatcheries will be used to ensure an adequate number of fish survive the removal process to 

effectively preserve and restore currently extant fish populations in the watershed. 

Independent scientists, including organizations such as the Hatchery Scientific Review 

Group and resource managers representing tribes and state and federal agencies, provided input 

in developing the hatchery actions and effects analyses proposed in this plan. There was 

consensus among these entities that natural-origin fish native to the Elwha River should be 

considered the primary focus populations for use in restoration. However, in many cases the 

native fish populations are intermingled with the river’s hatchery populations, exist at very low 

abundance levels, or are even extirpated from the system. Thus hatchery or other donor 

populations that may not represent native Elwha fish are considered in the plan’s evaluation of 

alternative restoration strategies. 

Five criteria are established and used in the plan for selecting fish stocks for artificial 

propagation: 1) current population size, 2) genetic stock identification results, 3) phenotypic and 

life history traits, 4) run timing, and 5) accessibility of broodstock. Substantial uncertainty exists 

regarding the appropriate juvenile life history at release stage needed to meet fish restoration 

objectives. A fish release approach that includes a broad cross section of life history alternatives 

is proposed to address this uncertainty. This approach will be implemented in conjunction with 

careful monitoring to assess the relative contribution and survival of each alternative release 

type. 

This section covers strategies and detailed information on the species and stocks targeted 

for enhancement including status, harvest status, hatchery enhancement efforts, and escapement 

levels. As noted, the plan is divided into three phases: before, during, and after dam removal. 

The emphasis and implementation of the strategies will vary from phase to phase and species to 

species. Extensive data are provided on the rates of recovery based on adult escapement levels. 

x
The strategies described in this plan are intended to be adaptive, changing based on observed 

responses of various populations. If certain strategies prove to be unsuccessful, they may be 

discontinued in favor of options that are more likely to produce a healthy, self-sustaining natural 

population. 

This section also covers a variety of fish outplanting and broodstock selection strategies 

that will be considered in addition to natural recolonization by adults for reintroducing fish into 

the watershed above the current location of Elwha Dam. Outplanting methods will employ 

trucks, boats, helicopters, and backpack transport and release. Strategies were developed for 

each of the three stages: before removal, dam removal (3-year period), and after dam removal 

(10 years following removal), and will vary by river location (lower, middle, and upper basin). 

Brood collection strategies include use of hatchery racks, mainstem weir operation, net capture, 

and redd pumping, among others. Specifics for each species are presented in the species 

summaries for Chinook salmon (spring and summer/fall), steelhead (winter and summer), coho, 

chum, pink, and sockeye salmon, coastal cutthroat trout, native char, and forage fish, with 

options that include natural recolonization, adult outplants, and use of donor species. Chinook 

salmon are considered the top priority and winter steelhead the ideal species in terms of their 

potential response to restoration efforts. 

Chinook salmon in the Elwha Basin historically included spring and summer/fall races 

characterized by a unique, large body phenotype. The current population is comprised of a 

composite hatchery and wild stock with less diversity in adult return timing relative to the 

historic populations. However, given that the hatchery population was developed from native 

Elwha chinook stock and considering the ability of salmon to adapt, use of the extant population 

for restoration is believed to provide the best opportunity for successful recolonization. 

Strategies for preservation of Chinook salmon during dam removal and restoration of production 

in the upper watershed following removal include on-station releases of yearling smolts, onstation release of age-0 smolts, creation of a reserve population during the removal period 

through release of yearling smolts into Morse Creek (an adjacent watershed), allowance for 

natural spawning of adults, planting eyed eggs, and transfer and release of fry, age-0 smolts, and 

yearling smolts in upstream locations. 

The extant winter run steelhead population is partially supported by LEKT hatchery 

production. The estimated annual escapement of the natural-origin component of the Elwha 

River winter run steelhead population is 100–200 fish. Restoration efforts will focus on this latetimed, natural-origin steelhead component, which is thought to remain genetically representative 

of the native population. Strategies include captive brood program development, on-station 

releases of yearling smolts, upstream passage of adults for natural spawning, planting of eyed 

eggs, and outplanting of fry, presmolts, yearling smolts, and 2-year-old smolts in upstream 

locations. 

LEKT, NWFSC, and ONP have developed a hatchery supplementation program for the 

native late-timed, natural-origin steelhead population. Tribal management will oversee a twoprong strategy that includes reductions in outplanting of nonnative early timed steelhead of 

Chambers Creek origin and hatchery rearing and release using the assumed native late-timed run. 

This strategy is designed to rebuild the native steelhead population and reduce genetic 

introgression risks to the native fish posed by nonnative steelhead production. 

xi
The status of summer steelhead is unknown, but any remnant population is suspected to 

be at critically low abundance levels. The restoration strategy for this population will initially 

rely entirely on natural recolonization. 

Elwha River coho salmon are of mixed-origin stock, having been heavily affected by 

transfers and outplants of out-of-basin stocks from the 1950s to the 1970s. Although there has 

likely been some genetic influence from these out-of-basin stock transfers, the hatchery 

population maintained at the Lower Elwha Hatchery is considered healthy and the most 

appropriate donor stock for restoration-directed enhancement activities. In the years leading up 

to dam removal, genetic analysis of this population will be conducted, with comparisons made to 

naturally rearing fish in the river. Restoration strategies include on-station releases of yearling 

smolts, natural spawning of adults, planting of eyed eggs, and outplanting of fry, presmolts, and 

smolts in off-station locations. 

The status of Elwha River native, wild-origin chum salmon is considered critical and is 

the stock targeted for enhancement. Restoration strategies include on-station release of age-0 

smolts, alternate in-basin hatchery releases of age-0 smolts, planting of eyed eggs in lower and 

middle Elwha basin, natural spawning of adults, and outplanting of fry in upstream locations. 

Like chum salmon, the status of the native, wild-origin pink salmon population is 

considered critical. This species was thought to historically be the most abundant salmonid 

species in the watershed, and likely of great importance to the Elwha River ecosystem. 

However, recent pink salmon abundance levels have been extremely low, with escapements 

ranging from approximately 200 in 2001 to less than 50 in 2005. Restoration strategies may 

include development of a captive brood program using native Elwha River pink salmon as the 

donor stock. The use of alternate stocks transferred from the Dungeness River (upriver 

population) and Finch Creek (Hood Canal early component) is also considered in the event that 

the native stock is unavailable and functionally extirpated. In addition to natural recolonization, 

on-station releases of age-0 smolts, alternate in-basin hatchery releases of age-0 smolts, planting 

of eyed eggs in lower and upper Elwha Basin locations, natural spawning of adults, and 

outplanting of fry in upstream locations will be considered for ensuring distribution in the 

watershed. 

The sockeye salmon population native to the Elwha River and Lake Sutherland is extinct. 

The restoration strategy for this population is natural recolonization resulting from adoption of 

an anadromous life history strategy by kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), lacustrine sockeye 

salmon, in the system or by straying and establishment of a spawning population by nonnative 

sockeye salmon. 

The stock status of coastal cutthroat trout is unknown, although a population of westslope 

cutthroat trout has been documented in Long Creek, an upstream tributary. The restoration 

strategy for this population is natural recolonization. 

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) populations in the Elwha may exhibit fluvial, 

adfluvial, and anadromous life history strategies. The discussion of bull trout is extensive and 

includes excerpts from the USFWS recovery action plans for this species. The bull trout 

restoration strategy is natural recolonization. An intervention plan is being developed to 

xii
minimize bull trout mortality as a result of high suspended sediment levels associated with dam 

removal. Bull trout utilizing the reservoirs, the river between the two dams, and the river below 

Elwha Dam are the most susceptible to these impacts. 

The lamprey populations in the Elwha River include western brook lamprey (Lampetra 

richardsoni) (resident life history) and Pacific (anadromous life history) lamprey (L. tridentata). 

The status of both is unknown. Elwha River western brook lamprey restoration strategies 

include natural recolonization and supplementation of Elwha River stocks with western brook 

lamprey of non-Elwha River origin if downriver populations are extirpated as a result of dam 

removal and sediment transport and deposition. Strategies for Pacific lamprey include 

supplementation of mature adults in appropriate upriver locations and natural recolonization. 

Adult lampreys do not migrate from marine areas and into freshwater or home to natal streams as 

do salmon. Lamprey migration is instead based on responses to pheromones released by larval 

lamprey already in the system, and this species does not necessarily exhibit fidelity to its natal 

watershed. The success of the restoration strategy for Pacific lamprey will therefore be limited 

by straying of mature Elwha River lamprey into other watersheds. 

Habitat Restoration 

Restoring and maintaining physical processes in mainstem Elwha River habitat is the 

highest priority following dam removal. This section discusses the history of channel and 

floodplain morphology over time. Elwha River habitat downstream of the dams has been 

significantly altered relative to historic conditions because of the near cessation of fluvial gravel 

recruitment caused by construction of the two dams, the chronic loss of functional large wood, 

and channel alterations such as dike construction, meander truncation, and large woody debris 

(LWD) removal. Armoring of feeder (gravel recruitment) bluffs on the east of the river mouth 

and climatic changes that altered the flow profile have also affected the Elwha River habitat. 

Current habitat conditions in the lower, middle, and upper Elwha River for temperature, 

LWD levels, side channels per mile, and spawning habitat vary but are significantly degraded in 

the lower reach. Initially dam removal will result in increased sediment loads, especially in the 

lower reach. The plan projects that within the first 5 years approximately 5 million cubic yards 

of sediment will reach the nearshore. Within 10 years it is anticipated that sediment loading in 

the lower reaches of the river and the nearshore area will decline to natural background levels as 

the river system stabilizes. 

The LEKT Fisheries Department initiated small-scale habitat restoration efforts in the 

1990s, including side channel restoration, use of logjams, and reforestation. Based on the results 

of their efforts, the goals of the restoration process include strategies to add LWD, reforest the 

floodplain, remove or modify floodplain dikes, acquire floodplain habitat for long-term 

conservation, and establish instream flows that conserve fish recovery needs. Accelerating the 

restoration of nearshore habitat will be key to the recovery of habitat-forming processes in the 

Elwha River. 

xiii
Recovery Estimates 

For the Elwha Basin, the plan defines recovery expectations in terms of total production 

of anadromous adult salmon and rates of recovery. Assumed harvest rates for marine and 

freshwater fisheries that may affect Elwha River stocks are applied for each species, with 

subsequent spawning escapement values. The harvest rates and the escapement values are not 

goals per se, but data to be used for planning purposes. The recovery estimates cover potential 

production and rebuilding curves for Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon and steelhead. Not 

enough is known about other species such as coastal cutthroat trout, sockeye salmon, native char, 

lamprey, and a variety of forage fish to generate recovery estimates at this time. 

Using a spawner-recruit model, production estimates for Chinook salmon start at 200 

natural spawners in the first year following dam removal, with growth to nearly 6,000 within 25 

years. The model utilized assumes a very high fisheries harvest rate for chinook, which does not 

represent the current understanding of chinook productivity. However, the current fishing 

regime does not attempt to sustain such high harvest rates, so it is believed that the estimates of 

recovery time and spawner abundances provided by the model are still reasonable. Estimates for 

steelhead recovery, using the parr production potential method, project total production to be 

5,750 spawning adults in 20 years. 

Coho, chum, and pink salmon estimates used two methods, one based on smolt density 

and the other measuring adult abundance per lineal mile. The average of these estimates reduced 

by 10% resulted in an estimated escapement of 12,100 coho, assuming a harvest rate of 65%. 

Chum salmon escapement was estimated at 18,000 fish with a 50% harvest rate, resulting in an 

adult return of more than 40,000. Adverse habitat conditions in the lower reach, however, may 

extend recovery efforts from 15 to 20 years for chum salmon, which, with pink salmon, rely 

predominately on this stretch of the river for production. Pink salmon escapement estimates 

approach 100,000 spawning adults, with a projected total of more than 250,000 adult returns. 

Like chum salmon, adverse habitat conditions in the lower river may affect pink salmon recovery 

timing. 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management 

A project of this scope (17 years and more than 70 miles of watershed) requires 

monitoring and adaptation as the plan is implemented. In order to adapt to changing conditions, 

priorities for actions taken in the plan must be set. The priorities for the Elwha Plan include 

reestablishing self-sustaining anadromous salmonid populations and habitats, maintaining the 

integrity of existing salmonid genetic and life history diversity, maintaining fish health, and 

restoring physical and biological processes of the ecosystem. Responding to these goals as part 

of monitoring the plan requires clear objectives. This section presents details regarding the four 

objectives and the suite of hypotheses used to develop and test these objectives. 

• Objective 1: Recolonization addresses spatial distribution, compositions of spawning 

populations, and productivity and abundance. 

• Objective 2: Genetic Diversity and Population Integrity covers run and spawn timing, and 

genetic and phenotypic composition. 

xiv
• Objective 3: Fish Health discusses the risks of introducing fish diseases during the 

process. 

• Objective 4: Ecosystem Recovery discusses general hypotheses regarding whether the 

ecosystem is recovering according to expectations. 

The objectives are also discussed in terms of how frequency and parameters will be used 

for monitoring and adjusting the project on an ongoing basis. Specifics for various populations 

are discussed, as well as the agencies that will be involved in the monitoring and management 

processes. 

Appendices 

This plan has two appendices. Appendix A, Hatchery Production Matrices, provides 

matrices of hatchery production data. It is a collection of 35 tables. For each species, the tables 

provide data for estimated production and restoration strategies broken down in stages (before, 

during, and after dam removal). Appendix B, Chinook Salmon Harvest Management, discusses 

current fish harvest management for Elwha Chinook salmon. It includes available information 

on harvest and escapement for three categories: 1) within Elwha River and Freshwater Bay, 2) 

within Washington state, and 3) in Canadian and Alaskan waters. 

xv
xvi
Acknowledgments 

The authors thank Chris Weller, Point No Point Treaty Council, who drafted Chinook 

Salmon Harvest Management for a separate process but allowed us to incorporate it into this plan 

as Appendix B. We are grateful to Tim Tynan, NOAA Fisheries Service; Rob Elofson, Lower 

Elwha Klallam Tribe; and the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (John Barr, Lee Blankenship, 

Donald Campton, Trevor Evelyn, Thomas Flagg, Conrad Mahnken, Lars Mobrand, Lisa Seeb, 

Paul Seidel, and William Smoker), who provided detailed review of the document outside the 

peer review. Thanks also to Mary Ruckelshaus, Jim Meyers, and Phil Roni from the Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), and the Puget Sound Technical Review Team (Mary 

Ruckelshaus, chair, NWFSC; Ken Currens, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission; Bob 

Fuerstenburg, King County Department of Natural Resources; Bill Graeber, Stillwater 

Consultants; Kit Rawson, Tulalip Tribes; Norma Jean Sands, NWFSC; and Jim Scott, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) for their peer review efforts. Finally, thanks to the 

NWFSC publication group: Ed Quimby for providing editorial coordination, Cheryl Hauser for 

editing early drafts, and Bert Tarrant for editing the final draft. 

xvii
xviii
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AABM aggregate abundance-based management 

BIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CWT coded wire tag 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DOS U.S. Department of State 

DPS distinct population segment 

EFRP Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ESU evolutionarily significant unit 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

GSI genetic stock identification 

HGMP Hatchery Genetic Management Plan 

HSRG Hatchery Scientific Review Group 

ISBM individual stock-based management 

JFWA Joint Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

LEKT Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe 

LWD large woody debris 

MSY maximum sustained yield 

NOR native-origin return 

NPS National Park Service 

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

NWIFC Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

ONP Olympic National Park 

PCR polymerase chain reaction 

PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council 

PIT tag passive integrated transponder tag 

PSC Pacific Salmon Commission 

PST Pacific Salmon Treaty 

RER recovery exploitation rate 

RM river mile 

SRFB Salmon Recovery Funding Board 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VSP viable salmonid population 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

xix
xx
Introduction 

The Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan (EFRP) is the scientific framework guiding 

efforts to return successful, reproducing fish to the Elwha River basin following removal of the 

Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the Elwha River (Figure 1). The fish restoration effort will 

provide for the preservation of extant stocks during the dam removal process and the 

reintroduction of these fish populations into the Elwha River following dam removal. The EFRP 

has been jointly developed by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (LEKT), Olympic National Park 

(ONP), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) of the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service or NMFS). 

Development of the EFRP, including the selection of stocks to be restored and the 

strategies that will be used to restore them, has considered the physical constraints of dam 

removal, critical biologic issues, and specific regional management priorities. These fish 

restoration efforts, which focus primarily on anadromous salmonids, will use both natural 

recolonization and a variety of hatchery-based enhancement techniques. 

The first versions of the EFRP appeared in the Elwha Report (DOI et al. 1994) and in the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation 

(DOI et al. 1996). Wunderlich and Pantaleo (1995) also prepared a detailed review of methods 

that could be used to reestablish naturally spawning populations of salmonids to the upper 

reaches of the Elwha River. These versions of the EFRP described timelines and cost estimates 

to restore native anadromous fish populations in the Elwha River following dam removal and 

identified options for restoring the 10 native anadromous salmonid stocks of the Elwha River. 

Cost estimates for the effort were based on hatchery improvements necessary to support 

fish production and outplanting efforts, and on generic personnel and equipment needs for 

monitoring adult returns. These versions of the plan did not address Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) considerations for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) or bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus), nonsalmonid species, or refinements to the dam removal plan such as 

implementation of “fish windows” (planned delays in dam removal to reduce sediment transport 

and impacts to fish), all of which are addressed in this technical memorandum. 

Elwha River fish restoration planning efforts have given native or locally adapted stocks 

priority consideration during the development of restoration strategies (Wunderlich and Pantaleo 

1995). Reviews conducted for each species—Chinook, coho (O. kisutch), chum (O. keta), pink 

(O. gorbuscha), and sockeye (O. nerka) salmon; steelhead (O. mykiss); coastal cutthroat (O. 

clarkii clarkii), bull trout and Dolly Varden (S. malma); and western brook lamprey (Lampetra 

richardsoni) and Pacific lamprey (L. tridentata)—are included in the plan, with an evaluation of 

historical population size and distribution within the drainage, current population size and stock 
Figure 1. Location of Elwha River watershed. 

status, and identified alternate donor stocks. Fisheries experts from local, regional, and 

international arenas contributed to this evaluation. Throughout the planning process, 

consideration was given to the genetic composition of stocks, fish health protocols, origin and 

stock history, hatchery domestication impacts, and the availability of suitable numbers of fish 

needed to achieve effective breeding populations. 

Preferred options were developed for each species and stock, along with the strategy to 

employ to promote and facilitate restoration (Table 1). The EFRP also identifies alternative 

stocks and restoration strategies, in the event that the preferred alternative fails to achieve the 

project goals. 

2
Table 1. Preferred options for Elwha River anadromous fish restoration. 

Species 

Preferred 

stock Stock origin Description of option* 

Winter steelhead Elwha 

late-timed 

component 

Natural and 

hatchery and 

upriver 

rainbow trout 

(O. mykiss) 

Hatchery enhancement of wild winter steelhead 

stock 

Natural recolonization by upriver rainbow trout 

population 

Natural recolonization by wild winter steelhead 

stock 

Summer 

steelhead 

Elwha 

summer 

Natural and 

hatchery and 

upriver 

rainbow trout 

Natural recolonization by upriver rainbow trout 

population 

Natural recolonization by wild summer steelhead 

stock 

Coastal cutthroat 

trout 

Elwha native Upriver stock Natural recolonization by existing in-river stock 

Bull trout and 

Dolly Varden 

Elwha native Upriver stock Natural recolonization by existing in-river stock 

Spring Chinook 

salmon 

Elwha 

summer and 

fall 

Hatchery and 

natural 

Hatchery enhancement of existing stock, rely on 

natural process to reestablish run timing 

Natural recolonization by existing in-river stock 

Summer and fall 

Chinook salmon 

Elwha 

summer and 

fall 

Hatchery and 

natural 

Hatchery enhancement and rely on natural process 

to reestablish native run 

Natural recolonization by existing in-river stock 

Coho salmon Elwha Hatchery Hatchery enhancement 

Natural recolonization by existing in-river stock 

Pink salmon Elwha Natural Hatchery enhancement of existing in-river stock 

Natural recolonization by existing in-river stock 

Chum salmon Elwha Natural Hatchery enhancement of existing in-river stock 

Natural recolonization by existing in-river stock 

Sockeye salmon Elwha Natural Natural recolonization by existing in-river 

kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), lacustrine 

sockeye stock 

Natural recolonization by existing in-river 

sockeye stock 

Forage fish Elwha Natural Natural recolonization of existing in-river and 

nearshore stocks 

Lamprey Elwha Natural Natural recolonization of existing in-river stocks 

* The term “hatchery enhancement” includes a broad array of strategies that may be used to facilitate recolonization 

of the watershed. Please refer to the Stock Selection and Restoration Strategies section for a detailed description 

of enhancement options. 

3
In addition to stock selection and restoration alternatives, this plan also provides 

information on general habitat restoration activities needed to achieve the goals of the Elwha 

River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act, Public Law 102-495 (Elwha Act), and the 

monitoring and assessment actions needed to adaptively manage for changing conditions. The 

reader is also directed to the proceedings of the technical workshop on nearshore restoration in 

the Central Strait of Juan de Fuca (Clallam County MRC 2004) and Shaffer et al. (2005) for an 

overview of nearshore restoration and salmon recovery. 

This restoration plan is a working document and is intended to serve as a framework on 

which to base the preservation and restoration of anadromous fish populations within the Elwha 

River basin during and after dam removal. Monitoring conducted throughout the duration of the 

restoration effort will assist resource managers in evaluating success or failure of management 

actions taken, provide critical information on the capacity of the system to sustain itself, and help 

managers to maintain a flexible adaptive management approach that can respond to changes in 

the Elwha River ecosystem as recolonization by anadromous fish populations occurs. 

4
Project Background 

Overview 

Since 1911 the Elwha Dam, located at RM 4.9 on the Elwha River, has blocked 

anadromous fish passage to more than 70 miles of mainstem and tributary habitat in the 

watershed (DOI et al. 1994). In 1927 the Glines Canyon Dam was constructed 8.5 miles 

upstream of the Elwha Dam. Like the Elwha Dam, the Glines Canyon Dam was built without 

fish passage capability. 

The two Elwha River dams not only block passage of anadromous fish but also have 

interrupted the natural function of the river ecosystem. Nearly 18 million cubic yards of 

sediment have been captured in the two reservoirs (DOI et al 1995), affecting not only the lower 

river system but also the estuarine and nearshore environment to the east and west of the river 

mouth—an area that extends from Ediz Hook to Crescent Bay (Clallam County MRC 2004). 

The recruitment of large woody debris (LWD) from the upper watershed has been virtually 

eliminated and the two reservoirs serve as “heat sinks” during the summer, dramatically 

increasing water temperature. Consequently, the cumulative effects of the two dams leave the 

freshwater and marine habitat available to salmon below the Elwha Dam severely degraded. The 

presence of the two dams has been identified as the single largest factor limiting Elwha River 

salmon production (WSCC 2000), including Chinook salmon and bull trout, which are listed as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

The Elwha Watershed Area 

The Elwha River watershed encompasses 321 square miles, of which 267 square miles 

(83%) are protected in perpetuity within ONP. The river itself has a general north-south 

orientation, flowing north to debouch into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Mean winter flows average 

approximately 2,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), while mean summer flows average 

approximately 600 cfs. Peak flood events have exceeded 40,000 cfs, while base summer low 

flows may be as low as 200 cfs. Annual precipitation in the basin ranges from 220 inches near 

the headwaters of the watershed to 56 inches at the river mouth. Substantial snow accumulates 

in the upper elevations during the winter creating a bimodal flow pattern, with peak flows seen in 

November (associated with rain or snow events) and June (associated with snowmelt) (ElwhaDungeness Planning Unit 2005). Over the period of record, the average size of the peak annual 

flow events has nearly doubled (Figure 2), while the frequency of high flow events is also 

increasing. 

Dam Removal and Salmon Recovery Planning 

Applications for licensing the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams were filed with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 1968 and 1973, respectively, sparking nearly two 

decades of debate regarding the impact of the two dams on the fisheries within the watershed 

5
-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Flow (cfs)

Figure 2. Elwha River peak flow events (USGS unpubl. data). The slope of the regression line 

(y = 85.717x – 153368) is statistically different from 0 (F = 8.868; α (2) : 0.01 > α > 0.005). 

and the government jurisdiction responsible for oversight of the two facilities. The then 

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) reached a settlement with the dam owners in 1975 

(WDF and Crown Zellerbach 1975), that required the two dams be operated as “run of the river” 

and also provided a portion of the construction and annual operation costs for an artificial rearing 

facility on the river to produce a maximum of 360,000 pounds of juvenile Chinook salmon each 

year. 

Although WDF reached a settlement with the dam owners, other governmental agencies 

(including the LEKT, ONP, NOAA Fisheries Service, and USFWS) along with various 

environmental groups continued to oppose the licensing of the dams. Ultimately, in order to 

settle legal disputes regarding jurisdiction and trust responsibilities, Congress passed the Elwha 

Act in 1992. 

The Elwha Act provided for federal acquisition of the two dams and required a specific 

plan to achieve “full restoration” of the Elwha River fisheries and ecosystem. The Department 

of the Interior (DOI et al. 1994) subsequently published the Elwha Report, which found that full 

restoration could only be achieved through the removal of both dams. In 1995 DOI completed 

the first of two environmental impact statements (EISs) regarding dam removal (DOI et al. 

1995). The 1995 document evaluated the decision to remove the dams. A second EIS, 

completed in 1996, evaluated the physical effects of dam removal (DOI et al. 1996). 

Since completion of these three documents, a number of significant actions have 

occurred. First, the federal government acquired the two dams from private ownership in 2000. 

Second, Puget Chinook salmon, bull trout, and Puget Sound steelhead ESU populations have 

been listed as threatened under the ESA. Recovery planning for these species is underway by 

NWFSC and USFWS. Recovery planning for Chinook salmon and bullhead species has been 

6
further facilitated by Shared Salmon Strategy for Puget Sound, which submitted draft recovery 

plans to the two federal agencies in June 2005 (Shared Salmon Strategy for Puget Sound 2005). 

Third, the State of Washington initiated watershed planning efforts under ESHB (Engrossed 

Substitute House Bill) 2514 in order to establish the minimum instream flows in state streams 

needed to protect and restore salmon populations. Fourth, Clallam County completed and 

adopted its watershed plan for the Elwha River in 2005 (Elwha-Dungeness Planning Unit 2005). 

Finally, DOI drafted a supplemental EIS to evaluate design changes that are required for the 

project to address changed conditions since the original EISs were written. 

Dam removal is scheduled to begin in approximately 3 to 5 years. Compliance 

requirements and permits were secured for construction activities, and in 2007 contracts were 

awarded to construct water treatment facilities on the river for both municipal and industrial 

water supplies in order to meet requirements of the Elwha Act to protect water supplies during 

dam removal. The exact start date for dam removal is not known at this time as it depends on 

completion of two water treatment facilities, cost estimates of final design, dedication of funding 

by Congress, and administrative requirements for soliciting and awarding the construction 

contract. 

Expected Conditions 

Nearly 18 million cubic yards of sediment are stored in the two Elwha River reservoirs 

(Table 2). As dam removal begins, fine sediments will become suspended in the reservoirs and 

transported downstream. During the initial phases of removal, it is anticipated turbidity levels 

will exceed 1,000 parts per million (ppm) for extended periods of time and will spike to levels 

exceeding 10,000 ppm (Figure 3). Following dam removal, suspended sediment levels may 

exceed 30,000 ppm for short durations (BOR 1996). Fish exposed to sediment loads between 50 

and 100 ppm for an extended period of time may stop feeding, suffer gill abrasion, and 

experience loss of fitness due to the associated stress (Cook-Tabor 1995). At turbidity levels 

above 1,000 ppm, direct mortality may result simply from the elevated sediment loads (CookTabor 1995). With sediment loads expected to exceed 10,000 ppm, it was assumed for planning 

purposes that most or all fish rearing naturally in the Elwha River below Glines Canyon Dam 

will die during dam removal. 

In addition to fine sediment loading, coarser sediments will be released into the lower 

watershed following dam removal, elevating the bedload (sediment as it slides, rolls, or bounces 

along a stream or channel bed of flowing water) above natural background levels for up to 10 

years (BOR 1996). It is anticipated the stream channel below the dams may destabilize during 

this time, with a resultant temporary decrease in quality of the natural fish habitat. 

Implementation of Fish Windows 

So-called fish window periods have been built into the dam demolition schedule to 

accommodate migration, spawning, and collection of broodstock. During fish window periods, 

the release or transport of sediment will be curtailed and water quality in the river temporarily 

improved. These windows correlate to times that fish are entering the river or are emigrating to 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca. To the extent that the fish window periods coincide with important 

7
Table 2. Reservoir sediments. 

Sediment size 

Amount 

(million yards3

) Method of transport Rate of transport 

Silt or clay 9.2 Suspension—all flows High 

Sand 6.2 Suspension—high flows 

Bedload—all flows 

High 

Medium 

Gravels and cobbles 2.3 Bedload—all flows Slow 

Total 17.7 

life history phases of other aquatic species (e.g., forage fish or shellfish), those species will also 

benefit. However, accommodations in the demolition schedule have only been made to facilitate 

protection and recovery of the river’s salmon species. 

Fish window periods will occur three times during each year of the active dam removal 

process: 1 November to 31 December for coho and chum salmon entry timing, 1 May to 30 June 

for hatchery-reared juvenile emigration and adult native steelhead entry timing, and 1 August to 

14 September for Chinook and pink salmon entry timing (Figure 4).1

 Dam removal activity will 

also be halted for worker safety during periods of time where stream flows exceed 3,000 cfs. 

Role of Hatcheries 

The role of the WDFW and Elwha tribal hatcheries throughout the restoration effort is to 

preserve extant populations during dam removal and to help initiate recolonization of the 

watershed through the temporary supplementation of key species in the basin following dam 

removal. These hatchery facilities will be safe havens, serving as gene banks for Elwha River 

fish populations, protecting fish from predicted high sediment loads in the river during the dam 

removal process, and ensuring that no year-class of fish is lost because of dam removal activities. 

Considerable thought went into determining the preferred role of hatcheries in the 

recovery process. Evidence from several studies suggests the natural spawning success of 

hatchery origin fish may be considerably lower than that of the native, natural-origin population 

(Reisenbichler and McIntyre 1977, Chilcote et al. 1986, Berejikian 1995). Fish reared for 

extended periods in hatcheries (e.g., to the yearling life history phase) have been shown to 

survive at lower rates than natural origin fish (Chilcote 2002), potentially through the expression 

of altered behavioral, genetic, or phenotypic characteristics that may decrease their fitness in the 

natural environment (Bugert et al. 1992, Campton 1995, Reisenbichler and Rubin 1999). 

Fitness and survival effects of hatchery propagation rearing may be less evident, 

however, depending on broodstock origin, the degree of intervention into the natural life cycle, 

and the duration of the hatchery program (Kapuscinski and Miller 1993, Arden 2003, Blouin and 

Araki 2005, USFWS 2005, Ford et al. 2006). Species reared in hatcheries for a minimal time 

 

1

 T. Randle, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. Pers. commun., 3 December 2005. 

8
Lake Mills Surface Elevation (meters)

120.0

130.0

140.0

150.0

160.0

170.0

180.0

190.0

Elwha River Discharge (cms)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

Fine Sediment Concentration (100s of ppm)

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

Jun68Sep68Dec68Mar69Jun69Sep69Dec69Mar70Jun70Sep70Dec70Mar71Jun71Sep71

Lake Mills surface elevation (meters) 

Fine sediment concentration (100s of ppm) 

Elwha River discharge (cms) 

Figure 3. Modeled Lake Mills surface elevations, Elwha River discharge, and suspended sediment 

concentrations: 1968–1971 flow scenario (BOR 1996).

9
20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

2-Jun 1-Sep 1-Dec 2-Mar 2-Jun 1-Sep 1-Dec 3-Mar 2-Jun

Lake Elevation (m)

Lake Surface Elevation

Fish Windows

Lake elevation (m) 

Figure 4. Elwha River drawdown schedule and fish windows. 

(e.g., ocean rearing Chinook salmon, chum salmon, and pink salmon) seem to be less likely to 

change phenotypically and genetically in response to hatchery rearing than are species with 

longer freshwater rearing times (coho, yearling Chinook, steelhead) (Berejikian and Ford 2004). 

Results from hatchery-based supplementation and reintroduction programs designed to preserve 

and restore ESA-listed summer chum salmon indicate that hatcheries can bolster the abundances 

of naturally spawning and natural-origin fish, and reestablish naturally spawning populations in 

watersheds where indigenous stocks have been extirpated (WDFW and PNPTT 2003, PNPTC et 

al. 2005, WDFW and PNPTC 2006). 

Restoration of anadromous fish will occur in the Elwha River in the absence of hatchery 

supplementation, although the time frame for natural recovery is uncertain. The choice to use 

hatcheries to supplement the restoration effort has been driven by the high risk during dam 

removal of losing stocks of fish identified as unique, threatened, or endangered. In addition, the 

Department of the Interior, WDFW, LEKT, and other interested parties want to ensure that 

significant progress towards fish restoration occurs within a 20 to 30 year time frame. 

Identifying and developing the preferred role of hatcheries in the recovery process 

occurred following extensive consultation with a wide range of scientists and political leaders in 

the region. Discussions focused on finding a balance between the goals of restoration, 

preserving stocks of fish unique to the Elwha River, producing fish capable of successfully 

integrating into the natural environment, and reducing the length of time necessary to achieve 

restoration. 

10
Hatchery Facilities 

The hatchery-based fish preservation and restoration activities described in this plan will 

rely primarily on two hatchery facilities located within the Elwha River basin: WDFW’s Elwha 

rearing channel and LEKT’s Lower Elwha Hatchery. Three out-of-basin hatchery facilities 

operated by WDFW will be used to support the two in-basin hatcheries as satellite incubation, 

rearing, and broodstock production locations: Sol Duc Hatchery, Hurd Creek Hatchery, and the 

Morse Creek rearing and broodstock collection facility. 

WDFW Elwha rearing channel 

The Elwha rearing channel is located at approximately RM 3.5 on the mainstem Elwha 

River, immediately downstream of the Port Angeles industrial water supply diversion structure. 

Water for the facility is largely supplied by the surface water structure, but several small wells 

also provide water. The channel does not have incubation or early rearing facilities, but can hold 

up to 3.5 million fingerlings and 200,000 yearlings at the time of release. This facility will be 

the central focus of the Elwha River Chinook salmon restoration effort. 

Lower Elwha Hatchery 

LEKT currently operates a fish hatchery near the river mouth. In order to achieve 

restoration objectives and to ensure successful hatchery operation during and following dam 

removal, a new tribal facility has been designed and will be constructed prior to dam removal on 

tribal lands upstream of the present location (RM 1.0). This new facility will be the central focus 

for restoration efforts of winter steelhead and coho, chum, and pink salmon. It will provide a 

controlled environment for the receiving, processing, and spawning of adults, incubation of eggs, 

and rearing of juveniles. 

Morse Creek rearing facility 

WDFW is planning to construct a small Chinook salmon rearing and recapture facility on 

Morse Creek. This program is designed to create an Elwha River lineage adult Chinook salmon 

return to Morse Creek that can serve as a genetic reserve and alternative broodstock source in the 

event of a catastrophic loss of the donor natural- or hatchery-origin components of the population 

in the Elwha River during and shortly after the dam-removal period. The Morse Creek rearing 

and broodstock collection facility will be available for the final rearing of 200,000 yearling 

Chinook salmon for volitional release into Morse Creek. 

Hurd Creek Hatchery 

The Hurd Creek Hatchery in the Dungeness watershed will serve as the initial incubation 

site for fertilized eggs procured from Chinook salmon collected from the Elwha River. 

Following eyeing, the eggs will be transferred to the WDFW Sol Duc Hatchery. 

Sol Duc Hatchery 

The Sol Duc Hatchery will conduct final incubation and initial early rearing of Elwha 

River Chinook salmon. From the Sol Duc Hatchery, fry will be transferred to the Elwha rearing 

11
channel for additional rearing, acclimation, and release as subyearlings and yearlings. 

Fingerlings will also be transferred to the Morse Creek rearing and broodstock collection facility 

for volitional release as yearlings into the creek. 

Fish Release Locations 

On-station releases of fish will occur at the Elwha rearing channel and the Lower Elwha 

Hatchery in the Elwha River basin and the Morse Creek release facility. Off-station releases of 

fish will occur at Lake Sutherland and at a series of acclimation or release sites throughout the 

middle and lower portions of the basin. Upper basin sites will be accessed by helicopter and will 

be used initially for outplanting of Chinook salmon only. Off-station release locations include 

the following: 

• Lake Sutherland sites for release include the public boat ramp and net pens located in the 

lake. 

• The use of formal acclimation ponds located in the middle reaches of the Elwha River is 

under consideration. The number of acclimation ponds and their exact locations have yet 

to be determined. 

• Middle-reach release sites include primarily side-channel areas on the east side of the 

river, accessible from the Hot Springs Road. 

• The use of upriver helicopter release sites includes 31 outplanting sites previously 

identified by the USFWS in the 1990s that will be used for upriver release of fish 

(Wunderlich and Dilley 1990). Outplanting locations extend from RM 19 to RM 42. 

Fish Recovery Facilities 

Recovery of returning adult fish will occur at the Elwha rearing channel, the Lower 

Elwha Hatchery, and the Morse Creek rearing and broodstock collection facility. In addition, a 

weir will be constructed in the Elwha River immediately upstream of the Elwha rearing channel 

for the purposes of capturing returning Chinook salmon (Figure 5). This facility will only be 

operated during summer low flow periods and will be supplemented by in-river capture using 

seines when deemed efficient or necessary. 

Hatchery Protocols 

Hatchery protocols designed to achieve restoration goals are currently in development. 

Operational protocols implemented through this plan include hatchery management practices 

applied for decades, more recently derived practices designed to promote optimal overall fish 

survival in the hatchery and postrelease, and new conservation-based practices implemented in 

response to federal ESA listings of several local fish populations. Preliminary details regarding 

each hatchery program proposed for implementation are provided in draft hatchery genetic 

management plans (HGMPs) assembled by WDFW and LEKT and submitted for NOAA 

Fisheries Service evaluation for compliance with ESA 4(d) Rule Limit 6 criteria (LEKT 2003a, 

2003b, 2003c, WDFW 2005). The four HGMPs are included in two Puget Sound–wide hatchery 

resource management plans proposed by WDFW and the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes as 

12
Strait of Juan de Fuca

Figure 5. Regional fish culture facilities. 

overarching approaches for managing hatchery programs in the region to contribute to the 

conservation and recovery of ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer 

chum salmon ESUs (PSTT and WDFW 2004, WDFW and PSTT 2004). 

Hatchery operations and methods under development are designed to incorporate fish 

culture innovations that increase postrelease survival of fish and increase natural spawning by 

returning adults in the wild. Operational parameters will emphasize reduced rearing densities, 

increased flows, and providing structure and cover in rearing units. The potential for biased 

selection of adults will be limited through broodstock selection methods that are representative 

of time of arrival, age, size, and sex ratio, and will be used in conjunction with mating protocols 

that are random with respect to phenotypic traits to preserve genetic variability. 

Attempts will be made to match rearing temperature conditions in the hatchery with those 

in the Elwha River where appropriate, so that hatchery-reared fish do not have a competitive size 

advantage. 

Hatchery protocols under development will make use of innovative rearing technologies 

and will emphasize the production of fish that maximize effective population size, as 

recommended by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) during its review of the Eastern 

13
Straits (Discovery Bay to the Elwha River) region. The HSRG is an independent panel of 

scientists funded by Congress to evaluate proposed reforms to hatchery protocols in Puget Sound 

and Pacific coastal areas of Washington State. This review of hatchery operations and 

programmatic goals applied a scientific approach to hatchery management and pointed to a suite 

of actions designed to help achieve these goals (HSRG 2002). The HSRG has provided 

additional review of proposed operational protocols (HSRG 2004) and recommends the 

following: 

• Hatchery programs should be designed to meet recovery goals. 

• Hatchery programs should have specific measurable benchmarks identified that will be 

used to assess program goals and evaluate whether goals have been met. 

• Hatchery programs should have a formal, annual programmatic review of hatchery 

operations that will employ the results of monitoring efforts and provide managers with 

guidance for how to modify or curtail hatchery production efforts. 

The HSRG strongly cautioned against the tendency to institutionalize production goals. 

The WDFW, LEKT, ONP, and other agencies participating in recovery planning for the Elwha 

watershed have recognized the importance of the HSRG’s emphasis on monitoring and 

evaluation of the restoration process through time and the ecosystem’s response to management 

actions. In an effort to avoid operational institutionalization and to be able to respond to 

ecosystem response, the WDFW and LEKT will subject hatchery protocols to the review process 

included as part of the overall monitoring and adaptive management effort central to the 

discussion in the Monitoring and Adaptive Management section of this plan. 

Harvest Management 

Management of the harvest of salmon originating in Washington State waters can be 

generally described as “weak stock management.” That is, all fisheries are designed to meet 

specific escapement and exploitation rate objectives for the weakest “primary” populations, even 

when managing for these populations may require closures or significant restriction of many 

fisheries. Prior to the 1990s, application of the weak stock management concept also led to the 

management of some natural salmon populations as “secondary” to harvest and escapement 

needs identified for primary populations. These secondary management stocks included certain 

aggregate hatchery and wild populations, natural populations occurring in low (de minimis) 

proportions of the total abundance of a particular species in mixed stock fishing areas, and 

natural populations originating from watersheds where hatchery fish of the same stock 

predominated. Fisheries occurring in mixed stock and some terminal areas were therefore not 

managed to meet identified spawning objectives for secondary populations and the populations 

consequently experienced poor escapements in some years. 

The development of initiatives by WDFW and the Puget Sound tribes in the mid-1990s 

directed at wild salmonid population restoration, and the proposed ESA listing of several salmon 

populations later that decade, led to changes in harvest management strategies that were based on 

the secondary management concept. A detailed description of the current approaches applied for 

harvest management for Chinook salmon in Puget Sound can be found in Appendix B: Chinook 

Salmon Harvest Management and in the Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound 

14
Chinook (PSIT and WDFW 2004). Coho salmon management is very similar to that described 

for Chinook salmon in Appendix B, except with different harvest rate targets. Management of 

sockeye, chum, and pink salmon differs slightly from Chinook and coho salmon, with fisheries 

more directly governed by the provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST). A summary of the 

current harvest management approach follows. 

For management purposes, current fisheries are generally divided into four groups: 

Alaskan and Canadian interception fisheries, U.S. preterminal interception fisheries, terminal 

area fisheries, and extreme terminal fisheries. Provisions of the PST direct the Alaskan and 

Canadian interception fisheries. The PST’s annexes, which set objectives for each salmon 

species, are renewed periodically and updated with new information or new policy standards. 

The current annexes recognize the depressed status of both Canadian and U.S. Chinook and coho 

salmon populations, and restrict fisheries accordingly. Fisheries in U.S. waters south of the 

Canadian border are coordinated through the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC).2

 

Salmon fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (3 to 200 miles offshore) are managed 

under regulations recommended by the PFMC and implemented by NMFS, while each state and 

affected tribe is responsible for implementation of regulations for their respective fisheries in 

waters inshore of 3 miles. 

For years the naturally spawning stocks of salmon in the Elwha River were managed as 

secondary populations, with the hatchery stocks on the river accorded primary status. However, 

to be consistent with risk averse harvest management approaches applied for other natural-origin 

populations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca region, LEKT and WDFW agreed, beginning in the 

1990s, to manage all naturally spawning salmon populations in the Elwha River as primary 

populations. 

This change helped ensure that all fisheries in U.S. waters south of the Canadian border 

would be managed to meet natural spawner escapement goals and objectives established for 

Elwha River salmon populations. In addition when active dam removal begins, the tribe and 

WDFW have agreed to curtail all in-river fisheries for a period of 5 years. Following this time, 

the opportunity to recommence limited fisheries in-river will be evaluated, based on stock status. 

However, all agencies recognize the objective is recovery of healthy, self-sustaining natural 

spawning populations to the watershed, and in-river harvest activities will be scheduled to avoid 

interfering with recovery. 

Fisheries Restoration Periods 

During dam removal the restoration effort will involve three discrete periods. These 

periods will dictate and define the restoration strategy efforts and direction and will influence the 

rate of ecosystem recovery. The three restoration periods are before dam removal, defined as all 

years prior to beginning actual demolition of the dams; active dam removal, a three-year time 

frame between commencement of demolition and the time when fish may freely swim upstream 

 

2

 The PFMC refers to the area south of the U.S-Canadian border as “southern U.S. fisheries.” Because it is a 

fisheries management term, the meaning of “geographic boundaries” varies, depending on context. For the purposes 

of this plan, this area includes commercial, tribal, and recreational fisheries in marine and freshwater from 

Washington to California. 

15
through the construction site; and after dam removal, defined as the 10 years following provision 

of fish passage. Characteristics of each period follow. 

Pre-dam-removal Period 

Until demolition begins, the dams will remain in place and will be operated by the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to generate power. Upriver and downriver passage by fish is not 

possible. Hatcheries and the Elwha Surface Water Intake and Elwha Water Treatment Plant will 

undergo modification, renovation, or replacement during this period. Total hatchery production 

capacity may be limited either by the status of facility infrastructure renovation or due to water 

availability. Hatchery-based fish production efforts will emphasize maintaining ongoing 

enhancement programs or will be increased to boost total future adult returns. Adult capture 

weirs will be erected seasonally in the river main stem in association with the two Elwha basin 

hatchery facilities and at the new Morse Creek rearing and broodstock collection facility to 

facilitate broodstock collection. Both pre-dam-removal monitoring and long-term study design 

will have been completed. 

Dam-removal Period 

Dam removal will be initiated and completed during this approximate 3-year period. 

During the first year, minimal changes will occur to the environmental quality of the lower 

portion of the Elwha River. As dam removal progresses, elevated levels of turbidity will be 

common as sediments trapped in the reservoirs become mobilized and are transported 

downstream (BOR 1996). Habitat quality within the lower 12 miles of the Elwha River basin 

will be severely reduced by pulses of suspended and bedload sediment interspersed by periods of 

clearing due to the implementation of fish windows. As removal proceeds and the reservoir 

surface area is reduced, river temperatures below the dams will approach natural background 

levels. 

Hatchery facilities modifications will have been completed by the start of this period. 

The Elwha Surface Water Intake and Elwha Water Treatment Plant will be operational and 

provide hatchery facilities with treated water. Production goals during this period are limited by 

the production capability of the water treatment facility. Downstream passage by outplanted or 

natural-origin smolts as well as upstream passage by returning adults will be reestablished. 

Elwha River sport and commercial fishery harvest will be curtailed throughout this period for all 

salmon stocks. 

Post-dam-removal Period 

Dam removal will be completed at the start of this 10-year period. Turbidity in the basin 

will have stabilized and water quality will approach natural background levels. The shared water 

treatment facility will have been taken off-line and hatchery facilities will receive untreated 

surface water. Hatchery production of salmon will no longer be limited by water availability, 

and fish culture programs will be increased to full restoration production levels. The adult 

capture weir spanning the mainstem Elwha River will be phased out and greater emphasis will be 

placed on natural recolonization. Active monitoring programs will assess rates of stock 

16
rebuilding. This data will be used to judge the success or failure of restoration efforts and to 

gauge decisions concerning hatchery outplanting efforts. 

17
Stock Selection and Restoration Strategies 

Careful consideration and analysis has been given to the range of strategies that may be 

appropriate for achieving the goals of preserving and restoring anadromous fish populations in 

the Elwha River watershed commensurate with dam removal. Wunderlich and Pantaleo (1995) 

completed the first detailed analysis of methods that might be used to reintroduce salmon into the 

upper Elwha River. Since that analysis, strategies have been revisited and revised based on new 

information. These strategies include selection of stocks, methods for preserving populations 

during dam removal, methods for reintroducing populations into the watershed following dam 

removal, and alternative actions if preferred methods fail. 

During development of the EFRP, guidance was sought from independent scientists, 

organizations such as the HSRG, state and federal agencies, and resource managers on how to 

achieve restoration of fisheries and ecosystem function in the shortest time possible. In general 

opinions regarding how to approach recovery are wide ranging. Roles that hatcheries play in the 

basin, selection of species and stocks, life history phases that should be released, duration of 

residency for fish in the hatchery environment, and locations selected for outplanting have all 

been the subject of debate. 

The process of first preserving and then restoring anadromous fish populations to the 

Elwha River watershed above the Elwha Dam is not a simple task. The dams cannot be removed 

with the expectation that fish will naturally recolonize the watershed within a “reasonable” time 

frame, as the potential donor populations that use the river below Elwha Dam are in chronically 

low abundance and, further, will be dramatically affected by dam removal itself. Without 

proactive intervention, the conditions that will be present in the river below the dams during and 

immediately following dam removal may result in mortality rates approaching 100% for any 

naturally rearing fish, virtually eliminating the local brood source for recolonization (see the 

Project Background section). 

Even if some fish survive the removal process, the abundance is likely to be so low as to 

create a genetic bottleneck. Fish from other river systems might repopulate the Elwha watershed 

over time, but for ESA-listed and candidate species (Chinook and coho salmon, bull trout, and 

steelhead) extirpation resulting from dam removal is not an acceptable option. For other species, 

such as chum and pink salmon, there is little local evidence that recolonization through straying 

will occur in the short term, as other potential donor populations are in low abundance. For 

example, Dungeness River and Morse Creek—two adjacent river systems—have seen steady 

declines in pink and chum salmon production, with little evidence of straying from outside 

systems (Small 2004). 

Restoration Design 

The restoration design for the Elwha River restoration plan comes from two key factors: 

the spatial arrangement of the watershed and current supplementation practices. The Elwha 

18
watershed has been physically partitioned into four general areas since dam construction was 

completed in 1927: 1) the upper watershed above both dams, 2) the middle reach between the 

Glines Canyon and Elwha dams, 3) the reservoir sections behind each dam, and 4) the lower 

Elwha below the Elwha dam. In addition, with the exception of limited stocking activities 

related to the assessment of downstream passage at the two dams and stocking of resident trout 

between and above the dams, since the early 1900s anadromous salmonid supplementation has 

only occurred in the lower Elwha River. 

Though supplementation will be used for some salmonids in the lower Elwha following 

removal, natural recolonization is an integral part of the overall restoration strategy. The spatial 

partitioning of the watershed in combination with natural recolonization for some of the 

salmonid species provides the opportunity to develop a restoration design that has three parts: no 

supplementation, limited supplementation (e.g., one or two generations), and general 

supplementation (e.g., more than one generation). 

Areas beyond the dams—such as the upper Elwha—are considered pristine habitats 

because they have not been altered by anthropogenic activities and have no ongoing hatchery 

supplementation activities. The area between the two dams, not including the two reservoirs, is 

typically considered altered habitat due to the loss of sediment supply from Glines Canyon, 

historic logging and floodplain encroachment by roads, historic stocking of trout into Lake 

Aldwell, and ongoing stocking of trout into Lake Sutherland. The reservoirs represent the most 

physically altered habitats, with evidence that the historic planting of nonnative trout has altered 

the fish community though there is currently no supplementation. Finally, the lower Elwha has 

been altered through various land use activities and large-scale salmonid supplementation 

activities. In addition each of these areas, with the exception of the reservoir sections, has the 

same basic general habitat types, including mainstem, tributary, and floodplain habitats. 

The overall restoration design will be to utilize this natural stratification by designating 

habitat areas in the following manner: 

• No supplementation areas as an indicator of natural recolonization 

• Limited supplementation for one to two generation cycles (4 to 8 years) with the focus on 

the subsequent recovery of native-origin returns (NORs) 

• General supplementation for more than two generations 

An additional layer of stratification for comparing how different supplementation and 

habitat restoration techniques succeed will be the general habitat types associated with each of 

these categories including the main stem, floodplain, and tributary (Table 3). Because different 

outplanting strategies (e.g., by life stage, location) have different habitat requirements, 

incorporating the natural habitat hierarchy into the restoration design will enable a better 

understanding of which restoration strategies have the greatest success in developing the most fit 

salmonid colonizers. Finally, stratification can occur among species, as different approaches to 

initiating recolonization may be used for each of the different species. 

19
Table 3. Habitat strata. 

Habitat area (m2

) Habitat area (%) 

Reach Pool Riffle Glide Total Pool Riffle Glide

Main stem 

Lower Elwha 121,078 64,788 84,161 270,027 45 24 31

Middle Elwha 61,288 310,499 319,273 691,059 9 45 46

Whiskey Bend 2,150 – 5,121 7,272 30 0 70

Rica Canyon 26,549 26,549 26,549 79,646 33 33 33

Geyser Valley 10,523 48,986 37,031 96,540 11 51 38

Grand Canyon 55,752 55,752 55,752 167,256 33 33 33

Valley 1,754 8,164 6,172 16,090 11 51 38

Canyon 10,619 10,619 10,619 31,858 33 33 33

Press Valley 2,056 29,512 16,701 48,270 4 61 35

Carlson Canyon 15,929 15,929 15,929 47,787 33 33 33

Chicago Camp 6,314 41,044 10,566 57,924 11 71 18

Total 314,014 611,842 587,873 1,513,729 21 40 39

Side channels 

Lower Elwha 49,592 15,966 25,362 90,920 55 18 28

Middle Elwha 22,165 22,627 5,070 49,861 44 45 10

Whiskey Bend 147 104 79 330 45 31 24

Kraus Bottom 6,050 5,155 4,581 15,786 38 33 29

Elkhorn 215 717 1,495 2,427 9 30 62

Camp Wilder 832 1,126 920 2,877 29 39 32

Total 79,001 45,694 37,507 162,202 49 28 23

Habitat area (m2

)

Alluvial 

main stem 

Confined 

main stem 

Floodplain 

channels 

Below dams 270,027 – 90,920 

Between dams 698,331 330 49,861 

Above dams 218,824 326,547 21,090 

Stock Selection 

Salmon are known to rapidly colonize new habitat when provided the opportunity 

(Bryant et al. 1996 and 1999, Burger et al. 2000, Seiler 2000). However, when colonization is 

aided through artificial means, the selection of the appropriate donor stocks is critical to the 

ultimate success of the project, as it depends on fundamental biological capabilities of the donor 

populations (Burger et al. 2000, Chilcote 2003). Elwha River stocks would be the preferred 

populations to use in the recovery efforts. However, the current condition of the river below the 

dams certainly differs from historic conditions as well as from conditions currently seen above 

the dams. Additionally, hatchery programs have been used to aggressively supplement fish 

production below the dams and have included the introduction of nonnative stocks. Finally, 

several populations appear to be extirpated from the watershed or are present at such low 

20
numbers that recovery based on the use of these stocks may not be feasible. Therefore, it was 

necessary to carefully evaluate the status of existing populations to determine their fitness for 

utilization in the recovery plan. 

Selection Criteria 

When evaluating and selecting potential source populations for the restoration effort, five 

criteria were qualitatively employed (a detailed summary of background information by species 

is found in the subsections for each species, see pages 31-74). It is important to note that little or 

no information exists to directly compare current populations to those present before 

construction of the Elwha Dam. Therefore, it was necessary to infer historic traits from current 

information or comparison to other local populations. Table 4 summarizes decisions made 

regarding the preferred and alternative stocks identified. For some species, importing fish from 

other watersheds was considered in previous versions of the restoration plan. Those alternatives 

have been dropped from this plan but may be reevaluated in the future as part of the adaptive 

management process. The five current selection criteria follow: 

1. Current population size: Is the population “large enough” to retain genetic variability 

needed for successful recovery? In general evidence shows that founder populations of 

less than 100 mature fish may be too small to ensure adequate genetic variability in the 

stock (Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel 2001). 

2. Genetic analysis: Does the current genetic composition of the population represent an 

independent population, or has it been homogenized with imported hatchery populations? 

DNA and GSI data were available for Chinook salmon (Myers et al. 1998), chum salmon 

Table 4. Fish stocks utilized for restoration. 

Primary restoration stock Secondary restoration stock

Species Stock Origin Stock Origin 

Chinook salmon Elwha River 

summer/fall 

Natural/ 

hatchery 

– – 

Winter steelhead Elwha River latetimed Natural/ 

hatchery 

Upriver 

rainbow trout 

Natural 

Summer steelhead Elwha River Natural – – 

Coho salmon Elwha River Hatchery* – – 

Chum salmon Elwha River Natural – – 

Pink salmon Elwha River Natural Dungeness 

River upriver 

Natural 

Coastal cutthroat Elwha River Natural – – 

Bull trout and Dolly Varden Elwha River Natural – – 

Sockeye salmon Unknown origin Natural To be identified 

if necessary 

Unknown 

Western brook lamprey Elwha River Natural – – 

Pacific lamprey Elwha River Natural – – 

Forage fish Elwha River Natural – – 

*The Elwha hatchery coho population was founded using native Elwha coho salmon as the donor population. 

21
(WDFW 1996), pink salmon (Small 2004), and steelhead and rainbow trout 

(Reisenbichler and Phelps 1989, Phelps et al. 2001). Bull trout, coho salmon, and 

cutthroat trout genetic samples are being collected, but no data was available to assist in 

stock selection. 

3. Phenotypic and life history traits: Does the population retain phenotypic and life history 

traits known or suspected to occur in the original Elwha population (e.g., body size)? 

4. Run timing: Is run timing consistent with known historic run timing or with the run 

timing of similar proximal populations (e.g., Hoh or Dungeness rivers)? 

5. Accessibility of broodstock: Is it feasible to obtain adequate brood to incorporate into the 

restoration strategy? 

Restoration Strategies 

Two basic strategies were considered in developing the restoration plan: natural 

recolonization and artificial supplementation. In general natural recolonization was preferred to 

artificial supplementation where feasible and is used exclusively for some species. However, for 

populations currently present only below the Elwha Dam, relying solely on natural 

recolonization was combined with hatchery conservation strategies to preserve populations 

during the dam removal period. 

Artificial supplementation strategies considered included outplanting and release of 

adults in the middle (between the two dams) and upper basins (above Lake Mills), production 

and release from hatcheries of multiple age-classes (juveniles), outplanting and release of 

hatchery-reared juveniles in the middle and upper basins at multiple age-classes (eggs, fry, 

presmolt, smolt), and using alternate out-of-basin production, release, and recovery sites. 

Captive brood is also considered for steelhead, pink salmon, and Chinook salmon but is not 

recommended for Chinook salmon in this plan as it was deemed unduly intrusive, expensive, and 

ultimately unnecessary. Captive brood will be used for steelhead and pink salmon and has been 

retained as an alternative strategy for Chinook salmon if other methods fail. 

During the development of this recovery plan, there was considerable debate regarding 

the appropriate release age of juveniles to ensure recovery objectives were met. Available 

evidence suggested that exposing fish to the minimum possible residence in the hatchery 

environment would ultimately produce the most successful spawning adults (Waples 1991, 

1999). Conversely, given that salmon are known to rapidly colonize a system when provided the 

opportunity, release strategies that provide the highest adult returns in the first generation would 

help seed the watershed and speed recovery, although this concept is not synonymous with 

maximizing the greatest number of fish released. 

Maximum returns will be realized through the identification of the most effective life 

history stage released and the overall habitat capacity of the system (HSRG 2004). Ultimately it 

was decided to rely on a broad cross section of alternatives in conjunction with careful 

monitoring. Through annual review and adaptive management, the hatchery program will be 

adjusted to favor those strategies that return successfully spawning adults to the Elwha River (see 

the Monitoring and Adaptive Management section). 

22
23

A brief description of alternative enhancement options considered in the development of 

this document follows. Table 5 summarizes the strategies selected for each species. 

Natural Recolonization 

Some level of natural recolonization will occur for all species, either as a result of the 

natural movement of native Elwha fish within the system, straying of fish from the enhancement 

program, or straying from outside systems. In addition it will not be feasible to outplant fish 

throughout the watershed; therefore, many areas must rely on natural recolonization. 

Specifically, initially only Chinook salmon smolts will be outplanted into the upper watershed 

above Lake Mills. Other species may also be outplanted in the upper watershed at a much 

younger age (egg or fry), but the early phases of recovery above Lake Mills will be largely 

driven by natural recolonization.

Yearling Smolts: On Station 

Rates of return of adult Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead to the Elwha River 

are consistently greater when large yearling smolts are released (WDFW and tribal coded wire 

tag data, PSMFC 2006) as opposed to fry or presmolts. The production and release of yearling 

smolts from hatchery facilities promotes the long-term restoration goal of returning the greatest 

number of adults to the river. On-station releases will also ensure adequate brood sources for 

ongoing enhancement needs.

Yearling Smolts: Off Station 

As noted above, the highest rate of return of adult salmon to the Elwha River is found 

with the release of yearling smolts. Release of yearling Chinook smolts at off-station locations 

has been found to produce lower stray rates than release of presmolts (Hayes and Carmichael 

2002) and may speed recolonization of the watershed while minimizing affects of straying.

Yearling Smolts: Morse Creek/Out of Basin 

The production and release of yearling smolts in an out-of-basin facility will provide 

short-term protection against catastrophic losses that may result from avoidance of the Elwha 

River during peak turbidity levels immediately following the dam-removal phase. Fish and eggs 

produced at or returning to out-of-basin facilities will be incorporated into Elwha River–origin 

fish production.

Age-0 Smolts: On Station 

Production and release of age-0 Chinook salmon smolts from hatchery facilities ensures 

that the hatchery program is representative of the known natural life history strategies for this 

species (age-0 vs. yearling emigration). On-station releases also ensure adequate brood for 

ongoing enhancement needs. 
Table 5. Elwha River fish restoration strategies. 

Chinook 

salmon 

Coho 

salmon 

Chum 

salmon 

Pink 

salmon 

Winter 

steelhead 

Summer 

steelhead 

Sockeye 

salmon 

Cutthroat 

salmon 

Bull 

trout 

Wes

bro

lamp

Natural recolonization 

X X X X X X X X X X 

Yearling smolts: onstation 

X X 

Yearling smolts: offstation 

X X 

Yearling smolts: Morse Creek 

X 

Age-0 smolts: on-station 

X X X X 

Age-0 smolts: off-station 

X X X X X 

Egg outplants 

X X X X X 

Fry upstream 

X X 

2-year-old smolts: upstream 

X 

Captive brood 

X X X 

24
Age-0 Smolts: Off Station 

Production and release of age-0 smolts from appropriate locations is consistent with the 

restoration goal of releasing multiple age-classes in the basin, but may have unanticipated 

consequences due to straying that will need to be closely monitored. Hayes and Carmichael 

(2002) noted that release location, release date, juvenile physiological development, and flows at 

release time are thought to affect homing of presmolt releases. Using acclimation ponds may 

increase homing of some species (Tipping 2003). 

Egg Outplants 

Egg production in excess of hatchery production goals will be designated for outplanting 

in appropriate locations throughout the river basin. Methods for outplanting eggs may include 

hatch boxes (also known as salmon condos or Jordan/Scotty salmon incubators, Scott Plastics, 

Sidney, British Columbia), remote-site incubators, or injection of eggs into the native substrate. 

Stocking of eggs maximizes the exposure of planted fish to natural selection pressures and may 

minimize domestication concerns. 

Fry Upstream 

Production and release of fry from appropriate upriver locations is consistent with the 

restoration goal of releasing multiple age-classes in the basin.

Two-year-old Smolts Upstream (Steelhead) 

Production and release of 2-year-old steelhead smolts at appropriate locations throughout 

the basin is consistent with the restoration goal of releasing multiple age-classes in the basin and 

will be used as a production option when growth rates in the hatchery preclude the timely 

production of yearling smolts.

Captive Brood (Chinook and Pink Salmon, Winter Steelhead) 

Captive brood refers to the practice of rearing fish in captivity to full maturity. Captive 

brood is being retained in this plan for winter steelhead and pink salmon, and as an alternative 

enhancement strategy to be employed for Chinook salmon in the event that hatchery 

enhancement efforts fail to achieve production goals, suffer catastrophic loss of fish within the 

basin, or adults fail to enter the river due to elevated levels of sediment.

Outplanting Strategies 

Methods 

Outplanting of fish in the Elwha River basin will be conducted using trucks, boats, 

helicopters, and by foot in conjunction with one of the other methods. Transport trucks will be 

used as a means to access outplanting and acclimation sites throughout the middle and lower 

portions of the Elwha River basin. Boats may be used as an outplanting strategy prior to dam 

removal and during the initial year of dam removal as a method to transport adult fish to the 

25
headwaters of Lake Mills and into the upper Elwha River basin. Helicopter use will be restricted 

to outplant locations in the upper Elwha River basin (RM 16 to 41). 

Helicopter outplanting affords an effective means to distribute juvenile fish to the remote 

upper reaches of the Elwha River basin where foot or horse transport of fish would be 

impractical. With this method fish may be distributed to appropriate habitats safely and 

effectively, provided proper fish handling and transport techniques are followed. Past helicopter 

outplant efforts have resulted in consistently high rates of survival (survival to smolt) of juvenile 

Chinook salmon, steelhead, and coho salmon outplanted to a variety of sites in the upper Elwha 

River basin (Dilley and Wunderlich 1990, Wunderlich et al. 1989). Due to the high cost of 

helicopter transport as well as limitations required to protect listed bird species in the watershed, 

the use of helicopters will be restricted exclusively to Chinook salmon outplants during the 

project’s initial years and will be limited to 36 flights per year. 

Outplanting strategies will include multiple life history patterns including adults, 

juveniles, and eyed eggs. Selection of life history patterns outplanted is based on stock 

availability and appropriateness of specific life history patterns to meet outplanting goals. The 

selection of outplanting strategies employed is dynamic, subject to review by managers, and may 

shift throughout the duration of the restoration project according to fish response. 

Timing 

Outplanting strategies will vary depending on the period: before dam removal, during 

dam removal, or after dam removal. 

Pre-dam-removal period 

Outplants of juveniles during this period will be limited to eyed egg outplants of chum 

and pink salmon below Elwha Dam and outplants of steelhead presmolts to selected acclimation 

sites in middle basin mainstem and tributary locations. 

Dam-removal period 

Juvenile outplants during dam removal will be expanded to extend into the Elwha River’s 

upper basin and continued in selected acclimation sites in middle basin mainstem and tributary 

locations. 

Post-dam-removal period 

Outplanting strategies following dam removal will depend on fish response during 

previous restoration periods. Initial prioritization of helicopter efforts for outplanting of Chinook 

salmon may be revised, offering the potential for the outplanting of alternate species if 

warranted. Outplanting efforts will be phased out gradually in response to adult fish returns and 

spawning successes in the upper Elwha Basin. Outplanting methods and locations, outplanting 

densities, species targeted for outplanting, and the size and fish life history pattern outplanted 

will be adjusted throughout the duration of the restoration project when warranted by the 

response of fish populations. 

26
Outplanting Locations 

Release locations have been selected based on historical distributions of fish, logistical 

considerations (which sites can be feasibly reached), and genetic concerns (reducing the potential 

for genetic dilution of intact gene banks). Outplanting densities will strive to match but not 

exceed habitat-specific seeding rates based on assumed productivity. Outplant sites will be 

sufficiently distant from one another to allow for maximum fish dispersal. The outplanting 

locations are divided into three major areas: lower, middle, and upper basin sites. 

Lower basin outplanting sites 

All outplanting sites in the lower basin will be mainstem sites or side-channel locations 

accessible by truck and foot outplanting efforts. Sites include the one-way bridge (RM 3.2) and 

the former Elwha Dam site (RM 4.9). 

Middle basin outplanting sites 

All outplanting sites in the middle basin will be accessible by truck outplanting or a 

combination of truck and hand outplanting. Mainstem and side-channel sites in the middle reach 

section have been selected based on their accessibility, potential for providing successful rearing 

habitat, and distance from one another. Sites include Highway 101 bridge (RM 7.7), mouth of 

Little River at Elwha River (RM 7.8), Altaire Campground bridge (RM 12.5), and the former 

Glines Canyon Dam site (RM 13.4).

Tributary sites for the middle basin include Indian Creek, Lake Sutherland, Little River, 

and middle-reach side channels. A description of each follows: 

• Indian Creek drainage provides extensive outplanting opportunities throughout its length 

for winter steelhead and coho and chum salmon. Networks of off-channel beaver ponds 

from Lake Sutherland downstream to the Elwha River are suitable for outplants of all 

target species. 

• Lake Sutherland, located at the head of Indian Creek, will be used for direct releases of 

steelhead and coho salmon and for formalized acclimation of coho salmon in net pens 

prior to release. 

• Outplanting opportunities exist throughout the lower portions of Little River for winter 

steelhead and coho salmon. Upriver reaches of Little River contain unique populations of 

rainbow trout and, in an effort to maintain genetic stock integrity, no enhancement 

activities will occur within these reaches. It should also be noted that Little River is 

being considered as a control area (no hatchery planting) in the Monitoring and Adaptive 

Management section of this plan, meaning no outplanting should occur. This issue will 

be subject for further discussion by the project participants leading up to full 

implementation of this plan. 

• Middle-reach side channels on the east side of river accessible from the Hot Springs Road 

will be used. 

27
Upper basin outplanting sites 

Upper basin outplanting sites are inaccessible to trucks, and all outplants that occur in 

this region will be conducted by boat (prior to the full draining of Lake Mills), helicopter, or by 

foot in conjunction with boat or helicopter. Flight restrictions have been placed on the project to 

conserve northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) and marbled murrelets 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus), limiting efforts to 36 helicopter flights per year. Because of this 

limitation, only Chinook salmon will be outplanted into the upper basin. Site selection for this 

reach of the river has several constraints and considerations: 

• Each site offers suitable shallow, side-channel rearing habitat for young-of-the-year 

salmonids. 

• Each site is considered representative of the excellent rearing conditions in the upper 

watershed within Olympic National Park. 

• The sites are sufficiently distant from one another to allow maximum fry dispersal. 

• The total size of the release group will be at or below maximum seeding rates for the 

species and life stage. This will reduce the likelihood that fish would be displaced 

downstream into less suitable habitat after outplanting. 

Outplant sites for Chinook salmon in the upper basin main stem will be extended from 

just above the current Lake Mills (RM 16) to the uppermost limit of Chinook salmon mainstem 

habitat (RM 41). Use of a helicopter fire bucket for outplanting allows greater access than other 

outplant techniques in this remote section of the river and relatively even distribution of fish. 

Helicopter outplants may be used in conjunction with hand outplants to better distribute small, 

discrete populations of fish. 

Upper basin mainstem sites include Krause Bottom, Lost River reach, and the Chicago 

Camp reach (Figure 6). Krause Bottom (RM 19 to 20) offers abundant shallow, side-channel 

habitat appropriate for age-0 Chinook salmon and will be outplanted at a rate of 100,000 

Chinook salmon presmolts (90 fish/lb) per mile. The river in the Lost River reach (RM 24 to 31) 

tends to remain in a single channel with large substrate; however, there are areas of canyon and 

wide floodplain habitat. Pool habitat is limited. The target outplanting rate for the Lost River 

reach is 25,000 Chinook salmon presmolts (90 fish/lb) per mile. The final upper basin site—the 

extreme upper reach (RM 36 to 41)—extends to the upper limit of historic Chinook salmon 

distribution (RM 41) to ensure that all available mainstem habitat is seeded. Planting rates for 

this reach are targeted to reach 27,000 Chinook salmon presmolts (90 fish/lb) per mile. 

Initial upper basin enhancement efforts will focus on Chinook salmon in mainstem 

habitat. Tributaries throughout the Elwha River upper basin offer outplanting opportunities for 

future steelhead and coho salmon enhancement efforts, but are not planned at this time. 

Brood Collection Strategies 

In order to maintain the artificial enhancement program during the recovery period, it will 

be necessary to obtain adequate and appropriate brood. A number of methods have been 

considered and are incorporated into the plan:

28
Figure 6. Chinook salmon outplanting locations. 

• Hatchery rack: On-station releases of fish are expected to home to their hatchery of 

origin. A standard collection rack will be used at each facility to capture brood. 

• Weir operation: A collection weir will be installed in the Elwha River near the WDFW 

rearing channel and in Morse Creek near the Highway 101 bridge. These weirs will be 

29
operated during summer low flow conditions and are intended to capture returning 

Chinook and pink salmon. 

• Net capture: Gill or seine nets may be used to capture brood during higher flow 

conditions associated with the return timing of winter steelhead, coho and chum salmon. 

Gill nets are already being effectively used in side-channel habitats in the lower Elwha 

River to capture chum salmon brood. 

• Redd pumping: The hydraulic pumping of redds is an effective method of collecting fish 

to incorporate into a captive brood program or to remove fish from the river should 

conditions associated with dam removal activities warrant. Redd pumping has been 

initiated to collect winter steelhead and may also be used for pink salmon prior to dam 

removal. 

• Other (hook and line, electrofishing, etc.): A variety of other collection methods may 

prove useful to support the restoration plan. In particular, hook and line fishing and 

electrofishing are effective methods for capturing bull, resident rainbow, and resident 

cutthroat trout in the upper Elwha watershed. 

Phase Out of Artificial Supplementation 

The objective of using artificial supplementation as a tool in restoring fisheries resources 

in the Elwha Basin is to maintain existing native fish populations during the period of dam 

removal, to ensure adequate numbers of fish are available to seed the basin once conditions 

allow, and to begin to recolonize the basin once the dams are removed. It is envisioned these 

programs will phase out as natural production recovers. 

Phase out of artificial supplementation will be tied to the specific interim (10-year) 

abundance, productivity, and distribution goals identified in the Monitoring and Adaptive 

Management section of this plan. In general these goals are defined as abundance levels on a 

trajectory to long-term recovery goals, natural-origin production in excess of one 

recruit/spawner, and distribution approximating the historic range. Annual review of the status 

of each population relative to the interim goals will guide decisions regarding continuation of the 

supplementation program. For example, if at the end of 10 years it is found that the abundance 

of naturally spawning Chinook salmon is 4,000 fish, productivity is two recruits per spawner, 

and Chinook salmon are spawning throughout their historic range, then the hatchery program 

would be phased down to a low maintenance level or eliminated entirely. Conversely, if 

abundance and productivity were to remain as above, but Chinook salmon were only spawning 

in the lower 10 miles of the river, then it would be necessary to carefully evaluate the program 

and decide on a course of action most likely to ensure recolonization of the historic range is 

achieved. 

A specific end date for the artificial supplementation of populations cannot be set at this 

time, since the river’s response to dam removal is uncertain in the short term. Additionally, each 

stock is likely to respond differently based on its respective life history strategy, starting 

population size, dependence on the lower river habitat, and other factors. Therefore, careful 

adherence to the goals and adaptive management strategies identified in this document will be 

relied on to guide supplementation activities. 

30
Chinook Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach 

Chinook salmon populations in the Elwha River historically displayed a wide range of 

life history strategies that took advantage of diverse natural habitat conditions present in the river 

in its pristine state. Remaining components of the historic populations have been retained in 

what is now believed to be a single population through natural spawning and hatchery 

enhancement activities. The current population exists in a reduced form: principal entry and 

spawning dates have been altered over time (shifted to later summer/fall dates) and reduced in 

the extent of their duration. Elwha Chinook salmon are genetically distinct from other Chinook 

salmon in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound (Ruckelshaus et al. 2006). Spring Chinook 

salmon, as expressed by early river entry and large adult body size, have been largely extirpated 

from the Elwha River (Brannon and Hershberger 1984, Wunderlich et al. 1993). Loss of access 

to upriver habitat coupled with possible cotemporal spawning with other populations of Chinook 

salmon in the lower river are thought to be the primary factors responsible for their demise. 

Maintenance of a Chinook salmon hatchery program using broodstock collected from 

natural- and hatchery-origin adult returns provides a composite population on which to base 

stock restoration (WDFW 2002). Intentional capture and segregation of a discrete spring 

Chinook salmon component from the greater population was rejected as a restoration strategy 

due to reduced population size and the potential for selection biases. 

A Chinook salmon restoration strategy that treats the population as a single unit, 

collecting eggs from across the range of the current spawning spectrum followed by outplanting 

juveniles throughout the basin, will best permit diverse life history types to develop and express 

themselves in the population. Chinook salmon are known to adapt rapidly to new habitats 

(Quinn et al. 1996), showing significant shifts in spawn timing in response to new environmental 

conditions. It is believed this adaptation will be realized by exposing Chinook salmon from 

across the run-timing spectrum to the upriver regimes of temperature, habitat, and food 

availability. 

Stock Targeted for Enhancement 

The existing in-basin composite stock has been identified as the preferred stock for 

enhancement activities. In an effort to limit risk to the stock, the variety of restoration strategies 

applied to this species is greater than those applied to other stocks of fish in the Elwha River 

basin. In the event of a catastrophic failure of recovery efforts using native Elwha River stock, it 

is noted that a component of the naturally spawning population of Chinook salmon in the 

Dungeness River may be of Elwha origin and therefore may be an alternative population for 

consideration. 

Stock Status 

The Elwha River Chinook salmon population is included as part of the ESA-listed 

threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU (NMFS 2005a). As one of only two Chinook 

salmon populations delineated for the entire Strait of Juan de Fuca biographical region, recovery 

of the Elwha River Chinook salmon stock to a viable status is considered a requirement for the 

recovery and delisting of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU (NMFS 2005b).

31
Harvest Status 

No directed harvest occurs on Elwha Chinook salmon. During the 2005 harvest season, 

the anticipated incidental total exploitation rate was 24%, of which 4.3% was attributable to 

southern U.S. fisheries directed at other salmon species and populations. Further, in the 

restoration strategy for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, it has been agreed that no directed harvest 

shall be permitted for Elwha Chinook salmon, and that the total incidental exploitation rate shall 

not exceed 10% (PSIT and WDFW 2004). It is anticipated this harvest management strategy 

shall remain in effect until either the Elwha Chinook salmon population recovers or the harvest 

rate proves to be in excess of the level that will lead to restoration. A detailed description of 

Chinook salmon harvest management is provided in Appendix B. 

Hatchery Enhancement Efforts 

The current hatchery program for Elwha Chinook salmon is designed for stock 

maintenance. The annual egg-take goal for the program is 3.5 million, with a release goal of 2.5 

million age-0 fish (all otolith marked). Following on recommendations from the Hatchery 

Scientific Review Group (HSRG 2002), the annual hatchery program has recently been modified 

to also include yearling releases. An initial group of 200,000 yearlings were released into the 

Elwha River in spring 2005 and in 2006, with the intent to continue to release an additional 

yearling component of 200,000 fish thereafter. To address the risk of catastrophic loss of the 

Elwha River population during dam decommissioning, an out-of-watershed reserve Chinook 

salmon broodstock source is being established in Morse Creek. An initial release of 200,000 

yearlings was made in spring 2005, with the program continuing as needed at the 200,000 

yearling release level until the risk of stock loss in the Elwha River has passed. All yearlings 

will be coded wire tagged. 

Escapement Level 

The current escapement goal for Elwha Chinook salmon below Elwha Dam is 2,900 fish, 

with an objective of maintaining a natural spawning level of at least 500 fish. Total escapement 

of adults in 2004 was 3,443 fish. Returns to the hatchery (both volunteer and gaffed or seined) 

accounted for 1,368 fish, while an additional 2,075 adults spawned naturally. The most recent 

5-year average return of adults to the river has been approximately 2,200 adults—just over 75% 

of the goal. Forecasted adult terminal run size for 2008 is 2,178 fish. 

Projected Hatchery Facility Use 

Enhancement efforts will take place at the WDFW Elwha rearing channel and at the 

WDFW Morse Creek facility. Early rearing will occur at the WDFW Sol Duc facility, with fry 

and fingerling transfers back to the Elwha rearing channel and Morse Creek facility for rearing 

and release as subyearlings or yearlings.

Elwha River–origin adult fish produced at and returning to the Morse Creek facility will 

be fully incorporated with Elwha River adult returns as broodstock used to implement Elwha 

River hatchery-based restoration efforts. 

32
Shared Salmon Strategy Recovery Plan 

The EFRP is the primary component of the effort to recover the Elwha Chinook salmon 

population included in the ESA listing of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. However, the 

jurisdiction of this plan is directly linked to removal of the two dams on the Elwha River, and 

therefore cannot address all the factors that led to the decline of Elwha Chinook salmon or, more 

broadly, Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 

An ESU-wide recovery planning effort was undertaken by Shared Salmon Strategy for 

Puget Sound, a collaborative group dedicated to restoring salmon throughout Puget Sound 

(online at http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org). Strait of Juan de Fuca Chinook salmon 

populations, and Elwha Chinook salmon specifically, are included in the Shared Strategy Plan 

(Shared Salmon Strategy for Puget Sound 2005). Beyond dam removal, the Shared Strategy 

Plan includes actions adopted through the WRIA 18 Watershed Plan (Elwha-Dungeness 

Planning Unit 2005), the North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity Group (NOPLE) Strategy 

(NOPLE 2005a), and the NOPLE Draft Nearshore Strategy (NOPLE 2005b). Recovery actions 

included in the Shared Strategy Plan that are not in the EFRP include water use planning, 

additional habitat restoration actions, nearshore restoration actions, and land use planning. The 

Shared Strategy Plan can be found in its entirety on the group’s Web site, including an Elwhaspecific appendix. 

Summary 

Proposed strategies for Chinook salmon are based on the following production 

assumptions. Sex ratio is 50:50. Primary age at return is age 4. Ages 3 and 5 contribute to the 

population. Fecundity is 5,000 eggs per female. Survival rates from the fertilized egg stage are 

90% to eyed egg stage, 80% to age-0 smolt, and 72% to yearling smolt. 

A summary of the Elwha River Chinook salmon restoration strategies includes: 

• on-station releases of yearling smolts 

• transfer and release of yearling smolts into Morse Creek 

• on-station release of age-0 smolts 

• natural spawning of adults 

• planting of eyed eggs 

• outplanting of fry, age-0 smolts, and yearling smolts in upstream locations 

The strategies described for Chinook salmon in this plan are intended to be adaptive, 

changing based on observed responses of the Chinook salmon population. Therefore, if certain 

strategies prove to be unsuccessful, they may be discontinued at any time in favor of options that 

are more likely to produce a healthy, naturally spawning population. Further, specific options, 

including the release of fish into Morse Creek, will be discontinued as soon as the risk of 

catastrophic loss of the Elwha River production is passed. Hatchery production proposed for this 

period will be phased out over time as the natural-origin Chinook salmon population increases to 

33
a healthy, self-sustaining level and as seasonal components of the natural-origin population 

(spring, summer, and fall) reestablish. 

Phasing of Chinook Salmon Restoration Strategies 

Pre-dam-removal period 

The emphasis of the proposed hatchery approach for Chinook salmon is maintenance of 

the existing hatchery and natural-origin population. Hatchery facilities (in and out of basin) will 

be modified, with water treatment facilities and delivery systems being constructed during this 

time to meet production goals. Table 6 summarizes the restoration strategies for the pre-damremoval period. 

Annual production of juvenile fish will be maintained at recent year release levels. At 

low adult return levels, the enhancement program will prioritize release of yearling smolts. As 

adult numbers increase, restoration strategies will be expanded to include the production and 

release of fish from the Morse Creek facility and upper-basin outplants of eyed eggs (beginning 

2008). Broodstock collection strategies for adult Chinook salmon during this period will include 

trapping of adult returns to the Elwha Channel and Morse Creek facilities, in-river net capture of 

adults, and gaffing of adults on the spawning grounds. 

No directed commercial or recreational fisheries on Chinook salmon will occur during 

this time period. 

Dam-removal period 

Enhancement strategies during this period will emphasize the maintenance of hatcherybased populations. Hatchery facilities (in and out of basin) will have been modified and releases 

from these facilities will have begun. Water treatment and delivery systems will be online and 

treating water. Water quantity available for fish culture activities in the hatchery setting will be 

periodically limited by water treatment facility capacities. In-river environmental conditions in 

the lower river will be severely degraded and unsuitable for natural spawning. Hatchery 

production capabilities will be reduced from the previous period (resulting from water 

production limitations). Table 7 summarizes the restoration strategies for the dam-removal 

period. 

At low adult return levels, the enhancement program will prioritize release of yearling 

smolts. As adult numbers increase, restoration strategies will be expanded to include production 

and release of fish (subyearlings and yearlings) from alternate in-basin facilities as well as from 

the Morse Creek facility. Other expanded restoration strategies will include upper basin 

outplants of eyed eggs, fry, and subyearling smolts, yearling presmolts, and yearling smolts. 

Broodstock collection strategies for adult Chinook salmon during this period will include 

trapping of adult returns to the Elwha Channel and Morse Creek facilities, the interception and 

capture of adults at the in-river adult collection weir, and gaffing of adults on the spawning 

grounds. 

34
35

No directed commercial or recreational fisheries on Chinook salmon will occur during 

this time period. 

Post-dam-removal period 

Dam removal will have been completed at the start of this period. Turbidity levels in the 

river will have declined, the water treatment facility will have been taken off-line, and hatchery 

facilities will be receiving raw, untreated surface water. Hatchery production levels will no 

longer be limited by water availability during this period. Table 8 summarizes the restoration 

strategies for the post-dam-removal period. 

Hatchery-based restoration strategies will maximize on- and off-station fish production 

during this period. As the returning Chinook salmon adult population increases, restoration 

activities will expand to include outplanting of eyed eggs and fry, increased upriver outplanting 

of presmolts and smolts, and greater numbers of natural spawners throughout the basin. 

Assessments of fish response to changes in habitat quality and colonization by fish of new 

habitats will be critical to the management of these restoration programs. Out-of-basin release 

and captive brood programs will be phased out as turbidity in the lower basin stabilizes and as 

Elwha River fish populations return at consistent levels to the river. In-basin restoration 

programs will be phased out in response to successes (increases in natural production and as fish 

populations begin to achieve self-sustainability) and failures of the actions employed. As adult 

returns to the river increase, the use of alternate in-basin production will be phased out. 

Broodstock collection strategies for adult Chinook salmon during this period will include 

trapping of adult returns to the Elwha Channel and Morse Creek facilities, the interception and 

capture of adults at the in-river adult collection weir, and gaffing of adults on the spawning 

grounds. 

No directed commercial or recreational fisheries on Chinook salmon will occur during 

this time period. 
Table 6. Chinook salmon restoration strategies before dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Chinook production goal at adult escapem

Production facility Life history pattern Release location 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,0Elwha Channel Yearling smolts On-site 175,000 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,0Morse Creek Yearling smolts On-site 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,0

Elwha Channel Age-0 smolts On-site 555,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 2,550,0

Elwha Channel Natural spawners Elwha Basin 65 315 5

Potential egg production: 250,000 500,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 5,000,0

Table 7. Chinook salmon restoration strategies during dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Chinook production goal at adult escapem

Production facility Life history pattern Release location 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,0Elwha Channel Yearling smolts On-site 175,000 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,0Morse Creek Yearling smolts On-site 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,0

Elwha Channel Age-0 smolts Upper basin 250,000 250,000 500,0

Elwha Channel Age-0 smolts On-site 555,000 805,000 855,000 1,250,0Elwha Channel Natural spawners Elwha Basin 9

Potential egg production: 250,000 500,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 5,000,0

36

Table 8. Chinook salmon restoration strategies after dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Chinook production goal at adult escapem

Production facility Life history pattern Release location 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,00Elwha Channel Yearling smolts On-site 180,000 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,00Morse Creek Yearling smolts On-site 180,000 200,000 – – – 

Elwha Channel Age-0 smolts On-site 500,000 546,000 805,000 2,200,00Elwha Channel Age-0 smolts Upper basin 120,000 250,000 500,00

Elwha Channel Yearling smolts Upper basin 100,000 200,000 200,00

Elwha Channel Natural spawners Elwha Basin 250 250 250 49

Potential egg production: 250,000 500,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 5,000,00
Winter Steelhead Proposed Restoration Approach 

An aggregate winter and summer steelhead population, influenced by past out-of-basinorigin hatchery steelhead introductions, currently occupies the Elwha River below Elwha Dam. 

The early returning portion (December through March) of the winter steelhead population is 

currently supported by LEKT hatchery production, with an annual release target of 120,000 

smolts. This hatchery run is an admixture of native Elwha River stock and nonnative Chambers 

Creek stock. The hatchery stock has a significantly earlier run timing than the later, naturalorigin portion of the winter run, and has been found to be genetically similar to the Chambers 

Creek stock (Reisenbichler and Phelps 1989). The proposed steelhead restoration strategy 

emphasizes development of broodstock based on the late-timed, natural-origin component of 

winter steelhead and natural recolonization by upriver rainbow trout populations. Production of 

the existing hatchery-origin population of winter steelhead will be maintained at the LEKT 

hatchery to provide recreational and commercial harvest opportunities, but will be managed to 

avoid conflict with recovery of the natural-origin component and may be phased out over time. 

Stock Targeted for Enhancement 

The primary stock targeted for recovery efforts is the late-timed, natural-origin 

component of winter steelhead, which exhibit an April to June spawn timing. These fish are 

believed to retain the genetic signature of the native Elwha steelhead stock.3

 Additionally, 

upriver rainbow trout are expected to secondarily contribute to natural recolonization of the river. 

Upriver rainbow have been observed to exhibit smolting behavior (Hiss and Wunderlich 1994a), 

with pockets of native-origin stock persisting (Phelps et al. 2001). The hatchery-maintained 

Chambers Creek steelhead will not be incorporated into the recovery plan. 

Stock Status 

The naturally spawning winter steelhead stock in the Elwha River is thought to be in 

relatively poor condition. Limited spawner escapement surveys conducted since 2002 have 

documented an average of 50–100 redds per year (LEKT 2006). In 2005 61 discrete redds were 

identified in the lower river. In past years, annual run-size forecasts were generated from 

hatchery returns and commercial harvest scale analyses. The forecasted natural return was 

approximately 75 fish in 2002. In more recent years, escapements of naturally produced Elwha 

River adult steelhead ranged between 100 and 200 fish, based on forecasted abundance levels. 

Self-sustaining populations of rainbow trout are known to occur above the Elwha Dam. 

These populations are thought to originate from native steelhead and rainbow trout populations 

isolated above the dams after their construction, as well as progeny from past fish planting 

efforts. Rainbow trout from the McCloud River in California were widely propagated 

throughout Washington, and the Elwha River is known to have received a series of outplants 

from Goldendale Hatchery in eastern Washington (Phelps et al. 2001). Smolt outmigration 

trapping operations conducted during the 1990s captured a number of fish that appeared to 

express the characteristics of outmigrating steelhead smolts (Hiss and Wunderlich 1994a). 

 

3

 G. Winans, NWFSC, Seattle, WA. Pers. commun., 28 February 2007.

37
An analysis of the genetic relationship of seven populations of resident rainbow trout 

from within the Elwha River above Elwha Dam showed evidence of successful natural 

reproduction by hatchery-origin rainbow trout (with the exception of the South Branch Little 

River population) (Phelps et al. 2001). These fish are likely descendants of past hatchery 

outplanting efforts, including rainbow trout that originated from California (McCloud River). 

Despite these effects, the genetic attributes of all steelhead collections in the Elwha River 

differed significantly from hatchery and natural populations of Washington steelhead (Phelps et 

al. 2001). The population collected from the headwaters of the Little River was most closely 

related to wild winter run Washington steelhead and may therefore be a landlocked descendant 

of native Elwha River steelhead (Phelps et al. 2001). 

Harvest Status 

No directed harvest currently occurs on the native steelhead stock. A small portion of the 

run is taken each year during fisheries that target hatchery winter steelhead. Fisheries for 

hatchery steelhead end no later than 28 February each year. 

Hatchery Enhancement Efforts 

LEKT initiated an artificial propagation program using the native late-returning winter 

steelhead population as broodstock beginning in 2005. The program is directed at the 

preservation and restoration of the native stock and will operate parallel to the existing Chambers 

Creek lineage steelhead program that the tribe operates for harvest augmentation purposes. 

Escapement Level 

Average estimated run size for this stock is 333 fish (based on a 12-year average). 

Annual run sizes are estimated to have ranged between 100 and 200 adult fish in more recent 

years. 

Projected Hatchery Facility Use 

Enhancement efforts are taking place at the Lower Elwha Hatchery. 

Summary 

A summary of the Elwha River winter steelhead restoration strategies includes: 

• captive brood program development 

• on-station releases of yearling smolts 

• upstream passage of adults for natural spawning 

• planting of eyed eggs 

• outplanting of fry, presmolts, yearling smolts, and 2-year-old smolts in upstream 

locations 

38
The strategies described for steelhead in this plan are intended to be adaptive, changing 

based on observed responses of the steelhead population. Therefore, if certain strategies prove to 

be unsuccessful, they may be discontinued at any time in favor of options that are more likely to 

produce a healthy, naturally self-sustaining spawning population. 

The steelhead population in the Elwha River is included as part of the Puget Sound 

steelhead ESU that was proposed for listing as “threatened” under the federal ESA on 29 March 

2006 (NMFS 2006). The hatchery population derived from late-timed, natural-origin steelhead 

and produced for use in restoration is included in the ESU and is therefore also proposed for 

protection under the act. The Puget Sound steelhead ESU was listed as a threatened species 

under the ESA on 11 May 2007 (NMFS 2007). 

Phasing of Winter Steelhead Restoration Strategies 

Pre-dam-removal period 

Restoration activities during this period emphasize capturing and developing a population 

of late-timed, natural-origin steelhead capable of returning to the hatchery facility. Enhancement 

efforts will include both the production of yearlings (1- and 2-year-old fish) and development of 

a captive brood program to accelerate egg and smolt availability. Hatchery facilities during this 

time will be limited by both space (incubation and rearing) and water quantity. Broodstock 

required to sustain this program will be acquired either through mainstem river capture and 

transport of adult fish to hatchery facilities for maturation and spawning, or through hydraulic 

mining of redds for fry or eggs. Throughout this phase, sport and commercial harvests of winter 

steelhead will continue to be limited to only the early returning hatchery-based stock. Table 9 

summarizes the restoration strategies for the pre-dam-removal period. 

At low adult return levels (<100 adults), enhancement will emphasize the release of 

smolts from the Lower Elwha Hatchery and captive brood. As adult return numbers increase, 

enhancement strategies will be expanded to include planting of eyed eggs, the release of 

presmolts and fry, and the release of adults to permit natural spawning. 

Broodstock collection strategies for winter steelhead during this period will include 

mining of redds to acquire eggs and fry, trapping of adult fish using a weir spanning the 

mainstem river, hook and line capture of adults at the base of the Elwha Dam, gillnet capture in 

the mainstem river (stationary and driftnet), and trapping of adult returns to the tribal hatchery 

facility on the lower Elwha River. Hydraulic redd sampling to retrieve developing eggs and 

alevins from naturally produced redds will be limited to a small proportion of each redd’s total 

production (limit of 250 eggs or alevins per redd). 

The production of Chambers Creek stock to support harvest opportunity will continue at 

existing levels up to the year prior to dam removal. At that time, production will be ramped back 

to maintenance levels (20,000–40,000 fish per year). 

Dam-removal period 

Enhancement strategies will mimic those employed during the pre-dam-removal period. 

Due to projected adverse environmental conditions, expectations for successful natural spawning 

39
40

of adults in the lower basin are not programmed into the list of enhancement strategies for this 

phase. Table 10 summarizes the restoration strategies for the dam-removal period. 

Broodstock collection strategies for winter steelhead during this period will include 

trapping of adult fish using a weir spanning the mainstem river, hook and line capture of adults at 

selected locations throughout the Elwha River basin, gillnet capture in the mainstem river 

(stationary and driftnet), and trapping of adult returns to the tribal hatchery facility on the lower 

Elwha River. Redd pumping will continue to be used for egg and alevin collection; however, 

environmental conditions (turbidity) may preclude this method. 

The hatchery production of Chambers Creek stock will be maintained at maintenance 

levels during the entire dam-removal period, as no fisheries are expected. 

Post-dam-removal period 

During this phase, dam removal will have been completed, the period of greatest turbidity 

will have passed, the shared water treatment facility will have been taken off-line, hatchery 

facilities will be receiving raw surface water, and hatchery production levels will no longer be 

limited by water availability. Table 11 summarizes the restoration strategies for the post-damremoval period. 

Enhancement strategies at low adult return numbers will emphasize the release of smolts 

and presmolts from the hatchery. As adult return numbers increase, restoration strategies 

employed will be expanded to include providing upstream passage of adults, outplanting of eyed 

eggs, and the upstream release of fry, presmolts, and smolts. Hatchery production proposed for 

this period will be phased out over time as the natural-origin population increases to a healthy, 

self-sustaining level. 

During this time, sport and commercial harvests will target the early timed component of 

the run. Harvest of the late-timed component will begin based on stock status assessments that 

demonstrate achievement by the stock of a population size capable of supporting a directed 

harvest effort. 

Redd pumping may still be used to collect eggs and alevins from the naturally spawning 

population. The need to collect eggs and alevins from redds to sustain the hatchery program may 

be reduced, as it is expected that late-run fish needed as broodstock will begin to return directly 

to the hatchery in addition to spawning naturally in the restored river channel. Other collection 

strategies for adult winter steelhead during this period will include a capture weir, hook and line 

capture of adults at selected locations throughout the Elwha River basin, and gillnet collection 

(stationary and driftnet). 

The production of Chambers Creek stock will be maintained to support fishing 

opportunities in the Elwha River such that it does not interfere with recovery efforts for the 

native steelhead stock. Production goals and fisheries will be carefully evaluated and monitored 

according to the Monitoring and Adaptive Management section of this report. Changes shall be 

made to the program if it appears that natural recolonization is being hindered. 
Table 9. Winter steelhead restoration strategies before dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Winter steelhead production goal at adult esc

Production Facility Life history pattern Release location 100 500 1,000 1,500 Lower Elwha Yearling smolts On-site 102,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 

Lower Elwha Natural spawners Lower Elwha Basin 100 577 1,077 

Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Upper basin 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Lower Elwha Fry Upper basin 220,000 250,000 250,000 Lower Elwha Presmolts Upper basin 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Potential egg production: 150,000 750,000 1,500,000 2,250,000 

Table 10. Winter steelhead restoration strategies during dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Winter steelhead production goal at adult esc

Production Facility Life history pattern Release location 100 500 1,000 1,500 Lower Elwha Yearling smolts On-site 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Lower Elwha Natural spawners Lower basin 39 537 1,037 

Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Upper basin 100,000 100,000 100,000 Lower Elwha Fry Upper basin 272,000 275,000 275,000 

Lower Elwha Presmolts Upper basin 22,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Lower Elwha Yearling smolts Upper basin 25,000 25,000 25,000 

Lower Elwha 2-year-old smolts Upper basin 15,000 15,000 15,000 

Potential egg production: 150,000 750,000 1,500,000 2,250,000 

41

Table 11. Winter steelhead restoration strategies after dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Winter steelhead production goal at adult esc

Production Facility Life history pattern Release Location 100 500 1,000 1,500 Lower Elwha Yearling smolts On-site 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Lower Elwha Natural spawners Elwha Basin 37 537 1,037 

Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Upper basin 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Lower Elwha Fry Upper basin 275,000 275,000 275,000 

Lower Elwha Presmolts Upper basin 22,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Lower Elwha Yearling smolts Upper basin 25,000 25,000 25,000 

Lower Elwha 2-year old smolts Upper basin 15,000 15,000 15,000 

Potential egg production: 150,000 750,000 1,500,000 2,250,000 
Program Implementation 

Project background 

The Elwha Fisheries Technical Group—comprised of state, federal, and tribal agency 

biologists who collectively developed responses to technical questions during the planning stages 

for dam removal—identified the late-timed natural-origin steelhead population as being most 

appropriate for post-dam-removal supplementation efforts in the Elwha River basin. LEKT has 

maintained a hatchery steelhead program at its facility since the late 1970s. The program was 

initiated using eggs transferred from federal hatcheries on the Quinault and Columbia rivers. 

The tribe currently produces 120,000 yearling hatchery smolts at its facility. These early timed 

fish were likely of Chambers Creek origin and therefore are not targeted for use in steelhead 

restoration efforts following dam removal. 

A combination of strategies will be used to restore Elwha winter steelhead. These 

strategies include 1) reducing outplants of nonnative steelhead prior to dam removal, 2) 

developing conservation hatchery rearing and release strategies using remnant wild steelhead 

stocks, and 3) an assumed, unknown level of contribution of anadromous smolts from upriver 

rainbow trout populations. 

Project development and implementation 

In May–June 2005 LEKT staff in cooperation with WDFW hatchery staff initiated a 

redd-pumping effort designed primarily to capture fish for genetic analysis. Weekly surveys of 

the river below Elwha Dam were conducted between 1 April and 15 June to identify steelhead 

redds. Results of these surveys confirm that the late-timed component of Elwha River steelhead 

population is at very low abundance. In 2005 a total of 61 discrete redds were identified, 

distributed over fairly limited spawning habitat. Of the 61 redds identified, at least eight were 

dewatered during extreme low flow conditions that occurred. For each identified redd, the date 

of creation was estimated as well as the rate of egg development based on river temperature. 

A total of 30 redds were pumped between 26 April and 22 June (Figures 7 through 9). 

Approximately 1,200 eyed eggs and alevin were successfully obtained from 22 redds. Eggs and 

alevin from each redd were treated as individual families and reared in vertical incubators at the 

LEKT hatchery. As eggs and alevin developed to fry they were transferred to individual rearing 

tanks as families. When fry reached a minimum length of 65 mm, they were photographed, 

weighed, measured, sampled for genetic material, and tagged with a unique passive integrated 

transponder (PIT) tag. Once tagged, individual families can be reared together in a larger rearing 

tank and subsequently released as smolts or retained as captive brood. 

Interagency consultation 

On 20 October 2005, LEKT staff met with staff from NWFSC and ONP to discuss the 

ongoing wild steelhead (late-timed, natural-origin) program and provide LEKT staff with 

program recommendations. Active and passive management approaches were considered, and it 

was recommended that for active management the tribe implement a two-prong strategy that 

42
Figure 7. Redds being pumped. A pump discharge wand is inserted into the gravel egg pocket. An 

hydraulic discharge gently forces eggs and fry upwards from the egg pocket into the capture net. 

Figure 8. Eggs and fry evacuated from the redd collect in the downstream portions of the capture net. 

The turbid downstream discharge from the pump site leaves the redd site free for capture of eggs 

and fry. 

included reductions in outplanting of nonnative early timed steelhead (Chambers Creek origin) 

along with development of conservation hatchery rearing and release using the late-timed run. 

Such a program has been implemented on the Hamma Hamma River, combining a hatchery 

supplementation program (captive brood) with novel conservation elements (Berejikian et al. 

43
Figure 9. Captured eggs and fry awaiting transport to the hatchery for rearing. 

unpubl. manuscr.). This program, though not yet thoroughly evaluated, shows some promise in 

conserving and rebuilding unique depleted stocks. 

For the Elwha River, fisheries scientists are faced with few other options for rebuilding 

native steelhead populations. The remaining late-timed run is at a very low population level and 

may not survive dam removal. Remnant upstream populations of rainbow trout (above the 

dams) are thought to retain some traits of anadromy (Hiss and Wunderlich 1994a) and will be 

used as a form of passive restoration. Thrower and Joyce (2004) suggest, although marine 

survival of resident rainbow smolts derived from an anadromous population in Alaska was low, 

that significant numbers of smolts and adults can still be produced by populations landlocked for 

up to 70 years. 

Based on these discussions it was recommended that LEKT continue redd pumping 

programs targeting the late-timed steelhead populations at least through 2008 and perhaps 

beyond, depending on the start date for demolition of the dams. Pumping programs have been 

designed to maximize genetic history and minimize effects on extant wild steelhead populations 

until dam removal begins. It is anticipated that dam removal will occur within the next 3–5 

years. Were dam removal to be initiated in 2009 as originally planned, impacts associated with 

accelerated sediment releases would have negatively affected future broodyears beginning in 

2005 (Figure 10). Beginning with the 2005 broodyear, the tribe has reduced its outplanting of 

early timed Chambers Creek–origin steelhead to 45,000. With these changes in hatchery 

management, the work group identified a suite of options to consider for wild winter steelhead 

restoration for the Elwha River, including: 

• develop a captive brood program with a target of 200 adults per year 

• eventual spawning of captive brood (broodyear + 4) followed by kelt reconditioning and 

release 

44
2005 by

2006 by

r

2007 by

aey

2008 by

do

2009 by

orB

2010 by

2011 by

2012 by

Dam removal Elevated turbidity

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Year

Secondary saltwater rearing and repeat spawners

Egg incubation

Primary saltwater rearing

Freshwater rearing

Figure 10. Life history versus dam removal timing for Elwha River wild steelhead based on a previous 

2009–2012 timetable for dam removal. 

• continued monitoring of natural spawning populations 

• smolt release into the Elwha River and into an alternate drainage—either Morse or Ennis 

creeks 

Assuming the original schedule, the work group also identified and proposed these 

specific strategies by broodyear: 1) the 2005 broodyear will have wild siblings returning to the 

Elwha River in 2009 and 2) the work group will PIT tag 100% of fish, retain 200 fish to hold as 

captive brood, conduct genetic analysis on all fish, and release remaining fish as smolts 

(approximately 750 fish) into the Elwha River. For the 2006, 2007, and 2008 brood years, the 

strategy was to maximize the number of redds represented in the hatchery, target a maximum 

capture of 10,000 eggs and fry, limit removal of eggs from individual redds to 250 with 

minimum target of 40 redds, PIT tag 100% of fish brought into the hatchery, retain 200 fish to 

hold as captive brood, conduct genetic analysis on all fish, and release remaining fish as smolts 

into the Elwha River and alternative drainage. 

45
Summer Steelhead Proposed Restoration Approach 

Summer steelhead levels are considered depressed, primarily due to the loss of access to 

upriver habitat. Escapement of naturally produced summer steelhead is unknown, but is 

estimated at less than 100 fish per year. Annual releases of Skamania stock in the lower basin by 

WDFW were discontinued in 2001. It is not known if these releases successfully interbred with 

native Elwha summer steelhead. 

Stock Targeted for Enhancement 

Summer steelhead restoration will rely completely on natural recolonization. The 

existing lower river population is the primary restoration stock, while native rainbow trout 

populations isolated above the dams may represent a genetic reserve. 

Stock Status 

The status of the summer steelhead population in the Elwha River is unknown but 

suspected to be at critically low levels. WDFW planted hatchery-origin (Skamania) summer 

steelhead in the Elwha River for many years. This effort was discontinued in 2001. No efforts 

have been made to formally document the escapement of summer steelhead within the Elwha 

River. 

Harvest Status 

For catch accounting purposes, steelhead returning to the Elwha River from 1 May to 31 

October are assumed to be summer fish. With the elimination of the summer steelhead hatchery 

program, no fisheries remain targeting summer steelhead. Incidental mortality may occur during 

recreational and commercial coho fisheries in late September and October. 

Escapement Level 

Average estimated run size for this stock is less than 100 fish. 

Coho Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach 

Elwha River coho salmon are a mixed-origin stock of composite production associated 

with hatchery facilities in the lower Elwha River. The river has been heavily planted with outof-basin hatchery coho salmon, beginning in the early 1950s and continuing to the 1970s 

(WDFW and WWTIT 1994). Artificial production of the current hatchery stock began with 

Dungeness and Elwha parents at the WDFW facility in the mid-1970s, but now occurs only at 

the tribal facility. No genetic analysis has been completed for Elwha River coho to date; 

however, LEKT, in conjunction with Gary Winans of NWFSC, initiated genetic work in the fall 

of 2005. 

46
Stock Targeted for Enhancement 

The existing in-basin mixed-origin population has been identified as the preferred stock 

for enhancement activities. In the event of a failure of this stock, Dungeness River coho salmon 

will be used to supplement Elwha River–origin fish. 

Stock Status 

The coho stock status is considered healthy (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). 

Harvest Status 

Preterminal fisheries targeting Elwha River coho salmon are managed primarily to meet 

the objectives for wild coho salmon production in other Strait of Juan de Fuca streams. 

Exploitation was limited to a target rate of 40% and a forecasted exploitation rate of 11.6% for 

natural stocks in 2005 (PNPTC et al. 2005). The objective of the Lower Elwha Hatchery coho 

salmon program is to augment harvests of returning adult fish in in-river commercial and 

recreational fisheries, which are managed to meet hatchery broodstock escapement needs. The 

2005 total forecasted exploitation rate for Elwha coho salmon was about 50%, with a forecasted 

in-river exploitation rate of about 30%. 

Hatchery Enhancement Efforts 

The current hatchery program for Elwha coho salmon is operated for commercial and 

recreational fisheries harvest augmentation purposes. The egg-take goal for the program is 

currently 1.2 million, with an annual release goal of 750,000 yearling smolts. 

Escapement Level 

Terminal run size of Elwha River coho salmon has ranged from 2,000 to 10,000 fish in 

the last decade. An escapement goal of 1,250 fish to the LEKT hatchery and 250 natural 

spawners has been established (PNPTC et al. 2003). The 2005 run-size estimate for Elwha coho 

salmon was 9,865, with an escapement of 4,768 and a harvest of 5,097 fish. The composition of 

Elwha River coho salmon stock is 90.5% hatchery origin and 9.5% natural-origin (PNPTC et al. 

2005). 

Projected Hatchery Facility Use 

The Lower Elwha Hatchery will be used for coho salmon restoration efforts. 

Summary 

A summary of the Elwha River coho salmon restoration strategies includes: 

• on-station releases of yearling smolts 

• natural spawning of adults 

• planting of eyed eggs 

• outplanting of fry, presmolts, and smolts in off-station locations 

47
48

The strategies described for coho salmon in this plan are intended to be adaptive, 

changing based on observed responses of the coho salmon population. Therefore, if certain 

strategies prove to be unsuccessful, they may be discontinued at any time in favor of options that 

are more likely to produce a healthy, naturally spawning population. All enhancement activities 

for restoration purposes are expected to discontinue when natural production is sufficient to 

achieve recovery goals. 

Phasing of Coho Restoration Strategies 

Pre-dam-removal period 

Enhancement activities for coho salmon will focus on maintaining the existing hatchery 

program. Hatchery facilities will be undergoing modification and water treatment facilities and 

delivery systems will be constructed during this time to meet production goals. Fish production 

will be maintained at historic levels, emphasizing release of smolts from the Lower Elwha 

Hatchery. Recreational and commercial harvests will be maintained at current levels. Table 12 

summarizes the restoration strategies for the pre-dam-removal period. Broodstock collection 

strategies for adult coho salmon during this period will be restricted to collection of adults 

returning to the tribal and WDFW hatchery facilities in the Elwha River. 

Dam-removal period 

In-river environmental conditions in the lower river will likely be severely degraded and 

may be unsuitable for spawning. Therefore, enhancement strategies during this time will be to 

maintain the hatchery-based population. Modifications to hatchery facilities and construction of 

water treatment and delivery systems will be completed during this period. Water availability 

will be limited periodically by the water treatment facility capacity, which will require coho 

salmon production levels to be reduced to that supported by the water availability. Table 13 

summarizes the restoration strategies for the dam-removal period. 

Enhancement will emphasize hatchery release of yearling smolts at low return levels. 

However, the enhancement program will expand to include passage of adults upstream, outplants 

of eyed eggs, and the upriver outplants of fry, presmolts, and yearling smolts as numbers of 

returning adults increase. 

Adult coho salmon will be collected at the tribal and WDFW hatchery facilities in the 

Elwha River and by using gill nets at selected locations throughout the Elwha River basin. Sport 

and commercial harvest of Elwha coho will be suspended during the restoration period. 

Post-dam-removal period 

It is assumed that during this period dam removal will have been completed, the period of 

greatest turbidity will have passed, the water treatment facility will have been taken off-line, 

hatchery facilities will be receiving raw surface water, and water availability will no longer limit 

hatchery production levels. Table 14 summarizes the restoration strategies for the post-damremoval period.
Table 12. Coho salmon restoration strategies before dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Production Coho production at adult escapement levels facility

Life history pattern Release location 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 7,500 

Lower Elwha Yearling smolts On-site 225,000 450,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 

Fishery 166 666 1,166 4,166 6,666 

Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Mid, low basin Lower Elwha Fry Mid, low basin 

Lower Elwha Presmolts Mid, low basin 

Lower Elwha Yearling smolts Mid, low basin 

Potential egg production: 312,500 625,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 6,250,000 9,375,000 

Table 13. Coho salmon restoration strategies during dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Production Coho production at adult escapement levels Facility

Life history pattern Release location 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 7,500 

Lower Elwha Yearling smolts On-site 225,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 

Natural spawners Upper basin 110 531 1,031 4,031 6,531 

Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Mid, low basin 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Lower Elwha Fry Mid, low basin 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 

Lower Elwha Presmolts Mid, low basin 15,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 

Lower Elwha Yearling Smolts Mid, low basin 10,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 

Potential egg production: 312,500 625,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 6,250,000 9,375,000 

49

Table 14. Coho restoration strategies after dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Production Coho production at adult escapement levels Facility

Life history pattern Release location 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 7,500 

Lower Elwha Yearling smolts On-site 225,000 425,000 425,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 

Natural spawners Upper basin 286 425 845 2,345 3,845 

Fishery 1,500 2,500 

Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Mid, low basin 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Lower Elwha Fry Mid, low basin 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 

Lower Elwha Presmolts Mid, low basin 15,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 

Lower Elwha Yearling smolts Mid, low basin 10,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 

Potential egg production: 312,500 625,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 6,250,000 9,375,000 
The production of juvenile coho salmon from hatcheries will be increased to maximize 

use of the facilities for coho salmon population restoration purposes. As adult return numbers 

increase, enhancement activities will be expanded to include fry outplants, increased upriver 

outplanting of presmolts and smolts, and plants of eyed eggs and greater numbers of natural 

spawners throughout the basin. The hatchery enhancement program will be phased out in 

response to increases in natural-origin spawning as the population achieves self-sustainability. 

Adult coho salmon will be collected at the tribal and WDFW hatchery facilities in the 

Elwha River and by using gill nets at selected locations throughout the Elwha River basin. 

Sport and commercial harvest of Elwha coho will be implemented as hatchery and 

natural escapement goals for the basin are met. 

Chum Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach 

Chum salmon in the Elwha River are considered a native, wild-origin stock (WDFW and 

WTIT 1994) with a fall run timing. The Lower Elwha Hatchery produced chum salmon 

beginning in 1975 (Walcott Slough Hood Canal fall stock) but the program was discontinued in 

1985. Historic spawner estimates placed population size at many thousands, likely the second 

most abundant species in the river. Spawner surveys in 1993–1995 indicated the population had 

declined to 150–300 adults (Hiss 1995). The LEKT Fisheries Department has conducted a 

broodstock preservation program since 1994. This effort involves collecting 25–40 male and 

female spawning pairs annually, incubating their fertilized eggs to the eyed stage at the Lower 

Elwha Hatchery, and transporting eyed eggs to stream-side incubator boxes within side-channel 

habitats in the lower river for hatching and release of unfed fry. 

Stock Targeted for Enhancement 

The existing in-basin native stock has been identified as the preferred stock for 

enhancement activities. Elwha fall chum salmon have two distinct run-timing components—an 

early population (October-November) thought to be the native stock and a later-entering 

population (December) that is genetically similar to Hood Canal populations (Wunderlich et al. 

1994). It is thought this later component is the remnant of the hatchery-origin population reared 

at the Lower Elwha Hatchery during the 1980s. 

Stock Status 

The status of the Elwha chum salmon stock is considered critical. 

Harvest Status 

No harvest is currently directed at Elwha chum salmon, though some incidental harvest 

occurs in terminal commercial and sport coho fisheries. During the 2003 coho salmon harvest 

season, the anticipated incidental in-river exploitation rate for chum was 2.4%. 

50
Hatchery Enhancement Efforts 

The current hatchery program for Elwha chum salmon is designed for stock maintenance 

and restoration. Ripe adults captured in the river are spawned and their eggs are brought into the 

hatchery and incubated to the eyed stage. Eyed eggs are transported for incubation in streamside incubator boxes located in side-channel habitats to imprint the chum salmon to river areas 

suitable for natural chum salmon production. After hatching, incubator-produced fry emigrate 

seaward into lower river, estuarine, and nearshore marine areas in the Strait of Juan de Fuca to 

rear. 

Projected Hatchery Facility Use 

Enhancement efforts will take place at the Lower Elwha Hatchery and at the WDFW 

Elwha rearing channel. 

Summary 

Chum salmon proposed strategies are based on the following production assumptions. 

Sex ratio is 50:50. Fecundity is 3,000 eggs per female. Survival rates are 90% to eyed stage and 

80% to age-0 smolt. 

A summary of the Elwha River chum salmon restoration strategies includes: 

• on-station release of age-0 smolts 

• alternate in-basin hatchery releases of age-0 smolts 

• planting of eyed eggs in lower and middle Elwha Basin locations 

• natural spawning of adults 

• outplanting of fry in upstream locations 

The strategies described for chum salmon in this plan are intended to be adaptive, with 

changes based on observed responses of the chum salmon population. Therefore, if certain 

strategies prove to be unsuccessful, they may be discontinued at any time in favor of options that 

are more likely to produce a healthy, naturally spawning population. All enhancement activities 

for restoration purposes are expected to discontinue when natural production is sufficient to 

achieve recovery goals. 

Phasing of Chum Salmon Restoration Strategies 

Pre-dam-removal period 

Enhancement activities for chum salmon will focus on increasing the population size of 

the composite chum salmon population produced by and returning to the Lower Elwha Hatchery 

and the WDFW Elwha rearing channel. Hatchery facilities will be undergoing modification to 

accommodate new fish production needed for restoration. Water treatment facilities and delivery 

systems will be constructed during this time to meet production goals. Table 15 summarizes the 

restoration strategies for the pre-dam-removal period. 

51
52

Broodstock collection strategies for adult chum salmon during this period include in-river 

gillnet collection and the collection of adults returning to the tribal hatchery. Fish production 

strategies will emphasize release of age-0 smolts from the facilities. No harvests will be directed 

at Elwha River chum salmon during this period. 

Dam-removal period 

Enhancement activities for chum salmon will focus on increasing the population size of 

the composite chum salmon population only at the Lower Elwha Hatchery. During this period, 

modifications to hatchery facilities and water treatment and delivery systems will be complete, 

although water availability will be periodically limited to the water treatment facility capacity. 

In-river environmental conditions in the lower river will be severely degraded and will be 

unsuitable for spawning. Chum salmon production levels will be limited in response to the 

availability of rearing space and water (due to the treatment capacity of the shared water 

treatment facility). At low return levels, enhancement will emphasize hatchery release of age-0 

smolts. With increased adult return numbers, the enhancement program will expand to include 

outplants of eyed eggs, passage of adults upstream, and upriver outplants of fry. Table 16 

summarizes the restoration strategies for the dam removal period. 

Collection strategies for adult chum salmon during this period will include in-river gillnet 

collection and the collection of adults returning to the tribal hatchery. No harvests will be 

allowed on Elwha River chum salmon during this period. 

Post-dam-removal period 

It is assumed that during this period, dam removal has been completed, the period of 

greatest turbidity will have passed, the water treatment facility will have been taken off-line, 

hatchery facilities will be receiving raw surface water, and hatchery production levels will be no 

longer limited by water availability. Based on these assumptions, restoration strategies will 

emphasize the continued hatchery production of age-0 smolts and outplanting eyed eggs 

throughout the basin. Returning adults will be encouraged to spawn naturally throughout the 

basin. Hatchery enhancement of chum salmon will be phased out in response to increases in 

natural-origin spawning as the population begins to achieve self-sustainability. Table 17 

summarizes the restoration strategies for the post-dam-removal period. 

Collection strategies for adult chum salmon during this period will include the collection 

of adults returning to the tribal hatchery and in-river gillnet collection. 

Sport and commercial harvest of Elwha chum may be implemented if hatchery and 

natural escapement goals are met. The benefit of escaping an abundance of chum salmon into 

upstream spawning areas as a mechanism for enhancing marine-derived nutrients in the Elwha 

River ecosystem will be factored in any consideration of chum salmon–directed harvests in 

fisheries. 
Table 15. Chum salmon restoration strategies before dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Chum Salmon Production Goal at Adult E

Production Facility Life history pattern Release location 50 100 200 500 Lower Elwha Age-0 smolts On-site 31,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75WDFW Age-0 smolts On-site 40,000 100,000 450,000 450Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Lower/middle Elwha Basin 75,000 100,000 100

Lower Elwha Natural spawners Lower basin 

Lower Elwha Age-0 smolts Elwha Basin 

Potential egg production: 37,500 150,000 300,000 750,000 1,125

Table 16. Chum salmon restoration strategies during dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Chum Salmon Production Goal at Adult E

Production Facility Life history pattern Release location 50 100 200 500 Lower Elwha Age-0 smolts On-site 31,000 75,000 165,000 500,000 650Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Lower basin 100,000 100,000 100

Lower Elwha Natural spawners Lower basin 20 

Lower Elwha Age-0 smolts Elwha Basin 

Potential egg production: 37,500 150,000 300,000 750,000 1,125

53

Table 17. Chum salmon restoration strategies after dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Chum Salmon Production Goal at Adult E

Production Facility Life history pattern Release location 50 100 200 500 Lower Elwha Age-0 smolts On-site 31,000 120,000 240,000 300,000 300Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Lower basin 250,000 250

Lower Elwha Natural spawners Lower basin 83 

Lower Elwha Age-0 smolts Elwha Basin 

Potential egg production: 37,500 150,000 300,000 750,000 1,125
Pink Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach 

Elwha River pink salmon populations declined to critical levels following dam 

construction and subsequent river channelization and flood control efforts. Pink salmon 

historically were the most numerous salmonid in the Elwha River and their recovery is critical to 

the overall success of the restoration effort. The historic Elwha River pink salmon population is 

estimated to have numbered in the hundreds of thousands of adult fish. Although given a small 

average weight as adults (1–2.5 kg), the sheer numbers of fish provided large amounts of marinederived nutrients to the Elwha ecosystem. Pink salmon have the least amount of life history 

variation of all Pacific salmon, with a two-year life and only brief residency in freshwater (Hard 

et al. 1996). Pink salmon are also unique among the Pacific salmon in that they are the smallest 

yet most abundant, have generally limited freshwater migrations, have the fewest number of 

chromosomes, and are reproductively isolated by their two-year life history (Groot and Margolis 

1991). 

As throughout almost all of Puget Sound, the odd-year cycle is dominant in the Elwha. 

However, small numbers of pink salmon are occasionally observed in the Elwha River on the 

even-year cycle. Two life history patterns are presumed for Elwha pink salmon: an early timed 

(summer) entry associated with upriver spawning populations and a later timed (fall) population 

associated with lower river spawning habitats. While pink salmon have not had access to the 

upper Elwha River in nearly 100 years, this entry timing pattern persists today and is similar to 

pink salmon populations in the adjacent Dungeness River. 

Remarkably, Elwha populations of pink salmon were considered extirpated by the late 

1980s. However, the recent discovery of what appears to be a persistent population and new 

genetic analysis of tissue collected in 2001 and 2003 (Small 2004) indicate Elwha River pink 

salmon are a unique population and genetically distinct from neighboring Puget Sound pink 

salmon populations. This information supports a renewed effort to conserve and rebuild native 

Elwha pink salmon stocks through dam removal. Because of the very low numbers of pink 

salmon and the potential for impacts from elevated sediment yield during and following dam 

removal, maintenance of the native gene pool through a captive brood program will be the 

highest priority for this species. 

Genetic Diversity 

Genetic analysis indicates pink salmon populations around the Pacific Rim tend to 

separate by three broad groups: 1) Asia, 2) Alaska and northern British Columbia, and 3) 

southern British Columbia and Washington (Beacham et al. 1985, 1988, Shaklee et al. 1991). 

These regional populations appear to be subdivided as well. For southern British Columbia and 

Washington populations, Hard et al. (1996) concluded there are four distinct groups of odd-year 

spawners: 1) Olympic Peninsula, 2) southern British Columbia, 3) Puget Sound, and 4) Fraser 

River. The highest levels of genetic diversity are associated with populations from the Olympic 

Peninsula. Hard et al. (1996) noted Olympic Peninsula pink salmon populations are at the 

southern end of the species range and may be critical to maintaining the overall integrity of the 

Puget Sound population as a whole. It should be noted that at the time of these analyses, Elwha 

pink populations were considered extirpated and tissue was not included in any of the analyses. 

54
Additional genetic analysis of Olympic Peninsula pink salmon populations has recently 

been completed. Small (2004) used microsatellite DNA techniques to compare populations of 

pink salmon from the Elwha (summer and fall), Dungeness (summer and fall), and Morse Creek. 

Elwha River and Morse Creek pink salmon collections were genetically differentiated from each 

other and genetically differentiated from Dungeness River summer and fall pink salmon stocks. 

Conservation Strategy 

The existing Elwha River stock will be utilized in a captive brood program in order to 

maintain native gene pools and to develop future sources of broodstock to colonize restored 

habitats. The native, odd-year Elwha River pink salmon population is the preferred stock for use 

in restoration, given recent information indicating it is genetically distinct from other Puget 

Sound pink salmon populations. The population is currently at very low abundance levels (<200 

adults) and may not survive sedimentation impacts associated with dam removal. If this were to 

occur, restoration options would be limited to two alternatives: natural recolonization or the 

reintroduction of pink salmon using a nonnative stock. 

Natural recolonization through straying is considered a viable alternative and will be 

monitored in the Elwha River through spawning ground surveys and tissue (microsatellite DNA) 

analysis. However, straying of pink salmon populations appears to be somewhat of a paradox. 

While the species is known to readily invade habitats in large numbers, such as those recently 

exposed by deglaciation in Glacier Bay, Alaska (Milner and York 2001), and following 35 years 

of blockage from the upper Fraser River (Vernon 1966), their overall straying rate is thought to 

be low (Quinn 1993). An experimental movement of returning hatchery adults found that 91% 

of the adult pink salmon intentionally displaced from Olsen Creek, Alaska, returned to that site 

(Helle 1996). In contrast to these studies, a genetic analysis of 37 subpopulations in 

northwestern Alaska (Gharrett et al. 1988) found very little evidence of genetic heterogenerity, 

even amongst Aleutian Island populations separated by as much as 1,000 miles. The authors 

hypothesized that frequent straying may prevent the genetic divergence of these spatially 

separated populations. The Elwha River itself serves as an example, as the Elwha population has 

remained at extremely low abundance levels for many years without any obvious indication from 

genetic analysis of straying. 

Natural recolonization may take some time, given the relative isolation of the Elwha 

River, apparent low straying rates, and depressed population sizes of adjacent pink salmon 

populations. Hatchery reintroductions using an outside stock is considered the least desirable 

alternative, but has been maintained as an option in the event of failure of the captive brood and 

natural recolonization to rebuild pink salmon populations. It should be noted that pink salmon 

have been widely transplanted, and success rates over the long term have been low. The most 

successful introduction of pink salmon was the result of an accidental spill of pink fry in the 

Great Lakes. In contrast, attempts to establish pink salmon populations within their native range 

have mostly failed. Hard et al. (1996) cite the failure despite repeated attempts to establish evenyear pink salmon runs in Puget Sound. 

55
Stock Status 

Elwha pink salmon stock status is considered critical based on chronically low 

escapements. This stock level is currently considered depressed with recent escapements 

ranging from approximately 200 fish in 2001 to less than 50 in 2005. There is no formal 

escapement goal for pink salmon in the Elwha River. Escapement estimates for the Elwha River 

have historically been provided as an estimated percentage of the Dungeness pink salmon run. 

Population declines in both systems have resulted in an Elwha River estimate of 50 fish used as a 

placeholder, indicating the run was believed to exist at a very low level. 

Pink salmon numbers remained relatively high after dam construction. However, 

between 1950 and 1970 there was a loss of spawning habitat due to large-scale river 

manipulation such as channelization, removal of snags and logjams, and floodplain logging that 

led to a loss of channel sinuosity (Johnson 1997, Pohl 1999). These activities and resultant effect 

are also coincident with the final collapse of pink salmon in the Lower Elwha during the 1960s 

(McHenry et al. 1996). The last sizeable escapement of 40,000 fish to the Elwha River was 

recorded in 1961. The estimated spawning population in the river declined to as low as one fish 

by the early 1970s. This poor status continued through the 1980s, with only four individuals 

observed during escapement surveys in 1989. Detailed escapement surveys conducted by the 

LEKT Fisheries Department since 1991 have documented the appearance of a persistent 

population of between 100 and 1,000 fish in odd years. 

In the early 1990s, cursory surveys conducted by LEKT’s Fisheries Department were 

unable to identify any spawning pink salmon. From the late 1990s through the 2001 pink salmon 

run, the tribe’s surveys indicate the population may be growing. However, in 2003 the tribe 

estimated that Elwha pink salmon escapement was only 150 fish, and flood impacts likely 

reduced the survival of their progeny to very low levels. Similar trends were observed within the 

Hunt Road complex, a large side-channel complex entering on the western bank of the Elwha 

River. Peak live counts of pink salmon increased from only 8 fish in 1997 to as high as 160 

adults in 2001. The last two cycles in 2003 and 2005 were 55 live fish and 16 live fish, 

respectively, observed within the Hunt Road Channel. Based on estimates generated through 

smolt trapping in 2006, LEKT estimates an outmigration of 19,000 pink salmon smolts. 

Harvest Status 

No terminal harvest is currently directed at Elwha River pink salmon. The Elwha River 

is closed to all fishing during the period of river entry and through spawning. Mixed stock sport 

and commercial fisheries in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and off Vancouver Island likely intercept 

Elwha pink salmon, but the impacts are not currently known. 

Hatchery Enhancement Efforts 

There has never been an historic hatchery program for Elwha River pink salmon and 

introductions of nonnative pink salmon have not occurred. 

56
Alternate Stocks Targeted for Enhancement 

Because the availability of the native Elwha River stock is uncertain due to chronically 

low population numbers, Dungeness River (summer) and Finch Creek (Hood Canal early 

component) pink salmon stocks will be considered as an alternate broodstock for use in the 

restoration program. These options will only be pursued in the event that the native Elwha pink 

salmon are extirpated and if significant natural colonization does not occur within five 

generations (10 years) following dam removal. If stock transfers are pursued, Dungeness River 

summer pink salmon are preferred for transfer to the Elwha, primarily because of geographic 

proximity, but also because of similar life history expressions. The Finch Creek stock would 

only be pursued as a last resort if insufficient numbers of Dungeness pink salmon were available 

for transfer. 

Dungeness River (summer) 

The upriver Dungeness River summer pink salmon (peak spawning late August) has been 

identified as the preferred alternate stock for enhancement activities based on its proximity (18.5 

miles) to the Elwha River, upstream migratory patterns, and adult run timing. It is currently 

considered depressed with escapements ranging from 1,556 in 1993 to 69,272 in 2001. No 

terminal harvest is currently directed at Dungeness River pink salmon. Hatchery enhancement 

efforts for the Dungeness River fall pink salmon population were discontinued following the 

2001 cycle. Total escapement of adults in 2003 (summer and fall populations) was 15,148 fish. 

Total escapement of both populations in the Dungeness River in 2005 was 8,667 fish. 

Finch Creek (Hood Canal, early component) 

Finch Creek pink salmon were previously identified as the secondary alternate stock for 

enhancement activities. This stock is a hatchery-origin composite stock originating from pink 

salmon from the Dungeness and Dosewallips rivers. The Finch Creek stock is not considered 

genetically distinct from the original donor and other regional pink salmon populations. Since 

1991 the combined total annual estimated harvest of Finch Creek (Hoodsport) pink salmon has 

ranged from 1,100 to 4,800 adults. The current annual juvenile fish release goal for the program 

is 500,000 fingerlings. Recent escapements back to the Hoodsport Hatchery (1991 to 2003) have 

ranged from 7,600 to 68,000 adults. The current escapement goal for Finch Creek pink salmon 

is 920 fish.

Projected Hatchery Facility Use 

Conservation and potential future supplementation efforts for pink salmon will take place 

initially at the existing Lower Elwha Hatchery, transitioning to the new LEKT facility. If 

capacity is limited during 2007–2008, it may be necessary to use the WDFW facility at Hurd 

Creek as a backup rearing site. 

57
Phasing of Pink Salmon Restoration Strategies 

Pre-dam-removal period 

Conservation activities for pink salmon during this period will focus on stock protection 

and developing the capabilities to manage a captive brood program. With only a few cycles 

remaining prior to dam removal, emphasis will be placed on developing a captive brood 

program. Collection techniques will be implemented to maximize genetic diversity and prevent 

potential inbreeding depression. Genetic sampling will be conducted for every fish collected. 

Table 18 summarizes the restoration strategies for the pre-dam-removal period. 

All collection techniques will be considered. However, due to potential mortality from 

capturing and handling adults as well as selection factors related to the small population size, 

emphasis will be placed on collection of eggs and fry through redd pumping or collection of 

outmigrating smolts at the rotary screw trap. Redd pumping and smolt collection have the 

advantage of maximizing available genetic diversity of the extant populations. Additionally, 

these techniques can be managed to minimize impacts on the existing natural populations. 

The LEKT hatchery, water treatment facilities, and delivery systems will be constructed 

during this time but will not be ready during the initial development stages of the captive brood 

program. It is not certain whether the current LEKT hatchery has sufficient space and water to 

maintain the captive brood effort. In the event that space is not available, the WDFW Hurd 

Creek facility would be used to rear fish. 

Dam-removal period 

During the dam removal period, activities for Elwha pink salmon will continue a focus on 

genetic conservation using primarily a captive brood program. However, as environmental 

conditions in the lower river will be severely degraded and will be unsuitable for spawning as 

sediment yields peak immediately following dam removal, capture of adults will be attempted. 

Progeny will be either incorporated into the captive brood program or released into the river as 

fed fry. Table 19 summarizes the restoration strategies for the dam-removal period. 

Collection of pink smolts from the broodyear just before the initiation of dam removal 

will be attempted using the screw trap and redd pumping. Collection goals will be to maximize 

genetic diversity for the captive brood program. Depending on the success of the captive brood 

program, some numbers of adult pink salmon from broodstock collected in years prior to dam 

removal will be available to initiate outplanting programs including the release of adults to 

upstream refuge habitats. Alternatively, if sufficient numbers of captive brood adults are 

available, these fish may be spawned and their progeny released as smolts or outplanted as eyed 

eggs. 

Modifications to hatchery facilities and water treatment and delivery systems will be 

completed during this period, although water availability may be periodically limited to the water 

treatment facility capacity. No harvests will be directed at Elwha River pink salmon during this 

period. 

58
59

Post-dam-removal period 

During this period, turbidity levels in the river will be returning to background levels. 

The water treatment facility will be taken off-line, and hatchery facilities will be receiving raw 

surface water. The availability of water will no longer limit hatchery production levels. Based 

on these assumptions, pink salmon restoration strategies may be able to move from genetic 

conservation to stock rebuilding. Monitoring programs will provide critical information 

regarding recolonization rates and genetic makeup of Elwha pink salmon populations. Returning 

adults will be encouraged to spawn naturally throughout the basin and captive brood fish will be 

used to supplement the population. Hatchery enhancement of pink salmon may be considered if 

populations are not responding. 

Conversely, if natural populations are expanding, hatchery programs will be phased out 

in response to increases in natural-origin spawning and as the population begins to achieve selfsustainability. In a worst case scenario, where both captive brood programs and natural 

recolonization fail to occur, a decision to import out-of-basin stocks will be considered. In a best 

case scenario, where rebuilding occurs rapidly, limited fisheries designed to harvest Elwha River 

pink salmon may be implemented if escapement goals are met. However, the benefit of escaping 

an abundance of pink salmon into upstream spawning areas as a mechanism for enhancing 

marine-derived nutrients in the Elwha River ecosystem will be factored into any consideration of 

pink salmon-directed harvests in fisheries. Table 20 summarizes the restoration strategies for the 

post-dam-removal period. 

The strategies described for pink salmon in this plan are intended to be adaptive, 

changing based on observed responses of the pink salmon population. Therefore, if certain 

strategies prove to be unsuccessful, they may be discontinued at any time in favor of options that 

are more likely to produce a healthy, naturally spawning population. 

Sockeye Salmon Proposed Restoration Approach 

Historically, Elwha River sockeye salmon used Lake Sutherland for spawning and 

rearing (FERC 1993). Construction of the Elwha Dam blocked anadromous access to Lake 

Sutherland, leading to the extirpation of anadromous Lake Sutherland sockeye population. 

Although adult sockeye salmon are annually observed in the Elwha River, the origin of these fish 

is unknown and they are not thought to be a viable population. They may be strays or possibly 

returning adults derived from kokanee smolts (Oncorhynchus nerka), lacustrine sockeye 

outmigrating from Lake Sutherland. 

Lake Sutherland is currently home to a self-sustaining population of kokanee salmon that 

is thought to be native (DOI et al. 1994). WDFW hatchery records indicate the release of 

nonnative kokanee in Lake Sutherland from 1934 until 1964 (Hiss and Wunderlich 1994b). The 

influence of nonnative kokanee releases on the native kokanee and sockeye population is not 

fully understood, but tissue samples were collected for genetic analysis in 1994, 2005, and 2006. 

Analysis of the 1994 samples indicated that Lake Sutherland kokanee displayed a unique 

composite haplotype (Powell 1997). For the 2005–2006 samples, data for 15 microsatellite loci 

were collected and compared with data from Lake Whatcom and Lake Ozette kokanee. The 
Table 18. Pink salmon restoration strategies before dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Pink Salmon Production Goal at Adult Escap

Production facility Life history pattern Release location 50 100 200 500 Lower Elwha Captive brood On-site 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1Lower Elwha Natural spawners Lower basin 36,500 74,000 149,000 374,000 561

Potential egg production: 37,500 75,000 150,000 375,000 562

Table 19. Pink salmon restoration strategies during dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Pink Salmon Production Goal at Adult Escap

Production facility Life history pattern Release location 50 100 200 500 Lower Elwha Captive brood On-site 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1Lower Elwha Age-0 smolts On-site 30,000 60,000 120,000 300,000 450

Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Lower basin 

Lower Elwha Natural spawners Lower basin 

Potential egg production: 37,500 75,000 150,000 375,000 562

60

Table 20. Pink salmon restoration strategies after dam removal. Numbers in boldface are adult escapement levels. 

Pink Salmon Production Goal at Adult Escap

Production facility Life history pattern Release location 50 100 200 500 Lower Elwha Captive brood On-site 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1Lower Elwha Age-0 smolts On-site 30,000 60,000 120,000 300,000 450

Lower Elwha Eyed eggs Lower basin 

Lower Elwha Natural spawners Lower basin Lower Elwha Age-0 smolts* Elwha Basin 

Potential egg production: 37,500 75,000 150,000 375,000 562

*When escapement reaches adequate levels, the release of age-0 smolts to off-station locations in the Elwha Basin will be considered. 
2005 and 2006 Lake Sutherland collections were highly similar, but statistically different from 

the Whatcom and Ozette collections. The results of both studies suggest the Sutherland stock is 

unique and that previous out-of-basin plantings may not have affected the Sutherland population 

genetically. Additional comparisons will be made between these stocks and the adjacent 

population in Lake Crescent in the coming years (Winans et al. in press). 

Stock Status 

Sockeye salmon in the Elwha River are extinct. 

Harvest Status 

Lake Sutherland is currently open for harvest year-round for resident trout and kokanee. 

Hatchery Enhancement Efforts 

There are currently no hatchery programs for Elwha River sockeye salmon populations. 

Escapement Level 

There is no formal escapement goal for sockeye salmon populations in the Elwha River.

Summary 

The preferred Elwha River sockeye salmon population restoration or reestablishment 

strategy is natural recolonization by remnant kokanee. The period required for natural 

recolonization is uncertain, commencing when upstream and downstream access to Lake 

Sutherland becomes feasible for kokanee currently inhabiting the lake when the dams blocking 

anadromous fish access are fully removed. In order to encourage recovery, it may be necessary 

to curtail recreational fisheries in Lake Sutherland for a period of years and eliminate plants of 

nonnative fish in the lake (either kokanee or trout). 

Coastal Cutthroat Trout Proposed Restoration Approach 

Coastal cutthroat trout populations in Western Washington are typified by both 

anadromous and resident life history strategies. The preferred Elwha River coastal cutthroat 

trout restoration strategy is natural recolonization. Natural recolonization of the upper river is 

expected to occur over an uncertain period once access to the upper river is reestablished. 

Resident forms of coastal cutthroat exist in the upper Elwha River basin and may contribute to 

reestablishment of native anadromous populations after dam removal on the Elwha River. 

Stock Status 

The status of coastal cutthroat trout is unknown. Coastal cutthroat have likely been 

negatively impacted by loss of access to the upper river, lack of small tributaries in the lower 

river where the population is sequestered for spawning and rearing, and habitat degradation in 

the lower river due to the Elwha Dam. Hatchery introductions of out-of-basin-origin cutthroat 

trout from the Bureau of Fisheries hatchery at Lake Crescent were widespread in the early 

61
portion of the twentieth century. A population of westslope cutthroat (O. clarkii lewisi) has been 

documented in Long Creek (Adams et al. 1999). Populations of landlocked or resident coastal 

cutthroat have been documented in Indian Creek and Lake Sutherland, Little River, and the 

middle reaches of the Elwha River (Morrill and McHenry unpubl. manuscr.). Resident cutthroat 

trout, though present in the upper watershed, appear to be at very low abundance levels. No 

genetic analysis of the composition of this stock has been conducted to date. 

Harvest Status 

Coastal cutthroat trout populations are currently subject to recreational harvest. 

Hatchery Enhancement Efforts 

There are currently no hatchery programs for Elwha River coastal cutthroat trout 

populations. 

Escapement Level 

There is no formal escapement goal for coastal cutthroat trout populations in the Elwha 

River.

Bull Trout/Dolly Varden Proposed Restoration Approach 

Anadromous and resident (fluvial and adfluvial) life history strategies typify bull trout 

and Dolly Varden populations in Western Washington. Bull trout and Dolly Varden are 

recognized as separate species of char, although they are both often referred to interchangeably 

as “native char.” In Western Washington, both sympatric and allopatric populations may occur. 

In the Elwha River, limited genetic and morphological analysis of a few specimens indicates the 

presence of only bull trout (Leary and Allendorf 1997). However, other Olympic Peninsula river 

systems such as the Sol Duc River are known to have Dolly Varden but no bull trout. 

Conversely, the Quinault Basin has both bull trout and Dolly Varden (Leary and Allendorf 

1997). For the purposes of this document, the Elwha River is assumed to support only bull trout. 

Stock Status 

Bull trout populations in the Elwha may exhibit fluvial, adfluvial, and anadromous life 

history strategies. Fish found in the lower Elwha River basin (below Elwha Dam) are thought to 

be anadromous, while adfluvial and fluvial populations inhabit the basin above Elwha Dam. 

According to Mike McHenry, LEKT Fisheries Department, few bull trout are observed in 

the river below the Elwha Dam and only one redd has been documented. George Pess, NWFSC, 

identified three char fry and a handful of adults (10′′–24′′) during snorkel surveys initiated in 

2000. This population has likely been negatively impacted by loss of access to the upper river, 

habitat degradation in the lower river, nearshore, and estuary, and potentially to harvests in the 

lower river. 

Construction of the mainstem dams isolated populations of bull trout in both the middle 

and upper Elwha River basins. The creation of lakes Aldwell and Mills also modified habitat 

62
features, resulting in the establishment of adfluvial populations in these lakes. Population size in 

the upper basin is unknown, although bull trout appear to be relatively prevalent throughout the 

upper watershed and have been observed as high as RM 43.9 (ONP Fish Distribution Database). 

They are also found in at least seven of the mainstem tributaries. 

Elwha River bull trout are included in the Coastal Puget Sound distinct population 

segment (DPS), which is listed as threatened under the ESA. In the draft recovery plan, the 

USFWS (2004) identified a number of “core areas,” thought to be strongholds for the population, 

which must be protected and restored. The USFSW identified the Elwha River as a core area 

with one identified local population and one potential local population in Little River (USFWS 

2004). Based on professional judgment, knowledge of bull trout distribution in drainages, 

availability of suitable habitat, and extremely low numbers of char observed in this system in 

recent years, the USFWS rates the lower Elwha River subpopulation as “depressed.” The 

USFWS also thinks that migratory bull trout may persist in the Elwha core area, but the dams 

block connectivity between the populations and to the marine environment. Without 

connectivity between the populations or the marine area, there is an elevated risk to the 

population. 

Biological Opinion and Management Prescriptions 

USFWS issued a biological opinion in February 2000 covering bull trout during dam 

removal. It found the project will not result in jeopardy for the listed populations in the Elwha 

River, as they would benefit over the long term through dam removal. However, they did find 

that a small “take” was likely to occur and therefore required ONP comply with the following 

terms and conditions to minimize the take: 

1. Develop and implement a bull trout rescue and removal plan for the affected area (Lake 

Mills to the mouth of the Elwha River) to reduce the level of take from the release of 

reservoir sediments (see USFWS Recovery Action 1.2.5 below). 

2. Determine the origin of bull trout using the lower Elwha River through a genetic analysis 

(microsatellite DNA) of these fish, for example, from the tribal test fishery, tribal 

hatchery, and WDFW rearing channel (see USFWS Recovery Action 4.1.1 below). 

3. Determine by genetic analysis whether bull trout from the lower Elwha River are distinct 

from the upper Elwha River or the lower Dungeness and Gray Wolf river subpopulations 

(see USFWS Recovery Actions 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 below). 

4. Determine the genetic signature of the lower Dungeness and Gray Wolf river 

subpopulations. This information is presently unavailable and is necessary to properly 

relocate bull trout rescued and removed from the lower Elwha River. Potentially, bull 

trout from the lower Dungeness River and Gray Wolf river subpopulations may use the 

lower Elwha River. Their placement above Lake Mills must be avoided (see USFWS 

Recovery Actions 4.1.1 and 4.2.1 below). (Note: DNA samples from the Dungeness and 

Elwha rivers are being analyzed at the USFWS Abernathy Fish Technology Center in 

Longview, Washington.) 

5. Replace or modify Hot Springs Road culverts that limit or block access to tributaries that 

could be used by bull trout as refuge habitat when the high sediment load and turbidity 

levels occur in the Elwha River. Any culvert should be sized for the 100-year flood event 

63
and installed to safely and effectively pass both juvenile and adult bull trout (see USFWS 

Recovery Action 1.2.3 below). 

6. Using appropriate, USFWS-approved methodologies, monitor sediment levels before and 

after project, above and below the project area for a period of 10 years, or less if sediment 

levels in the affected areas reach levels similar to those comparable to those prior to dam 

construction sooner.4 Periodically monitor the condition of the Elwha River and 

determine whether suspended solids and bedload levels have returned to levels similar to 

those prior to dam construction. By the end of the 10-year monitoring period, if sediment 

levels have not returned to levels comparable to those before dam construction, 

implement additional measures (e.g., grading, seeding, or replanting) to reduce the input 

and transport of sediment from the project area. 

The USFWS also suggested that the following conservation measures be implemented by 

the Olympic National Park: 

1. Minimize the removal of trees and shrubs and other impacts to sensitive areas (see 

USFWS Recovery Action 1.3.1 below). 

2. Use only native plant species when reseeding disturbed or unstable areas (see USFWS 

Recovery Action 1.3.1 below). 

3. Conduct night snorkeling surveys to determine local bull trout distribution and seasonal 

use within the Elwha River main stem and its tributaries (see USFWS Recovery Action 

1.3.2 below). 

Harvest Status 

Bull trout populations are currently subject to incidental takes during recreational and 

commercial harvests targeting other fish species. Within the Elwha River, fishing for bull trout 

is prohibited by state, tribal, and ONP fishing regulations. All bull trout must be immediately 

released if they are incidentally captured. 

Hatchery Enhancement Efforts 

There are no hatchery programs for Elwha River bull trout populations. 

Escapement Level 

There are no formal escapement goals for bull trout populations in the Elwha River and 

the population abundance is unknown. Further, information is needed to describe the underlying 

productivity of the population on which an escapement goal might be based. In lieu of this 

information, the USFWS (2004) advised that an interim goal of maintaining a minimum 

population size for a core population of between 500 and 1,000 adults be established to minimize 

the deleterious affects of low abundance and a minimum population size of 50–100 adults for 

localized spawning populations (Rieman and Allendorf 2001). USFWS further suggested that 

recovery will require an increasing trend in productivity from existing levels. 

 

4

 Part of the research being done by physical scientists is to estimate levels prior to dam construction by making 

inferences from current conditions above the dams. 

64
The preferred bull trout restoration strategy is natural recolonization. Recovery of bull 

trout is expected to occur naturally throughout the basin, once access to the upper river is 

reestablished. It is anticipated removal of the dams will allow currently isolated upriver 

populations to reestablish anadromous life history strategies. The time required to achieve 

recovery depends on the actual status of the existing bull trout populations, limiting factors 

affecting bull trout, implementation and effectiveness of recovery actions, and responses to 

recovery actions. A tremendous amount of work will be required to restore impaired habitat, 

reconnect habitat, and eliminate threats from nonnative species. Three to five bull trout 

generations (15–25 years), or possibly longer, may be necessary before recovery is achieved 

(USFWS 2004). 

USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan 

The primary purpose of the EFRP is to describe fisheries restoration activities that are 

specifically related to the implementation of the Elwha Act. However, USFWS has crafted a 

draft recovery plan for the Coastal Puget Sound bull trout DPS that contains specific actions 

targeting the recovery of entire distinct population segments. Some of the measures of the 

USFWS plan address the Elwha River core population and are relevant to the removal of the two 

dams on the Elwha River. These actions were generally captured in the biological opinion for 

the dam removal project and have been noted above. However, other measures of the USFWS 

plan for the Elwha River subpopulations are beyond the scope of dam removal. Therefore, if 

they are to be implemented, it must be through the appropriate jurisdictions outside of the 

authority of the Elwha Act (tribal, local and state governments, and federal agencies). Key 

components of the USFWS plan are included on pages 67-71 for informational purposes and to 

identify areas where the activities associated with the Elwha Act coincide with the USFWS 

recovery plan. Excerpts from the draft plan have been provided by USFWS.5

The overall goal of the USFWS draft recovery plan is “to ensure the ongoing long-term 

persistence of self-sustaining, complex, interacting groups of bull trout distributed across the 

species’ native range so that the species can be delisted” (USFWS 2004). The key elements 

describing a recovered bull trout population, covered in the following discussion, are adult 

abundance, productivity (trends or population growth rate), spatial structure (distribution of local 

populations within the core area), and diversity (connectivity allowing for the expression of the 

migratory life history of bull trout). For further details, see Recovery Strategy, Goals, and 

Objectives, p. 133–147 of the draft recovery plan (USFWS 2004). USFWS bases bull trout 

recovery within each management unit on the concept of core areas. A core area accordingly 

represents the combination of both a core population (i.e., one or more local populations of bull 

trout inhabiting a core habitat) and core habitat (i.e., habitat that could supply all the necessary 

elements for the long-term security of bull trout, including spawning and rearing as well as 

foraging, migrating, and overwintering) and constitutes the basic unit on which to gauge 

recovery. 

 

5

 S. Spalding, USFWS, Lacey, WA. Pers. commun., 6 July 2006. 

65
Abundance 

In the USFWS recovery plan, the recovered abundance for bull trout is based on two 

requirements. The first requirement is the minimum number of adult spawners in the core area 

needed to avoid the deleterious effects from genetic drift. The EFRP has adopted the USFWS 

minimum population size of between 500 and 1,000. The second requirement is the minimum 

size of the localized spawning populations to minimize inbreeding effects. The EFRP has also 

adopted the USFWS minimum population size of 50–100 adults for localized populations. 

Productivity 

The USFWS recovery plan states that a stable or increasing population is key for 

recovery of bull trout. Measures of a population trend (the tendency to increase, decrease, or 

remain stable) include population growth rate or productivity. For a population to be considered 

viable, its natural productivity should be sufficient for the population to replace itself from 

generation to generation. Because estimates of the total population size are rarely available, the 

productivity or population growth rate is usually estimated from temporal trends in indices of 

abundance (i.e., redd counts) at a particular life stage. 

There is a lack of available information to describe current or historical productivity of 

bull trout in the Elwha River. For planning purposes in the Elwha River, USFWS suggests 

recovery will require an increasing trend in productivity from existing levels, but recognizes it 

may take 15 years or more to begin to determine the trend. 

Local populations 

The distribution and interconnection of multiple local populations throughout a watershed 

provide a mechanism for spreading risk from random, naturally occurring events and allows for 

potential recolonization in the event of local extirpations. Based in part on guidance from 

Rieman and McIntyre (1993), bull trout core areas (or watersheds) with fewer than 5 local 

populations are at increased risk of local extirpation, core areas with between 5 and 10 local 

populations are at intermediate risk, and core areas with more than 10 interconnected local 

populations are at diminished risk (USFWS 2004). Based on limited information and local 

expertise, the USFWS identified one local population in the Elwha watershed. In addition, one 

potential local population in Little River in the Elwha core area has been proposed. 

Connectivity 

The presence of the migratory life history form on the Olympic Peninsula was used as an 

indicator of the functional connectivity of the unit. If the migratory life form were absent, or if 

the migratory form were present but local populations lacked connectivity, the core area was 

considered to be at increased risk. If the migratory life form persists in at least some local 

populations, with partial ability to connect with other local populations, the core area was judged 

to be at intermediate risk. Finally, if the migratory life form was present in all or nearly all local 

populations and had the ability to connect with other local populations, the core area was 

considered to be at diminished risk (USFWS 2004). 

66
Migratory bull trout may persist in the Elwha core area, but dams block connectivity. As 

described earlier, no upstream passage at either dam prevents migration of bull trout. The bull 

trout above the Elwha Dam are unable to connect and migrate to marine waters. Removal of the 

dams should reestablish connectivity and restore the anadromous life history form of bull trout in 

the Elwha core area. 

Specific Recovery Actions that Apply to the Elwha River 

The following are recommendations from the USFWS draft recovery plan (USFWS 

2004) that apply specifically to the Elwha River core area. Those recommendations that are the 

responsibility of the Elwha Dam removal project, either in part or in full, are identified with an 

asterisk (*). The material quoted from the draft plan is enclosed in quotation marks, followed by 

commentary as it relates to the Elwha Plan. Notes in brackets ([ ]) are intended to express 

specific concerns or issues that may exist with how the recovery action is implemented. The 

recommendations follow. 

1.1.3* “Implement measures to restore natural thermal regime.” Removal of the dams 

will restore the natural thermal regime. 

1.1.5* “Encourage reestablishment of marine-derived nutrients.” In the Elwha River, 

dams have blocked the migration of salmonids and other fish, resulting in a decrease of marinederived nutrients. Removal of the dams would enable connection to the ocean. In the meantime, 

the USFWS recommends dispersing hatchery salmon carcasses to increase availability of 

marine-derived nutrients. [Note: Jurisdictional conflicts related to this recommendation must be 

resolved prior to dispersing carcasses throughout the watershed.]

1.1.6* “Monitor water quality and meet water quality standards for temperature, nutrient 

loading, dissolved oxygen, instream flow, and contaminants.” The Elwha River is on the 

303(d)—referring to section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act—list of waters in the state. It 

has been impaired by high temperature and the toxin PCB-1254 (polychlorinated biphenyl [54% 

CL]). Monitoring water quality should continue in the Elwha core area including the area 

between the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams and to the mouth of the Elwha River downstream of 

the Elwha Dam. [Note: Water quality monitoring will be implemented to the extent that the need 

is either directly related to the presence of the two dams or to the impacts associated with 

removal activities.]

1.1.9 “Adopt and implement a storm water strategy for the lower Elwha watershed.” 

Areas that may be affected include the estuary, road corridors associated with Highway 101, 

State Route 112, Olympic Hot Springs Road, and the Little River and Indian Creek basins. 

1.2.2* “Identify diversions that block fish passage and provide fish passage where 

feasible.” The two dams on the Elwha block migration of salmonids. [Note: The Elwha Dam 

removal project will also be responsible for the modification of the City of Port Angeles’s 

existing surface water diversion structure, improving both upstream and downstream fish 

passage to standards required by NOAA Fisheries Service, USFWS, and WDFW.]

67
1.2.3* “Eliminate culvert barriers.” USFWS suggests removing or modifying the culvert 

at Hot Springs Road in Griff and Madison creeks in the Elwha core area. [Note: USFWS in its 

biological opinion for the project included this task, though not directly related to dam removal.]

1.2.5* “Restore bull trout passage over dams and other related fish passage barriers.” 

Assess man-made barriers that impact fish movement in the Elwha core area, including the 

estuary and nearshore environment (proposed Glines Canyon and Elwha dam removals). 

1.2.6 “Improve instream flows.” Restore connectivity and opportunities for migration by 

securing or improving instream flows or acquiring water rights. One of the priority rivers 

identified to date is the Elwha. 

1.3.1* “Restore and protect riparian areas.” Identify degraded riparian sites and 

revegetate to restore shade and canopy, riparian cover, and native vegetation to improve or 

maintain both occupied and potentially suitable bull trout habitat. The removal of the dams will 

necessitate the reestablishment of riparian vegetation along all newly formed streambank areas. 

[Note: The Elwha Dam removal project will implement restoration of riparian areas to the extent 

that the need is either directly related to the presence of the two dams or to the impacts 

associated with removal activities.]

1.3.2 “Identify, evaluate, and restore overwintering habitat in the mainstem rivers and 

tributaries.” In all core areas, identify specific overwintering areas used by bull trout in the 

mainstem rivers, estuaries, and tributaries, and classify general overwintering habitat for use, 

current condition, and restoration potential. 

1.3.4 “Reduce stream channel degradation and aggradation.” Identify streambanks 

susceptible to excessive mass wasting (downslope movement of rock, regolith, sediment, and 

soil due to gravity) and bank failure. On ONP and Olympic National Forest lands, use road 

network surveys and watershed analyses to identify and map all stream reaches with actively 

eroding streambanks that likely result from management activities and are susceptible to 

excessive failure during high flow events. Identify all head-cuts (the upstream movement of a 

waterfall or a locally steep channel bottom due to the erosion caused by rapidly flowing water) 

and incidences of mass wasting that may negatively impact riparian areas and inhibit natural 

stream functions. 

1.3.5* “Practice nonintrusive flood control and flood repair activities.” A priority core 

area is the Elwha River. Provide technical assistance to county conservation districts (as defined 

by the Natural Resources Conservation Service) and private landowners to develop options for 

fish friendly flood-repair techniques to improve or restore channel processes benefiting bull trout 

or their habitat. To restore floodplain connectivity, where feasible, prevent future armored or 

riprapped banks, dikes, and levies and remove existing armoring. [Note: To the extent 

practicable, the practice of nonintrusive flood control or flood repair activities will be 

implemented by the Elwha Dam removal project to the degree that the need is either directly 

related to the presence of the two dams or to the impacts associated with removal activities.]

1.3.7 “Reduce transportation corridor impacts on streams.” Reduce impacts from the 

legacy of highway and railroad encroachment, channel straightening, channel relocation, and 

68
undersized bridges. Where necessary and feasible, remove existing bank armoring (bulkheads 

and riprap) and channel constrictions (e.g., dikes and levies) associated with transportation 

corridor construction. Plan and develop future transportation corridors that eliminate the need 

for armoring and channel constriction. Relocate riparian roads and bridge constrictions out of 

the floodplain. Where possible, move roads out of floodplains or away from streams having 

local populations of bull trout or streams that have been identified as essential for reestablishing 

local populations of bull trout. Where roads cannot be moved, provide drainage, recontour road 

fill slopes, plant woody vegetation, and seed with native vegetation to prevent slumping. Add 

adequate surface materials if needed to prevent sediment movement. Bridges that restrict 

channel movement can severely restrict channel function. The lower Elwha River floodplain is a 

suggested area for initial focus. 

1.3.9 “Restore natural stream channel morphology.” Conduct stream channel restoration 

activities if they are likely to benefit native fish and only where similar results cannot be 

achieved by other less costly and intrusive means. The Elwha River is a priority core area. 

1.3.10* “Restore instream habitat.” Increase or enhance instream habitat by restoring 

habitat diversity. Projects should focus on the enhancement of habitat elements, such as LWD, 

logjams, and complex channels in the short term, and restoration of processes supporting these 

habitat elements in the long term. The systematic restructuring of the lower and middle Elwha 

River with LWD is needed to control sediments from degrading pools and spawning gravels 

once the dams are removed. [Note: The Elwha dam removal project will include habitat 

restoration efforts to the extent that the need is either directly related to the presence of the two 

dams or to the impacts associated with removal activities and funding allows.] 

1.4.1* “Reduce reservoir operational impacts.” Review reservoir operational concerns 

(water-level manipulation, minimum pool, etc.) and provide and implement operating 

recommendations for lakes Mills and Aldwell. [Note: DOI, owner of the two Elwha River dams, 

has already implemented this measure.]

1.4.2 “Provide instream flow downstream from dams.” Maintain or exceed established 

instream flows downstream from Glines Canyon and lower Elwha dams. 

1.6.1 “Implement projects that are key to restoring nearshore habitats.” Key restoration 

projects for the Elwha River’s nearshore and estuary habitats include providing or improving 

beach nourishment (i.e., accumulation of sand and gravel materials for forming habitat); 

removing, moving, or modifying artificial structures (e.g., bulkheads, riprap, dikes, tide gates); 

using alternative shoreline erosion and flooding protection measures that avoid or minimize 

impact to natural nearshore processes; and restoring estuaries and nearshore habitats such as 

eelgrass and kelp beds. 

2.1.1 “Review effectiveness of current fish stocking policies.” Eliminate planting 

nonnative fish species in areas draining into bull trout habitat. Reduce negative effects of fish 

stocking to bull trout and monitor for increased fishing pressure, alterations to prey base, 

competition, etc., that could impact bull trout. 

69
2.3.1 “Discourage unauthorized fish introductions.” Implement educational effort 

describing the problems and consequences of unauthorized fish introductions, especially brook 

trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). 

2.3.2 “Develop a public information program about bull trout.” Place broad emphasis on 

bull trout ecology and life history requirements and a more specific focus on regionally or locally 

important recovery issues. 

2.5.1 “Determine distribution and abundance of nonnative fish (i.e., brook trout) and 

identify overlap with bull trout.” Brook trout interbreed with bull trout and may outcompete 

them under certain conditions. Where information is lacking and the risk is high (e.g., bull trout 

populations are depressed, habitat is degraded, and brook trout are present), conduct surveys in 

high lakes or tributaries to determine distribution of brook trout and degree of interbreeding or 

potential for interbreeding between bull trout and brook trout. 

2.5.3 “Remove established brook trout populations impacting bull trout.” Where 

necessary and feasible, implement experimental removal of brook trout from selected streams 

and lakes. 

3.1.1* “Integrate research and monitoring results into fish management plans and related 

salmonid information resources.” [Note: Information generated through the Elwha dam removal 

project will be shared with appropriate agencies.]

3.1.2 “Protect remaining bull trout strongholds and native species complexes.” Protect 

the integrity of areas with well established bull trout populations and intact native species 

assemblages (e.g., upper Elwha River).

3.1.3* “Provide increased forage opportunities in freshwater.” Establish improved forage 

opportunities by managing for increased salmon spawning escapement complementary to related 

habitat improvements to increase salmon productivity and abundance. 

3.2.1 “Develop reporting requirements for recreational, commercial, and tribal fisheries 

to evaluate bull trout catch and incidental mortality during fisheries for other species.” 

3.2.2 “Evaluate and minimize incidental mortality of bull trout from recreational, gill-net, 

and other fisheries.” Continue to develop and implement sport angling regulations and fisheries 

management plans, guidelines, and policies that minimize incidental mortality of bull trout in all 

waters, especially gillnet fisheries concentrated at the mouths of Olympic Peninsula rivers. 

Conduct research and develop more selective gear and seasons for salmon gillnet fisheries that 

will minimize incidental mortality of bull trout, such as adjusting net mesh sizes or duration of 

having nets out, placement of nets to minimize incidental capture of bull trout, and develop 

incentives to increase likelihood of bull trout being released alive from gillnet fisheries. It is 

important to provide extra monitoring of the Elwha River gillnet fishery following removal of 

the dams on the Elwha River and, if necessary, reduce capture of bull trout in the lower river. 

3.3.1 “Monitor and evaluate the effects of salmon and trout hatchery production, 

stocking, and associated fisheries on bull trout.” Salmon and trout stocking or hatchery 

70
production occur in all core areas. Evaluate effects on bull trout from competition, predation, 

disease, and related increased angling effort resulting from stocking salmon and trout. 

4.1.1* “Develop and implement a genetic study plan for future collection and analysis of 

genetic samples from local populations.” Use molecular analysis to delineate and describe the 

genetic population structure of bull trout populations in the Olympic Peninsula, both among core 

areas and among local populations within core areas. Incorporate this information into future 

management strategies. Genetic information is necessary to determine whether bull trout from 

the lower Elwha River are distinct from the upper Elwha River or the lower Dungeness and Gray 

Wolf rivers subpopulations of bull trout. This genetic information will help address if and where 

bull trout from the lower Elwha could be relocated. [Note: This task, though not directly related 

to dam removal, was included by USFWS in its biological opinion for the project.]

5.1.2* “Implement a program to monitor and assess biological responses and changes in 

habitat from recovery actions.” A standardized monitoring and assessment program needs to be 

developed and implemented to evaluate recovery criteria, assess and improve management 

actions, and ensure a coordinated strategy for the future of bull trout across their range within the 

conterminous United States. The program should include a protocol to reliably estimate bull 

trout abundance and population structure over time. [Note: See the Monitoring and Adaptive 

Management Section of this document.]

5.2.1* “Investigate bull trout temporal and spatial movement to describe the distribution 

of juvenile, subadult, and adult bull trout in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore habitats.” Bull 

trout use of nearshore marine areas, estuaries, and lower mainstem rivers and their associated 

tributaries is poorly understood; questions remain regarding bull trout habitat preferences (e.g.,

depth, salinity, substrate), range of migration, and foraging requirements, among other factors, in 

these areas. Continue implementation of existing bull trout population abundance and 

distribution studies and initiate new studies. The highest priority is to identify and map all 

spawning and rearing areas within core areas such as the Elwha River. For anadromous and 

fluvial bull trout, continue to determine full extent of foraging, migration, and overwintering 

habitat. Use this information to update and revise recovery recommendations. [Note: This task, 

though not directly related to dam removal, was included by USFWS in its biological opinion for 

the project in the form of a “rescue plan” requirement.]

Lamprey Proposed Restoration Approach 

Western Brook Lamprey 

Western brook lamprey populations in Western Washington display resident 

characteristics in their life history strategies. The western brook lamprey is nonparasitic and 

ranges from southern California to British Columbia (Scott and Crossman 1973). 

Western brook lamprey reside in freshwater their entire life (Scott and Crossman 1973, 

Kostow 2002) and display a high degree of site specificity. Individuals move very little during 

their lives, the most significant movement occurring as passive downstream movements prior to 

spawning. 

71
Spawning occurs in the spring in small redds located in small gravels upstream of riffles. 

Hatching occurs in 15 to 20 days and is temperature dependent (Kostow 2002). Larvae emerge 

after 2 months of incubation, at which time they move into silty areas to burrow. As western 

brook lamprey increase in size, they migrate from sites further upstream and in finer silt deposits 

to substrates that are richer in organic materials and sandier in composition. Throughout this 

period of time they function as filter feeders. This life history stage lasts from 1 to 3 years (Scott 

and Crossman 1973). Metamorphosis to the adult phase occurs during fall and adult lampreys 

reside deep in burrows in the sediment until spawning in the spring. Following spawning, adults 

die—females after one week, males after one month (Kostow 2002). 

Management prescriptions 

Although USFWS declined to list western brook lamprey on the endangered species list 

(DOI and USFWS 2004), the director of the USFWS Pacific Region asked resource managers to 

continue to assess the distribution and status of western brook lamprey throughout the west in an 

effort to enhance the understanding of lamprey. 

The distribution and status of western brook lamprey throughout the Elwha basin need to 

be determined in order to evaluate the potential impacts associated with dam removal, and 

develop management actions that will promote the maintenance and rehabilitation of western 

brook lamprey. 

Stock status 

The status of western brook lamprey is unknown. No directed harvest or use of western 

brook lamprey is reported on the Elwha River. Little survey work has been carried out to assess 

the distribution and status of western brook lamprey populations in the Elwha River. Most 

likely, populations of western brook lamprey are isolated from other populations of western 

brook lamprey on the Strait of Juan de Fuca and display unique population structure. 

Hatchery enhancement efforts 

There are no current hatchery programs for western brook lamprey in the Elwha River. 

Summary 

The preferred restoration strategy for western brook lamprey in the Elwha River is 

natural recolonization. A secondary strategy, implemented if the downriver Elwha River 

population is decimated during dam removal and associated sediment transport and deposition, 

would be supplementation using an out-of-basin-origin western brook lamprey population as 

donor broodstock. 

Pacific Lamprey 

Pacific lamprey inhabiting the north Olympic Peninsula have received little attention 

from researchers and little is known about the structure of the area’s populations or distributions. 

Generally, the Pacific lamprey is known to display an anadromous life history strategy and, as 

adults, are found in marine waters from California to Alaska (Scott and Crossman 1973). They 

72
spawn in freshwater and rear in larval form in appropriate freshwater habitat for an extended 

period of time (2 to 7 years). 

Spawning occurs in low gradient reaches of mostly gravel and rock and occasionally sand 

at the head of riffles and in pool tailouts (Stone et al. 2002). Larvae hatch, burrow, and feed in 

fine substrates. Larval ammocoetes metamorphose to macrothalmia and begin their downstream 

migration. In landlocked populations, macrothalmia finish their metamorphosis into a parasitic 

adult and spend their adult life preying on resident fishes (Scott and Crossman 1973). 

Adult marine lampreys are predacious, feeding on fishes and marine mammals. Mortality 

in fishes preyed on by lamprey is estimated to be from 1.6 to 1.8%. Marine residency time 

varies, lasting from 1 to 3 years (Scott and Crossman 1973). 

In contrast to Pacific salmon, spawning migrations of adult lampreys from marine to 

freshwater are not directed by an innate tendency to home to natal streams. Rather, Pacific 

lamprey adult migration into freshwater is driven by a response to pheromones released by larval 

lamprey present in watersheds tributary to marine waters where the adults are present. Before 

adult lampreys are sexually mature they are sensitive to pheromones released from conspecific 

larval lampreys (Bjerselius et al. 2000, Close 2002). Absence or lack of larval lamprey in a 

system will reduce or eliminate migrations of adult lamprey into specific rivers or basins. 

Reintroduction programs for Pacific lamprey in which adult Pacific lampreys were outplanted in 

order to reestablish larval abundance in selected river basins have resulted in successes in 

spawning, production of, and dispersal of larval lamprey in the basins and low outmigrations of 

macrothalmia. Numbers of upmigrating adults from these efforts have to date been negligible 

(Close 2002). 

The construction of dams in the Elwha River has negatively impacted Pacific lamprey by 

curtailing upriver access to lampreys and by reducing the complexity and quantity of habitat 

necessary for spawning and rearing. 

Stock status 

The status of Pacific lamprey is unknown. 

Harvest status 

No harvest efforts currently are directed toward Pacific lamprey. 

Hatchery enhancement efforts 

There are no current hatchery programs for Pacific lamprey populations in the Elwha 

River. 

Escapement level 

There is no formal escapement goal for Pacific lamprey populations in the Elwha River. 

73
Summary 

The preferred restoration strategy for Pacific lamprey in the Elwha River is natural 

recolonization. A secondary strategy, implemented if the downriver Elwha River population is 

decimated during dam removal and associated sediment transport and deposition, would be 

supplementation using an out-of-basin-origin adult Pacific lamprey population as donor 

broodstock. 

74
Habitat Restoration 

In the Elwha watershed and nearshore area, habitat restoration that complements dam 

removal and focuses on restoring the physical processes that create and maintain habitats is 

critical to achieving the objectives of this plan. Because the Elwha River contains relatively 

minor amounts of low gradient tributary habitat, maintenance and restoration of floodplain 

habitats and processes by which they are created are vital to habitat recovery. Restoring and 

maintaining physical processes that form habitat in the mainstem Elwha River is the highest 

priority following dam removal. These processes include lateral migration (channel migration 

across the flood plain, perpendicular to the direction of the stream flow) that will result in the 

interaction between river channels and floodplain forests. As sediment transport and LWD 

recruitment increase over time, increasing rates of lateral migration will result in the formation of 

new channel morphologies such as braiding and anastomosing (multiple intersecting channels). 

These channel morphologies are characterized by a combination of groundwater, surface flow, 

and overflow types that are essential for fish production. 

Hydrodynamic processes of wind, tidal, current, and riverine flow form the Elwha 

nearshore, which is dominated by sediment processes. As with the riverine environment, 

restoring and maintaining physical processes that form nearshore habitat is the highest priority 

following dam removal. The Elwha nearshore includes a portion of the central Strait of Juan de 

Fuca that includes approximately 14 miles of shoreline extending from the western shore of 

Freshwater Bay east to the tip of Ediz Hook (Schwartz 1994). It includes the area of tidal 

influence to 30 m MLLW (mean lower low water) and tidally influenced portions of the riparian 

zone (Clallam County MRC 2004, Shaffer et al. 2004, 2005). Habitats of the Elwha nearshore 

include the lower river and associated estuary, intertidal and shallow subtidal sand, and cobble 

habitats. Kelp (Agarum fimbriatum, among others) and eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds are the 

dominant nearshore vegetation of the central Strait of Juan de Fuca, including the Elwha 

nearshore (Thom and Hallum 1991, Shaffer 2000, VanBlaricom and Chambers 2003, Clallam 

County MRC 2004).

History of Impacts 

Analysis of channel and floodplain morphology over time indicates that several factors 

have significantly altered the Elwha River below Elwha and Glines dams. These factors include 

the near cessation of fluvial gravel recruitment caused by construction of the two dams, the 

chronic loss of functional large wood, and channel alterations such as dike construction, meander 

truncation, and LWD removal. These activities were particularly prevalent in the lower river and 

have been well documented by Johnson (1997). Analysis of the aerial photo record since 1939 

(the earliest available photo) shows a dramatic loss of stored sediment in gravel bars, reduction 

in the number of side channels, loss of sinuosity, and a reduction in age of floodplain forest (Pohl 

1999). Truncation of alluvial sediment supplies has lead to a coarsening of both freshwater and 

nearshore habitats. Loss of suitable spawning gravel is chronic below the dams. Because these 

actions took several decades to manifest, it provides a plausible explanation for the delay in 

75
collapse of some stocks of salmon in the lower river (i.e., pink and chum salmon and eulachon 

[Thaleichthys pacificus]) immediately following dam construction. 

The armoring of the feeder bluffs to the east of the river mouth has further degraded the 

Elwha nearshore. This armoring began in the 1930s with the installation of the industrial 

waterline (and concomitant armoring) along the shoreline from near the mouth of Dry Creek east 

to Ediz Hook. At present nearly 9,000 feet of the Elwha nearshore is armored, while the western 

estuarine habitat at the river mouth was truncated by the 1965 construction of a flood protection 

levee. In response, nearshore habitats have shifted from sand and gravel to cobble dominated, 

resulting in wide-ranging shifts in biological communities (Ging and Seavey 1995). 

Concurrent with the anthropogenic changes in the Elwha Basin, climatic changes have 

altered the flow profile for the river, with a doubling of the average peak annual flow event from 

1924 to present (USGS unpubl. data). The increased frequency and size of large high water 

events have altered the channel-forming processes of the river, increasing scour and bank erosion 

even in areas of the basin considered pristine. These changes have been magnified by human 

activities, particularly in the lower river. 

Current Conditions 

The cumulative effects of dam construction, land use, changes in flow patterns, and water 

withdrawals over time continue to influence habitat conditions in the Elwha River. Operation of 

two mainstem hydroelectric dams at RM 4.9 and RM 13.7 truncates the fluvial transported 

sediment and large wood to the middle and lower river areas. This truncation represents the loss 

of one of the primary physical processes by which large river floodplain habitats are formed. It 

also creates a synergistic reaction with other channel alterations (meander truncation and diking) 

and floodplain management (logging) that continues to degrade habitat in these areas. A lack of 

suitable spawning habitat, limited numbers of side channels (in the lower river), very low levels 

of woody debris, disconnected floodplain (from channel incision), and altered temperature 

patterns characterize current habitat conditions. Generally speaking, habitat quality increases 

moving in an upstream direction (Table 21). 

The Elwha nearshore has been significantly degraded due to large-scale chronic sediment 

starvation and alterations to the habitat-forming features of the lower sections of the river and 

marine shoreline. Sediment sources for the Elwha nearshore include the Elwha River and the 

adjacent marine feeder bluffs between the river mouth and Ediz Hook (Schwartz 1994), which 

have been almost completely armored beginning in the 1940s. Armoring of remaining intact 

feeder bluffs may occur in the next 5 years. Additionally, nearly 10% of the historic estuary 

remains isolated by the levee located on the western shore of the river mouth. 

Table 21. Current relative habitat conditions in lower, middle, and upper Elwha River. 

Reach Temperature LWD levels Side channel/mile Spawning habitat 

Lower Altered Low 1.6 Low 

Middle Altered Moderate 7.7 Abundant 

Upper Pristine High Unknown Abundant 

76
Response to Dam Removal 

Removal of the dams will restore the sediment supply to the middle and lower river and 

partially restore the sediment supply to the nearshore marine environment, though several years 

will be required to reach an equilibrium between sediment supply and transport capacity. Dam 

removal will also immediately correct long-standing alterations in water temperature throughout 

the lower and middle river. Dam removal, however, will not immediately affect the deficit of 

functional large wood resulting from intentional removal, logging, and channelization. Riparian 

forest stands in much of the lower and middle Elwha Rivers are composed of younger, primarily 

deciduous species that are incapable of providing functionally sized LWD to support habitatforming processes in the Elwha River. Additionally, because the reservoir areas inundated by 

lakes Aldwell and Mills were logged prior to dam construction, at least 6 miles of the Elwha 

main stem will have little recruitable wood for several decades. Some large sunken wood may 

be scattered across the reservoir bottom; however, it is not known whether this wood will be of a 

quality or quantity to affect habitat-forming processes. The reservoir areas will likely be highly 

unstable for several years following dam removal. 

In the lower river, habitat conditions will initially degrade immediately following dam 

removal. Dramatic increases in suspended sediment supply will increase turbidity levels, 

degrading water quality. Increases in bedload sediment will result in bed aggradation that will 

fill pools and reduce the quality of rearing habitat. Bed aggradation of 1–4 feet has been 

estimated in the lower river (DOI and BOR 1996). This level of aggradation will affect channel 

morphology by increasing the width to depth ratio of the channel cross section. It is anticipated 

that this will induce a greater rate of lateral migration across the floodplain. An anastomosing or 

braided (Leopold et al. 1964) channel network characterized by a multithread channel may 

evolve. Interstitial filling of the gravel beds with fine sediment will degrade spawning areas. 

Mainstem spawning habitat area has steadily eroded in the Elwha River since dam 

construction. McHenry et al. (unpubl. manuscr.) estimated that between 1939 and 1990 

mainstem spawning area declined from 87,585 m2 to 12,108 m2

, a reduction of 86%. Sidechannel habitats in the lower and middle rivers areas will be somewhat buffered from sediment 

effects and should offer refugia. Accelerated sedimentation will impact the middle reach for a 

shorter time period because there is less supply (only sediment from Lake Mills) and the gradient 

is steeper. This steeper gradient causes an increase in stream power that accelerates the transport 

of sediment through this reach. 

Another important difference is that the relative channel incision is less in the middle 

reach than in the lower river. Relative incision can be examined by comparing the number of 

side channels between the lower and upper middle reaches (Table 21). The abundance of side 

channels in the middle reach strongly suggests the river is still strongly connected with its 

floodplain. Salmonids (all species) will quickly colonize these refugia. Once sediment supply 

equilibrates with river transport capacity, habitat quality should increase dramatically. Pool 

depths will increase as excess sediment is transported, spawning habitat will improve 

dramatically as new gravel deposits are recruited, the supply of fluvially transported LWD will 

increase, and water quality will improve. 

77
Sediment is the dominant limiting factor of the Elwha nearshore. Dam removal will fully 

restore riverine sediment delivery, though that is only a portion of the overall nearshore sediment 

process. The extent of restoration response in the Elwha nearshore depends on temporal scale 

and geographic scale, and is defined largely by remaining limiting factors of armoring and lower 

river alterations. 

Temporally there are two anticipated main restoration windows in the nearshore. The 

first will be associated with sediment delivery associated with dam removal, with approximately 

5 million cubic yards of sediment reaching the nearshore within 5 years of dam removal. About 

10% of this material is expected to be sand or gravel, while finer sediments will dominate the 

remainder (Randle et al. 1996, 2003). The second temporal event is the long-term sediment 

transportation that will occur once the Elwha system is stabilized and sediment processes are 

restored, which is expected to occur about 10 years after dam removal (Stolnack and Neiman 

2005). This period represents a return to the historic background riverine delivery of sediment to 

the nearshore. 

Geographically the extent of restoration depends also on the nearshore area examined. 

The lower river will be partially restored with the exception of the west estuary, which is 

currently completely occluded by a dike. Nearshore subtidal and intertidal habitats will 

experience varying levels of restoration depending on location. 

Goals of Habitat Restoration 

The goals of the habitat restoration efforts on the Elwha River are to accelerate the 

recovery of habitat-forming processes in synchrony with dam removal planned under the Elwha 

Act. Because habitat conditions in the Elwha have been degraded as a result of both dam 

construction and land-use activities over a 90-year period, and because dam removal alone will 

not immediately result in preproject conditions, active restoration is recommended. 

Past Habitat Restoration Efforts 

The LEKT Fisheries Department initiated habitat restoration efforts in the Elwha River 

from 1994 to 1996, initially focused on lower river side-channel habitats including Bosco and 

Boston Charley creeks. These projects were relatively small scale, but proved successful. 

Reestablishment of flows to Bosco Creek in particular resulted in increased fish production for 

steelhead and coho and chum salmon (LEKT 2006). Recent restoration efforts (1999–2005) 

have focused on restoration of floodplain features through construction of engineered logjams, 

floodplain reforestation, and removal of impediments to channel migration in the floodplain. To 

date, 22 logjams have been constructed in the mainstem Elwha River. These structures proved to 

be stable, cost effective, and capable of positively affecting habitat. Monitoring data also 

indicates that constructed logjams support two to five times the densities of juvenile salmonids 

compared to similar habitat types without wood (Pess et al. in press). The Salmon Recovery 

Funding Board (SRFB), created by the Washington State Legislature in 1999 to administer grant 

funding targeting salmon habitat restoration, has supported these active restoration efforts, as 

well as efforts to document their effects on fish habitat and populations. 

78
Proposed Habitat Restoration Strategies and Treatments 

In order to accelerate habitat recovery following dam removal, a series of active 

restoration projects are proposed for the lower and middle reaches. Some of these projects are 

within the scope of activities planned under the Elwha Act. For planned activities outside of the 

scope of the Elwha Act, funding must be sought from other sources such as the SRFB. Planned 

additional restoration actions include additions of LWD, floodplain reforestation, removal or 

modification of floodplain dikes, and acquisition of floodplain habitat for long-term 

conservation. Additionally, establishing instream flows that conserve fish recovery needs will be 

critical to the long-term success of the overall restoration effort. 

Large Woody Debris Placement 

Recent research has described the critical role that large wood plays in habitat-forming 

processes in large Pacific Northwest rivers. Abbe and Montgomery (1996) described 17 logjam 

morphologies in the Queets River. The most stable logjam types strongly influenced channel 

morphology and were closely associated with development of habitat features important to 

anadromous fish. Additionally, some logjams were associated with development of old growth 

coniferous forest patches within the active floodplain. In order to restore these processes to the 

Elwha, some of these features will need to be created in appropriate locations. These locations 

will likely include the two reservoirs and the lower river below RM 4. 

Additional restoration efforts using large wood should also be considered in Indian Creek 

and Little River. Historic land use activities including logging, road construction, and housing 

development have altered wood loadings in these systems. In small streams large wood can 

influence pool development, sediment storage, and other features salmonids favor (Montgomery 

and Buffington 1993). Because impacts not associated with the Elwha dams degraded these two 

midriver tributaries, funding for these projects may be secured through other mechanisms. 

Floodplain Reforestation 

As a companion project to the addition of LWD, reforestation of the Elwha River is 

important to restoring the interaction between floodplain forests and river habitat. Most of these 

efforts are planned for the reservoir surfaces that will be exposed immediately following dam 

removal. These efforts include extensive replanting of native trees, control of exotic vegetation, 

relocation of woody debris, and monitoring, and are documented in the revegetation plans for 

lakes Aldwell and Mills (DOI and ONP 2006). 

Dike Removal and Modification 

The effect that various floodplain structures (e.g., dikes, roads) have had on habitatforming processes in the Elwha watershed has been documented (Pohl 1999). While some of 

these structures are necessary to protect private property, others provide questionable levels of 

flood protection. The supplemental EIS (DOI 2005) proposes to maintain their current flood 

protection status, largely through increasing their heights to match expected changes in bed 

aggradation. Some consideration should be given to the removal or alteration of the following 

structures that are believed most detrimental to habitat-forming processes: 

79
• Spur dike at RM 8.5. This 90 meter dike provides no flood control function, but redirects 

water away from historic side channels and potential off-channel sites. 

• Gabions at RM 3.1. A series of gabions were constructed on the west side of the river 

near the infiltration gallery site. These structures appear to provide no flood protection 

but limit lateral migration. 

• Spur dike at RM 2.9. This structure is located on the east bank of the river below the 

one-way bridge. It provides limited flood control function, but affects channel meander 

for at least three meander sequences downstream, largely by diverting water away from 

its historic meander pattern. 

• Push-up dikes between RM 1.5 and 3.0. A series of relict unreinforced dikes from 

meander truncation activities have been left in the Elwha floodplain. These structures 

still exist and represent barriers to channel migration. 

• Dike at tribal hatchery infiltration site at RM 1.5. This dike provides protection for the 

current infiltration gallery. Alterations to the LEKT hatchery may make this structure 

unnecessary. 

• Tribal hatchery outfall at RM 0.3. Spoils from the construction of the hatchery outfall 

were formed into a perpendicular dike along the length of the outfall (upstream side). 

• Nonfederal levee at RM 0.1. This structure provides limited flood protection and could 

be altered to increase access to 30 acres of historic estuary habitat. 

Nearshore Restoration 

The list below represents potential nearshore habitat restoration activities that would 

contribute to the long-term restoration goals for the Elwha ecosystem. Table 22 depicts the 

relationship of dam removal to restoration of nearshore processes and the potential for additional 

restorative actions beyond dam removal. 

• Restore process of eastern feeder bluffs. Options may include development of soft 

armoring techniques that optimize upcoming sediment pulse associated with dam 

removal, forestalling the need for additional armoring along intact feeder bluffs. 

• Remove landfill material that is threatened by bluff erosion. 

• Reroute industrial waterline away from the beachfront. 

• Initiate a conservation easement program along the bluff shoreline to limit need to protect 

existing or new housing. 

Floodplain Acquisition and Conservation Easements 

In addition to the active restoration projects identified above, consideration should be 

given to developing a long-term strategy for the purchase or development of conservation 

easements on floodplain and estuarine property outside of ONP. Unconstrained reaches of the 

Elwha River where lateral migration can occur should be of the highest priority. These areas 

support the majority of functional side channels that continue to function despite loss of alluvial 

80
Table 22. Nearshore habitat restoration summary. 

Habitat 

Nearshore 

reach 

Habitat restoration 

response 

Dam removal 

process and habitat 

restoration 

Additional habitat 

restoration need 

Feeder bluffs Elwha bluffs–

Ediz Hook 

Sediment delivery 

and retention may be 

impacted by existing 

rock and by further 

additional new 

armoring. 

Only partially 

restored 

Significant need, but 

little opportunity for 

additional restoration 

Estuary Elwha River 

mouth 

Dependant on levees. 

If left intact, 

sediment is 

transported to east 

river and nearshore. 

Only partially 

restored 

Significant need and 

opportunity for 

additional restoration 

Rocky reefs 

and shoreline 

Freshwater 

Bay 

Initial sediment 

contribution will 

result in partial shift 

from rock cobble 

(kelp) to sandy 

gravel (mixed 

eelgrass and kelp). 

Largely restored Little anticipated 

need and little 

opportunity for 

additional habitat 

restoration 

sediments from dam construction. These areas are critical to recovery as they are sites of high 

productivity and offer refugia during floods and periods of high sedimentation. 

Significant parcels of floodplain are privately owned, some of which may not be 

adequately protected by local land use regulations to meet the goals of river restoration. These 

lands may be logged or converted to housing or other uses that are not compatible with long-term 

restoration. It is conceivable that a corridor from the ONP boundary on the south to the LEKT 

reservation could be targeted for protection in cooperation with an appropriate partnership 

between land owners and conservation organizations. If successfully implemented, such a 

corridor would link floodplain and estuary habitats in the lower river with pristine habitats within 

Olympic National Park. The Elwha River could represent one of the largest, largely intact 

watersheds in the conterminous United States. 

Instream Flow Conservation 

Conservation of flows necessary to optimize fish spawning and rearing is necessary on 

the Elwha River, particularly during late summer and early fall. Although the Elwha River has 

an average annual flow of 1,500 cfs, base flows as low as 200 cfs are common—particularly 

during low snow pack years. Consumptive water rights in the basin are in excess of base flows. 

The State of Washington has issued water rights to various parties totaling 212 cfs, with 

additional water used by LEKT, which is not subject to state water law. The largest water right 

is owned by the City of Port Angeles, which has a total of 150 cfs for industrial purposes and 

another 50 cfs for municipal drinking water. While Port Angeles does not currently use its entire 

81
water right and leases a portion for nonconsumptive uses (WDFW rearing channel), the 

magnitude of the water right poses a risk to the fisheries resources in the Elwha River. 

Clallam County recently adopted the WRIA (Water Resource Inventory Area) 18 

Watershed Plan (Elwha-Dungeness Planning Unit 2005), which was drafted in response to 

Washington State legislation (ESHB 2514). SHB 2514 legislation was intended to facilitate 

local participation in the establishment of minimum instream flows for the state’s rivers and 

streams. 

The WRIA 18 plan specifically recommends that no additional water rights be issued for 

the Elwha watershed until dam removal is completed. Then after the river channel stabilizes, it 

suggests that IFIM (Instream Flow Incremental Methodology) or a similar tool be used to 

establish the minimum instream flow for the Elwha River under its restored condition. Finally, 

the plan recommends that the City of Port Angeles, as the primary water purveyor in the 

watershed, should complete a water conservation strategy for low flow periods that incorporates 

the needs of fish as the primary trigger. The WRIA 18 Watershed Plan has been endorsed by 

Clallam County and all of the initiating governments party to the plan (City of Port Angeles, 

LEKT, Jamestown Klallam Tribe, Agnew Irrigation District, and the Washington Department of 

Ecology). 

82
83

Recovery Estimates 

Ten stocks of anadromous salmon and trout once used the Elwha River watershed (winter 

and summer steelhead, coho, summer/fall and spring Chinook, pink, chum, and sockeye salmon, 

and cutthroat and bull trout), in addition to a variety of other anadromous species including 

lamprey and forage fish. The Elwha River was legendary for its production of huge Chinook 

salmon; fish in excess of 100 pounds were recorded as late as 1930, 18 years after closure by the 

Elwha Dam (Brannon 1930). The Elwha River was also known for its diversity of species. 

Unfortunately, beyond oral histories and qualitative estimates, little quantitative data exists 

regarding historic abundances of fish returning to the Elwha River. 

At the time Elwha Dam was constructed, limited documentation existed on salmonid 

utilization of the Elwha River, with no technical information on salmonid abundance or 

distribution. Certainly members of the Elwha Tribe were intimately familiar with the river’s 

salmon as were other locals, but they were not consulted until years or decades later (Lane and 

Lane Associates 1990). Records from the original Elwha Hatchery provided some information 

on fish abundance and species diversity in the years immediately following dam construction, 

but they are limited in scope. Specifically, during its operation more than 22 million eggs were 

collected by the hatchery staff from fish captured at the base of the dam (Hosey and Associates 

1988a) (Table 23). Fish collected were likely only those that were ripe on the day of capture and 

therefore do not represent the total population that likely reached the dam in any given year. It is 

not clear from the records available if eggs were collected throughout the year or only at certain 

times of the year. By 1923 though, the numbers of fish ascending to the dam had declined to a 

point that the operation was deemed no longer feasible (Johnson 1997). 

The impetus to estimate historic production of the Elwha watershed was initially only 

partially driven by a desire to restore the watershed. Of equal importance was a desire by the 

State of Washington to estimate damages caused by the dams. Without direct information 

available to describe historic production, it was necessary to make estimates based on available 

habitat and comparisons to other watersheds (Table 24). The first detailed analysis of potential 

production was completed by WDF in 1971 (WDF 1971), with subsequent efforts made by 

WDG (1973), the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (Chapman 1981), Hosey and Associates 

(1988a), the Joint Fish and Wildlife Agencies (JFWA 1988), the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC 1993), and the Department of the Interior et al. (1994). In some cases, 

estimates of available habitat were made directly by on-the-ground surveys of lineal accessible 

distance (WDF 1971, Hosey and Associates 1988a). In other cases, estimates of available 

habitat were made by mapping exercises, estimates of watershed area, flow-based habitat 

modeling, or simple comparisons to “similar” basins. 
Table 23. Hatchery egg takes (thousands) and approximate adults used during 1914–1923. 

Year 

Coho 

eggs 

Adult 

cohoa

Chinook 

eggs 

Adult 

Chinookb

Steelhead 

eggs 

Adult 

steelheadc

Chum 

eggs 

Adult 

chumd

Pink 

eggs 

Adu

pink

1914 601 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1915 1,050 700 160 70 433 290 0 0 0 

1916 5,263 3,500 305 135 139 90 0 0 0 

1917 4,148 2,750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1918 60 40 945 420 441 290 0 0 240 3

1919 40 30 376 170 361 240 0 0 0 

1920 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,120 1,400 0 

1921 143 100 137 60 178 120 3,997 2,650 0 

1922 60 40 185 80 139 90 0 0 1,278 1,7

1923 0 0 0 0 67 45 0 0 0 

Total 11,365 7,560 2,108 935 1,758 1,165 6,117 4,050 1,518 2,0

a Adult coho calculated by assuming 3,000 eggs/female and a 1:1 male:female ratio. b Adult Chinook calculated by assuming 5,000 eggs/female and a 1:1 male:female ratio c Adult steelhead calculated by assuming 3,000 eggs/female and a 1:1 male:female ratio. d Adult chum calculated by assuming 3,000 eggs/female and a 1:1 male:female ratio. 

84

e Adult pink calculated by assuming 1,500 eggs/female and a 1:1 male:female ratio. Table 24. Production estimates (NA = no estimates made). 

Method Chinook Coho Steelhead Pink Chum Sockeye Bull trout Cutthr

WDF 1971 8,500 NA NA 91,000 15,000 NA NA WDG 1973 NA NA 5,100 NA NA NA NA 9,Chapman 1981 1,284 3,520 483 3,147 9,042 NA NA 

Hosey and Assoc. 1988a 6,720 6,860 3,616 12,000 0 85 1,000 1,

JFWA 1988 17,493 19,143 NA 137,600 25,600 NA 3,709 

FERC 1993 6,900 12,100 5,757 96,000 18,000 NA NA DOI et al. 1994 6,900 12,100 5,757 96,000 18,000 6,000 NA 
As might be expected, each method provided a different estimate of production, with 

substantial variability between methods. For example, Chapman (1981) provided a minimal 

estimate of 1,284 Chinook spawners above Elwha Dam, while JFWA (1988) calculated a 

spawning potential of more than 17,000 Chinook salmon. Estimates of chum salmon provided 

by WDF (1971), JFWA (1988), and FERC (1993), ranged from 15,000 to 25,600 spawning 

chum. On the other hand, Hosey and Associates (1988a) believed chum salmon recovery simply 

wasn’t possible due to the limited estuarine area. Similar variability was seen for the other 

species. 

Observations by Klallam elders and early settlers provide qualitative information to 

compare with contemporary estimates of production and distribution of salmon in the Elwha 

River. Ed Sampson, a Klallam native who grew up on the Elwha, said when interviewed in 1976 

(Lane & Lane Associates 1990) that “the fish were so plentiful that there was no need to select 

‘good’ areas.” He also said “When I went out fishing with my grandmother, I would catch 50 

fish. She would catch 100. We’d carry them back in a wheelbarrow.” 

Other early homesteaders to the area reported that pink salmon were so abundant in Little 

River (a tributary near the head of Lake Aldwell) that horses shied and refused to cross the 

channel (Brown 1982). Martin Humes, whose homestead was located upstream of Rica Canyon 

near the mouth of Idaho Creek, wrote to his sister on November 9, 1897, “The salmon lay there 

with their backs out of water. All I had to do was to reach over them, hook the hook in their 

back and pull them out. They are the hook bill (coho) salmon and have just come from salt 

water. We look for lots of them to run now as this run has just commenced.” Joe Sampson, a 

Klallam native, reportedly made expeditions to Chicago Camp and found large salmon there 

(Adamire and Fish 1991). Based on these, other similar historic accounts, and evaluation of the 

main river and tributaries relative to known fish swimming and leaping abilities, we agree that 

the JFWA and FERC estimates of production are reasonable, if not definitive. 

Despite historic reports, questions continued to exist about the ability of salmon to access 

the upper reaches of the Elwha. WDF (1971), based on its physical surveys of the river, believed 

salmon could ascend upstream to RM 41. However, the owners of the dams questioned whether 

or not salmon could pass beyond Grand Canyon (RM 21.5) (Katz et al. 1975) or even Rica 

Canyon. In order to assess the ability of fish to colonize the watershed and pass through these 

potential barriers, USFWS radio-tagged adult summer steelhead (Wampler 1984) obtained from 

WDG, and released them at various locations in the upper watershed. Releases were timed 

during the summer months (July to September) with flows ranging from 590 cfs to 1,800 cfs. In 

all cases, fish released in Lake Mills were observed to readily pass through both Rica Canyon 

and Grand Canyon, ascending to at least the Goldie River, located above RM 29. A fish released 

near Camp Wilder ascended upstream to RM 37. 

This work, combined with the snorkel surveys conducted by Hosey and Associates 

(1987) confirmed fish could pass through Rica and Grand canyons, upstream to near the 

headwaters. The only limitation identified is for pink and chum salmon which may not be able 

to ascend through Rica Canyon, which has several cascades and falls up to 2 m (WDF 1971). If 

this assumption is incorrect, the production numbers noted above could be low. 

85
The response of fish populations to dam removal is expected to vary between 

populations. With more than 70 miles of mainstem and tributary habitat available to anadromous 

species after dam removal, much of it in pristine condition, the rate of recolonization will depend 

on existing population sizes, the fitness of the founder populations, the amount of new habitat 

becoming available to a given stock, interactions with other recovering fish populations, and 

outside effects (marine harvests, nearshore productivity, climate, ocean conditions, etc.). 

However, it is important to provide an estimate or “recovery goal” for expectations of recovery 

rates and long-term abundance in order to evaluate the success of efforts used to facilitate 

recolonization following dam removal. 

For the purposes of this plan, recovery expectations have been defined in terms of total 

production of anadromous adult salmon (including those fish subject to harvest in Canadian and 

U.S. waters) and rates of recovery. Assumed harvest rates are applied for each species, with 

subsequent spawning escapement values. However, neither the harvest rates nor the escapement 

values should be considered “goals” per se, as the harvest rates are simply assumed values based 

on information available when models designed to estimate fisheries harvest impacts and 

outcomes were first developed. The escapement levels are simply the result of applying the 

assumed harvest rate to the anticipated adult production. 

True productivity, escapement, and harvest goals will be developed at a later date, when 

specific information is available for the Elwha Basin. More importantly, initial goals for total 

production and rates of recovery will be updated as the recolonization process proceeds and 

information is gathered regarding the inherent productivity of the Elwha watershed. Monitoring 

activities will be expected to provide important feedback on initial modeling efforts (see the 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management section). 

Chinook Salmon 

Potential Production Estimates 

The Elwha River is currently the largest producer of Chinook salmon in the Strait of Juan 

de Fuca, although the majority of the run is the result of artificial enhancement efforts. 

Following dam removal, it is estimated Chinook salmon (combined spring and summer/fall 

stocks) will use mainstem habitat up to RM 42.9 as well as 14.1 miles of tributary habitat (FERC 

1993). A number of methods have been used to estimate the potential production of Chinook 

salmon, once fish are allowed access to the entire watershed (WDF 1971, Chapman 1981, Hosey 

and Associates 1988a). Hosey and Associates (1988a) reviewed known values of spawners per 

mile for Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia river systems and found a wide variation in 

spawner densities coastwide—from 84 to 410 Chinook salmon per mile.

After review of the range of spawner densities seen in other river systems, it was decided 

it would be inappropriate to use either the entire range of values presented by Hosey and 

Associates (1988a) or a mean value to estimate potential spawner abundance in the Elwha 

(FERC 1993). This choice was made primarily because it was recognized that the Elwha River 

represents a nearly pristine watershed, while the values found throughout the Pacific Northwest 

were heavily impacted by land use. Therefore, it was decided that if it was possible to identify a 

single river comparable to the Elwha River, a more realistic estimate might be obtained. 

86
A review of the Hoh River on the north Washington coast indicated many shared 

characteristics with the Elwha River. Both the Hoh and Elwha rivers originate in the Olympic 

Mountains with their headwaters located within a few miles of one another. Both rivers are 

influenced by glaciers with high turbidity levels and heavy spring runoff. These rivers are also 

comparable in watershed area and miles of mainstem and large tributary habitat. The Elwha 

watershed comprises 321 square miles while the Hoh River contains 299 square miles. The 

Elwha watershed contains a total of 57 miles of mainstem and tributary stream habitat considered 

usable by Chinook salmon spawners. The Hoh River contains 59 miles of habitat used by 

Chinook salmon (WDF 1981). The two rivers presently support, or historically supported, 

comparable Chinook salmon runs with spring, summer, and fall components. 

Based on values for the Hoh watershed, as well as a 1971 WDFW survey of the upper 

Elwha Basin, estimates of 368 spawners per mile for mainstem habitat areas and 121 spawners 

per mile for tributary areas were used to derive an estimate of escapement under “pristine” 

conditions (i.e., the number of Chinook salmon spawners with no harvest). These values for 

spawner abundance per mile, in conjunction with the mainstem and tributary habitat estimates, 

were used by FERC (1993) to estimate spawner capacity in the areas above the two dams: 

Mainstem escapement = 42.9 miles × 368 spawners per mile = 15,787 spawners 

Tributary escapement = 14.1 miles × 121 spawners per mile = 1,706 spawners 

Total spawning escapement = 15,787 + 1,706 = 17,493 Chinook salmon spawners 

Rebuilding Curves 

LEKT Fisheries Department staff used a spawner-recruit model and constants cited in 

FERC’s draft staff report (1993) with some further refinements to develop rebuilding curves 

based on the potential production estimate developed. Total production estimates for the 

population were derived from these curves, with resultant estimates of escapement and harvest 

levels for the population. A starting value of 200 naturally spawning Chinook salmon was 

assumed, with outplanting of juveniles not reflected in the recovery model. The model assumes 

no in-river harvest during the first cycle of recovery (i.e., 4-year, first cycle of recruits from 

initial 200 spawners reach the spawning grounds immediately after passage is restored) and a 

gradual ramping up of fisheries following that time. In addition, it was assumed that returning 

Chinook salmon spawners would disperse in the watershed for effective use of the newly 

available habitat. 

It is important to note that when the FERC model was first developed in the late 1980s, 

harvest rates on Chinook salmon were much higher than at present, and it was assumed that 

populations could sustain these high rates. In essence the FERC model assumes a very high 

underlying productivity. Subsequently, the model results reflect a harvest rate of 65% in the first 

cycles following dam removal, increasing to 78%. Although it is unlikely that a naturally 

spawning population of fish can sustain these high levels of harvest, it is also true that actual 

harvest rates on Chinook salmon have declined dramatically in recent years (Appendix B). 

Therefore, the 25-year recovery time frame predicted by the FERC model is believed to be 

87
reasonable (Figure 11). Successful outplanting activities are expected to shorten recovery time 

further and help ensure that Chinook salmon colonize the entire watershed. 

As a further example of how quickly Chinook salmon could be reintroduced into the 

upper and middle reaches of the Elwha River, the introduction of Chinook salmon into the upper 

South Fork Skykomish River in the late 1950s was reviewed. An impassable barrier, Sunset 

Falls, exists at RM 49.6. WDFW developed a trap and haul facility in order to extend anadromy 

upstream of this barrier falls. Chinook salmon were found to rapidly colonize the habitat (10–15 

years), based on returning adults to the trap (Seiler 1991). Chinook salmon production in the 

South Fork Skykomish has varied since initial increases in the mid-1970s, but ups and downs of 

returns above Sunset Falls appear to reflect the overall production of Chinook salmon within the 

greater Snohomish River watershed as a whole. 

Though the Skykomish River differs greatly from the Elwha River, that is, steeper with 

more confined valleys dominated by bedrock, it serves as one of the few examples where new 

production of anadromous salmonids was developed merely by establishing passage into the 

habitat. Numbers of fish returning to the trap and haul facility have been recorded since the 

inception of the facility in the early 1950s. These data points were used to create a sigmoid 

curve relationship that was subsequently applied to the Elwha Chinook salmon scenario, 

applying a 2.9 multiplier to the Sunset Falls data to represent Elwha escapement, and a 13.3 

multiplier to represent total production. These ratios are based on the theoretical endpoints of 

Chinook salmon escapement and total production predicted by FERC’s recovery model 

(escapement = 6,900, total production = 31,364) (FERC 1993) (Figure 12). 

Given these two model scenarios, escapements of Chinook salmon to the Elwha River 

could range from a spawning population of 6,900 (78% exploitation rate) to a high of just over 

17,000 spawners (unexploited population). Harvest management of impacting fisheries will be 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

# of Fis

h

Total Production

Spawners

Number of fish 

Year 

Total production 

Spawners 

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 

Figure 11. Predicted recovery of Elwha River Chinook salmon stocks using a spawner-recruit model. 

88
0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Escapement and production

Escapement

Production

Transformed data--Escapement

Transformed data--Production

Figure 12. Transformed Sunset Falls data and curve fitting relationships to predict recovery periods for 

Elwha River Chinook salmon. 

an integral part of fisheries restoration. Chinook harvest restrictions in the Elwha River would 

probably be in place for at least the first two complete cycles (8–10 years). Additional harvest 

restrictions in localized marine fisheries (e.g., area closures in the Freshwater Bay vicinity) might 

be necessary during the same period. 

Harvest restrictions in other Washington sport and commercial fisheries or Canadian 

fisheries to specifically accommodate Elwha restoration are not likely, as the depressed status of 

many other native Western Washington, Columbia River, and Canadian Chinook salmon stocks 

would probably have a larger influence in shaping fisheries for the foreseeable future. Current 

harvest management planning ensures that harvest rates within the southern U.S. waters would 

not exceed 10% for Chinook salmon stocks of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (PSIT and WDFW 

2004). Additional harvest is controlled by the provisions of the U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty. 

Given these constraints on international harvest, a reasonable restoration goal should be based 

somewhere between these two points (6,900 to 17,000 spawners with a midpoint at 

approximately 12,000 spawners). 

Steelhead 

Potential Production Estimates 

The Elwha River is currently the largest producer of steelhead in the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca although, like the river’s Chinook salmon production, the majority of the run is the result of 

artificial enhancement efforts. Following dam removal, it is estimated steelhead (winter or 

summer) will use mainstem habitat up to RM 42.9, as well as all accessible tributary habitat 

available, or more than 75 linear miles of stream (FERC 1993). 

As cited in FERC (1993), the parr production potential (PPP) method (Gibbons et al. 

1985) was used to estimate the potential steelhead production level for the Elwha River 

watershed. The PPP is a habitat-based method of estimating the carrying capacity of a river 

89
system. For the Elwha River, total habitat area (m2

) was apportioned into tributary and 

mainstem strata, with the mainstem habitat further subdivided into gradient zones (Hosey and 

Associates 1988a). Potential parr production was then estimated by assigning values of parr per 

meters squared (parr/m2

) as presented by Gibbons et al. (1985) for each of the strata and 

summing across the watershed. 

Rebuilding Curves 

Using the PPP values, Gibbons et al. (1985) proposed a method to modify both Ricker 

spawner-recruit and Beaverton-Holt stock-recruitment models to estimate total adult recruits and 

ultimately the maximum sustained yield (MSY) escapement goals. For the Elwha River, total 

production was calculated to be 10,100 adult recruits, with a MSY harvest rate of 43% and 

resulting escapement of 5,757 (FERC 1993). Based on these estimates, recovery of steelhead in 

the Elwha River is expected to occur 15 to 20 years following initialization of dam removal 

(Figure 13). 

The South Fork of the Skykomish River was used to evaluate the modeled recovery of 

steelhead in the Elwha River with actual returns above Sunset Falls following introduction in 

1958. Returns increased through 1980, from 88 adults to well over 1,000 fish in a matter of 22 

years (Figure 14). 

Coho Salmon 

Potential Production Estimates 

FERC (1993) used the average of two separate methods to estimate the potential 

production of coho salmon for the Elwha River. The first method was a habitat-based analysis of 

potential smolt production developed by Zillges (1977) for estimating smolt density. Using this 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

# of Fish

Total Production

Spawners

Total production 

ers 

Number of fish 

Spawn

Figure 13. Predicted recovery of Elwha River steelhead stocks using spawner-recruit model. 

90
-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Number of fish 

Year

Figure 14. South Fork Skykomish River steelhead returns at the Sunset Falls trap and haul facility, 1958–

1993 (based on data from T. Burns, WDFW Habitat Program, Olympia). 

method produced a spawner escapement estimate at MSY of 7,742 adults. An alternate method 

compared adult abundance per lineal mile of stream habitat in the South Fork Skykomish River 

with lineal miles of accessible habitat in the Elwha River, producing an estimate of 19,143 adult 

coho salmon. The average of these two values (13,443) was further reduced by 10% (12,100) to 

account for the assumption that the information for South Fork Skykomish overestimated MSY 

escapement. Spawner-recruit modeling by FERC (1993) generated a recovery curve for Elwha 

coho salmon based on a pristine potential production of 31,758 (no harvest).

Rebuilding Curves 

Using an assumed maximum sustained harvest rate of 65% and the equilibrium MSY 

escapement of 12,100 coho, FERC’s production model predicted an MSY adult recruitment of 

34,571. The harvest rate of 65% is likely an overestimate of sustainable levels for a natural 

stock, as was reported by the PFMC (1997) when it evaluated the affects of harvest on other 

Strait of Juan de Fuca naturally spawning coho salmon stocks. However, an assumed harvest 

rate of 60% still results in a sustained adult recruitment of more than 30,000 fish. Recovery 

under this production curve is estimated to occur 8 to 10 years following initialization of dam 

removal (Figure 15). 

To verify this rebuilding rate, the South Fork Skykomish River was again used as an 

example. Coho salmon were introduced into that river starting in 1958. Without additional 

supplementation, returns increased from 1,500 fish in 1960 to more than 20,000 fish in a matter 

of 10 years (Figure 16). Declines observed in years following 1980 (1980–1993) are consistent 

with patterns seen in other Puget Sound river systems. 

91
0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

# of Fish

Total Production

Spawners

Number of fish 

Figure 15. Predicted recovery of Elwha River coho salmon stocks using spawner-recruit model (FERC 

1993). 

Chum Salmon 

Potential Production Estimates 

Similar to the coho salmon estimates, FERC (1993) averaged two alternative methods of 

calculating MSY escapement levels for chum salmon in the Elwha River, resulting in an MSY 

escapement estimate of 18,000 fish. Assuming an exploitation rate of 50%, FERC generated a 

production curve back-calculating the pristine potential production of 43,219. 

Rebuilding Curves 

The rebuilding curves were developed from the production model, with an equilibrium 

MSY escapement of 18,000 chum salmon and concurrent harvest rate of 50% (total production 

equaling 36,000). Substantial recovery of Elwha chum salmon is estimated to occur 15 to 20 

years following the initialization of dam removal (Figure 17). However, adverse habitat 

conditions in the lower river in the years immediately following dam removal may prolong 

recovery timing, as chum salmon are expected to rely almost exclusively on this habitat, which 

will be directly affected by dam removal. 

92
0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990

Number of fish 

Figure 16. South Fork Skykomish River coho salmon at the Sunset Falls trap and haul facility, 1958–

1993 (based on data from T. Burns, WDFW Habitat Program, Olympia). 

Year

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

40,000

Year

Number of fis

h

Total production

Spawners

Number of fish 

Year

Total production 

Spawners 

Figure 17. Predicted recovery of Elwha River chum salmon stock using spawner-recruit model (FERC 

1993). 

Pink Salmon 

Potential Production Estimates 

The estimated escapement of pink salmon to the Elwha River at MSY levels was 

calculated by averaging two separate estimates, (56,000 + 137,000)/2 = 96,000 (rounded to the 

nearest thousand). Spawner-recruit modeling by FERC (1993), assuming an MSY exploitation 

rate of 65%, generated a recovery curve for Elwha pink salmon with a pristine potential 

93
production of 251,968 (no harvest). Substantial recovery of this stock is estimated to occur 10 to 

15 years following the start of dam removal (Figure 18). As with chum salmon, adverse habitat 

conditions in the lower river following dam removal may prolong recovery timing. Additionally, 

as with most pink salmon populations of Puget Sound, it is assumed that odd-year runs will be 

the predominant population. 

Other Species 

The other species expected to recover within the Elwha Basin include sea-run cutthroat 

trout, sockeye salmon, native char, lamprey, and a variety of forage fish. Though important in 

the restoration process, not enough information is known about these local stocks to be able to 

generate recovery goals. As fish monitoring activities proceed, interim goals may be established 

and updated as appropriate. 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

# of Fish Number of fish 

Total Production

Spawners

Total production 

Spawners 

Figure 18. Predicted recovery of Elwha River pink salmon stock using spawner-recruit model (FERC 

1993). 

94
Monitoring and Adaptive Management 

The Elwha Act calls for “the removal of the dams and full restoration of the Elwha River 

ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries.” The following are goals central to implementing 

the act: 

• Reestablish self-sustaining anadromous salmonid populations and habitats throughout the 

Elwha River watershed and its nearshore as quickly as possible, using the most 

appropriate methods. 

• Maintain the integrity of the existing salmonid genetic and life history diversity before, 

during, and after dam removal and the subsequent periods of elevated sediment levels. 

• Maintain the health of fish populations before, during, and after dam removal. 

• Restore the physical and biological processes of the overall ecosystem through dam 

removal, including the return of viable salmonid populations (VSPs). 

Additionally, a parallel goal is found in the NOAA Fisheries Service guidance documents 

for recovering ESA-listed salmon species: restoration efforts shall be targeted at achieving 

VSPs.6

Monitoring the fish population and ecosystem response to the removal of the Elwha 

River dams and implementation of appropriate adaptive management actions are critical to 

achievement of the above goals. Monitoring will provide information necessary to evaluate the 

success or failure of management actions. This information can be used to make necessary 

changes in management. Because of the spatial and temporal scale of the project, it will be 

necessary to reevaluate the restoration effort at intervals to make adjustments if assumptions of 

the plan are invalidated. Monitoring will also allow managers to define additional restoration 

actions needed outside the scope of the Elwha Act. 

Adaptive Management and Monitoring Objectives 

Monitoring ecosystem response in the Elwha River requires establishing clearly defined 

objectives. Adaptive management requires the objectives to be linked to the overall goals of the 

Elwha Act, as the goals form the basis for judging project effectiveness and guide adaptive 

management actions necessary to achieve the EFRP goals. Objectives for the EFRP include: 

Objective 1: Evaluate recolonization by species (or genotype) and method of 

reintroduction through the examination of rebuilding rates (production), population size 

(abundance), spatial distribution, and habitat utilization. 

 

6

 A VSP is defined as “an independent population ... that has a negligible risk of extinction due to threats from 

demographic variation, local environmental variation, and genetic diversity changes over a 100-year time frame” 

(McElhany et al. 2000). The VSP concept incorporates abundance, productivity, diversity, and distribution. 

95
96

Objective 2: Document the genetic structure and life history diversity of existing Elwha 

River fish populations. Identify how genetic structure and life history diversity are 

affected by dam removal and hatchery practices over time. Document how any changes 

affect the viability of the population. 

Objective 3: Monitor fish health over time, space, and method of reintroduction. 

Objective 4: Document recovery of ecosystem processes over time and space. Ecosystem 

recovery includes not only freshwater, but also riparian, nearshore, and terrestrial 

habitats. 

Hypotheses Development 

A suite of testable hypotheses has been developed for each of the monitoring objectives 

identified. In order to be linked to the adaptive management strategy, these hypotheses have 

been written to specify desired or expected outcomes of the recovery plan. In some cases, these 

desired or expected outcomes have been carefully developed through analysis of existing data 

(see Table 25). In other cases, the expected outcome is unknown but is intuitively inferred (e.g., 

ecosystem response to recolonizing salmonid populations). When a specific target has been 

identified, the hypotheses will reference the source. If no reference is shown, the target is 

inferred. 

Objective 1: Recolonization 

For summer steelhead, cutthroat and bull trout, sockeye salmon, brook lamprey, Pacific 

lamprey, and nearshore forage fish species (eulachon, Pacific sandlance [Ammodytes

hexapterus], herring [Clupea pallasii pallasii], smelt spp.), the EFRP prioritizes natural 

colonization as the lone restoration strategy for the three restoration phases identified in the plan 

(before, during, and after dam removal). For winter steelhead and Chinook, coho, chum, and 

pink salmon, hatchery supplementation will be used to first preserve and then help restore the 

species during the pre-dam-removal and dam-removal phases, with a shift toward natural 

colonization as the priority restoration method during the post-dam-removal phase as the 

numbers of naturally produced fish of these species approach interim 10-year restoration targets 

(Table 25). Recolonization monitoring must be designed to evaluate the success of the various 

restoration strategies and to provide feedback on the effectiveness of these strategies over time 

and space. 

Spatial distribution 

When fish have full access to the Elwha watershed following dam removal, it is expected 

they will colonize the watershed at a predictable rate. It is anticipated that all species will have 

fully colonized the watershed within 20 to 30 years (Table 25) following dam removal. In order 

to test this assumption, these three hypotheses have been developed. 

Ho: Rate of dispersion throughout the watershed is consistent with modeled and expected 

rate (Table 25). 

Ho: Species are utilizing all physically appropriate and accessible habitat (Table 25). 

Ho: No barriers to migration exist. 
Table 25. EFRP interim restoration targets. 

Abundance Productivitya

Species 

After 10 

years

b

After 25 

years

c

After 10 

years At MSY Spatial distributiond Diversity 

Chinook salmon ≈2,000 6,900 >1.0 4.6 Main stem to RM 42.9 Spring and 

summer/fall 

<10 

rate 

Coho salmon ≈3,000 12,100 >1.0 2.9 Main stem (RM 42.9) 

and accessible tribs. 

Fall <40

<20

Pink salmon ≈10,000 96,000 >1.0 2.9 Main stem (RM 16) 

and accessible tribs. 

Early/late <50

Chum salmon ≈3,000 18,000 >1.0 2.0 Main stem (RM 16) 

and accessible tribs. 

Fall <25

Sockeye salmon TBDg 6,000 >1.0 TBD Lake Sutherland Unknown TB

Steelhead trout ≈1,500 5,757 >1.0 1.8 Main stem (RM 42.9) 

and accessible tribs. 

Summer/ winter 

<5% 

Cutthroat trout TBD TBD >1.0 TBD Main stem (RM 42.9) 

and accessible tribs. 

Unknown TB

Bull trout No decline 

from 

present 

1,000h >1.0 TBD/ 

increasing 

Main stem (RM 44+) and accessible tribs. 

Unknown TB

97

a Natural-origin recruits and spawners. b Abundance of adults spawning naturally, regardless of origin. c Abundance of adults of natural-origin spawning naturally. d For accessible tributaries, see Hosey and Associates 1988b. e Southern United States (Puget Sound and coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California). f Established for all Strait of Juan de Fuca coho salmon populations. g TBD = to be determined. h From USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan. 
Composition of spawning population 

Several strategies will be used to reintroduce salmon into the watershed, including the 

release of hatchery produced fish at a variety of life history stages. Each strategy has an 

expected outcome in terms of survival to spawning adult (Table 26). It is anticipated some 

strategies will ultimately be more successful than others, and an important goal of the monitoring 

plan is to determine which strategy will be most effective. The following hypotheses are 

designed to test whether the restoration strategy is achieving the goals of the project. 

Ho: Success of reintroduction methods is consistent with expectations (Table 26). 

Ho: Composition of spawning population is consistent with expectations (Table 26). 

Productivity and abundance 

Juvenile production, the freshwater environment, and marine survival are keys to 

productivity and abundance objectives. As naturally spawning adults colonize the watershed, the 

production of natural-origin juveniles should increase and ultimately result in the return of 

spawning adults from naturally spawning parents. The underlying productivity of the freshwater 

environment is a key component of the rate of recovery realized and overall carrying capacity of 

the system. Marine survival is another component affecting the rate of recovery of natural-origin 

populations in the watershed. It may also be a measure of the success of various juvenile 

hatchery fish release strategies selected for preserving and restoring each species through the 

plan. Sources of marine mortality (e.g., natural vs. harvest, fishery specific) may also suggest 

strategies to improve marine survival over time. 

The following hypotheses are designed to evaluate the success of juvenile fish 

production, the productivity of the freshwater environment, and postrelease survival for fish 

produced through various hatchery release strategies applied through the plan. Assuming the 

majority of postrelease mortality will occur in the marine environment because of the relatively 

short distance that most hatchery fish released into the Elwha River transit before reaching the 

estuary, the latter hypothesis will also serve to indicate marine survival affects on natural-origin 

components of fish populations. 

Ho: Rate of recovery is consistent with modeled or expected rate (Table 26). 

Ho: Juvenile NOR production is consistent with rebuilding rate expectations (Table 25). 

Ho: Hatchery-origin fish postrelease survival is consistent with expectations (Table 26 

and Appendix A). 

Objective 2: Genetic Diversity and Population Integrity 

Full restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem requires that fish species adapt to using the 

full range of habitat types available. Historically, this diversity of habitat conditions led to the 

development of different phenotypes (i.e., run timing, life history), and potential genotypes. To 

restore fish throughout the watershed, it will be necessary to preserve the entire spectrum of 

existing genetic diversity, while other traits develop or reexpress themselves. 

98
Table 26. EFRP interim Chinook salmon hatchery targets before, during, and after dam removal. 

Release 

period Release strategy 

Release 

numbers 

Survival 

rate (total)a

Survival 

to river 

Spatial 

distribution Diversity 

Before On-station yearling 200,000 >1% >1,000 To weir No changeb

removal Morse Creek yearling 200,000 >1% >500 Morse Creek No change 

On-station fingerling 2,550,000 >0.25% >1,000 To weir No change 

Off-station fingerling 0 NAc NA NA No change 

Removal On-station yearling 200,000 >1% >1,000 To weir No change 

Morse Creek yearling 200,000 >1% >500 Morse Creek No change 

On-station fingerling 2,725,000 >0.25% >1,000 To weir No change 

Off-station fingerling 500,000 >0.25% >500 TBDd No change 

After On-station yearling 200,000 >1% >1,000 TBD No change 

removal Morse Creek yearling e 200,000 >1% >500 Morse Creek No change 

On-station fingerling 2,200,000 >0.25% >1,000 TBD No change 

Off-station fingerling 750,000 >0.25% >500 TBD No change 

a

 Expected survival rates for other species are found in Appendix A. 

b

 No change in run timing or genetic or phenotypic composition over the duration of the hatchery program. 

c

 NA = not applicable 

d

 TBD = to be decided 

e

 Morse Creek yearling production will be phased out following dam removal. 

Run timing and spawn timing 

Alterations in run timing and spawn timing are perhaps the most obvious effects of 

hatchery practices found in salmonid populations (Quinn 2004). Hatchery practices may alter 

run timing by selectively spawning fish from a limited portion of the total run through altered 

rearing conditions or inadvertent changes to a population’s genotype (Johnson et al. 1997, Quinn 

2004). Salmonid run timing and spawn timing, however, also respond to changes in habitat 

conditions and accessibility. The most obvious example of this in the Elwha River is the loss of 

the early timed component of the Chinook population in response to loss of access to the upper 

watershed. 

A change in run timing may be detrimental, beneficial, or neutral to the success of the 

restoration effort. Again, using the early timed Chinook salmon population as an example, a 

shift to earlier run timing in fish using the upper watershed would likely benefit Chinook salmon 

recovery, as it would indicate fish were successfully adapting to the colder water conditions 

found in the upper watershed. Conversely, a shift to an earlier run timing in the lower river 

population of Chinook salmon could indicate that hatchery practices or changes in habitat were 

altering the timing, possibly leading to a less successful population. This hypothesis is designed 

to evaluate potential changes in timing. 

Ho: Run timing and spawn timing are not changing over time (Table 25). 

Genetic composition 

The genetic composition of any fish population plays a critical role in its viability 

(McElhany et al. 2000). The genetic traits of individual salmonid populations allow that 

99
population to be uniquely adapted to a particular river. Additionally, genetic diversity improves 

the population’s ability to adapt to changes in its environment, whether those changes are natural 

or anthropogenic. Conversely, the loss of diversity reduces the ability of the population to thrive 

over the long term. Therefore, it is imperative that restoration efforts in the Elwha River 

preserve the genetic diversity of populations remaining in the watershed, and that actions 

implemented under the plan do not lead to the further loss of diversity, but instead help enhance 

diversity over the long term as the various populations adapt to new habitat conditions. This is 

addressed in the following hypothesis. 

Ho: Actions implemented under the plan do not directly alter the genetic signature of 

remaining populations. 

Phenotypic composition 

A population’s phenotype is an outward expression of genetic structure and diversity, as 

shaped by environmental pressures. For example, Elwha River Chinook salmon were 

historically known for being very large bodied (up to 100 pounds) (Brannon and Hershberger 

1984). Currently, Elwha Chinook salmon adults returning to the river are relatively large in 

average body weight (20–30 pounds round weight, LEKT test fishery data) when compared to 

other Puget Sound fall Chinook populations returning to natal streams (e.g., Green River 

Chinook salmon average 15 pounds round weight, WDFW Soos Creek Hatchery data). A small 

proportion of the current Elwha Chinook population entering freshwater each year remain 

extraordinarily large in body weight (30–60 pounds round weight) and, according to Mike 

McHenry, LEKT Fisheries Department, one individual in the 80 pound range was observed in 

2003. 

Although the population remains among the largest in average body weight within the 

Puget Sound region, extremely large individuals in the Elwha River appear to be rarer in 

occurrence than observed historically. The apparent decreased proportion of larger adult fish in 

the river may reflect a change in genetic diversity and a shift away from a large body phenotype 

that was historically advantageous, commensurate with restriction of the population to spawning 

in the lower five miles of the watershed. A phenotypic change resulting from artificial 

propagation practices is also possible, although the strategy of releasing mainly subyearling fish 

reared for a short duration in the hatchery makes such changes less likely (as suggested in 

Berejikian and Ford 2004). When fish are again exposed to the natural selective pressures found 

in the Elwha watershed, the large body characteristic may be allowed to reexpress itself. The 

following hypothesis was designed to examine change in phenotype over time. 

Ho: Phenotypic composition is not changing over time. 

Objective 3: Fish Health Response 

One risk when artificial propagation is used as a primary means to preserve and restore 

fish populations is the potential catastrophic loss of hatchery and natural-origin fish due to the 

introduction, transfer, and amplification of fish disease pathogens. Interactions between hatchery 

fish and natural fish may result in the transmission of pathogens, if either the hatchery or natural 

fish are harboring a disease. This impact may occur in tributary areas where hatchery fish are 

planted and throughout migration areas where hatchery and natural-origin fish may interact. As 

100
the pathogens responsible for the most prevalent fish diseases observed in the watershed 

(Dermocystidium salmonis and bacterial kidney disease [Renibacterium salmoninarum]) may be 

present in Elwha River hatchery or natural populations, there is some uncertainty associated with 

determining the source of the pathogens. The hatchery-origin fish may have an increased risk of 

carrying fish disease pathogens because of relatively high rearing densities that increase stress 

and can lead to greater manifestation and spread of disease within the hatchery population. 

Under natural, low density conditions, most pathogens do not lead to a disease outbreak. 

When fish disease outbreaks in Elwha River natural salmon populations do occur, they are often 

triggered by stressful high temperature and low flow conditions associated with the dams and 

water withdrawal practices. Under these conditions, it is possible that the release of hatchery 

fish may lead to the loss of natural fish, if the hatchery fish are carrying a pathogen, if that 

pathogen is transferred to the natural fish, and if the transfer of the pathogen leads to a disease 

outbreak. A disease outbreak in either the hatchery or natural populations could slow recovery 

and pose an increased risk to the success of the restoration effort. To address concerns of 

potential disease transmission from hatchery salmonids to natural-origin fish, fish health 

practices and monitoring are implemented so that Elwha hatchery fish are reared and released in 

healthy condition. The USFWS initiated a baseline assessment of the fish diseases found in wild 

fish within the Elwha watershed in 2004.7

 The following hypothesis is associated with the threat 

of disease. 

Ho: Restoration strategy has not introduced, transferred, or amplified fish diseases in the 

watershed. 

Objective 4: Ecosystem Recovery 

Ecosystem recovery related to restoration efforts for salmonid populations can have a 

direct effect on adaptive management actions taken in the fish restoration strategy. Ecosystem 

recovery includes: 

• habitat-forming assemblages including kelp and eelgrass systems 

• linkages between habitat-forming and functional processes throughout the watershed, 

including the nearshore 

• nonsalmonid fish species and shellfish populations 

• riparian vegetation 

• terrestrial wildlife 

• fish habitat 

As for other aspects of this project, specific hypotheses will be defined by individual 

research projects; however, for each of the above categories, two very general hypotheses have 

been described to evaluate restoration efforts for planning purposes. 

Ho: The ecosystem is recovering to historic or expected conditions. 

Ho: Recovery rate is consistent with expectations. 

 

7

 S. Mumford, USFWS, Olympia Fish Health Center, Olympia, WA. Pers. commun., 11 July 2005. 

101
Conceptual Design for Monitoring 

A large number of research questions could be asked regarding the restoration of the 

Elwha River. In order to focus the plan, specific monitoring tasks must be completed in order to 

ensure that the goals of the Elwha Act are achieved. For example, if an anthropogenic barrier to 

salmonid migration remains in the river following dam removal, then fish will be unable to fully 

colonize the watershed. Therefore, simply documenting the migration of fish through the 

construction sites following dam removal will be a high priority monitoring need for the success 

of the project. This subsection discusses the conceptual design for the monitoring program 

needed to meet the objectives stated in the previous subsection, Adaptive Management and 

Monitoring Objectives. 

Objective 1: Recolonization 

As stated previously, the EFRP will use natural colonization for summer steelhead, 

cutthroat and bull trout, sockeye salmon, and forage fish species (eulachon, herring, smelt, etc.), 

while a combination of natural recolonization and hatchery outplants will be used for winter 

steelhead and Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon. Hatchery outplants will be conducted 

spatially in selected portions of the Elwha River watershed. Some areas of the watershed will 

not be outplanted and will be used as controls. 

In order to evaluate spatial or temporal rates of species recolonization and to understand 

the effect of various recolonization strategies, it will be necessary to partition the Elwha River 

watershed into areas that receive no supplementation, areas that receive supplementation for one 

or more cycles (5 years), and areas that receive supplementation over the life of the project (20–

30 years). Because of access and helicopter use limitations, the upper Elwha River (above Lake 

Mills) provides a control site for assessing recolonization for several species. The only species 

currently targeted for outplanting in this area are Chinook salmon, and these outplants may be 

limited by restrictions on the number of helicopter flights allowed within ONP (a maximum of 

36 per year). These restrictions are a result of the biological opinion of the project designed to 

protect other federally protected species including marbled murrelets and spotted owls. 

Natural recolonization in this reach is anticipated for summer and winter steelhead, coho 

salmon, and anadromous forms of cutthroat trout and char. Chum and pink salmon may not 

extensively colonize this reach, as stream gradient increases above Press Valley may naturally 

limit their distribution. Several large tributaries also represent excellent control sites in the upper 

river where no outplanting would occur. These tributaries include Hayes River, Lillian River, 

Lost River, Goldie River, and Long Creek in the upper Elwha and could be used to test specific 

rates of recolonization. 

The reach between Elwha and Glines Canyon dams would be appropriate to test the 

effectiveness of hatchery supplementation over a single generation cycle (3–5 years). A single 

cycle was chosen as a natural time break for feedback through the adaptive management process. 

This area is easily accessible for truck-based outplanting, contains excellent habitat (at least 31 

side channels), and should be quickly colonized by fish following removal of Elwha Dam. This 

reach also contains two large tributaries, Indian Creek and Little River. Little River supports a 

102
population of rainbow trout least affected by past hatchery outplanting (Phelps et al. 2001) that 

could also be retained for natural recolonization. 

While all native species are anticipated to use this reach, only Chinook and coho salmon 

will be planted in significant numbers (see the Habitat Restoration section). Because of small 

population sizes, winter steelhead and chum and pink salmon outplants will likely be limited by 

availability of eggs during the first cycle following dam removal. These species could be 

increased in subsequent cycles based on availability of broodstock in the lower river and the 

success of initial efforts. 

Below the Elwha Dam, supplementation efforts will be carried out according to EFRP 

recommendations. This is logical as the bulk of the outplanted fish will be steelhead and 

Chinook and coho salmon from the two hatcheries. Most of these releases are anticipated to be 

on station and will occur for up to 10 years. Dam removal will impact habitat conditions in the 

lower river for the greatest period. 

In order for this portion of the monitoring plan to succeed, it is critical that all hatchery 

fish produced and released to the Elwha River receive marks of some type (otolith, fin clips, 

etc.). Older year classes of steelhead and Chinook salmon returning from smolts released 3 years 

prior to commencement of dam removal could potentially access upriver spawning grounds. For 

coho and other salmon species, returning adults from releases beginning the year of dam removal 

could access the upper watershed. Marking systems for Chinook salmon and steelhead currently 

are in place. Marking systems for all species need to be agreed to and in place no later than the 

year dam removal begins. 

To determine the most appropriate methods for growing fish to outplant, hatchery 

techniques will be evaluated and focused on smolt size and timing. Emergence time and growth 

rate (postemergence) influence time of smolting. Age-0 smolting may occur June through 

October. Holding back fish that are normally released at age 0 for yearling release for Chinook 

salmon may result in both disease problems (due to the stress of smolting and then desmolting as 

underyearlings) and the production of large numbers of precocious males. Simplistically, for 

fish to smolt earlier, they need to grow faster and thus be larger than their nonsmolting cohorts. 

An experimental rearing program may be conducted to develop size, growth, and date targets for 

both age-0 and yearling smolts. 

Monitoring Parameters and Frequency for Objective 1 

Primary importance will be placed on the response of adult and juvenile fish communities 

to restoration. For adults it will be critical to assess the abundance, distribution, and genetics of 

each population over time. These assessments will be exceedingly difficult in the upper portions 

of the Elwha River, as the majority of the basin is accessible only on foot or horseback. Many 

species of salmon will return during times of the year, such as fall, when weather and flow 

conditions make traditional observation and sampling techniques difficult, if not impossible. For 

the upper Elwha River, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of spawning will occur in low 

gradient, unconfined valley reaches that contain side channels and in low gradient tributary 

reaches. These reaches can be identified, mapped, and sampled based on distance upstream. 

103
Spatial coverage over time will indicate how long recolonization takes and at what rate 

stock recovery occurs. Spawning ground surveys of live or dead fish and redds can then be 

conducted on foot at 10- to 14-day intervals throughout the spawning period. A similar strategy 

can be developed for the middle reach. This area contains 31 side channels that can be stratified 

by function and sampled as per the upper reach. Access in the middle reach is much easier and 

can be assisted with drift boats and rafts as flow allows. In the lower river, LEKT and WDFW 

have already established adult counting indexes for Chinook and pink salmon and wild winter 

steelhead. These indexes will be maintained and opportunities to expand adult counts for other 

species examined. Flow, turbidity, and limited side-channel habitat create conditions difficult 

for late fall spawning foot counts. 

Radio telemetry techniques could be applied to determine recolonization of remote sites 

in the upper basin. Individual adult fish of various species would be captured and surgically 

implanted with radio tags. A series of antennas would be established at remote sites along an 

upstream gradient in the Elwha River, so when individual fish migrated within the range of each 

antenna their presence would be recorded. ONP, NWFSC, and LEKT have initiated efforts to 

establish such a network. 

Repeatable spatial and temporal monitoring of juvenile abundance using snorkeling 

techniques at index areas will be an important technique for monitoring response of Elwha River 

fish populations. Fish censuses conducted over different reaches of the river and nearshore can 

be used not only to monitor recolonization of habitats but changes in fish community structure 

over time. These changes will be particularly important in the middle and upper reaches, where 

rainbow trout, char, and smaller numbers of cutthroat trout dominate current fish communities. 

As Chinook and coho salmon and other species invade these areas, community structure is 

anticipated to change. Additionally, as populations rebuild and increasing numbers of salmon 

return to the watershed, productive capacity of the watershed will change. 

Monitoring outmigrating fish, including smolt numbers using rotary screw traps, will 

provide information on population recovery over time. Along with data collected for adult 

returns and juvenile density, this information can also be used to monitor productivity of various 

stocks, to monitor development of different life history trajectories, and to implement new 

tagging programs. Multiple trap sites could also be established to monitor production from 

various portions of the watershed. LEKT initiated a smolt trapping program in 2003 in the lower 

river. It is anticipated this effort will continue and will establish baseline estimates for smolt 

emigration during the period leading up to dam removal. Plankton sampling will provide data on 

the presence or absence of forage fish larvae, suggesting successful spawning of forage fish 

species in the river. Water quality sampling can be conducted in conjunction with the plankton 

tows, providing site-specific information on suspended sediment loading at the time of forage 

fish spawning and emergence. 

Objective 2: Genetic Diversity and Population Integrity 

Because several aspects of the EFRP are based on assumptions concerning the genetic 

structure of the population, genetic baselines will be developed using microsatellite DNA 

techniques for all stocks before dam removal. This information will aid the stock selection 

104
process and will be useful for tracking the population of recolonizing stocks to the overall 

populations. Specifically the following will be evaluated: 

• temporal segments of Chinook and chum salmon 

• the composition of anadromous and resident steelhead and rainbow trout8

• the relation of Lake Sutherland kokanee populations to other regional stocks 

• the relation of current Elwha River pink salmon population to other regional stocks 

• the relation of lower, middle, and upriver char populations to each other and to 

Dungeness River char 

• establishment of baseline genetic information for resident and anadromous cutthroat 

populations 

• use of baseline genetic information in combination with marking programs to evaluate 

the effectiveness of various culture techniques 

One of the most uncertain genetic relationships involves determining the structure of the 

steelhead and rainbow trout populations and how they will respond to dam removal over time. It 

is not certain whether a native summer steelhead population still exists in the lower river. 

Similarly, although a steelhead population consistent with the timing of wild coastal winter 

steelhead does still exist, it has not been assessed genetically. Existing populations of rainbow 

trout above Elwha and Glines Canyon dams appear to represent a gradient of native and 

introduced stocks (Phelps et al. 2001). These populations are known to currently produce small 

numbers of viable smolts (Hiss and Wunderlich 1994a); however, it is not known whether these 

smolts will ultimately manifest themselves as summer or winter run fish. 

Monitoring Parameters and Frequency for Objective 2 

Chinook salmon 

Prior to construction of the Elwha River dams, there were apparently two temporal runs 

of Chinook salmon: one in the spring and the other during summer and fall. There is little 

information on the life history characteristics of these runs but, with the loss of access to the 

upper basin and an aggressive hatchery supplementation program, the two runs have melded over 

time. With construction of the dams, lower river conditions have been marginal for the early 

returning spring run holding in freshwater prior to spawning. Presently, a remnant of the early 

returning component to the summer and fall run may be expressing vestigial characteristics of 

the spring run or may simply be part of the normal variation in run timing expressed by the 

summer and fall run. The early run component of Elwha Chinook salmon was considered for 

selection to recolonize the upper portion of the basin; however, it is so limited in size that the 

preferred approach is to use Chinook salmon from across the current extant run timing. A 

genetic and phenetic approach will provide the opportunity to maximize variability in the 

 

8

 Anadromous and resident Oncorhynchus mykiss stocks could include native Elwha River steelhead, nonnative 

steelhead, native Elwha rainbow trout, native Elwha steelhead that have residualized as rainbow trout, or any of 

several nonnative rainbow trout stocks that were planted in the river in the years since dam construction. 

105
Chinook salmon stock and therefore maximize the chances of reintroduction success into the 

basin. 

A genetic baseline for the Chinook salmon population will be established using 

microsatellite DNA genetic markers specifically targeting temporal components of the entire run 

in the lower Elwha River. Fish will be marked while taking genetic samples to assess whether 

early returning fish are also early spawning fish and stream spawning surveys will be tied 

together with genetic sampling. If an early stock of fish is recognized (either phenotypically or 

genotypically), juveniles from different spawning dates would be kept separate in a hatchery 

program and uniquely marked prior to release as yearlings. Early spawned fish would be 

released higher in the basin. If there is no temporal-genetic structure or temporal relationship 

between return time and spawning time, then the procedure proposed in the recovery plan would 

be best suited to the existing conditions. 

Resident and anadromous O. mykiss stocks 

Both summer and winter steelhead are indigenous to the Elwha River (WDFW and 

WWTIT 1994). The HSRG (2002) reported the LEKT hatchery is currently using an early 

running nonnative broodstock (originally from Chambers Creek and Bogachiel River). The laterunning “natural” population is currently at very low population levels (<200). Various rainbow 

trout stocks exist upstream, some of which may represent native steelhead recently residualized 

above the dams. A DNA-based genetic baseline will be established for the natural, hatchery, and 

various rainbow trout stocks to help understand the pattern of genetic diversity among these 

stocks. Approximately 12 collections of 100 fish each will be necessary. Nonlethal fin clips can 

be taken during fieldwork. Out-of-watershed hatchery stocks will be evaluated as well. 

Laboratory work will proceed according to standardized procedures among regional genetics 

laboratories (e.g., WDFW and NWFSC).

In agreement with HSRG review, the early timed hatchery stock is deemed an 

inappropriate stock for recolonization of the upper watershed. LEKT is developing a broodstock 

from the later timed natural steelhead run. 

The contribution of upriver rainbow trout stocks is poorly understood. The capacity of 

the various resident rainbow trout stocks to produce smolts in light of their differing levels of 

genetic divergence is unknown. Experiments have been designed to evaluate the life history 

characteristics of pertinent rainbow trout stocks versus the potential colonizing steelhead stocks 

(natural and hatchery) and their hybrids, particularly with regard to smolt production and 

juvenile migration behavior. Stocks for these experiments will be selected based on the results 

of the basin-wide genetic survey. 

Counts of summer steelhead are considered depressed due to the loss of habitat 

associated with the dams on the Elwha River. Escapement of naturally produced summer 

steelhead is unknown but is estimated at less than 100 fish per year. Annual releases of 

Skamania stock in the lower basin by WDFW occurred prior to 2000. This unique life history 

type is included in the genetic survey. 

106
It is important to realize that a DNA-based baseline of all potentially contributing stocks 

will enable monitoring of the reproductive success of the various gene pools. The agencies will 

be able to match genetic data from nonlethal fin clips from returning adults or outmigrating 

smolts against the basin-wide genetic baseline (analogous to a genetic stock identification 

analysis). 

Sockeye salmon 

Genetic studies have shown that lake populations of sockeye salmon are widely 

differentiated (Gustafson et al. 1997). On the Olympic Peninsula, lakes Quinault and Ozette are 

distinctive; moreover, kokanee in Lake Ozette are highly differentiated from the anadromous 

stock. Based on protein genetic data, it was shown that river-type sockeye salmon in the Skagit 

River had elevated values of genetic richness and resembled other river- and sea-type sockeye 

salmon in British Columbia (Gustafson and Winans 1999). An updated DNA-based baseline of 

sockeye salmon will be constructed to evaluate the relationships among Elwha basin and other 

peninsula stocks of sockeye salmon. This baseline will be created in cooperation with biologists 

at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, who have constructed a thorough 

DNA baseline for populations in British Columbia (Beacham et al. 2006). With a DNA-based 

baseline of all potentially contributing stocks, reproductive success of the various gene pools can 

be monitored. There is a good chance that Lake Sutherland kokanee will have a unique genetic 

mark, which can be used to track their contribution to the recolonizing gene pool in the Elwha. 

Pink salmon 

A genetic survey of pink salmon stocks on the Olympic Peninsula has been undertaken, 

using as a comparison baseline data collected by LEKT and WDFW on the Elwha River, 

Dungeness River, and Morse Creek. Evidence suggests there are two discrete populations of 

pink salmon in the Elwha River, while Morse Creek pink salmon can be distinguished from both 

the Elwha and Dungeness populations (Small 2004). As it can be shown that Elwha River pink 

salmon are unique to the Olympic Peninsula, efforts to develop this local broodstock for 

restoration should be undertaken. 

Char 

Char species will be collected during the fieldwork of Objective 1. Fin clips will be 

processed using DNA microsatellite analysis to establish that all native char in the watershed are 

bull trout (vs. Dolly Varden), to determine the baseline signature for native char above lower 

Elwha Dam, and to determine whether native char located below the dam are similar to the 

upriver populations. Samples will also be compared to Dungeness River bull trout. 

Cutthroat trout 

Cutthroat trout can be nonlethally sampled during the fieldwork of Objective 1. Regional 

databases can be used to monitor the genetic composition of a recolonizing group of cutthroat 

trout. This is a critical species to consider because it hybridizes freely in some situations with O.

mykiss, potentially compromising both species’ reproductive output. Evaluation of the location 

and magnitude of hybridization with O. mykiss will be noted and tracked prior to and during 

recolonization. 

107
Genetic monitoring 

It is necessary to use an adaptive management approach in supplementing the upper 

Elwha Basin with Chinook salmon and steelhead. By maintaining a very flexible approach to 

supplementation, agencies will have the best chance to reestablish salmonid stocks over the long 

term. An essential component of adaptive management is the accurate estimation of the relative 

rate of recovery of stocks, especially for NORs. These estimates can only be derived from a 

systematic DNA-based monitoring program operated in tandem with a physical marking 

program that uses a number of distinctive marks. Where possible, marks should be specific 

down to the age at release and possibly to the geographic area of release. 

Objective 3: Fish Health Response 

Three discrete monitoring programs to assess changes in fish health have been proposed. 

They include: 

1. Monitor Lake Sutherland kokanee for infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) 

and Parvicapsula before and after dam removal and the recolonization by sockeye 

salmon. 

2. Monitor coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead smolts from smolt traps on the lower 

Elwha River. 

3. Monitor fish disease events observed on the Elwha River on a case-by-case basis. 

The first program, monitoring Lake Sutherland kokanee for IHNV and Parvicapsula

before and after dam removal and the natural colonization of sockeye salmon, has two 

hypotheses. 

Ho: The colonization of Lake Sutherland by anadromous fish after dam removal will have 

no impact on pathogens detected in surveys of the resident kokanee population. 

HA: The colonization of Lake Sutherland by anadromous fish after dam removal will 

have an impact on pathogens detected in surveys of the resident kokanee population. 

There are historical accounts of kokanee in Lake Sutherland prior to the construction of 

the Elwha Dam in 1911, as well as records of releases of kokanee, cutthroat, and rainbow from 

multiple hatchery stocks. Since 1995 only Goldendale rainbow trout, reared in pathogen-free 

water from regulated, pathogen-free captive broodstock, have been released. 

Currently the kokanee in Lake Sutherland have been isolated from anadromous fish and, 

therefore, from marine pathogens since 1911. With the removal of the dams in 3 to 5 years and 

renewed access for anadromous fish, it is anticipated that a sockeye salmon run will return to 

Lake Sutherland. The return of sockeye salmon has the potential to expose possibly naive 

resident fish populations to marine pathogens. As stated above, there is no health history 

available for the kokanee population or other fish populations in the lake. Sonia Mumford, 

USFWS, along with scientists from the various agencies involved with this plan, will sample 

spawning kokanee adults prior to and following dam removal as in the Hiss and Wunderlich 

study (1994b). Virus assays will be performed annually to determine the presence or absence of 

detectable levels of IHNV, to which kokanee and sockeye salmon are known to be susceptible. 

108
Additionally, samples for PCR (polymerase chain reaction) and histology will be collected and 

evaluated for the presence of the parasite Parvicapsula minibicornis. Sixty fish will be collected 

annually. Other fish health monitoring activities will be performed for the USFWS’s National 

Wild Fish Health Survey. 

Gary Winans, NWFSC, is conducting a genetic evaluation of Lake Sutherland kokanee 

and sockeye salmon with a comparison to other regional stocks and will coordinate sampling as 

much as possible. Winans’ effort will rely on sampling spawned out fish that are freshly dead, 

which may not be suitable for EFRP sampling needs. If possible the various agencies involved 

with EFRP will sample juvenile kokanee and sockeye salmon and monitor for the presence of 

IHNV, although according to Bob Wunderlich, USFWS, previous research at Lake Sutherland 

indicates there may be difficulty in collecting small fish. 

Finally, cutthroat and rainbow trout in Lake Sutherland will be sampled if possible, and 

subjected to the same analysis as the kokanee and sockeye salmon (on their return). It would be 

important to sample these fish populations prior to dam removal so that a more complete 

understanding of potential parasite reservoirs is established. 

The second program, monitoring coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead smolts 

captured in smolt traps on the lower Elwha River, has two hypotheses. 

Ho: There is no detectable difference in the pathogens detected in surveys of outmigrating 

smolts before and after dam removal. 

HA: There is a detectable difference in the pathogens detected in surveys of outmigrating 

smolts before and after dam removal. 

General fish health monitoring of outgoing smolts captured in a trap on the lower end of 

the Elwha River will take place annually in an effort to collect baseline information on 

pathogenic bacteria and viruses in the fish populations. The sampling will be approached in a 

manner consistent with the National Wild Fish Health Survey, with routine screening of 60 fish 

per species for viral pathogens including infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), INHV, 

viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV), Oncorhynchus 

masou virus (OMV), and bacterial pathogens including furunculosis (Aeromonas salmonicida), 

enteric redmouth disease (Yersinia ruckeri), bacterial kidney disease (Renibacterium 

salmoninarum), and cold-water disease (Flavobacterium psychrophilum). 

The trap will be in place from mid-March through mid-June. The total number of fish 

collected will be at least 60 fish per species. Sampling will take place in collaboration with Walt 

Dickhoff, NWFSC, who is studying several aspects of the reproductive physiology. 

Additionally, toxicology could potentially be done on the same fish. Dickhoff has proposed 

collecting 15 fish per species per location per date and repeating this process several times 

throughout the time that the smolt trap is in place. 

Fish will be sampled, taking the kidney and spleen from all species for the fish health 

evaluation, and the cranial elements from the steelhead to monitor for whirling disease 

(Myxobolus cerebralis). Wild fish samples will be processed and analyzed by USFWS under the 

109
National Wild Fish Health Survey. Hatchery-origin fish will be processed and analyzed by the 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

The third program, case-by-case monitoring of fish disease events observed on the Elwha 

River, has no hypotheses. It is not a hypothesis-based component, but instead a continuation of 

response to specific events that are brought to the attention of a fish health specialist by others 

taking part in the monitoring effort. These cases will be handled as diagnostic cases; it is not 

possible to effectively monitor in the “before and after” fashion as above. The information 

gathered will provide a record of the selected events over time. 

Objective 4: Ecosystem Recovery 

Monitoring the rate of ecosystem recovery will require the expansion of biological 

monitoring strategies to lower and higher trophic levels in freshwater, estuarine, and nearshore 

habitats. The primary producers are in the lower trophic levels, while secondary producers as 

well as salmon-dependent wildlife are in the higher trophic level. Additionally, linkages to 

changes in habitat from reestablishment of dominant physical processes including sediment, 

woody debris, flow, nutrient transport, and temperature regime will be necessary to understand 

ecosystem recovery. This work should be done in conjunction with agencies conducting 

sediment monitoring following dam removal in the Elwha River (Randle et al. 2003). A 

stratification of river habitats that includes mainstem, side-channel, and tributary sites grouped 

by similar physical features (gradient, confinement, and location within the watershed) 

represents a logical system for measuring ecosystem response. 

The nearshore ecosystem of the Elwha has endured significant sediment starvation for 

nearly 100 years. Dam removal will provide a significant but incomplete restoration of this 

process. Restoration response in the nearshore depends on multiple variables, making the 

nearshore element of Elwha ecosystem recovery very complex (see Shaffer et al. 2005). 

Nearshore habitat of the Elwha ecosystem may be defined as the area within tidal influence from 

the riparian zone to a depth of 30 m MLLW. The primary area of the Elwha nearshore is defined 

as the area east of Observatory Point (west side of Freshwater Bay) to Port Angeles Harbor and 

includes the estuary of the river mouth. 

A strategy for defining nearshore restoration response to Elwha dam removals has been 

developed (Shaffer et al. 2005). In general, stratification of nearshore habitats includes eroding 

and stable bluffs, sandy and rocky beaches, and pocket beaches that are grouped by geologic and 

biological parameters (McBride and Beamer 2004). Nearshore habitat rebuilding and 

recolonization will be largely passive, with the possible exception of some species of shellfish. 

An enhancement and recolonization plan for Pinto abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana), urchin 

(Strongylocentrotus spp.), and sea cucumber (Stichopus spp.) may be initiated, if monitoring 

following dam removal indicates a need. 

Monitoring Parameters and Frequency for Objective 4 

Ecosystem recovery parameters include both measures of physical habitat and expansion 

of biological monitoring beyond fish populations. Ecosystem response will be assessed in both 

freshwater and marine (estuary and nearshore) environments. For physical habitat monitoring, a 

110
combination of in situ and remote monitoring techniques in partnership with planned sediment 

monitoring will be used. Remote sensing techniques including aerial photography, side scan, 

LIDAR (light detection and ranging using aerial laser), and hyperspectral imaging will be used to 

assess long-term (decadal) changes in river morphology, floodplain vegetation, and habitat 

features. These remote sensing techniques will be combined with field measurements that can be 

repeated over space and time. The field measurements may include surface flow, groundwater, 

sediment, water chemistry, temperature studies, and measurements of LWD. 

Freshwater biological monitoring will require mostly in situ field studies primarily using 

sites established along an upstream gradient. These field studies will be linked with fish and 

wildlife studies to provide measures of ecosystem response. Here changes in ecosystem 

production and function can be repeatedly measured. Parameters measured will include nutrient 

levels, primary production, secondary production, and fish response. Monitoring response of 

wildlife populations will build on past and ongoing studies implemented by ONP. 

Nearshore monitoring will focus on three restoration events: 1) the initial pulse of 

sediment that results from dam removal, 2) the post-dam-removal sediment processes anticipated 

to occur within 10 years of dam removal (Stolnack and Neiman 2005), and 3) additional habitat 

restoration actions independent of the dam removals. These habitat restoration options may 

include restoration of the estuary by modification of an existing fish barrier and restoration of the 

Elwha feeder bluffs. Monitoring will be based on geomorphic classification of habitats 

(McBride and Beamer 2004). Physical monitoring includes substrate type, elevation, and profile, 

covering control sites including Dungeness and Crescent bays, and utilizing the strategy found in 

“Elwha and Glines Canyon Dam Removals: Nearshore Restoration and Salmon Recovery of the 

Central Strait of Juan de Fuca” (Shaffer et al. 2005). Biological monitoring includes overstory 

and understory kelp beds, eelgrass beds, and shallow subtidal unvegetated habitats. Biological 

habitat structure monitoring will include standard habitat-mapping techniques including aerial 

surveys, side-scan sonar of shallow subtidal habitats with snorkeling and scuba for understory 

habitats, and on the ground mapping of beaches using scuba, snorkeling, and beach walking. 

The function of these habitats for fishery resources will be defined by documenting the 

biological communities of each habitat type and focusing on function of habitats for forage fish 

spawning, juvenile salmon and forage fish migration, and shellfish presence. Methods for 

defining function will include mapping for forage fish spawning, snorkel and scuba surveys, and 

seines for fish migration. Given the extreme seasonal variability in the physical and biological 

habitats of the central strait, monitoring of habitat function will need to occur frequently. 

Mapping of biological and physical habitats should occur seasonally. In the case of fish 

migration, sampling should occur at a minimum of monthly and preferably at weekly intervals 

during early spring and summer months. Due to large variability intrinsic to the central strait 

nearshore and the temporal nature of the nearshore restoration that may occur, long-term 

monitoring should be applied. 

Prioritization of Projects 

Funding for the monitoring described in this section is limited. In particular, the Elwha 

Fish Restoration Project funding will not be capable of completing all the tasks identified as 

needed. Therefore, it will be necessary to prioritize projects to maximize the benefits of those 

111
112

funds which are available. Table 27 is the “tool kit” of monitoring activities currently envisioned 

for the restoration effort. It outlines the utility of each tool and identifies its relative priority for 

Elwha Project funding. It is important to note that the level of priority in Table 27 is defined by 

the tool’s importance to implementing the adaptive management component of the EFRP. These 

same tools may have a very different priority for a different aspect of the overall project. 

Adaptive Management Strategy 

Adaptive management is the means by which changes are made to the restoration 

strategy, based on information gained from monitoring efforts, in order to achieve the goals of 

the project. In order for an adaptive management strategy to be effective, there must be a clearly 

defined decision-making process, as well as a matrix of management actions to be considered. 

Table 28 documents the preliminary matrix of adaptive management actions that will be 

implemented, if it is found that desired outcomes of the EFRP are not being achieved. It should 

be noted that the identified adaptive management actions are broadly described and will be 

refined in conjunction with the specific monitoring projects. Decision making will be facilitated 

through the Elwha Project manager and will include the LEKT, WDFW, NWFSC, USFWS, 

NPS, and BOR. 
Table 27. EFRP monitoring strategy relative project priority. 

Tool Applicability Area Aerial surveys Spawner abundance, distribution, timing, and composition Entire watershed, but limited in time 

requirements to protect spotted owls marbled murrelets 

Wading and boat surveys Spawner abundance, distribution, timing, and composition; 

also provides opportunity to recover marks and collect physical data from carcasses 

Entire watershed, but limited by acce

Snorkel and scuba surveys Spawner, smolt, forage fish, and other species abundance, 

distribution, timing, and composition; also provides an opportunity to recover marks, collect physical data, and 

evaluate habitat use by species 

Entire watershed, including nearshorlimited by accessibility 

Radio telemetry Spawner and smolt distribution, timing, and detailed 

freshwater migrational behavior 

Entire watershed, but limited by acce

PIT tagging Spawner and smolt distribution, timing, and detailed 

freshwater migrational behavior 

Entire watershed, but limited by acce

Coded wire tags (CWT) Survival by release strategy, contribution by strategy to 

natural spawning population, marine distribution, contribution to fisheries, and exploitation rates 

Entire watershed, but limited by abilitags at return; also, some species are sampled for CWTs in marine fisheriechum, and sockeye salmon and steelh

Otolith marking Survival by release strategy and contribution by strategy to 

natural spawning population 

Entire watershed, but limited by abiliotoliths at return 

Smolt trapping and net sampling 

Smolt abundance, survival to emigration by release strategy, contribution of NORs to population, emigration timing; also provides an opportunity to recover marks and collect physical data 

Throughout the watershed, including depending on tool 

Electrofishing Juvenile abundance, survival by release strategy, 

contribution of NORs to population; provides an opportunity to recover marks, collect physical data; also provides information on nonsalmonid fish abundance 

Entire watershed, but limited by acce

Habitat-mapping techniques (side-scan, remote mapping techniques) 

Habitat mapping Lower river, nearshore Elwha, compa

areas 

Condition factor Indication of freshwater productivity and fish health Entire watershed, but limited by acce

and sampling effort 

113
114

Table 27 continued. EFRP monitoring strategy relative project priority. 

Tool Applicability Area Scale samples Age at emigration, age at return, and growth rates Entire watershed, but limited by acce

and sampling effort 

Length and weight Indicates changes in phenotypic characteristics of the 

population over time 

Entire watershed, but limited by acceand sampling effort 

Genetic sampling Indicates changes in genetic characteristics of the 

population over time 

Entire watershed, but limited by acceand sampling effort 

Marine isotopes Indicates ecosystem response to restoration efforts over 

time 

Entire watershed, but limited by acceand sampling effort 

Water chemistry Indicates ecosystem response to restoration efforts over 

time; also related to ability of fish populations to use habitat below Lake Mills after dam removal 

Lower and middle reaches, below La

Habitat parameters Indicates ecosystem response to restoration efforts over 

time; also related to ability of fish populations to use habitat below Lake Mills after dam removal 

Lower and middle reaches, below Lanearshore 

Primary and secondary productivity assessment (e.g., macroinvertebrate, phytoplankton, and periphyton) 

Indicates ecosystem response to restoration efforts over time; also related to underlying freshwater productivity 

Entire watershed, but focused on lowmiddle reaches below Lake Mills 

Pathogen sampling Indicates ecosystem response to restoration efforts over 

time; also related to salmonid production potential and productivity in the event that disease is inadvertently introduced to the watershed 

Entire watershed, but limited by acceand sampling effort 

Nonsalmonid aquatic population assemblages 

Indicates ecosystem response to restoration efforts over time 

Entire watershed, but limited by acceand sampling effort 

Terrestrial vegetation assemblages 

Indicates ecosystem response to restoration efforts over time 

Entire watershed, but limited by acceand sampling effort 

Terrestrial wildlife assemblages 

Indicates ecosystem response to restoration efforts over time 

Entire watershed, but limited by acceand sampling effort 
Table 28. Adaptive management strategy decision matrix. 

Topic Hypothesis Desired condition Adaptive management actions 

Spatial 

distribution 

Ho: Rate of dispersion 

throughout the watershed is 

consistent with modeled or 

expected rate. 

Ho: Species are utilizing all 

physically appropriate and 

accessible habitat. 

Ho: No barriers to migration 

exist. 

Anadromous salmonids 

are distributed 

throughout their 

historic range in the 

Elwha River watershed 

and its associated 

nearshore marine 

environment. 

1. Identify and repair anthropogenic 

barriers to migration. 

2. Modify hatchery program to 

achieve recovery objectives. 

3. Modify outplanting strategy to 

achieve program objectives. 

4. Modify dam removal strategy to 

minimize avoidance behavior. 

5. Continue to monitor. 

Composition Ho: Success of reintroduction 

methods is consistent with 

expectations. 

Ho: Composition of spawning 

population is consistent with 

expectations. 

The historic assemblage 

of naturally spawning 

anadromous salmonid 

populations is restored 

to the Elwha River 

watershed. 

1. Modify hatchery program to 

achieve recovery objectives. 

2. Modify outplanting strategy to 

achieve program objectives. 

3. Continue to monitor. 

Productivity 

and 

abundance 

Ho: Rate of recovery is 

consistent with modeled or 

expected rate. 

Ho: Juvenile production is 

consistent with expectations. 

Ho: Marine survival is 

consistent with expectations. 

The productivity of the 

anadromous salmonid 

populations is restored 

to levels that support 

viable fisheries and the 

Elwha River ecosystem. 

1. Modify hatchery program. 

2. Modify outplanting strategy. 

3. Identify and rectify anthropogenic 

restrictions to freshwater production.

4. Identify and rectify anthropogenic 

restrictions to marine production. 

5. Modify harvest regimes. 

6. Continue to monitor. 

Diversity Ho: Run timing and spawn 

timing are not changing over 

time. 

Ho: Genetic signature is not 

changing over time. 

Ho: Phenotypic composition is 

not changing over time. 

The genotypic and 

phenotypic diversity of 

the anadromous 

salmonid populations in 

the Elwha watershed is 

preserved. 

1. Modify hatchery program. 

2. Modify outplanting strategy. 

3. Identify and rectify anthropogenic 

alterations to habitat that may alter 

diversity. 

4. Modify harvest regimes, within 

the confines of comanager 

capabilities. 

5. Continue to monitor. 

Fish health Ho: Restoration strategy has 

not introduced diseases into 

the watershed. 

Activities associated 

with restoration of the 

Elwha River do not 

introduce pathogens 

into the watershed. 

1. Treat diseases in the hatcheries. 

2. Alter hatchery practices to reduce 

potential for disease. 

3. Alter outplanting strategy. 

4. Continue to monitor. 

Ecosystem 

recovery 

Ho: Ecosystem is recovering to 

historic or expected 

conditions. 

Ho: Recovery rate is consistent 

with expectations. 

The Elwha River 

ecosystem and 

nearshore marine 

environment is fully 

functioning and 

representative of 

historic conditions. 

1. Identify and alleviate limiting 

factors of anthropogenic origin. 

2. Alter hatchery and outplanting 

strategy as appropriate. 

3. Reintroduce species as 

appropriate. 

4. Consider methods to boost marine 

derived nutrients (e.g., carcass 

planting). 

5. Continue to monitor. 

115
116
References 

Abbe, T. B., and D. M. Montgomery. 1996. Large woody debris jams, channel hydraulics, and habitat 

formation in large rivers. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manag. 12:201–222. 

Adamire, B., and H. U. Fish. 1991. The Elwha, a river of destiny. H. U. Fish, P.O. Box 900, Carlsborg, 

WA 98324. 

Adams, C., R. Reisenbichler, and J. Meyer. 1999. Final report to Olympic National Park, Part I: 

Inventory of resident fishes in the upper Elwha River. In Reisenbichler (ed.), Elwha River 

ecosystem restoration: Potential effects and restoration methods—fisheries investigations. 

Produced pursuant to Subagreement 27 under Cooperative Agreement CA-9000-8-007. Tech. 

Rep. NPS/CCSOU/NRTR-99-04, NPS D-309. USGS BRD, Western Fisheries Research Center, 

Seattle, WA. 

Arden, W. R. 2003. Genetic analyses of steelhead in the Hood River, Oregon: Statistical analyses of 

natural reproductive success of hatchery and natural-origin adults passed upstream of Powerdale 

Dam. Draft report to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) in partial fulfillment of BPA 

Contract No. 00013429. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Abernathy Fish Technology Center, 

Longview, WA. 

Beacham, T. D., R. E. Withler, and A. P. Gould. 1985. Biochemical genetic stock identification of pink 

salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) in southern British Columbia and Puget Sound. Can. J. Fish. 

Aquat. Sci. 42:1474–1483. 

Beacham, T. D., R. E. Withler, C. B. Murray, and L. W. Barner. 1988. Variation in body size, 

morphology, egg size, and biochemical genetics of pink salmon in British Columbia. Trans. Am. 

Fish. Soc. 117:109–126. 

Beacham, T. D., B. McIntosh, C. MacConnachie, K. M. Miller, and R. E. Withler. 2006. Pacific Rim 

population structure of sockeye salmon as determined from microsatellite analysis. Can. J. Fish. 

Aquat. Sci. 135:174–187. 

Berejikian, B. A. 1995. The effects of hatchery and wild ancestry and experience on the relative ability 

of steelhead trout fry (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to avoid a benthic predator. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 52:2476–2482. 

Berejikian, B., and M. Ford. 2004. A review of the relative fitness of hatchery and natural salmon. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-61. 

Berejikian, B., J. Scheurer, J. Lee, D. Van Doornik, E. Volk, and T. Johnson. Unpubl. manuscr. 

Evaluation of conservation hatchery rearing and release strategies for steelhead recovery in the 

Hamma Hamma River. (Available from B. Berejikian, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

Manchester Research Station, 7305 E. Beach Dr., Port Orchard, WA 98366.) 

Bjerselius, L., J. Weiming, J. H. Teeter, J. G. Seelye, P. B. Johnsen, P. J. Maniak, G. C. Grant, C. N. 

Polkinghorne, and P. W. Sorensen. 2000. Direct behavioral evidence that unique bile acids 

117
released by larval sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) function as a migratory pheromone. Can. J. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57:557–569. 

Blouin, M., and H. Araki. 2005. Reproductive success: Steelhead in the Hood River. End of year report 

for Bonneville Power Administration project number 19502 (2003-054-00), FY 2005. Oregon 

State University, Dept. Zoology, Corvallis. 

BOR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 1996. Sediment analysis and modeling of the river erosion 

alternative. Elwha technical series PN-95-9, August 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, ID. 

Brannon, E. L., and W. K. Hershberger. 1984. Elwha River fall Chinook salmon. In J. M. Walton and 

D. B. Houston (eds.), Proceedings of the Olympic wild fish conference. Peninsula College, 

Fisheries Technology Program, Port Angeles, WA. 

Brannon, E. M. 1930. Elwha River hatchery prospect, Washington Dept. Fisheries and Game, Olympia. 

Brown, B. 1982. Mountain in the clouds. Simon and Schuster, NY. 

Bryant, M. D., B. J. Frenette, and K. T. Coghill. 1996. Use of the littoral zone by introduced anadromous 

salmonids and resident trout, Margaret Lake, Southeast Alaska. Alsk. Fish. Res. Bull. 3(2):112–

122. 

Bryant, M. D., B. J. Frenette, and S. J. McCurdy. 1999. Colonization of a watershed by anadromous 

salmonids following the installation of a fish ladder in Margaret Creek, Southeast Alaska. N. 

Am. J. Fish. Manag. 19(4):1129–1136. 

Bugert, R., K. Petersen, G. Mendel, L. Ross, D. Milks, J. Dedloff, and M. Alexandersdottir. 1992. 

Lower Snake River compensation plan, Tucannon River spring Chinook salmon hatchery 

evaluation plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, ID. 

Burger, C. V., K. T. Scribner, W. J. Spearman, C. O. Swanton, and D. E. Campton. 2000. Genetic 

contribution of three introduced life history forms of sockeye salmon to colonization of Frazer 

Lake, Alaska. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(10):2096–2111. 

Campton, D. E. 1995. Genetic effects of hatchery fish on wild populations of Pacific salmon and 

steelhead: What do we really know? Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 15:337–353. 

Chapman, D. W. 1981. Pristine production of anadromous salmonids—Elwha River. Prepared for U.S. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs contract no. P00C14206447, July 28, 1981. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Portland, OR. 

Chilcote, M. 2002. The adverse reproductive consequences of supplementing natural steelhead 

populations in Oregon with hatchery fish. Draft. (Available from Oregon Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife, Portland, OR.) 

Chilcote, M. 2003. Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixed 

spawning population of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 60:1057–1067. 

Chilcote, M. W., S. A. Leider, and J. J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of hatchery and 

wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 115:726–735. 

118
Clallam County MRC (Marine Resource Committee). 2004. Proceedings of the technical workshop on 

nearshore restoration in the central Strait of Juan de Fuca. Clallam County MRC, Port Angeles, 

WA. Online at http://www.clallammrc.org/CCMRC/allframes.html [accessed 5 October 2007]. 

Close, D. 2002. Pacific lamprey research and restoration project. Project no. 1994-02600. Bonneville 

Power Administration Report DOE/BP-00005455-3. Online at http://www.efw.bpa.gov/ 

publications/I00005455-3.pdf [accessed 5 October 2007]. 

Cook-Tabor, C. 1995. A literature review of the effects of suspended sediments on salmonids. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Resource Office, Olympia, WA. 

Dilley, S. J., and R. C. Wunderlich. 1990. Juvenile Chinook passage at Glines Canyon Dam, Elwha 

River, 1989–1990. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, Olympia, WA. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) and BOR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 1996. Sediment analysis 

and modeling of the river erosion alternative. Elwha technical series PN-95-9. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, ID. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), and Lower Elwha 

Klallam Tribe. 1994. The Elwha report: Restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem and native 

anadromous fisheries: A report submitted pursuant to Public Law 102-495. Olympic National 

Park, Port Angeles, WA. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), and Lower Elwha 

Klallam Tribe. 1995. Elwha River ecosystem restoration. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, June 1995. Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA. Online at http://www.nps 

.gov/olym/elwha/docs/eis0695/eis0695toc.htm [accessed 5 October 2007]. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), and Lower Elwha 

Klallam Tribe. 1996. Elwha River restoration implementation. Draft environmental impact 

statement, April 1996. Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA. Online at http://www.nps 

.gov/olym/elwha/docs/eis0496/eis0496toc.htm [accessed 5 October 2007]. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) and ONP (Olympic National Park). 2006. Glines Canyon Dam–

Lake Mills reservoir revegetation plan. Final draft. (Available from Olympic National Park, Port 

Angeles, WA.)

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) and USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. 50 CFR Part 

17 USFWS. Proposed rules: Petition to list three species of lampreys as threatened or 

endangered. Federal Register [Docket No. 04-28167, 27 December 2004] 69(247):77158–77167. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2005. Elwha River ecosystem restoration implementation, final 

supplement to the final Environmental Impact Statement. NPS D-377A. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA. 

Elwha-Dungeness Planning Unit. May 2005. Elwha-Dungeness watershed plan, water resource 

inventory area 18 (WRIA 18) and Sequim Bay in west WRIA 17. Published by Clallam County. 

Online at http://www.clallam.net/environment/html/wria_18_draft_watershed_plan.htm [accessed 

5 October 2007]. 

FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1993. Proposed Elwha (FERC No. 2683) and Glines 

Canyon (FERC No. 588) hydroelectric projects, Washington. Office of Hydropower Licensing 

(now the Division of Hydropower Licensing within the FERC Office of Energy Projects). 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. 

119
Ford, M. J., H. Fuss, B. Boelts, E. LaHood, J. J. Hard, and J. M. Miller. 2006. Changes in run timing and 

natural smolt production in a naturally spawning coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) stream 

after 60 years of intensive hatchery supplementation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63:2343–2355. 

Gharrett, A. J., C. Smoot, A. J. McGregor, and P. B. Holmes. 1988. Genetic relationships of even-year 

northwestern Alaskan pink salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 117(6):536-545. 

Gibbons, R. G., P. K. Hahn, and T. H. Johnson. 1985. Methodology for determining MSH steelhead 

spawning escapement requirements. Washington Dept. Game, Olympia, WA. 

Ging, G., and F. Seavey. 1995. Marine resources of the Elwha River estuary, Clallam County, 

Washington. Prepared for Olympic National Park by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North 

Pacific Coast Eco-region, Olympia, WA. 

Groot, C., and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 

Gustafson, R. G., T. C. Wainwright, G. A. Winans, F. W. Waknitz, L. T. Parker, and R. S. Waples. 1997. 

Status review of sockeye salmon from Washington and Oregon. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-33. 

Gustafson, R. G., and G. A. Winans. 1999. Distribution and population genetic structure of river/seatype sockeye salmon in western North America. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 8:181–193. 

Hard, J. J., R. G. Kope, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, L. T. Parker, and R. S. Waples. 1996. Status review 

of pink salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-25. 

Hayes, M. C., and R. W. Carmichael. 2002. Salmon restoration in the Umatilla River: A study of 

straying and risk containment. Fisheries 27(10):10–19. 

Helle, J. H. 1966. Behavior of displaced adult pink salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 95:188–195. 

Hiss, J. 1995. Elwha River chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta): Spawner survey and escapement 

estimate, 1994–1995. Prepared for the National Park Service, Olympic National Park, Port 

Angeles, WA, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA. 

Hiss, J. M., and R. C. Wunderlich. 1994a. Salmonid availability and migration in the middle Elwha 

River system. Prepared for the National Park Service, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, 

WA, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, 

Olympia, WA. 

Hiss, J., and R. Wunderlich. 1994b. Status of kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Lake 

Sutherland basin and prospects for sockeye salmon restoration. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, Olympia, WA. 

Hosey and Associates. 1987. Applicant’s 3-month report. Filed with FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission) 28 August 1987. Elwha Project and Glines Project, James River II Inc. Hosey and 

Associates Engineering Company, Bellevue, WA. 

Hosey and Associates. 1988a. Response to request for additional information of 28 May 1977. Elwha 

Project (FERC No. 2683) and Glines Project (FERC No. 588) James River II Inc. Vol. 2 of 4. 

Prepared by Hosey and Associates for Perkins Coie, May 27, 1988. Hosey and Associates 

Engineering Company, Bellevue, WA. 

120
Hosey and Associates. 1988b. Response to request for additional information of 28 May 1977. Elwha 

Project (FERC No. 2683) and Glines Project (FERC No. 588) James River II Inc. Vol. 3 of 4. 

Prepared by Hosey and Associates for Perkins Coie, May 27, 1988. Hosey and Associates 

Engineering Company, Bellevue, WA. 

HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2002. Scientific framework and hatchery reform program. 

(Available from Long Live the Kings, 1305 Fourth Ave., Suite 810, Seattle, WA 98101.) Online 

at: www.hatcheryreform.org [accessed 5 October 2007]. 

HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2004. Letter dated 9 November 2004 to the Elwha 

Recovery Team. (Available from L. Ward, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, 51 Hatchery Rd., Port 

Angeles, WA 98363.) 

Johnson, O. W., W. S. Grant, R. G. Kope, K. Neely, F. W. Waknitz, and R. S. Waples. 1997. Status 

review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32. 

Johnson, P. R. 1997. Elwha River historical narrative. Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA. 

JFWA (Joint Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 1988. Comments in response to FERC (Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission ) request for additional information of 28 May 1987. 

Kapuscinski, A., and L. Miller. 1993. Genetic hatchery guidelines for the Yakima/Klickitat fisheries 

project. Co-Aqua, St. Paul, MN. 

Katz, M., D. E. Weitkamp, and R. F. Campbell. 1975. Compensation for Elwha River game fish losses. 

Document #75-0228-013FR. Submitted to Crown Zellerbach Corp. by Parametrix Inc., Seattle, 

WA. 

Kostow, K. 2002. Oregon lampreys: Natural history status and problem analysis. Oregon Dept. Fish and 

Wildlife, Corvallis. 

Lane and Lane Associates. 1990. The conflict between Indian terminal fisheries and hydropower on the 

Elwha River. Prepared for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Indian Reservation, 

Port Angeles, WA. Lane and Lane Associates. 

Leary, R. F., and F. W. Allendorf. 1997. Genetic confirmation of sympatric bull trout and Dolly Varden 

in western Washington. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 126:715–720. 

LEKT (Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe). 2003a. Hatchery and genetic management plan: Lower Elwha fish 

hatchery. Coho salmon. Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. 

LEKT (Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe). 2003b. Hatchery and genetic management plan: Lower Elwha fish 

hatchery. Chum salmon. Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. 

LEKT (Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe). 2003c. Hatchery and genetic management plan: Lower Elwha fish 

hatchery. Steelhead salmon. Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. 

LEKT (Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe). 2006. Spawner escapement database. Lower Elwha Klallam 

Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. 

Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. W. H. 

Freeman, San Francisco. 

121
McBride, A., and E. Beamer. 2004. Geomorphic classification for estuaries and shorelines within 

Whidbey Basin. Skagit River System Cooperative, La Conner, WA. 

McElhany, P., M. H. Ruckelshaus, M. J. Ford, T. C. Wainwright, and E. P. Bjornstedt. 2000. Viable 

salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-42. 

McHenry, M. L., J. Lichatowich, and R. Kowalski-Hagaman. 1996. Status of Pacific salmon and their 

habitats on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Department of 

Fisheries, Port Angeles, WA. 

McHenry, M. L., J. Petersen, and R. McCoy. Unpubl. manuscr. Elwha River project: A summary of 

restoration activities during 1999–2000. (Available from M. McHenry, Lower Elwha Klallam 

Tribe, Fisheries Department, 51 Hatchery Rd., Port Angeles, WA 98363.) 

Milner, A. M., and York, G. S. 2001. Salmonid colonization of a new stream in Kenai Fjords National 

Park, Southeast Alaska. Arch. Hydrobiol. 151:627–647. 

Montgomery, D. R., and J. M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, 

and assessment of channel condition. Report TFW-SH10-93-002. Washington Dept. Natural 

Resources, Olympia. 

Morrill, D. M., and M. McHenry. Unpubl. manuscr. Elwha River fish community study. (Available 

from M. McHenry, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Fisheries Department, 51 Hatchery Rd., Port 

Angeles, WA 98363.) 

Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. 

Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon 

from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-35. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Endangered and threatened species: Threatened status 

for three Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) in Washington and Oregon, and 

endangered status of one Chinook salmon ESU in Washington. Final rule, notice of 

determination. Federal Register [Docket No. 990303060-9071-02, 24 March 1999] 

64(56):14308–14328. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. Decision memorandum on a joint tribal and state 

resource management plan submitted under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule by the Puget Sound Treaty 

Tribes and Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife for salmon fisheries and steelhead net fisheries 

affecting Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005a. Endangered and threatened species; final listing 

determinations; final rules and proposed rules. Federal Register [Docket No. 040525161-5155-

02, 28 June 2005] 70(123):37160–37204. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005b. Endangered and threatened species; recovery plans. 

Federal Register [Docket No. E5-7852, 27 December 2005] 70(247):76445–76447. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Listing endangered and threatened species and 

designating critical habitat: 12-month finding on petition to list Puget Sound steelhead as an 

endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register [Docket 

No. 060313064-6064-01, 29 March 2006] 71(60):15666–15680. 

122
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Endangered and threatened species: Final listing 

determination for Puget Sound steelhead. [Docket No. 070123015-7086-02, 11 May 2007] 

72(91):26722–26735. 

NOPLE (North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity). 2005a. North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity strategy 

and process, version 4. Prepared by Peninsula Lead Entity Group, Port Angeles, WA. Online at 

http://noplegroup.org/NOPLE/ [accessed 1 October 2007]. 

NOPLE (North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity). 2005b. Draft. North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity 

nearshore strategy, version 4. Prepared by Peninsula Lead Entity Group, Port Angeles, WA. 

Online at http://noplegroup.org/NOPLE/ [accessed 1 October 2007]. 

Pess, G. R., M. McHenry, T. Beechie, and J. Daives. In press. Biological impacts of the Elwha River 

dams and potential salmonid responses to dam removal. Northwest Sci. 

PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1997. Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group report, 

1997: An assessment of the status of Puget Sound Chinook and Strait of Juan de Fuca coho stocks 

as required under the salmon fishery management plan. PFMC, Portland, OR. 

Phelps, R. P., J. M. Hiss, and R. J. Peters. 2001. Genetic relationships of Elwha River Oncorhynchus 

mykiss to hatchery-origin rainbow trout and Washington steelhead. Prepared for the National 

Park Service, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA. 

PNPTC (Point No Point Treaty Council), WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife), and Makah 

Tribe. 2003. 2003 management framework plan and salmon runs’ status for the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca region. WDFW, Olympia. 

PNPTC (Point No Point Treaty Council), WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife), Lower Elwha 

Klallam Tribe, and Makah Tribe. 2005. 2005 management framework plan and salmon runs’ 

status for the Strait of Juan de Fuca region. WDFW, Olympia. 

Pohl, M. M. 1999. The dams of the Elwha River, Washington: Downstream impacts and policy 

implications. Doctoral dissertation. Arizona State Univ., Tempe. 

Powell, Madison. 1997. Summary report from tissue samples of kokanee and sockeye salmon. 

Submitted by letter to Roger Peters, USFWS, 17 February 1997. USFWS Fisheries Resource 

Office, Olympia, WA. 

PSC (Pacific Salmon Commission). 2000. Pacific Salmon Treaty: 1999 revised annexes, memorandum 

of understanding (1985), and exchange of notes. (Available from PSC, 1155 Robson St., Suite 

600, Vancouver, BC V6E 189.) 

PSMFC (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2006. Regional mark information system 

(RMIS). Portland, OR. Online at http://www.rmpc.org/ [accessed 13 July 2006]. 

PSIT (Puget Sound Indian Tribes) and WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2004. 

Comprehensive management plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest management component, 1 

March 2004. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Online at http://wdfw.wa 

.gov/fish/papers/ps_chinook_management/harvest/ps_chinook_harvest.pdf [accessed 16 

November 2007]. 

PSTT (Puget Sound Treaty Tribes) and WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2004. Resource 

management plan: Puget Sound hatchery strategies for steelhead, coho salmon, chum salmon, 

123
sockeye salmon, and pink salmon, 31 March 2004. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

Lacey, WA. 

Quinn, T. P. 1993. A review of homing and straying of wild and hatchery-produced salmon. Fish. Res. 

18:29–44. 

Quinn, T. P. 2004. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington 

Press, Seattle. 

Quinn, T. P., J. L. Nielson, C. Gan, M. J. Unwin, R. J. Wilmot, C. M. Guthrie, and F. M. Utter. 1996. 

Origin and genetic structure of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) transplanted to 

New Zealand. Fish. Bull. 94:506–521. 

Randle, T. J., C. A. Young, J. T. Melena, and E. M. Ouellette. October 1996. Sediment analysis and 

modeling of the river erosion alternative. Elwha Technical Series PN-95-9. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, ID. 

Randle, T. J., J. Bountry, B. Jackson, and G. Smillie. 2003. Elwha River restoration draft sediment 

monitoring and management plan: Recommendations of the Elwha River physical processes 

monitoring workshop, 13–17 August 2001. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Port Angeles, WA. 

Reisenbichler, R. R., and J. D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and survival of juvenile 

hatchery and wild steelhead trout, Salmon gairdneri. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:123–128. 

Reisenbichler, R. R., and S. R. Phelps. 1989. Genetic variation in steelhead trout (Salmon gairdneri) 

from the north coast of Washington State. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46:66–73. 

Reisenbichler, R. R., and S. P. Rubin. 1999. Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific 

salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 

56:459–466. 

Rieman, B. E., and F. W. Allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and genetic conservation criteria for 

bull trout. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 21:756–764. 

Rieman, B. E., and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull 

trout. General Tech. Rep. INT-302. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, 

UT. 

Ruckelshaus, M. H., K. P. Currens, W. H. Graeber, R. R. Fuersterberg, K. Rawson, N. J. Sands, and J. B. 

Scott. 2006. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in Puget Sound. U.S. Dept. Commer., 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-78. 

Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel. 2001. Report for meeting held 27–29 August 2001. Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 

Schwartz, M. L. 1994. Beach geomorphology of the Elwha river delta in connection with removal of the 

Elwha and Glines canyon dams. Coastal Consultants Inc., Bellingham, WA. 

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of 

Canada, Ottawa.

Seiler, D. 1991. Coho production potential above Snoqualmie Falls. Washington Dept. Fisheries 

memorandum from D. Seiler to B. Gerke dated 15 January 1991. (Available from D. Morrill, 

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, 51 Hatchery Road, Port Angeles, WA 98363.) 

124
Seiler, D. 2000. Natural production of anadromous salmonids in three western Washington watersheds 

formerly inaccessible to migratory fish. Presentation to the 2000 Annual Western Division 

American Fisheries Society Meeting, 16–20 July 2000. Telluride, CO. 

Shaklee, J. B., D. C. Klaybor, S. Young, and B. A. White. 1991. Genetic stock structure of odd-year 

pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, from Washington and British Columbia and potential 

mixed-stock fisheries applications. J. Fish Biol. 39:21–34. 

Shaffer, J. A. 2000. Seasonal variation in understory kelp bed habitats of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. J. 

Coast. Res. 16(3):768–775. 

Shaffer, J. A., P. Crain, B. Winter, and M. McHenry. 2004. Nearshore restoration of the central Strait of 

Juan de Fuca and the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams removal. In Proceedings, Restore 

America’s Estuaries Conference, September 2004, Seattle. Restore America’s Estuaries (RAE), 

Arlington, VA. 

Shaffer, J. A., L. Ward, P. Crain, B. Winter, K. Fresh, and C. Lear. 2005. Elwha and Glines Canyon dam 

removals: Nearshore restoration and salmon recovery of the central Strait of Juan de Fuca. In

Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Committee, 29-31 March 2005. 

Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, WA. 

Shared Salmon Strategy for Puget Sound. 2005. Draft salmon recovery plan for Puget Sound, 30 June 

2005—Revised December 2005, vols. 1 and 2. Submitted to NOAA Fisheries Service by Shared 

Strategy Development Committee, Seattle, WA. 

Small, M. 2004. Elwha, Dungeness, and Morse pink salmon report, January 2003. Draft report, 6 

January 2004. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

Stolnack, S., and R. Neiman. 2005. Summary of research and education activities in the Elwha River 

watershed and adjacent coastal zone. Univ. Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery 

Sciences, Seattle. 

Thom, R. M., and L. K. Hallum (Wetland Ecosystem Team). 1991. Long-term changes in the extent of 

tidal marshes, eelgrass meadows, and kelp forests of Puget Sound. Final report to EPA. FRIUW-9008 and EPA 910/91-005. Univ. Washington. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, 

Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle. 

Thrower, F. P., and J. E. Joyce. 2004. Effects of 70 years of freshwater residency on survival, growth, 

early maturation, and smolting in a stock of anadromous rainbow trout from Southeast Alaska. 

Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 44:485–496. 

Tipping, J. 2003. Using acclimation ponds in the rearing of salmon. In Hatchery Scientific Review 

Group (HSRG), April 2004, Hatchery reform: Principles and recommendations of the HSRG, p. 

B68–B74. (Available from Long Live the Kings, 1305 Fourth Ave., Suite 810, Seattle, WA 

98101.) Online at: www.hatcheryreform.org [accessed 5 October 2007]. 

USDOS (U.S. Department of State), and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Biological 

opinion: Approval of the Pacific Salmon Treaty by the U.S. Department of State and management 

of the southeast Alaska salmon fisheries subject to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Endangered 

Species Act—Reinstated section 7 consultations. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Appendix B: Final biological opinion for the Elwha 

River restoration project (FWS Ref: 1-3-00-F-0606). Memorandum to Superintendent, Olympic 

National Park, Port Angeles, WA. 

125
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Draft recovery plan for Coastal-Puget Sound distinct 

population segment of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), vol. II (of II). Olympic Peninsula 

Management Unit. Portland, OR. Online at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/jcs/ 

documents/OlyPenPt1.pdf [accessed 5 October 2007]. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Natural reproductive success and demographic effects 

of hatchery-origin steelhead in Abernathy Creek, Washington. Annual Rep., January 2005–

December 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Abernathy Fish Technology Center, Longview, 

WA. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). Unpubl. data. McDonald Bridge gauge. Online at http://wa.water

.usgs.gov/cgi/adr.cgi?12045500 [accessed 5 October 2007]. 

VanBlaricom, G. R., and M. D. Chambers. 2003. Testing a charismatic paradigm: Consequences of a 

growing sea otter population for nearshore benthic communities along the south shore of the 

Strait of Juan de Fuca. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, Biological Resources Division, and Univ. Washington, School of Aquatic and 

Fishery Sciences, Seattle. 

Vernon, E. H. 1966. Enumeration of migrant pink salmon fry in the Fraser River estuary. Int. Pac. 

Salmon Fish. Comm. Bull. 19. 

Waples, R. S. 1991. Genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids: Lessons from the Pacific 

Northwest. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48(Suppl. 1):124–133. 

Waples, R. S. 1999. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. Fisheries 24(2):12–29. 

Wampler, P. L. 1984. Radio telemetry assessment of adult summer run steelhead behavior following 

release in the upper Elwha River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, 

Olympia, WA. 

WDF (Washington Dept. Fisheries). 1971. Elwha River fisheries studies. Financed by Crown 

Zellerbach Corp., contract no. 0313. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Management Research 

Division, Olympia. 

WDF (Washington Dept. Fisheries). 1981. Methods for estimating escapement objectives for north 

coastal Washington salmon stocks. Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

WDF (Washington Dept. Fisheries), and Crown Zellerbach Corp. 1975. 25 April 1975 settlement 

agreement regarding licensing of Elwha Dam (FERC No. 2663) and Glines Canyon Dam (FERC 

No. 588). Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 1996. Memorandum 10 September 1996 from L. LeClair 

and S. Phelps (WDFW) to D. Morrill (Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe). Subject: Elwha River chum 

salmon analysis. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2002. Hatchery and genetic management plan—Elwha 

River summer/fall Chinook. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife). 2005. Hatchery and genetic management plan: Elwha 

summer/fall Chinook. August 2005 draft. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, 

Science Division, Olympia. 

126
WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife) and PNPTC (Point No Point Treaty Council). 2005. 2004 

Progress report on Hood Canal summer chum salmon. Memorandum dated 10 February 2005. 

Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife) and PNPTC (Point No Point Treaty Council). 2006. 2005 

Progress report on Hood Canal summer chum salmon. Memorandum dated 1 March 2006. 

Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife) and PNPTT (Point No Point Treaty Tribes). 2003. Report 

on summer chum salmon stock assessment and management activities for 2001 and 2002. 

Supplemental Rep. No. 4, Summer chum salmon conservation initiative: An implementation plan 

to recover summer chum in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca. October 2003. 

Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife) and PSTT (Puget Sound Treaty Tribes). 2004. Puget 

Sound Chinook salmon hatcheries, a component of the comprehensive Chinook salmon 

management plan. 31 March 2004. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Lacey, WA. 

WDFW (Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife) and WWTIT (Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes). 

1994. 1992 Washington state salmon and steelhead stock inventory: Appendix one Puget Sound 

stocks, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca, Vol. 1. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia. 

WDG (Washington Dept. Game). 1973. Preliminary analysis of game fish and wildlife resources of 

Elwha River drainage affected by Elwha and Glines Dams and preliminary proposals for 

compensation of project related losses. Washington Dept. Game, Olympia. 

Winans, G. A., M. L. McHenry, J. Baker, A. Elz, A. Goodbla, E. Iwamoto, D. Kuligowski, K. M. Miller, 

M. P. Small, P. Spruell, and D. Van Doornik. In press. Genetic inventory of anadromous Pacific 

salmonids of the Elwha River prior to dam removal. Northwest Sci. 82. 

WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission). 2000. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting 

factors—Water Resource Inventory Area 18, Dungeness/Elwha Watershed. Washington State 

Conservation Commission, Olympia. 

Wunderlich, R. C., and S. Dilley. 1990. Chinook and coho emigration in the Elwha River. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, Olympia, WA. 

Wunderlich, R. C., S. J. Dilley, and E. E. Knudsen. 1989. Timing, exit selection, and survival of 

steelhead and coho smolts at Glines Canyon Dam. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries 

Assistance Office, Olympia, WA. 

Wunderlich, R. C., S. Hager, and Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. 1993. Elwha River spring Chinook stock 

status evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, Olympia, WA. 

Wunderlich, R. C., C. Pantaleo, and R. Wiswell. 1994. Elwha River chum salmon surveys, 1993–1994. 

September 1994. Prepared for Olympic National Park. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, 

WA. 

Wunderlich, R., and C. Pantaleo. 1995. A review of methods to re-introduce anadromous fish in the 

Elwha River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Resource Office, 

Olympia, WA. 

127
Zillges, G. 1977. Methodology for determining Puget Sound coho escapement goals, escapement 

estimates, 1977 pre-season run size prediction, and in-season run assessment. Tech. Rep. No. 28. 

Washington Dept. Fisheries, Olympia. 

128
129

Appendix A: Hatchery Production Matrices 

This appendix provides matrices of hatchery production data related to the Elwha River 

Fish Restoration Plan. For each species, the accompanying 35 tables provide data for estimated 

production and restoration strategies broken down in stages (before, during, and after removal of 

the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the Elwha River, Olympic National Park). 
Table A-1. Estimated Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) production before, during, and after 

dam removal.* 

Adults returning Production projections

Total Female Green eggs Eyed eggs Age-0 smolts Yearling smolts 

100 50 250,000 225,000 200,000 180,000

200 100 500,000 450,000 400,000 360,000

500 250 1,250,000 1,125,000 1,000,000 900,000

750 375 1,875,000 1,687,500 1,500,000 1,350,000

1,000 500 2,500,000 2,250,000 2,000,000 1,800,000

2,000 1,000 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,600,000

4,000 2,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,200,000

>4,000 4,000 20,000,000 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,400,000

*Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place for adult collection; sex ratio is 0.5; Eggs per female = 5,000. Rates of 

survival: green, 1; eyed, 0.9; age 0, 0.8; and yearling, 0.72. Egg equivalence rate (egg equivalents are the number of 

green eggs necessary to produce this amount of eggs or fish): green, 1; eyed, 0.9; age 0, 0.8; and yearling, 0.72. 

Table A-2. Chinook salmon restoration strategies before dam removal.a

Adults returningb

Release strategy employed 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 4,000 >4,000 

Captive brood 

Elwha Channel yearling smolts X X X X X X X X 

Morse Creek yearlings X X X X X X X X 

Elwha Channel age-0 smolts X X X X X X 

Natural spawnersc X X X X X 

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Age-0 smolts upstream 

Yearling smolts upstream 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place for adult collection. Upstream access and passage: No upstream 

access by adults. 

b If egg takes exceed targeted levels, outplants of eyed eggs and fry will be considered. c At returns of 750 to 1,000 minimum, 250 adult brood are needed for natural spawning; at returns of 1,000 to 2,000 

maximum, 500 adult brood are needed for natural spawning. 

130
Table A-3. Chinook salmon restoration production numbers before dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 Potential egg production availableb 250,000 500,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 10Release strategy 

Elwha Channel yearling smolts 175,000 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Morse Creek yearlings 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Morse Creek age-0 smolts Elwha Channel age-0 smolts 555,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 2,550,000 3

Age-0 smolts LEKT Natural spawnersc 65 315 565 

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Age-0 smolts upstream 

Yearling smolts upstream 

Total egg programmed productiond 0 0 0 162,500 787,500 1,412,500 5

Total age-0 programmed productiond 0 0 555,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 2,550,000 3

Total yearling smolt programmed productiond

175,000 360,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 

Total programmed production 175,000 360,000 955,000 1,612,500 2,237,500 4,362,500 9

Unprogrammed egg production 6,944 0 694 0 0 0 

131

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place for adult collection. Upstream access and passage: No upstream access by adults. Progra

age-0 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), production goal is 125 to 250 adults back per year or 500 to 1,000 adults yearling WDFW, survival = 0.3%; 40,000 to 80,000 release for targeted return of 125 to 500 adults. 

b If egg takes exceed targeted levels, outplants of eyed eggs and fry will be considered. c 250 = minimum adult brood needed for natural spawning; 500 = maximum adult brood needed for natural spawning. d Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-4. Chinook salmon restoration strategies during dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 4,000 >4,000

Captive brood 

Elwha Channel yearling smolts X X X X X X X X 

Morse Creek yearlings X X X X X X X X 

Morse Creek age-0 smolts 

Elwha Channel age-0 smolts X X X X X X 

Age-0 smolts LEKTb

Natural spawners X X X 

Adults upstream X X X 

Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Age-0 smolts upstream 

Yearling smolts upstream 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place for adult collection; water production limited to 22 cfs. Water quality: 

Maximum sediment impacts occurring. Upstream access and passage: No upstream access for adults; outplanted fry 

upstream will have access to the upstream areas. Assumes no natural spawners, but there may be some anyway. If 

egg takes exceed targeted levels, outplants of eyed eggs and fry will be considered. 

b Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe hatchery. 

132
Table A-5. Chinook salmon restoration production numbers during dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 4,000 Potential egg production availableb 250,000 500,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 Release strategy 

Elwha Channel yearling smolts 175,000 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 

Morse Creek yearlings 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 

Morse Creek age-0 smolts Elwha Channel age-0 smolts 555,000 805,000 855,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 

Age-0 smolts LEKT Natural spawners 

Adults upstream 903 2,778 Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Age-0 smolts upstreamc 250,000 250,000 500,000 750,000 

Yearling smolts upstream 

Total egg programmed productiond 0

0

0

0

0 2,257,500 6,945,000 

Total age-0 programmed productiond 0

0 555,000 1,055,000 1,105,000 1,750,000 2,000,000 

Total yearling smolt programmed productiond

175,000 360,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 

Total programmed production 175,000 360,000 955,000 1,455,000 1,505,000 4,407,500 9,345,000 

Unprogrammed egg production 6,944

0 694 694 563,194 –556 –556 

133

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place for adult collection; water production limited to 22 cfs. Water quality: Maximum sedimen

Upstream access and passage: Adults will have upstream access 2 years before dam removal. Programming assumptions: Age-0 WDFWto 250 adults back per year or 500 to 1,000 adults per generation. Yearling WDFW: survival = 0.3%; 40,000 to 80,000 release for targeadults. 

b If egg takes exceed targeted levels, outplants of eyed eggs and fry will be considered. c Fingerlings released on station as subyearling smolts 2 years before dam removal. d Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-6. Chinook salmon restoration strategies after dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 4,000 >4,000 

Captive brood 

Elwha Channel yearling smolts X X X X X X X X 

Morse Creek yearlings 

Morse Creek age-0 smoltsb

Elwha Channel age-0 smolts X X X X X X 

Age-0 smolts LEKT 

Natural spawnersc, d X X X X X X 

Adults upstream 

Directed fishery 

Eggs upstreame

Fry upstream 

Age-0 smolts upstream X X X X X 

Yearling smolts upstream X X X X X 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place and will be phased out. Water quality: Sediment impacts peaking and 

reducing; potential for major sediment impacts remains. Hatchery water systems: Water treatment system off-line; 

hatchery water is raw surface water supplemented by groundwater. Upstream access and passage: Full upstream and 

downstream access is available. 

b Out-of-basin release and recovery program will be phased out as a tool for Elwha ecosystem restoration. c At returns of 750 to 2,000 adults at minimum, 250 adult brood needed for natural spawning. At higher return rates, 

all additional fish will be permitted to spawn naturally. 

d Natural spawners include adults in both upstream and downstream populations. 

e If egg takes exceed targeted levels, outplants of eyed eggs and fry will be considered. 

134
Table A-7. Chinook salmon restoration production numbers after dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 4,000 Potential egg production availableb 250,000 500,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 Release strategy employed 

Captive brood Elwha Channel yearling smolts 180,000 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 

Morse Creek yearlingsc 180,000 200,000

Morse Creek age-0 smolts Elwha Channel age-0 smolts 500,000 546,000 805,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 

Age-0 smolts LEKT Natural spawnersd, e 250 250 250 490 2,365 

Adults upstream Eggs upstreamb

Fry upstream Age-0 smolts upstream 120,000 250,000 500,000 750,000 

Yearling smolts upstream 100,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 

Total egg programmed productionf 0

0 625,000 625,000 625,000 1,225,000 5,912,500 

Total age-0 programmed productionf

0

0 500,000 666,000 1,055,000 2,700,000 2,950,000 

Total yearling smolt programmed productionf

180,000 360,000 400,000 300,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 

Total programmed production 180,000 360,000 1,525,000 1,591,000 2,080,000 4,325,000 9,262,500 

Unprogrammed egg production 

0

0

0 833 694

0

0 

135

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place and will be phased out; off-station outplants will be phased out as stocks rebuild; on-statio

will be reevaluated. Water quality: Surface water treatment system is off-line; hatchery water will be raw surface water supplemented wUpstream access and passage: Adults will have upstream access. 

b If egg takes exceed targeted levels, outplants of eyed eggs and fry will be considered. c Out-of-basin release and recovery program will be phased out as a tool for Elwha ecosystem restoration. d Goal: minimum 250 fish. At higher return rates, all additional fish will be permitted to spawn naturally. e Natural spawners include adults in both upstream and downstream populations. f Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-8. Estimated winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) production before, during, and after dam 

removal.* 

Adults returning Production projections

Total Female 

Green 

eggs

Eyed 

eggs 

Age-0 

smolts 

Yearling 

smolts 

Two-year-old 

smolts 

100 50 150,000 127,500 117,000 102,000 78,000 

500 250 750,000 637,500 585,000 510,000 390,000 

1,000 500 1,500,000 1,275,000 1,170,000 1,020,000 780,000 

1,500 750 2,250,000 1,912,500 1,755,000 1,530,000 1,170,000 

2,000 1,000 3,000,000 2,550,000 2,340,000 2,040,000 1,560,000 

5,000 2,500 7,500,000 6,375,000 5,850,000 5,100,000 3,900,000 

7,500 3,750 11,250,000 9,562,500 8,775,000 7,650,000 5,850,000 

10,000 5,000 15,000,000 12,750,000 11,700,000 10,200,000 7,800,000 

15,000 7,500 22,500,000 19,125,000 17,550,000 15,300,000 11,700,000 

*Assumptions: Fish are at upper limit of return numbers; survival of fish is reduced due to use of wild stock. Sex 

ratio is 0.5. Eggs per female = 3,000. Rates of survival: green, 1; eyed, 0.85; age 0, 0.78; yearling, 0.68; and 2-

year-old smolt, 0.52. Egg equivalence rate (egg equivalents are the number of green eggs necessary to produce this 

amount of eggs or fish): green, 1; eyed, 0.85; age 0, 0.78; yearling, 0.68; and 2-year-old smolt, 0.52. 

136
137

Table A-9. Winter steelhead restoration strategies before dam removal.a

Adults returningb

Release strategy employed 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 

Yearling on-station (late component) X X X X X X 

Natural spawnersc X X X X X 

Fisheryd X X X X X 

Adults upstream X X 

Eggs upstreame X X X X X 

Fry upstreame X X X X X 

Presmolts upstreame, f X X X X X 

Smolts upstreame, f X X 

2-year-old smolts upstream 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is not in place during adult return period; alternate brood capture methods will be 

employed. Water availability: Hatchery water use is limited by current reduced production capabilities. Upstream 

access and passage: Upstream access by adults is not possible. 

b Late-timed native-origin return (NOR) winter run stock is primary enhancement stock for restoration. 

c Incidental natural spawning will occur, but is unprogrammed. 

d Fishery is targeted on early timed component of run and will not harvest late component. e First outplant of presmolts, smolts is three years before dam removal. 

f Restoration program allotted total 36 helicopter flights per season. 
Table A-10. Winter steelhead restoration production numbers before dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 Potential egg production available 150,000 750,000 1,500,000 2,250,000 3,000,000 7,500,000 Release strategy 

Yearling on-station (late component)b 102,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 

Natural spawnersc 100 577 1,077 1,577 4,577 

Fisheryd

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Fry upstream 220,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 

Presmolts upstream (late component)e 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Smolts upstream (late component) 

2-year-old smolts upstream 

Total egg programmed productionf 0 250,000 965,500 1,715,500 2,465,500 6,965,500 

Total age-0 programmed productionf 0 220,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 

Total yearling smolt programmed productionf

102,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 

Total programmed production 102,000 615,000 1,360,500 2,110,500 2,860,500 7,360,500 

Unprogrammed egg production 0 4,713 752 752 752 752 

138

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is not in place during adult return period; alternate brood capture methods will be employed. Water 

raw surface water supplemented with groundwater. Water availability: Hatchery water use is limited by current reduced production capaccess and passage: Upstream access by adults is not possible. Production assumptions: Hatchery enhancement of early timed portion this period; late component of run is severely depressed; and capture of adults sufficient to achieve program goals may not occur during 

b Late-timed NOR winter run stock is primary enhancement stock for restoration. c Incidental natural spawning will occur, but is unprogrammed. d Fishery is targeted on early timed component of run and will not harvest late component. e First outplanting of presmolts 3 years before dam removal. f Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-11. Winter steelhead restoration strategies during dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 

Yearling on-station (late component)b X X X X X X 

Natural spawnersc

Fisheryd X X X X X 

Adults upstreame X X 

Eggs upstreamf X X 

Fry upstreamg X X 

Presmolts upstreamh X X X X X X 

Smolts upstreamh X X 

2-year-old smolts upstreami X X X X X 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is not in place during return period; other adult capture methods will be used 

when necessary. Water quality: Maximum sediment impacts occurring. Upstream access and passage: Adults will 

have assisted access to the upstream areas. 

b Late-timed NOR winter run stock is primary enhancement stock for restoration. c Incidental natural spawning will occur, but is unprogrammed. 

d Fishery is targeted primarily on early timed component of run. Harvest on late component implemented following 

stock status assessment. 

e 100 adults needed for radio telemetry project. 

f Start 4 years before dam removal. 

g Start 3 years before dam removal via helicopter (outplant 2 years before dam removal, emigrate 1 year before dam 

removal). 

h Outplants of presmolts and smolts to begin the year of dam removal. 

i Production need for 2-year-old smolts to be based on fish response to hatchery environment. 

139
Table A-12. Winter steelhead restoration production numbers during dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 Potential egg production available 150,000 750,000 1,500,000 2,250,000 3,000,000 7,500,000 Release strategy 

Yearling on-station (late component)b 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Natural spawnersc

Fisheryd

Adults upstreame 39 537 1,037 1,537 4,537 

Eggs upstreamf 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Fry upstreamg 272,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 

Presmolts upstreamh 22,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Smolts upstreamh 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 

2-year-old smolts upstreami 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 

Total egg programmed productionj 0 158,500 905,500 1,655,500 2,405,500 6,905,500 

Total age-0 programmed productionj 0 272,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 

Total yearling smolt programmed productionj

102,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 

Total 2-year-old smolt programmed productionj

0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 

Total programmed production 102,000 575,500 1,340,500 2,075,500 2,825,500 7,325,500 

Unprogrammed egg production 0 701 –146 –146 –146 –146 

140

a Assumptions: Lower river is not suitable for natural spawning. Water quality: Hatchery water is treated surface water, and groundwat

Water availability: Hatchery water use is limited by reduced treatment facility production capabilities. Upstream access and passage: A

by adults and downstream migration by juveniles possible. 

b Late-timed NOR winter run stock is primary enhancement stock for restoration. c Incidental natural spawning will occur, but is unprogrammed. d Fishery is targeted primarily on early timed component of run harvest on late component implemented following stock status assessme 100 adults needed for radio telemetry project. f Start 2 years before dam removal. g Start 2 years before dam removal via helicopter (outplant 2 years before dam removal, emigrate 1 year before dam removal). h Outplants of presmolts and smolts to begin the year of dam removal. i Production need for 2-year-old smolts to be based on fish response to hatchery environment. j Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-13. Winter steelhead restoration strategies after dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 

Yearling on-station (late component)b X X X X X X 

Natural spawnersc X X X X X 

Fisheryd X X X X X 

Eggs upstreamb X X 

Fry upstreamb X X X X 

Presmolts upstreamb X X X X X X 

Smolts upstreamb X X X X X 

2-year-old smolts upstreame X X X X X 

a Assumptions: Water treatment system is off-line. Water quality: Maximum sediment impacts occurring. Hatchery 

water systems: Water treatment system is off-line; hatchery water is raw surface water supplemented by 

groundwater. Upstream access and passage: full upstream and downstream access. 

b Hatchery production of late component will phase out as natural production increases to sustainable numbers. 

c Natural spawners includes both upstream and downstream populations. 

d Fishery is targeted primarily on early timed component of run. Harvest on late component implemented following 

stock status assessment. 

e Production need for 2-year-old smolts to be based on fish response to hatchery environment. 

141
142

Table A-14. Winter steelhead restoration production numbers after dam removal.a

Programming production Adults returning 

options 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 

Potential egg production available 150,000 750,000 1,500,000 2,250,000 3,000,000 7,500,000 

Release strategy 

Yearling on-stationb 80,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Natural spawnersc, d 37 537 1,037 1,537 4,537 

Fisherye

Eggs upstreamb 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Fry upstreamb 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 

Presmolts upstreamb 22,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 

Smolts upstreamb 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 

2-year-old smolts upstreamf 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 

Total egg programmed productiong 0 155,500 905,500 1,655,500 2,405,500 6,905,500 

Total age-0 programmed 

productiong 0 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 

Total yearling smolt programmed 

productiong 102,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 

Total 2-year-old smolt 

programmed productiong 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 

Total programmed production 102,000 575,500 1,325,500 2,075,500 2,825,500 7,325,500 

Unprogrammed egg production 0 –146 –146 –146 –146 –146 

a Assumptions: Water treatment system is off-line. Water quality: Hatchery water is raw surface water 

supplemented by groundwater. Water availability: Full complement of water is available. Upstream access and 

passage: Full watershed access is possible. 

b Hatchery production of late component will phase out as natural production increases to sustainable numbers. 

c Dungeness brood used if female numbers are less than 125. 

d Natural spawners include both upstream and downstream populations. e Fishery is targeted primarily on early timed component of run. Harvest on late component implemented following 

stock status assessment. 

f Production need for 2-year-old smolts to be based on fish response to hatchery environment. 

g Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-15. Estimated coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) production before, during, and after dam 

removal.* 

Adults returning Production projections

Total Female Green eggs Eyed eggs Age-0 smolts Yearling smolts 

100 50 125,000 112,500 100,000 90,000 

500 250 625,000 562,500 500,000 450,000 

1,000 500 1,250,000 1,125,000 1,000,000 900,000 

1,500 750 1,875,000 1,687,500 1,500,000 1,350,000 

2,000 1,000 2,500,000 2,250,000 2,000,000 1,800,000 

5,000 2,500 6,250,000 5,625,000 5,000,000 4,500,000 

7,500 3,750 9,375,000 8,437,500 7,500,000 6,750,000 

10,000 5,000 12,500,000 11,250,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 

15,000 7,500 18,750,000 16,875,000 15,000,000 13,500,000 

*Assumptions: Fish are at upper limit of return numbers. Sex ratio is 0.5. Eggs per female = 2,500. Rates of 

survival: green, 1; eyed, 0.9; age 0, 0.8; yearling, 0.72. Egg equivalence rate (egg equivalents are the number of 

green eggs necessary to produce this amount of eggs or fish): green, 1; eyed, 0.9; age 0, 0.8; and yearling, 0.72. 

143
Table A-16. Coho salmon restoration strategies before dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,00Yearling on-station X X X X X X X X X Dungeness egg importationsb X X 

Natural spawnersc X X X X X X X X 

Fisheryd X X X X X X X X 

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream X X X X X 

Fry upstream X X X X X 

Presmolts upstream 

Smolts upstream 

a Assumptions: adult capture weir is not in place during return period; other adult capture methods will be used when necessary. Upstre

Upstream access by adults is not possible. 

b Dungeness brood used if female numbers are less than 125 (hatchery returns and adult brood capture efforts). c Incidental natural spawning will occur, but is unprogrammed. d Fishery implemented if hatchery escapement goal is reached. 

144
Table A-17. Coho salmon restoration production numbers before dam removal.a

Programming production Adults returningoptions 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 7,500 Dungeness importationsb 187,500 Potential egg production available 312,500 625,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 6,250,000 9,375,000 12,5Release strategy 

Yearling on-station 225,000 450,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 7

Natural spawnersc

Fisheryd 166 666 1,166 4,166 6,666 

Adults upstreame

Eggs upstream 

Fry ups treamPresmolts upstream 

Smolts upstream 

Total egg programmed productionf 0 0 207,500 832,500 1,457,500 5,207,500 8,332,500 11,4

Total age-0 programmed productionf

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total yearling smolt programmed productionf

225,000 450,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 7

Total programmed production 225,000 450,000 957,500 1,582,500 2,207,500 5,957,500 9,082,500 12,2

Imported off station production 187,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unprogrammed egg production 0 0 833 833 833 833 833 

145

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is not in place during return period; other adult capture methods will be used when necessary. Water 

is raw surface water supplemented with groundwater. Water availability: Hatchery water use is limited by current reduced production c

access and passage: Upstream access by adults is not possible. Production assumptions: Rate of return of 0.5%; 125 to 250 adults retur

smolts. 

b Dungeness brood used if female numbers are less than 125. c Incidental natural spawning will occur, but is unprogrammed. d Fishery implemented if hatchery escapement goal is reached. e 100 = adult brood needed for radio telemetry project. f Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-18. Coho salmon restoration strategies during dam removal.a

Adults returnin

g

Release strategy employed 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000 Yearling on-station X X X X X X X X X Dungeness egg importationsb X X 

Natural spawnersc

Fishery 

Adults upstream X X X X X 

Eggs upstreamd X X X X X 

Fry upstreame X X X X X 

Presmolts upstreamf X X X X X 

Smolts upstreamf X X X X X 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is not in place during return period; other adult capture methods will be used when necessary. Water 

sediment impacts occurring. Upstream access and passage: Adults will have assisted access to the upstream areas. 

b Dungeness brood used if female numbers are less than 125 (to maintain minimum effective spawning population). c Incidental natural spawning will occur, but is unprogrammed. d Start by the year of dam removal. e Start 1 year before dam removal via helicopter (outplant 1 year before dam removal; emigrate the year of dam removal). 

146f Outplants of presmolts and smolts to begin the year of dam removal. 
147

Table A-19. Coho salmon restoration production numbers during dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 7,500 10,0Dungeness egg importationsb 187,500 Potential egg production available 312,500 625,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 6,250,000 9,375,000 12,50

Release strategy 

Yearling on-station 225,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 425,000 42

Natural spawnersc

Fishery 

Adults upstreamd 110 531 1,031 4,031 6,531 

Eggs upstreame, f 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 10

Fry upstreamg 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 30

Presmolts upstreamh 15,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 7

Smolts upstreamh 10,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 3

Total egg programmed productioni 0 0 137,500 763,750 1,388,750 5,138,750 8,263,750 11,38

Total age-0 programmed productioni 0 0 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 30

Total yearling smolt programmed productioni

225,000 450,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 530,000 53

Total programmed production 225,000 450,000 967,500 1,593,750 2,218,750 5,968,750 9,093,750 12,21

Imported off station production 187,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unprogrammed egg production 0 0 1,389 139 139 139 139 

a Assumptions: Lower river is not suitable for natural spawning. Water quality: Hatchery water is treated surface water; groundwater is 

Water availability: Hatchery water use is limited by reduced treatment facility production capabilities. Upstream access and passage: A

by adults and downstream migration by juveniles is possible. 

b Dungeness brood used if female numbers are less than 125 (to maintain minimum effective spawning population). c Incidental natural spawning will or may occur, but is unprogrammed. d The ability to hold adults for transfer upstream above the Elwha Dam may be limited by water available at the hatchery. e Start 2 years before dam removal. f The ability to release fry upstream may be limited by water available for rearing at the hatchery. g Helicopter outplants, start 2 years before dam removal (outplant 1 year before dam removal, emigrate the year of dam removal). h Outplants of presmolts and smolts to begin 1 year before dam removal. i Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-20. Coho salmon restoration strategies after dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000Yearling on-stationb X X X X X X X X X Dungeness egg importationsc X X 

Natural spawnersd X X X X X X X X 

Fisherye X X X X X X X X 

Eggs upstreamb X X X X X 

Fry upstreamb X X X X X X X 

Presmolts upstreamb X X X X X X X X 

Smolts upstreamb X X X X X X X X 

a Assumptions: Water treatment system is off-line. Water quality: Maximum sediment impacts occurring. Hatchery water systems: Wa

off-line; hatchery water is raw surface water supplemented by groundwater. Upstream access and passage: Full upstream and downstre

b Hatchery production will phase out as natural production increases. c Dungeness brood used if female numbers are less than 125. d Natural spawners include both upstream and downstream populations. e Fishery implemented if hatchery escapement goal is reached. 

148
149

Table A-21. Coho salmon restoration production numbers after dam removal.a

Programming production Adults returning options 100 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 7,500 Dungeness importationsb 187,500 Potential egg production available 

ateg

y

312,500 625,000 1,250,000 1,875,000 2,500,000 6,250,000 9,375,000 12

Release str 

Yearling on-stationc 225,000 425,000 425,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 

Natural spawnersd 286 425 845 2,345 3,845 

Fisherye 1,500 2,500 

Eggs upstreamc 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Fry upstreamc 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 

Presmolts upstreamc 15,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 

Smolts upstreamc 10,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 

Total egg programmed productionf 0 0 357,500 531,250 1,156,250 4,906,250 8,031,250 1

Total age-0 programmed productionf

0 0 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 

Total yearling smolt programmed productionf

225,000 450,000 530,000 855,000 855,000 855,000 855,000 

Total programmed production 225,000 450,000 1,012,500 1,511,250 2,136,250 5,886,250 9,011,250 12Imported off station production 187,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unprogrammed egg production 0 0 139 0 0 0 0 

a Assumptions: Water treatment system is off-line. Water quality: Hatchery water is raw surface water supplemented by groundwater. 

complement of water is available. Upstream access and passage: Full watershed access is possible. 

b Dungeness brood used if female numbers are less than 125. c Hatchery production will phase out as natural production increases. d Natural spawners include both upstream and downstream populations. e Fishery implemented if hatchery escapement goal is reached and natural escapement goal is met. f Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-22. Estimated chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) production (fall early and late runs) before, 

during, and after dam removal.* 

Adults returning Production projections

Total Female Green eggs Eyed eggs Age-0 smolts 

50 12.5 37,500 33,750 30,000 

100 50.0 150,000 135,000 120,000 

200 100.0 300,000 270,000 240,000 

500 250.0 750,000 675,000 600,000 

750 375.0 1,125,000 1,012,500 900,000 

1,000 500.0 1,500,000 1,350,000 1,200,000 

2,000 1,000.0 3,000,000 2,700,000 2,400,000 

*Assumptions: Fish are at upper limit of return numbers. Sex ratio is 0.5. Eggs per female = 3,000. Rates of 

survival: green, 1; eyed, 0.9; and age 0, 0.8. Egg equivalence rate (egg equivalents are the number of green eggs 

necessary to produce this amount of eggs or fish): green, 1; eyed, 0.9; and age 0, 0.8. 

Table A-23. Chum salmon restoration strategies (fall early and late runs) before dam removal.* 

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases X X X X X X X 

Age-0 Elwha Channel releases X X X X 

Eyed egg outplants X X X X X 

Natural spawners 

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Age-0 upstream 

*Assumptions: Adult capture weir will not be used for adult acquisition. Upstream access and passage: No 

upstream access by adults. 

150
Table A-24. Chum salmon restoration production numbers (fall early and late runs) before dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 Potential egg production available 37,500 150,000 300,000 750,000 1,125,000 1,500,000 Release strategy 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases 31,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Age-0 Elwha Channel releases 40,000 100,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 

Eyed egg outplants 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Natural spawners 250 500 

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Total egg programmed productionb 0 0 75,000 100,000 475,000 850,000 

Total age-0 fingerling programmed productionb

31,000 115,000 175,000 525,000 525,000 525,000 

Total programmed production 31,000 115,000 250,000 625,000 1,000,000 1,375,000 

151 Unprogrammed egg production –1,250 6,250 6,250 –6,250 –6,250 –6,250 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir will not be used for adult acquisition. Upstream access and passage: No upstream access by adults. 

assumptions: re age-0 LEKT hatchery releases, assumed that LEKT hatchery capacity would be limited to 75,000 during hatchery cons

Elwha Channel releases, WDFW will be able to take on any additional chum production temporarily; re eyed egg outplants, assumed thincubators would be maximum possible outplanting effort; re natural spawners, received remaining potential production to reduce unpr

b Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-25. Chum salmon restoration strategies (fall early and late runs) during dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases X X X X X X 

Age-0 Elwha Channel releases 

Eyed egg outplants X X X X X X 

Natural spawnersb X X X X X X 

Adults upstreamb X X X 

Eggs upstreamb X X X X 

Fry upstreamb X X X 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir will not be used for adult acquisition. Water quality: Maximum sediment impacts 

occurring. Upstream access and passage: No upstream access for adults; outplanted fry upstream will have access to 

the upstream areas. 

b Enhancement to begin in the year of dam removal. 

152
Table A-26. Chum salmon production numbers (fall early and late runs) during dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 Potential egg production available 37,500 150,000 300,000 750,000 1,125,000 1,500,000 Release strategy 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases 31,000 75,000 165,000 500,000 650,000 650,000 

Age-0 Elwha Channel releases 40,000

Eyed egg outplants 100,000 100,000 100,000

Natural spawnersb 20 140 460 

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Total egg programmed productionc 0 0 100,000 130,000 310,000 690,000 

Total age-0 fingerling programmed productionc

31,000 115,000 165,000 500,000 650,000 650,000 

Total programmed production 31,000 115,000 265,000 630,000 960,000 1,340,000 

153 Unprogrammed egg production –1,250 6,250 –6,250 –5,000 2,500 –2,500 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir will not be used for adult acquisition. Water quality: Maximum sediment impact period. Upstream 

Adults will have upstream access in the year of dam removal. Programming assumptions: re age-0 LEKT hatchery releases, maximum potential of 650,000 assumed; re age-0 Elwha Channel releases, rearing potential of 40,000 assumed for Elwha Channel facility; re eye

that 100 Jordan-Scotty incubators would be maximum possible outplanting effort; re natural spawners, received remaining potential prounprogrammed eggs to zero. 

b Enhancement to begin with the year of dam removal. c Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-27. Chum salmon restoration strategies (fall early and late runs) after dam removal.* 

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases X X X X X X X 

Age-0 Elwha Channel releases 

Eyed egg outplants X X X X 

Natural spawners X X X X 

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream X X X X 

Fry upstream X X 

*Assumptions: Adult capture weir will not be used for adult acquisition. Water quality: Sediment impacts peaking 

and reducing; potential for major sediment impacts remain. Hatchery water systems: Water treatment system offline; hatchery water is raw surface water supplemented by groundwater. Upstream access and passage: Full 

upstream and downstream access is available. 

154
Table A-28. Chum salmon production numbers (fall early and late runs) after dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,Potential egg production available 37,500 150,000 300,000 750,000 1,125,000 1,500,000 3,0Release strategy 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases 31,000 120,000 240,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 3

Age-0 Elwha Channel releases Eyed egg outplants 250,000 250,000 250,000 2

Natural spawners 83 333 292 

Adults upstream Eggs upstream Fry upstream 350,000 3

Total egg programmed productionb 0 0 0 374,500 749,500 688,000 2,1

Total age-0 programmed productionb 31,000 120,000 240,000 300,000 300,000 650,000 6

Total programmed production 31,000 120,000 240,000 674,500 1,049,500 1,338,000 2,8

Unprogrammed egg production –1,250 0 0 500 500 –500 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir will not be used for adult acquisition, off-station outplants will be phased out as stocks rebuild, and o

objectives will be reevaluated. Water quality: Surface water treatment system is off-line. Hatchery water systems: Hatchery water will 

supplemented with groundwater. Upstream access and passage: Adults will have upstream access. Programming assumptions: re age-0 

maximum production level of 300,000 assumed; re eyed egg outplants, 250 Jordan-Scotty incubators will be maximum outplanting effo

received remaining potential production to reduce unprogrammed eggs to zero; re fry upstream, 350,000 will be maximum incubation a

155

b Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-29. Estimated pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) production before, during, and after dam 

removal.* 

Adults returning Production projections

Total Female Green eggs Eyed eggs Age-0 smolts 

50 25 37,500 33,750 30,000 

100 50 75,000 67,500 60,000 

200 100 150,000 135,000 120,000 

500 250 375,000 337,500 300,000 

750 375 562,500 506,250 450,000 

1,000 500 750,000 675,000 600,000 

2,000 1,000 1,500,000 1,350,000 1,200,000 

*Assumptions: Fish are at upper limit of return numbers. Sex ratio is 0.5. Eggs per female = 1,500. Rates of 

survival: green, 1; eyed, 0.9; and age 0, 0.8. Egg equivalence rate (egg equivalents are the number of green eggs 

necessary to produce this amount of eggs or fish): green, 1; eyed, 0.9; and age 0, 0.8. 

Table A-30. Pink salmon restoration strategies before dam removal.* 

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases X X X X X X X 

Age-0 Elwha Channel releases X X X X 

Eyed egg outplants X X X X X 

Natural spawners X 

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Age-0 upstream 

*Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place. Upstream access and passage: No upstream access by adults. 

156
Table A-31. Pink salmon restoration production numbers before dam removal.a

Adults returning 

Programming production options 50 100 250 500 750 1,000 Potential egg production availableb 37,500 75,000 150,000 375,000 562,500 750,00Release strategy 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases 30,000 60,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,00

Age-0 Elwha Channel releases 45,000 225,000 375,000 450,00

Eyed egg outplants 93,75

Natural spawners Adults upstream Eggs upstream Fry upstream 

Total egg programmed productionc 0 0 0 0 0 3,75

ction 

9 

Total age-0 fingerling programmed productionc 30,000 60,000 120,000 300,000 450,000 525,00

Total programmed production 30,000 60,000

0

120,000

0

300,000

0

450,000

0

618,75

0

Unprogrammed egg produ 

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place. Upstream access and passage: No upstream access by adults. 

157b Captive brood may be developed through egg collections from redds or capture of outmigrating smolts. 

c Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 
Table A-32. Pink salmon restoration strategies during dam removal.* 

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases X X X X X X X 

Age-0 Elwha Channel releases 

Eyed egg outplants X X X X X X 

Natural spawners X X X X X X 

Adults upstream X X X X 

Eggs upstream X X X X 

Fry upstream X X X 

*Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place; other capture strategies to be employed where necessary. Water 

quality: Maximum sediment impacts are occurring. Upstream access and passage: No upstream access for adults; 

outplanted fry upstream will have access to the upstream areas. 

Table A-33. Pink salmon restoration production numbers during dam removal.a

Programming Adults returning 

production options 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 

Potential egg production 

availableb

37,500 75,000 150,000 375,000 562,500 750,000 1,500,000

Release strategy 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery 

releases 

30,000 60,000 120,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 650,000

Age-0 Elwha Channel 

releases 

Eyed egg outplants 100,000

Natural spawners 391

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Total egg programmed 

productionc

0 0 0 0 0 0 686,500

Total age-0 fingerling 

programmed productionc

30,000 60,000 120,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 650,000

Total programmed 

production 

30,000 60,000 120,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 1,336,500

Unprogrammed 

egg production 

0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place during adult return period. Water quality: Maximum sediment impact 

period. Upstream access and passage: Adults will have upstream access in the year of dam removal. 

b Captive brood may be developed through egg collections from redds or capture of outmigrating smolts. 

c Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 

158
Table A-34. Pink salmon restoration strategies after dam removal.* 

Adults returning 

Release strategy employed 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery releases X X X X X X X 

Age-0 Elwha Channel releases 

Eyed egg outplants X X X X 

Natural spawners X X X X 

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream X X X X 

Fry upstream X X 

*Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place and will be phased out. Water quality: Sediment impacts peaking and 

reducing; potential for major sediment impacts remain. Hatchery water systems: Water treatment system is off-line; 

hatchery water is raw surface water supplemented by groundwater. Upstream access and passage: Full upstream and 

downstream access is available. 

Table A-35. Pink salmon restoration production numbers after dam removal.a

Programming Adults returning 

production options 50 100 200 500 750 1,000 2,000 

Potential egg production 

availableb

37,500 75,000 150,000 375,000 562,500 750,000 1,500,000

Release strategy 

Age-0 LEKT hatchery 

releases 

30,000 60,000 120,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 650,000

Age-0 Elwha Channel 

releases 

Eyed egg outplants 100,000

Natural spawners 391

Adults upstream 

Eggs upstream 

Fry upstream 

Total egg programmed 

productionc

0 0 0 0 0 0 686,500

Total age-0 programmed 

productionc

30,000 60,000 120,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 650,000

Total programmed 

production 

30,000 60,000 120,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 1,336,500

Unprogrammed egg 

production 

0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000

a Assumptions: Adult capture weir is in place and will be phased out, off-station outplants will be phased out as 

stocks rebuild, and on-station releases and objectives will be reevaluated. Water quality: Surface water treatment 

system is off-line. Hatchery water systems: Hatchery water will be raw surface water supplemented with 

groundwater. Upstream access and passage: Adults will have upstream access. 

b Captive brood may be developed through egg collections from redds or capture of outmigrating smolts. 

c Programmed production includes deduction of eggs from adults into the system. 

159
160
Appendix B: Chinook Salmon Harvest 

Management 

[Editor’s note: Chris Weller, Point No Point Treaty Council, wrote the Chinook Salmon Harvest 

Management for the Elwha chapter of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan and allowed it to 

be incorporated into this plan as Appendix B.] 

Elwha Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) levels are in a depressed state and 

have been listed as a threatened component population of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon 

evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (NMFS 1999). Because of this status, they are not 

specifically targeted for fisheries harvest. However, some Elwha Chinook salmon are harvested 

in mixed stock Chinook salmon fisheries where they are a relatively small portion of the catch 

(e.g., U.S. saltwater recreational, U.S. troll, and Canadian and Alaskan fisheries) or are 

incidentally caught in fisheries for other species (e.g., coho [O. kisutch], sockeye [O. nerka] , and 

pink [O. gorbuscha] salmon). Currently the harvest management objective is to limit the 

incidental impacts of these fisheries on Elwha Chinook salmon to low levels. In the future, as 

Elwha Chinook salmon recover, existing restrictions on these fisheries may be relaxed. 

Furthermore, when recovery occurs, fisheries specifically directed at Elwha Chinook salmon 

may be implemented. Such fisheries would be closely managed to maintain a healthy, 

sustainable population (Note: No plan currently exists for any fisheries specifically targeting 

Elwha Chinook salmon). 

Current fish harvest management potentially affecting Elwha Chinook salmon may be 

viewed in three categories: 1) within the Elwha River and Freshwater Bay, 2) within Washington 

State, and 3) in Canadian and Alaskan waters. Each category is addressed below, followed by a 

description of available information on harvest and escapement of Elwha Chinook salmon. 

Harvest Management within the Elwha River and 

Freshwater Bay 

Currently for coho salmon, steelhead (O. mykiss), and trout (Salvelinus spp.) in the Elwha 

River, there are treaty Indian commercial and subsistence fisheries as well as nontreaty 

recreational fisheries. There are also nontreaty recreational fisheries and treaty subsistence 

fisheries for coho salmon in Freshwater Bay. There is no fishery for Chinook salmon in these 

terminal areas. The timing of the coho salmon fisheries is managed to minimize incidental 

capture of Chinook salmon adults during the fall. Coho salmon recreational, subsistence, and 

commercial fisheries may not be opened in the river until after 15 September (although 

recreational fisheries are generally not opened until 1 October) (PNPTC et al. 2003). The start of 

the treaty net fishery in the river may be adjusted (area or time closures) to avoid Chinook 

salmon bycatch. 

During the period of dam removal and for 2 years following (approximately 5 years), no 

in-river fisheries (treaty and nontreaty) are planned. In-river fisheries for any species will not be 

161
reopened until it is clear that the additional stress caused by fishing will not adversely affect 

recovery. 

Harvest Management within the State of Washington 

Chinook salmon harvest management planning in Washington State and adjacent areas of 

the Pacific Ocean is complex, involving a multiplicity of federal and state management agencies, 

treaty tribes, and other entities interacting through formalized processes in the early part of each 

year. The outcome of the annual planning effort is a fisheries plan containing specific 

regulations that will be implemented to manage salmon harvests. Following is a brief 

description of the major processes involved in Chinook salmon planning, followed by a 

discussion of how Elwha Chinook salmon are affected. 

Each year planning for fisheries of Chinook (and coho) salmon in Washington is 

implemented through a process known as the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) 

North of Falcon preseason planning. PFMC is a federally mandated council that, among other 

things, proposes to the Secretary of Commerce management provisions for the ocean salmon 

fisheries within the U.S. exclusive economic zone that extends 200 miles off the coast. North of 

Falcon identifies the region from Cape Falcon (just south of the Columbia River, on the Oregon 

coast) to the U.S.-Canada border, within the PFMC’s jurisdiction in which the relevant preseason 

planning occurs. 

Because ocean fisheries planning cannot effectively take place without consideration of 

the inside fisheries (i.e., for the Columbia River, Washington coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and 

Puget Sound), preseason planning for inside fisheries is incorporated into the process. Preseason 

planning takes place in March, but includes preparation beginning the previous December or 

earlier and involves follow up in April, often extending into the summer and fall fishing season. 

The process occurs in a series of scheduled meetings and depends on results of simulation 

modeling of alternative fisheries scenarios, using the Fisheries Resource Assessment Model 

(FRAM). 

Another process that affects annual Chinook fisheries planning in Washington is that of 

the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) and its southern panel, which oversee the implementation 

of the Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and Canada. A treaty annex specifies 

how salmon resources are to be managed, protected, and any harvests shared between the 

countries. (See also the following subsection, Harvest Management within Alaska and Canada 

under the Pacific Salmon Treaty [PST].) Each year, details of abundance forecasts, fisheries 

assessments, monitoring, and fishing proposals are reviewed and decisions made on fisheries 

implementation and management. Of primary importance to Washington Chinook salmon 

fisheries planning is the annual forecast of Canadian interceptions of U.S. Chinook salmon that 

are authorized by the PST and predicted to occur. This forecast is an essential input for the 

FRAM modeling. The PSC process begins in January and intersects with the PFMC/North of 

Falcon process in March. 

The fact that Chinook salmon of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU, of which Elwha 

is a component, are listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), has 

brought another process into Chinook salmon fisheries planning. To meet requirements for 

162
permitting of fisheries under section 4(d) of the ESA, the Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have prepared a Puget Sound Chinook 

salmon harvest management plan such that fisheries managed in accordance with the plan are 

found to meet the requirements of the 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound Chinook and are exempt from 

take prohibitions. The latest version of the harvest management plan (PSIT and WDFW 2004) is 

applicable for fishing years 2004 through 2009 (30 April 2010). The plan includes specific 

provisions for protecting individual Chinook salmon populations (including Elwha) based on 

their status relative to critical and rebuilding thresholds. The provisions of this Chinook salmon 

harvest management plan are used to shape fishing seasons during the PMFC/North of Falcon 

fisheries planning process. 

An understanding of how harvest management is applied to Elwha Chinook salmon each 

year may be best described by walking through the annual fisheries planning process: 

1. A preliminary forecast of the expected return to the Elwha River, under average prior 

fisheries interceptions, is made in January. This forecast, along with similar forecasts for 

other Chinook salmon populations, is entered into the FRAM simulation to generate 

initial projections of fishery harvests and escapements. From this a preliminary 

assessment is made to determine population status relative to critical and rebuilding 

thresholds and the appropriate objective to guide management. This information on the 

status of populations helps inform the continuing FRAM simulation process, the results 

of which provide the basis for management decisions. 

The criteria for determining a population’s status vary depending on the specific 

population. With respect to Elwha Chinook salmon, if the forecasted escapement is less 

than 1,000 fish (500 natural spawners and 500 hatchery fish), the population is deemed to 

be at critical status; if it is between 1,000 and 2,200 fish, it is deemed to be at recovering 

status. If the Elwha Chinook salmon escapement is projected to be above 2,200 fish, 

southern U.S. exploitation rates are kept at or below 10% and the population is managed 

to meet or exceed its management threshold. 

2. If a population is at critical or rebuilding status, defined limits to harvest exploitation 

rates (again varying depending on the population) are implemented in evaluating fisheries 

alternatives. In recent years Elwha Chinook salmon have not been at critical status. The 

protective limits for Elwha Chinook salmon are: a) if the forecast escapement places the 

population at rebuilding status, subsequent planning for southern U.S. fisheries (using 

FRAM) is limited to an Elwha Chinook salmon harvest exploitation rate not to exceed 

10%; and b) if the forecast escapement places the population at critical status, subsequent 

southern U.S. fisheries planning is limited by an Elwha Chinook salmon exploitation rate 

ceiling of 6%, and may be further limited, based on additional fisheries modeling criteria 

(PSTT and WDFW 2004). 

3. As the PFMC North of Falcon fisheries planning proceeds, information is updated and 

FRAM simulations are generated, looking for the appropriate fishing levels and balances 

to protect Chinook salmon populations based on their status. This process involves 

considering management controls such as the timing and locations of the various fisheries 

from the ocean to the terminal areas. Using FRAM accumulates exploitation rates for 

each population to check against the exploitation rate ceiling defined by the population’s 

status. 

163
4. Once FRAM runs have been completed and alternative fisheries regimes have been 

reviewed, PFMC makes a decision on ocean fisheries and the WDFW and the tribes 

agree on an annual plan for the inside fisheries (e.g., Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget 

Sound). This fisheries plan includes the specific times, locations, and other provisions 

(e.g., Chinook salmon release requirement, size limits) of all the inside fisheries to occur 

that year. Fisheries may be adjusted in season as additional information becomes 

available. The PFMC and inside fisheries are managed so that the aggregate impacts of 

the two groups of fisheries—also taking into account harvest-related impacts in Alaska 

and Canada—are consistent with the harvest objectives defined in the harvest 

management plan. 

As described previously, the Elwha River and Freshwater Bay fisheries are designed to 

avoid capture of Chinook salmon and thus have little to no impact on Elwha Chinook salmon 

(but even the occasional nonlanded mortalities are accounted as part of the southern U.S. 

fisheries). The level of limited impacts from southern U.S. fisheries on Elwha Chinook salmon 

depends on the population status and the results of fisheries planning for the year. Currently the 

southern U.S. (i.e., south of the Canadian border) incidental harvest of Elwha Chinook salmon 

that does occur is due primarily to marine recreational fisheries and to a lesser degree, U.S. troll, 

net, and subsistence fisheries. Harvests and escapements of Elwha Chinook salmon are 

described in a subsection below. 

Harvest Management within Alaska and Canada 

under the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

As mentioned previously, the PST adds another layer to the management of Chinook 

salmon harvest. Harvest management under jurisdiction of the PST is considered here because 

Canadian fisheries, and to a lesser extent Alaska fisheries, currently have the greatest fisheryrelated impact on Elwha Chinook salmon. 

The salmon life history includes migration through waters outside the salmon origin 

country, where they are susceptible to harvest by the other country. The PST addresses the 

concerns of both the United States and Canada about the other country’s harvest effect on its 

home-origin fish and about each country’s right to harvest fish in its waters irrespective of fish 

origin. The treaty includes specific harvest management provisions to address these concerns. 

Coincidentally, the treaty provisions affecting Alaska fisheries bear not only on Alaskan 

interceptions of Canadian-origin fish but also on Alaskan interceptions of fish originating from 

the southern United States. 

The PST was signed in 1985. Annexes to the treaty contain the specific salmon 

management provisions. The most recent update to the annexes was agreed to in 1999 and is 

applicable through 2008. Annex IV, Chapter 3, applies to southern Chinook salmon, originating 

from central and southern British Columbia and the southern United States (PSC 2000). Under 

the PST, Chinook-intercepting fisheries are divided into two types: aggregate abundance-based 

management (AABM) fisheries and individual stock-based management (ISBM) fisheries. 

Specific rules apply to each category separately. 

164
The AABM fisheries are managed by planning and accounting for the aggregated catch 

of stocks within each fishery’s area and time frame. Management focus is on the aggregate 

abundance of the specific fishery, not for individual stocks. For each fishery, the annual target 

catch level is selected using a harvest rate index (also called abundance index and expressed as a 

portion of the catch for the 1979–1982 base period) that is determined by the annual Chinook 

salmon preseason abundance forecast or in-season abundance estimate, whichever is applicable. 

Annual fishery regulations (including fishing area, time openings, and fish size limits) are 

prepared and implemented to achieve the target catch level of each AABM fishery. A computer 

model is used to calculate catch levels and help determine the annual fishery regulations. The 

three AABM fisheries are southeast Alaska (sport, net, and troll), northern British Columbia 

(troll) and Queen Charlotte Islands (sport), and west coast of Vancouver Island (troll and outside 

sport). 

The ISBM fisheries are based on the abundance of individual stocks or groups of stocks, 

the intent being to achieve maximum sustained yield or another agreed upon biologically based 

objective. The pool of ISBM fisheries includes the various British Columbia “inside fisheries” 

and southern U.S. fisheries (north of Cape Falcon, as well as Oregon marine net, sport, and troll 

fisheries, and Idaho freshwater sport and net fisheries). Indicator Chinook salmon stocks, 

representative of each ISBM fishery, are monitored through a coast-wide coded wire–tagging 

program. The Strait of Juan de Fuca marine net, troll, and sport and freshwater sport and net are 

in combination; a designated ISBM fishery with Hoko River Chinook salmon as its indicator 

stock. A defined index, computed preseason based on forecasted abundance and fishing plans 

(and evaluated postseason), was to be used to manage the individual ISBM fisheries, the 

planning and evaluation being based in part on the indicator stocks; however, use of this 

approach requires first that the escapement-dependent objectives be reviewed and agreed on by 

the two countries. 

Because no agreement on ISBM stock escapement objectives currently exists, the default 

management approach is to reduce the total mortality rate, relative to a 1979–1982 base period, 

by 36.5 and 40% respectively for Canadian and U.S. fisheries. Again computer simulation 

modeling is used to help determine the annual fisheries controls necessary to meet the mortality 

rate criteria. The ISBM fishery management controls currently are not the primary limit 

constraining management of southern U.S. Chinook salmon fisheries. Interceptions by Canada 

and Alaska of southern U.S.-origin Chinook salmon are estimated, as part of the AABM and 

ISBM fisheries planning effort, and are made available to the PFMC/North of Falcon planning 

process to assist with preparation of the annual fisheries plan for Washington State (as noted 

above). 

Because Puget Sound Chinook salmon were listed as threatened under ESA, the U.S. 

federal government was required under section 7 of the act to conduct consultations that 

considered the impacts of Chinook salmon harvest management under the PST. The 

consultations were completed and the U.S. Department of State (USDOS) and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a biological opinion in November 1999 (USDOS and NMFS 

1999). The analysis within the biological opinion included estimates of recovery exploitation 

rates (RERs) for some northern Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations that had sufficient 

coded wire tag information to allow such estimates. These RERs were target exploitation rates 

considered low enough to allow rebuilding of the populations to viable population levels. 

165
An assessment was made that suggested limitations on exploitation rates under the PST 

were insufficient to meet the RERs for several Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations (and by 

implication other Chinook salmon populations for which inadequate information existed to 

develop RERs). However, it was decided that rejection of the treaty provisions (i.e., the 1999 

treaty updates) by the United States was unlikely to result in a better or more restrictive 

management regime in the near future. Also, the U.S. government noted that mechanisms 

existed within the treaty provisions to address deficiencies that become apparent with respect to 

individual populations (though conditions must be met for these mechanisms to be implemented) 

and expressed concern about the loss of other benefits associated with the treaty. In conclusion, 

the U.S. government decided that management actions under the PST were not likely to 

jeopardize continued existence of Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 

The WDFW and the tribes remain concerned about the increased risk of underescapement 

for some depressed Puget Sound Chinook salmon under current levels of Canadian and Alaskan 

impacts and the additional constraints on Washington fisheries required to protect Chinook 

salmon. The topic is to be discussed during the development of a new Chinook salmon regime to 

replace the current annex which expires in 2008. In the interim, tribal, state, and federal 

managers have indicated their intent to continue to work with Canadian managers both to employ 

the mechanisms of the agreement and to find opportunities for reductions beyond those provided 

in the agreement that may be needed to address critical conservation concerns and provide 

additional benefits for Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations. 

Harvest and Escapement of Elwha Chinook Salmon 

Tagging information on Elwha Chinook salmon provides an estimate of the average 

distribution of fishery-related mortality for management years 1996 to 2000 (NMFS 2003) as 

follows: 

Area Percent

Alaska 10.0 

British Columbia 69.2 

Washington troll 4.7 

Puget Sound net 3.8 

Washington recreational 12.3 

It is apparent that the vast majority of fishery interceptions occur in Canada. Alaska also 

harvests a relatively large proportion compared to Washington fisheries. Most of the 

Washington fishery mortality is from the recreational fisheries, the majority of which occurs in 

marine waters. 

Table B-1 describes Elwha Chinook salmon spawning escapement estimates from 1986 

through 2002 (PNPTC et al. 2003). Escapement has been above the critical threshold of natural 

and hatchery spawners in most years. However, the population failed to achieve the 500 natural 

spawner objective from 1994 to 1996. This was a period of extremely low total returns to the 

river, resulting from the complete loss of a brood year due to a suspected outbreak of viral 

hemorrhagic septicemia at the Sol Duc Hatchery. Based on the final FRAM run of Washington 

fisheries at the conclusion of the 2003 PFMC North of Falcon fisheries planning effort, the 

166
Table B-1. Natural escapement and hatchery broodstock for Elwha River Chinook salmon. 

Return 

year 

Terminal 

run 

Hatchery 

rack 

Gaff-seine 

removals 

Prespawning 

mortality 

Natural 

spawning 

1988 8,666 2,089 506 478 5,593 

1989 5,703 1,135 905 560 3,103 

1990 3,605 586 886 224 1,909 

1991 3,761 970 857 108 1,826 

1992 4,002 97 672 2,611 622 

1993 1,669 165 771 7 726 

1994 1,580 365 749 330 136 

1995 1,814 145 518 662 489 

1996 1,877 214 1,177 267 219 

1997 2,527 318 624 10 1,575 

1998 2,409 138 1,551 51 669 

1999 1,625 113 609 23 880 

2000 1,913 177 1,021 62 653 

2001 2,246 195 1,396 38 617 

2002 2,416 473 1,080 40 823 

Average 3,054 479 888 365 1,323 

anticipated exploitation rates and escapement for Elwha Chinook salmon for 2003 (NMFS 2003) 

were as follows: 

Area Percent

River and bay exploitation rate 0.1

Southern U.S. preterminal exploitation rate 0.5

Southern U.S. exploitation rate 4.6 

Total exploitation rate (includes Canada and Alaska) 22.1 

Projected natural spawning escapement = 2,126 

The exploitation rates are calculated as the expected number of fishery-related mortalities 

divided by the expected total run size including the escapement. Table B-1 shows that the 

previously noted relatively high levels of Canadian and Alaskan fisheries impacts were expected 

to continue in 2003. The projected distribution of impacts for 2004 is likely to be similar to 

these 2003 preseason estimates. 

Estimated exploitation rates for recent years are substantially lower than the rates of the 

1980s. The following table shows the estimated average total exploitation rates of Strait of Juan 

de Fuca Chinook salmon for the periods 1983–1987, 1998–2000, and 2001–2003 (PSTT and 

WDFW 2004). Percentage differences (declines) in exploitation rates between 1983 and 1987 

and the latter two periods are also shown. The numbers have been generated using FRAM. 

Percentage 

Period Percentage decline

1983–1987 average 76

1998–2000 average 38 50.0

2001–2003 average 18 76.3

167
168

 

Exploitation rate declines have also occurred in other regions of Puget Sound (59% 

decline for Puget Sound spring Chinook salmon and 47% for Puget Sound fall Chinook salmon 

since the early 1980s).9 These declines indicate the substantial curtailment of fisheries catches 

now being affected by harvest management conservation efforts. 

In summary, the WDFW and tribes have worked through complicated management 

processes, addressing all Washington fisheries as well as those of Canada and Alaska, to 

substantially limit harvest effects on depressed Chinook salmon populations including those of 

the Elwha River. Currently no fisheries are specifically directed at Elwha Chinook salmon and 

incidental impacts from southern U.S. fisheries are kept at a low level. The WDFW and tribes 

will attempt to incorporate management provisions that better protect at-risk Washington 

Chinook salmon populations from the impacts of Canadian and Alaskan fisheries in the future. 

9

 S. Bishop, NOAA Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. Pers. commun., 4 October 2006. 
Recent NOAA Technical Memorandums

published by the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC89 Holt, M. 2008. Sound exposure and Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca): A review of current 

knowledge and data gaps. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-89, 59 p. NTIS

 number pending.

88 Olson, O.P., L. Johnson, G. Ylitalo, C. Rice, J. Cordell, T. Collier, and J. Steger. 2008. Fish habitat use 

 and chemical contaminant exposure at restoration sites in Commencement Bay, Washington. U.S. Dept. 

 Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-88, 117 p. NTIS number pending.

87 Keller, A.A., B.H. Horness, V.H. Simon, V.J. Tuttle, J.R. Wallace, E.L. Fruh, K.L. Bosley,

 D.J. Kamikawa, and J.C. Buchanan. 2007. The 2004 U.S. West Coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish 

resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-87, 134 p. NTIS number pending.

86 Keller, A.A., V.H. Simon, B.H. Horness, J.R. Wallace, V.J. Tuttle, E.L. Fruh, K.L. Bosley,

 D.J. Kamikawa, and J.C. Buchanan. 2007. The 2003 U.S. West Coast bottom trawl survey of groundfish 

resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length composition. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-86, 130 p. NTIS number pending.

85 Norman, K., J. Sepez, H. Lazrus, N. Milne, C. Package, S. Russell, K. Grant, R.P. Lewis, J. Primo,

 E. Springer, M. Styles, B. Tilt, and I. Vaccaro. 2007. Community profiles for West Coast and North 

Pacific fisheries–Washington, Oregon, California, and other U.S. states. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-85, 602 p. NTIS number pending.

84 Brand, E.J., I.C. Kaplan. C.J. Harvey, P.S. Levin, E.A. Fulton, A.J. Hermann, and J.C. Field. 2007. 

A spatially explicit ecosystem model of the California Current’s food web and oceanography. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-84, 145 p. NTIS number PB2008-102578.

83 Hecht, S.A., D.H. Baldwin, C.A. Mebane, T. Hawkes, S.J. Gross, and N.L. Scholz. 2007. An overview 

of sensory effects on juvenile salmonids exposed to dissolved copper: Applying a benchmark concentration 

approach to evaluate sublethal neurobehavioral toxicity. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-83, 39 p. NTIS number PB2008-102577.

Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC are available online at the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center web site (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov).