J. Anne Shaffer1, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program, 332 E. 5th Street, Port Angeles, Washington 98362 Patrick Crain, Brian Winter, Olympic National Park, 600 E. Park Avenue, Port Angeles, Washington 98362 Michael L. McHenry, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, 51 Hatchery Road, Port Angeles, Washington 98363 Cathy Lear, Clallam County, 223 E. 4th Street, Port Angeles, Washington 98362 and Timothy J. Randle, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Mail Code 86-68240, Denver, Colorado, 80225- 0007

Nearshore Restoration of the Elwha River Through Removal of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams: An Overview

Abstract Removal of two dams from the Elwha River is a unique restoration opportunity. In place for over 95 years, the dams have contributed to changes in the river, its estuary, and marine areas off shore from the river mouth, largely through reductions in sediment supply and salmon populations. Impending removals of both dams will only restore part of the severely degraded El- wha nearshore, where additional large scale anthropogenic impacts will remain. The effects of lower river levees, marine bluff hardening including significant riprapping of the marine shoreline, among other lesser habitat alterations, will continue beyond dam removal. Understanding the relationship of dam removal to the adjacent nearshore area is critical to the design of additional work necessary for successful ecosystem recovery. We provide an overview of the Elwha nearshore and collaborative efforts underway to understand it, and the role it plays in ecosystem restoration. Dam removal is slated to begin in the next 3 to 5 years making timing of this sorely needed nearshore work critical.

Background forms Port Angeles Harbor; Figure 1), and includes the area of tidal influence to a depth of 30 m Mean The Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restora- Lower Low Water (MLLW) (CCMRC 2004). This tion Act (Elwha Act) calls for, “plans for the full lack of activity is perhaps due to an assumption restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem and native by resource managers that restoration will occur anadromous fisheries” (PL102-495, Section 3.c.). naturally following dam removal (Seavey and This single statement represents one of the stron- Ging 1995), and that no other action is needed. gest calls for restoration of a natural system ever Alternatively, the marine nearshore area is outside issued by Congress. Since passage of the Elwha Olympic National Park, falling within a multitude Act in 1992, significant effort has been expended of private, city, state, and Tribal jurisdictions, on planning restoration of the riverine and upland imposing management complexities that require components of the Elwha River ecosystem (DOI significant coordination to implement successful et al. 1994, Wunderlich and Pantealeo 1995, Ward restoration efforts. Regardless, if the restoration et al. in press) as well as on evaluating expected goal laid out by Congress is to be achieved, the environmental effects of dam removal (DOI 1995, marine nearshore component of the Elwha River 1996, 2005), and establishing baseline conditions ecosystem must also be included. (Warrick et al. 2008, Duda et al. 2008). However, it is our observation that until recently, very little The construction of the Elwha Dam in the early attention has been directed towards the marine 1900s, and the Glines Canyon Dam a few years nearshore restoration component, which extends later, disrupted the structure and habitat maintain- from Freshwater Bay to the tip of Ediz Hook (a ing processes of the Elwha nearshore, primarily large sand spit 3.2 km to the east of the river that through the disruption of sediment and wood delivery. Prior to construction of the Elwha Dam the Elwha River delivered approximately 160,000 3 -1 1Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. m yr of fine and course sediment to the mouth E-mail: [email protected] of the Elwha River (Randle et al. 1996). This

48 ShafferNorthwest et al. Science, Vol. 82, Special Issue, 2008 Terry Johnson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Figure 1. Olympic Peninsula and Elwha and Dungeness drift cells. Geomorphic features, from west to east: E = Embayments (Crescent Bay and Freshwater Bay); F = Feeder bluffs (Elwha Bluffs, Dungeness Bluffs); R = River (Pysht, Twins, Salt Creek, and Elwha River);S = Spits (Ediz Hook and Dungeness Spit). material was then generally transported to the east ­anthropogenic factors including shoreline revet- through wind and wave action, replenishing beach ments and estuarine diking work in concert with substrate and contributing to the maintenance of one another to limit recruitment of sediment, Ediz Hook (Schwartz 1972, 1994). As a result of alter wave action, disrupt littoral drift, and iso- dam construction, over 15 million m3 of sediment late estuarine habitat (Haring 1999). A 3300 m that would have been delivered to the nearshore long bulkhead, installed in the late 1950s and is instead currently trapped behind the two dams extending from the base of Ediz Hook west to- (Randle et al. 2004). This sediment starvation is wards the Elwha River, protects the City of Port believed to have contributed to the coarsening Angeles industrial water pipeline and, with a 200 of the Elwha nearshore as well as incision in the m extension in 2007, the municipal land fill. This lower river. Wood recruitment from the river, a bulkhead has prevented erosion of feeder bluffs critical component to nearshore marine processes, that are estimated to have formerly provided over has also been disrupted. These changes in physi- 70% of beach material to Ediz Hook (USCOE cal habitat are theorized to have contributed to 1971, Galster 1978). shifts in the biological habitat and function of the While we believe that dam removal will play Elwha nearshore. a critical role in restoration of nearshore habitat, The Elwha River dams are not the only factor habitat forming processes, and ecosystem func- disrupting the the structure (e.g., mixed particle tion—a priority for nearshore and watershed size beach) and function (e.g., habitat for marine management in Washington State (Fresh et al. benthic invertebrates and shell fish) of the Elwha 2004)—we anticipate that the full benefits of nearshore environment. Several other specific dam removal will not be realized in the nearshore

Elwha Nearshore Restoration 49 environment without additional restoration efforts. as feeder bluffs, which provide material to the This paper provides an overview of the Elwha nearshore that is important in sustaining large nearshore marine environment, and describes spits (e.g., Ediz Hook, Dungeness Spit). Sheltered our approach for identifying additional actions coves, small estuaries, and erosion resistant ma- to restore nearshore function. rine sediment are also present (Todd et al. 2006). The coastline is defined by glacial events, the The Elwha Nearshore Marine Environment most recent of which was the last advance of the Cordilleran ice sheet approximately 16,000 years Nearshore habitat function of the Elwha nearshore ago (Downing, 1983). for fish and invertebrate communities is defined by a combination of physical and biological processes In the Elwha nearshore area, nearly all of the and components, and may vary significantly tem- various beach types are represented. The west- porally and within and between habitats (Miller ern end of Freshwater Bay is characterized by et al. 1980, Simenstad et al.1988, Carter 1999, sandstone features, with the shoreline dropping Carter and VanBaircom 1998, VanBlaircom and away rapidly to deep water. Central Freshwater Chambers 2003). The Elwha River meets the Bay is characterized by gently sloping gravel and Strait of Juan de Fuca approximately 10 km west cobble beaches. This habitat slowly transitions to of Port Angeles (Figure 1). Within the Strait of a sandier substrate approaching the mouth of the Juan de Fuca, we define the Elwha nearshore as Elwha River. To the east of the Elwha River higher the approximately 21 km of shoreline that extends energy beaches are found. These are dominated by from the west end of Freshwater Bay east to the large cobble and feeder bluffs that extend east to, tip of Ediz Hook (CCMRC 2004). This area and historically provide the sediment that formed, encompasses the primary marine area of littoral Ediz Hook. Approximately 3300 m of these feeder drift (USACOE 1971). The Elwha nearshore bluffs are disconnected from the shoreline by rock environment is further delineated by the physi- and sheet pile bulkhead that runs from the mouth cal features of tidal influence and light limitation of Dry Creek to the tip of Ediz Hook. and extends from the area of tidal influence and The Elwha estuary at the mouth of the Elwha tree line to 30 m below MLLW (CCMRC 2004, River, located at the eastern entrance of Freshwater Shaffer et al. 2005). Bay, is a critical component of the Elwha near- shore. Historically, this feature included nearly The Strait of Juan de Fuca connects inland 0.40 km2 of estuarine wetland. Currently, the waters of Puget Sound with the Pacific Ocean. estuary is severely limited due to the presence of Over 80% of the water from Puget Sound and the dams, mechanical straightening of the river, the Strait of Georgia (Canada) flows through this and construction of floodplain levees. Only ap- relatively narrow passage lying between Vancouver proximately 0.12 km2 of intact estuarine wetland Island and the Olympic Peninsula (Mackas and habitat remain. This is important, as estuarine Harrison 1997). It is a unique water body that, in habitat in the Strait of Juan de Fuca is generally addition to providing critical rearing habitat for limited (Todd et al. 2006). forage fish, juvenile salmonids, and other marine life, also acts as an important conduit for species Physical Processes that Define the migrating to and from inland marine and fresh Elwha Nearshore waters of Puget Sound and British Columbia (Palsson et al. 2004, Sweeting et al. 2004, Averill A number of physical processes define the Elwha et al. 2005). The direction of net water movement nearshore. The Strait of Juan de Fuca, including in the Strait of Juan de Fuca depends on depth. the Elwha nearshore, is a wind-dominated system, Cold, deep oceanic water tends to move to the with currents changing dramatically within hours in east while fresher, warmer surface water tends to response to both regional and larger-scale oceanic move to the west (Strickland 1983, Mackas and winds (Strickland 1983, Hickey 1996, Hickey and Harrision 1997). Bonas 2003). Wave action resulting from strong The shoreline of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, winds creates high energy type beaches character- including the Elwha nearshore, is heterogeneous. ized by coarse substrates. Sand, gravel, and cobble beaches are found along Strong seasonal storms contribute pulses of both the shoreline. High bluffs of glacial deposits act freshwater and sediment to the Strait of Juan de

50 Shaffer et al. Fuca. These pulses form large lenses of very low including eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), surf salinity and very high turbidity water within the smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), sand lance (Ammo- nearshore zone along the majority of the shoreline dytes hexapterus), and herring (Clupea harengus of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These lenses appear pallasi), use the Elwha shorelines for spawning, to occur primarily during winter and spring months feeding, and migration. Their use, as well as (Anne Shaffer, WDFW, personal observation). Due that by juvenile salmon, may be highly variable to deep oceanic water, strong wind, and current geographically as well as from year to year, and mixing action, as well as seasonal contributions depends on physical and biological features such as of riverine nutrients, the water of the main basin rocky outcrops, kelp forests, and sandy substrates of the Strait of Juan de Fuca is well-mixed, cold, (Shaffer and Schilke unpublished data, Shaffer et and nutrient-rich throughout the year (Mackas al. 2003, Shaffer 2004, Shaffer et al. 2007). and Harrison 1997). This is in direct contrast to Shellfish species found in the Elwha near- shallow, enclosed embayments of the Strait of shore include numerous species of crab, shrimp, Juan de Fuca, which may be seasonally stratified geoduck (Panopea generosa), abalone (Haliotis and in some instances nutrient-limited (Mackas spp.), scallops (Hinnites spp.), native and Pacific and Harrison 1997, Jan Newton, University of oysters (Concophelia lurida and Crassostrea Washington, personal communication). gigas) as well as urchin (Strongulocentrotis spp.) and a variety of sea cucumber. Elwha nearshore Biota and marine wildlife assemblages include alcids Vegetated habitats are dominant in intertidal and (marbled murrelets, Brachyramphus marmoratus, shallow subtidal portions of the Strait of Juan de tufted puffins, Lunda cirrhata, rhinoceros auk- Fuca nearshore, and are found along at least 60% lets Cerorhinca monocerata and others), Dall’s of the shoreline. Kelp forests, which require hard porpoise (Phocoennoides dalli), Harbor porpoise substrate for anchoring of holdfasts and are found (Phocoena phocoena), Orca (Orcinus orca) and along 40% of the Strait of Juan de Fuca shore- Gray whales (Eschrichtium robustus) (Angell and line, represent the most prevalent nearshore plant Balcomb 1982) community. These extensive beds are comprised Nearshore vegetated habitats within the Elwha, of three dominant species of kelp (Macrocystis which are largely dictated by available substrate integrifolia or giant kelp, Nereocystis luetkeana type, include kelp beds, eelgrass beds, drift algae, or bull kelp, and Pterygophora californica, an and rocky/cobble shorelines with Laminarian cover understory kelp), which have dramatically differ- (Norris et al. 2007, Warrick et al. 2008). Seavey ent life histories. Zostera marina (eelgrass) is a and Ging (1995) identified a total of 40 aquatic vascular plant that requires a sand gravel substrate plant species in the Elwha nearshore area. and occupies at least 20% of the Strait of Juan de Fuca shoreline (Thom and Hallum 1990, Shaffer Factors Limiting Elwha Nearshore 2000, VanWagenen, 1998). In total, kelp beds of Ecosystem Function the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which are found along at Disruption of sediment sources and transport least 40% of the shore, make up the majority (78%) has had a significant effect on the shoreline and of Washington’s coastal kelp resources (Thom and river estuary that collectively make up the Elwha Hallum 1990, Vanwagenen1996, 1998). nearshore. A 3000 m bulkhead was installed in Fish assemblages of the Elwha nearshore in- the late 1950s along the shoreline east of the river clude three federally- and/or state-listed salmon mouth to the base of Ediz Hook, to protect the (Puget Sound Chinook, Oncorhynchus tshaw- City of Port Angeles industrial water line. This ytscha, Strait of Juan de Fuca/Hood Canal sum- bulkhead has prevented erosion of a critical feeder mer chum, O. keta, and bull trout, Salvelinus bluff that is estimated to have formerly provided confluentus), as well as sockeye (O. nerka), pink over 70% of beach material to the Elwha littoral (O. gorbuscha) and cutthroat (O. clarki clarki.), system (USCOE 1971, Galster 1978). Another 300 many rockfish species (including copper,Sebastes m section of shoreline has just been armored by caurinus, quillback, S. maliger, and black, S. the City of Port Angeles. The Elwha and Glines melanops rockfish) and bottom fish, including Canyon dams have further limited sediment supply halibut (Hippoglosus stenolepis). Forage fish, to the nearshore, resulting in substantial loss of

Elwha Nearshore Restoration 51 riverine sediment to the Elwha nearshore for al- an increase in bed substrate size (Pohl 2004). most a century. Combined, the dams and shoreline Nearshore effects of this disruption likely include armoring have resulted in a nearly complete loss a significant reduction in side channel habitat and of sediment-related habitat as well as aggravating a reduction in suitable eulachon spawning habitat significant long-term erosion of nearshore sediment (Shaffer et al. 2007). from the mouth of the river east to Port Angeles Dikes in the lower Elwha River also have had Harbor (USCoE 1971, Schwartz 1972, Downing a significant effect on the nearshore, including 1983, Harring 1999). The significance of the almost altering and restricting use of over 0.30 km2 of complete sediment starvation of the Elwha drift tidal influenced estuary and sediment delivery cell is clearly illustrated when one compares the and fate in the nearshore. Fish use in the uncon- Elwha drift cells to other drift cells in the region. strained eastern and western portion of the river For example, there is a distinct contrast between mouth estuary is extremely high in species num- the shorelines of Ediz Hook, with armored feeder bers, richness, and includes some of the highest bluffs and accelerated chronic erosion, to those abundances of juvenile federally listed salmon of Dungeness Spit, a five mile long spit approxi- species in the central and western Strait (Shaf- mately 20 km to the east of the Elwha drift cell. fer and Schilke WDFW unpublished data, Matt The Dungeness drift cell has intact feeder bluffs Beirne Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe unpublished and sediment transport. Ediz Hook shoreline is data). During six weeks of beach seining in the coarse, steep, and requires continual shoreline west estuary using PSAT protocols, Shaffer and augmentation. Dungeness Spit, on the other hand, Shilke (WDFW unpublished data) documented has broad flat beaches that are self maintained. that little to no salmonid use occurs in the major- This contrast between what were once very similar ity of the constrained western Elwha River mouth features is a result of the disruption of sediment estuary due to large dike constructed in the 1950s processes along the Elwha nearshore. The resulting that completely blocks salmonid access (Table 1; sediment starvation is theorized to have caused a Shaffer and Schilke WDFW unpublished data). reduction in eelgrass and expansion of kelp beds in the Elwha drift cell. It has also caused shore- Elwha Nearshore Restoration and line erosion patterns to change, steepening and Ecosystem Recovery Approach coarsening intertidal beaches of the Elwha drift cell. This in turn may impact Elwha beach ability Elwha dam removals will result in a restoration to support certain hard shell clams, Dungeness of sediment processes to the Elwha watershed, Crab (Cancer magister), and intertidal forage fish including the nearshore. Dam removal is expected spawning (Seavey and Ging 1995). to deliver approximately 1.8 to 2.4 million m3 of Sediment limitation has also impacted lower coarse (sand and gravel) sediment and (4 to 5 3 river nearshore habitat. Unconstrained, low gra- million m ) of fine (sand/silt) sediment from the dient channel reaches in the lower Elwha River reservoirs to the nearshore area within five years historically contained extensive side channels of project completion (BOR 1996, Randle et al. (Pess et al. 2008) and estuarine slack water habitats 2004). After this initial pulse, delivery of sediment with suitable substrate for critical fish use includ- is anticipated to equal pre-dam annual delivery 3 -1 ing eulachon spawning. Truncation of sediment rates of approximately 80,000 m yr of coarse and 3 -1 transport to the lower river, along with channeliza- 80,000 m yr of fine sediment (BOR 1996). tion, and the systematic removal of large woody Although there are varied opinions on the de- debris (LWD), has caused channel incision and tails of this restoration, it is generally anticipated

TABLE 1. Fish use (% composition) of two sites in the western Elwha River estuary from weekly beach seining, March–June 2007 (Shaffer and Schilke, unpublished data).

Elwha Chinook Coho Chum 3-spine Starry Staghorn Estuary Site Salmon Salmon Salmon Smelt Stickleback Flounder Sculpin Cottids

Connected 55 16 7 2 4 3 8 4 Diked 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

52 Shaffer et al. that restored sediment transport may occur in two of nearshore scientists and managers convened distinct phases (Stolnack and Naiman 2005). In in 2004 by the citizen based Clallam Marine the first phase, total sediment volumes released Resource Committee (MRC), Clallam County, are estimated to be 6 to 7 million m3. The major- Elwha Tribe, state agencies, and Olympic Na- ity of this sediment delivery phase is anticipated tional Park to define the technical, management, to occur within three to five years after dam and educational needs for restoring the central removal (Randle et al. 2004). The second phase Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Elwha nearshore occurs when the natural sediment supply from (CCMRC 2004). The resulting Elwha Nearshore the upstream watershed is restored to the lower Consortium has subsequently been addressing Elwha River (Randle et al. 2004). Delivery of these identified needs. Highlights of the intensive sediment is anticipated to equal pre-dam annual work over the last two years are summarized in delivery rates totaling approximately 160,000 Table 2. Intriguing findings from these efforts are m3yr-1 (BOR 1996). emerging, including: Norris et al. (2007) docu- Restoration of natural riverine sediment pro- mented remnant but persistent eelgrass beds off of cesses following dam removal will only partially Ediz Hook, and large numbers of juvenile forage restore the suite of physical and ecological pro- fish associated with understory kelp beds. Helen cesses of the Elwha nearshore. The distribution Barry and colleges at the Washington Department and duration of residence of riverine sediment of Natural Resources, have described historic and delivered to the nearshore is largely unknown. current kelp bed composition and distribution The role of remaining nearshore alterations in in the Elwha nearshore. Beirne (Lower Elwha disrupting sediment processes (specifically the Klallam Tribe unpublished data) and Shaffer and Schilke (WDFW, Peninsula College, and Western disruption of sediment delivery to shorelines Washington University unpublished data), have and continued starving of bluff sediment to the documented heavy forage fish and salmonid use nearshore) is at this time also unknown. Given of the Elwha estuary, and strong seasonal varia- the historic importance of feeder bluffs to the tion in nearshore habitat use by salmonids and Elwha system it is clear that restoration of sedi- forage fish. They have also documented, for the ment processes will be far from complete and that first time, federally listed Elwha stocks of Puget sediment delivery along the Elwha drift cell will Sound Chinook using the nearshore of the western still be far short of pre-dam rates. Strait of Juan de Fuca, and surf smelt spawning Restoration of sediment and hydrologic pro- along beaches of Freshwater Bay, which is within cesses in the lower river, including the estuary will in the Elwha drift cell, and along active feeder also be incomplete. Dikes along the east and west bluffs of the adjacent Dungeness drift cell. Andrea river mouth will preclude restoration of sediment Ogston’s observations have documented the pres- delivery to the nearshore. It will also continue ent low quantity of fine sediment in suspension to disrupt hydrologic connectivity between the during summer, high river discharge conditions. river and off-channel habitats, especially to the Strong tidal currents on the Elwha delta result estuarine complex west of the river mouth. This in bed stresses that are capable of resuspending will continue to effect fish utilization of the Elwha recently deposited fine-grained sediment at spring River estuary. The dikes in the lower river and tides. The seabed mapping, in combination with shoreline alterations, such as bluff armoring, will the USGS efforts, provides detailed seabed ba- therefore continue to have a significant impact on thymetry and characterization of the Elwha delta the natural physical and biological processes of to water depths of ~100 m. Warrick et al. (2008), the Elwha nearshore. catalog kelp distribution in the vicinity of the Elwha Additional restoration actions will be necessary River mouth. These studies provide a baseline for to fully realize the nearshore restoration potential understanding current and historic habitat distri- associated with the upcoming dam removals. Defin- bution within the Elwha nearshore, the fine-and ing the technical details of restoration options and course sediment dispersal in the marine system, prioritizing which actions to take first is clearly including high-concentration sediment flows, at complicated. Having a detailed understanding present and in the future (Table 2). of the Elwha nearshore is critical to defining the While individual results are important, in next restoration priorities and actions. A group order to truly define the restoration response of

Elwha Nearshore Restoration 53 TABLE 2. Current activities (yrs of project) of Elwha Nearshore Consortium (ENC) members.

Name Affiliation Focus Timeline

Anne Shaffer WDFW • Overall ENC Coordination • Ongoing • Fish use, habitat function • Underway (2) Cathy Lear Clallam County • ENC and citizen coordination • Ongoing • West levy fish passage • Underway (10) • West estuary restoration • Underway Matt Beirne LEKT • ENC and Tribal Coordination • Ongoing • Ecosystem assessment and function of • Underway (2) east estuary Rob Elofson LEKT • Tribal Elwha project manager, estuary restoration • Ongoing Bill Eaton, Peninsula College • Elwha Research Consortium (ERC) • Ongoing Dwight Barry Coordination, Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) student coordination Helen Berry WA DNR • Kelp habitat mapping • Ongoing Amy Draut USGS • Channel morphology, lower Elwha River • Underway (2) Kurt Fresh NOAA • Fish use • Underway (2) David Freed WSU Beachwatchers • Volunteer coordination • Ongoing Guy Gelfenbaum USGS • Measuring and modeling coastal waves • Ongoing hydrodynamics and sediment transport Tarang Khangaonkar Battelle PNNL • Hydrodynamic and transport model of • Ongoing Puget Sound including Elwha nearshore Raymond Moses LEKT • Lower river and estuary fish use • Underway (2) Jim Norris Menzies Project • Eelgrass Mapping • Complete Chuck Nittrouer UW • Fine sediment mapping • Underway (1) Andrea Ogston UW • Fine sediment mapping • Underway (1) Dave Parks WA DNR • Coastal processes • Ongoing • Beach mapping • Ongoing Chris Peery U of I • Web page development • Complete Tim Randle BOR • River hydraulics • Underway (14) • Sediment transport • Underway (10) • Geomorphic change • Underway (10) Don Rauthaus WDFW • Shellfish habitat mapping • Baseline data (3) • Flora and fauna community structure • Baseline data (3) • Shellfish population change • Baseline data (3) Pat Shafroth USGS • Estuarine and riparian vegetation • Underway (1) diversity and dynamics Jeffree Stewart WA DOE • Shoreline management and planning • Ongoing Steve Todd Point No Point • Historic habitat mapping • Complete Treaty Council Larry Ward Lower Elwha • Fish Use • Underway (2) Klallam Tribe Jeff Ward, Battelle PNNL • Modeling, NASA coordination • Underway (2) Patty Morris, NOPRC&D Mike Doherty John Warrick USGS • Nearshore bathymetry • Complete • Beach composition and profiling • Ongoing Dana Woodruff Battelle PNNL • Hyperspectral imagery collection • Ongoing • Nearshore habitat mapping • Ongoing Rob Young Western Carolina • Coastal processes • Underway University

54 Shaffer et al. the Elwha nearshore it is going to be necessary dependent on adequate data; given the variable to bring these physical, biological, and ecological nature of the Elwha nearshore, this will require elements together. Shaffer et al. 2005 identified intensive, multi-year data sets. four key steps to defining, and optimizing, Elwha How then, does one proceed with predicting, nearshore ecosystem response, with an emphasis via modeling, the priorities to optimize the Elwha on fish use: nearshore restoration response to dam removals? 1) Define the geographic and temporal fate of This is just beginning to unfold. A central com- the sediment once in the nearshore; ponent of this prediction process will be defining: 2) Define historic habitat conditions and key 1) The degree of restoration action that still needs fish and vegetation habitat resource distribu- to occur to achieve nearshore ecosystem restoration tion; (for example, restoration of shoreline sediment processes); and 2) the role remaining nearshore 3) Define current habitat distribution and re- alterations play in habitat function post dam source use, and; removal. One challenge before us is predicting 4) Model future conditions based on integrat- post dam removal habitat use. Post dam removal ing these three parameters to define areas monitoring will be too late to define pre-dam of greatest additional restoration need and removal actions that might optimize the restora- potential. tion event. Given the time-sensitive nature of our Individual components of these steps are being work, we suggest defining current habitat process addressed in varying degrees as described above. and function of the Elwha nearshore relative to Bringing these individual elements together to intact comparative geomorphic habitats outside the predict future habitat conditions based on his- Elwha drift cell as a tool for helping to understand toric, current, and future sediment transport, how the Elwha drift cell would function if fully habitat condition, and fish use is our next priority. intact. For example, the Dungeness drift cell is Sediment processes are being defined by USGS, an appropriate comparative area to the Elwha University of Washington, and the Lower Elwha drift cell. It has many of the same geomorphic Klallam Tribe. Historic habitat conditions have habitat types and the same dominant physical been identified to some degree by Todd et al. Cur- processes as the Elwha, but is not influenced by rent habitat distribution and use is being defined in-river dams and feeder bluff armoring. There by Barry et al. and Norris et al. Current resource are also a number of lower rivers, estuaries, and use is being defined by Beirne et al., Shaffer et embayments of the central and western Strait that al., and Fresh et al. (Table 2). are similar to those in the Elwha nearshore but Quantitative modeling combining physical do not have the limiting features of the Elwha processes, habitat distribution, and fish use will nearshore (Table 3). Simultaneously defining the be the tool to provide a predictive eye to nearshore variability of nearshore form and functions both restoration priorities. These models will need to in the Elwha and comparative areas will give us address uncertainty and propagation of error. insight into both how the Elwha is functioning Modeling is a critical component for defining differently now, and give us a target for how the restoration priorities in nearshore Washington Elwha nearshore might function if fully restored. (Fresh 2006, Simenstad et al. 2006). Restoration This information may then be combined with sedi- work that has included extensive modeling ef- ment mapping efforts to model what we expect forts in the Skagit system has revealed important Elwha nearshore habitats to look like following linkages between salmonid use in the nearshore dam removal. Combining these pieces we can and restoration priorities there (Beamer et al. then tease out what additional actions might be 2003, Beamer et al. 2005). Modeling that links necessary and appropriate to achieve the highest biological and sediment processes in the nearshore ecosystem restoration possible. Once we have the have also been conducted in other areas (Uncles list of habitat restoration actions we can define 2003). The unique nature of the Elwha nearshore the highest priority of these additional restoration including its unique limiting factors, large size, actions. Actions that must occur prior to dam remote location, and upcoming restoration event removal will receive the highest priority. Any on- make it appropriate for the development of spe- the-ground restoration actions that involve private cific modeling tools. Modeling will, owever,h be property will require participation and agreement

Elwha Nearshore Restoration 55 TABLE 3. Comparative geomorphic sites arranged by habitat type. Bold text indicates sites within the Elwha drift cell.

Lower River- Site Embayments Spit Pocket Estuary Feeder Bluff West Twins R. Estuary X Pysht Lower R. Estuary X Salt Cr. Estuary X Elwha R. Estuary X Twins Shoreline X Pysht Shoreline X Crescent Bay X Freshwater Bay X Shoreline Elwha Bluffs X Dungeness Bluffs X Ediz Hook X Dungeness Spit X by private citizens. This additional coordination restore the natural delivery of riverine sediment. with land owners adds an additional time element However, it is expected that dam removal alone to our work, and so makes restoration work in the will only partially restore function of the Elwha nearshore that much more time sensitive. nearshore in the Central Strait of Juan de Fuca. Clearly, collaboration and good will between Understanding the relationship between dam re- scientists, managers, the tribe, private citizens and moval and the adjacent nearshore area is critical educational institutions is necessary for us to suc- to the design of additional work necessary for ceed in accurately defining nearshore restoration successful recovery of the sediment starved central response and implementing nearshore restoration Strait of Juan de Fuca and the ecosystem it sup- actions of the Elwha nearshore. We have been very ports. Dam removal is slated to begin in the next successful so far. With dam removal slated to begin 3 to 5 years, making timing of this sorely needed in the next 3 to 5 years, time is of the essence. nearshore work critical.

Conclusion Acknowledgements The Elwha nearshore is a complex and diverse The Elwha Nearshore Consortium members Drs. component of the Elwha ecosystem that has Andrea Ogston, UW, and Jon Warrick, USGS, been significantly disrupted by a suite of habitat Msrs. Dave Parks, WDNR, Don Rothaus, WDFW, alterations, including lower river alterations and and Matt Beirne, LEKT, provided input on their significant sediment starvation due to riverine respective work. Mr. Jeff Duda, USGS, as the dams and shoreline armoring. Removal of two special edition journal editor, coordinated manu- dams on the Elwha River is expected to deliver script review. Mr. Terry Johnson, WDFW, provided a large quantity of coarse and fine sediment to much appreciated GIS expertise. Two anonymous the Elwha nearshore within five years of proj- reviewers provided helpful suggestions for manu- ect completion. Additionally, dam removal will script revision.

Literature Cited their regional salmon recovery plan. Available online at http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/salmon_recovery Angell, T. and K. Balcomb. 1982. Marine birds and mam- /environments.htm (viewed on 7 Feb 2008). mals of Puget Sound. Washington Sea Grant, Seattle, Beamer, E., R. Henderson, A. McBride and K. W. Wolf. 2003. WA. The importance of non-natal pocket estuaries in Skagit Averill, D., D. Myers, and B. Graeber. 2005. Puget Sound Bay to wild Chinook salmon: an emerging priority for nearshore and marine ecosystems: processes, land- restoration. Skagit River System Cooperative, Research scapes, habitats. In S. Redman, D. Myers, and D. Department, La Connor, WA. Averill (editors), Regional Nearshore and Marine Beamer, E., A. McBride, C. Greene, R. Henderson, G. Hood, Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound. Delivered K. Wolf, K. Larsen, C. Rice, and K. L. Fresh. 2005. to Shared Strategy for Puget Sound for inclusion in Delta and nearshore restoration for the recovery of

56 Shaffer et al. wild Skagit River Chinook salmon: linking estuary Partnership Report No. 2006-06. Published by Seattle restoration to wild Chinook salmon populations. District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Supplement to Skagit Chinook Recovery Plan. Skagit WA. River System Cooperative, La Conner, WA. Galster, R. W. 1978. Ediz Hook—A Case History of Coastal Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). 1996. Sediment analysis Erosion and Mitigation. Engineering Geology of and modeling of the river erosion alternative. Elwha Washington Volume 2. Washington Division of Geol- Technical Series, PN-95-9. U.S. Department of the ogy and Earth Resources Bulletin 78. Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Haring, D. 1999. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting fac- Region, Boise, ID. tors, WRIA 18. Washington Conservation Commission Carter, S. K. 1999. Ecosystem effects of sea otter predation Final Report, Olympia, WA. and commercial sea urchin harvest on nearshore Hickey, B. 1996. Physical Oceanography of the Olympic Coast. benthic habitats in Northern Washington. M.S. Thesis, In Olympic Coast Marine Research Workshop Proceed- University of Washington, Seattle. ings. Occasional Paper OCNMS 96001.Olympic Coast Carter S. K. and G. R. VanBlaircom. 1998. A survey of near- National Marine Sanctuary. Port Angeles, WA. shore benthic habitats of the Strait of Juan de Fuca Hickey, B. M. and N. S. Banas. 2003. Oceanography of the U.S. from Kydaka Point to Port Angeles. Final report to Pacific Northwest coastal ocean and estuaries with ap- the WDFW. University of Washington, School of plication to coastal ecology. Estuaries 26:1010-1031. Fisheries, Seattle. Mackas, D. L. and P. J. Harrison. 1997. Nitrogenous nutri- Clallam County Marine Resources Committee (CCMRC). ent sources and sinks in the Juan de Fuca/Strait of 2004. Technical workshop on nearshore restoration in Georgia/Puget Sound Estuarine System: Assessing the central Strait of Juan de Fuca. Prepared for CCMRC Potential for Eutrophication. Estuarine, Coastal, and by Triangle Associates, Seattle, WA. http://www.clal- Shelf Science 44:1-21. lammrc.org/CCMRC/allframes.html Miller, B. S., C. A. Simenstad, J. N. Cross, K. L Fresh, and S. N. Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Commerce, Steinfort. 1980. Nearshore fish and macroinvertebrate and the Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe. 1994. The assemblages along the Strait of Juan de Fuca includ- Elwha Report—Restoration of the Elwha River eco- ing food habits of the common nearshore fish. Final system and native anadromous fisheries. A report to report of three years sampling 1976-1979. EPA No. Congress submitted pursuant to Public Law 102-495. D6-E693-EN. Office of Environmental Engineering U.S. Government Printing Office: 1994-590-269. and Technology Office of Research and Development, Department of the Interior (DOI). 1995. Elwha River ecosys- US EPA, Washington, DC. tem restoration, final environmental impact statement. Norris, J, I. Ward, A. Shaffer and C. Lear. 2007. Eelgrass NPS D-253A. Department of the Interior, National Park mapping of the Elwha Nearshore. In Proceedings of Service, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA. the 2007 Georgia Basin Puget Sound Research Con- Department of the Interior (DOI). 1996. Elwha River Ecosys- ference, Puget Sound Partnership, available online at tem Restoration Implementation, Final Environmental http://www.engr.washington.edu/epp/psgb/2007psgb/ Impact Statement. NPS D-271A. Department of the 2007proceedings/papers/1e_norri.pdf, Olympia Wash- Interior, National Park Service, Olympic National ington (viewed on 7 Feb 2008). Park, Port Angeles, WA. Palsson, W. A., J. Beam, S. Hoffmann, and P. Clarke. 2004. Fish Department of the Interior (DOI). 2005. Elwha River Ecosys- without borders: trends in the status and distribution tem Restoration Implementation, Final Supplement of groundfish in the transboundary waters of Wash- to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. NPS ington and British Columbia. In T. W. Droscher and D-377A. Department of the Interior, National Park D. A. Fraser (editors), Proceedings of the 2003 Geor- Service, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA. gia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference. Avail- Downing, J. 1983. The coast of Puget Sound: Its processes able online at http://www.psat.wa.gov/publications/ and development. Washington Sea Grant, University 03_proceedings/start.htm (viewed on 7 Feb 2008). of Washington Press, Seattle. Pess, G. R., M. L. McHenry, T. J. Beechie, and J. Davies. Duda, J. J., J. E. Frelich, and E. G. Schreiner. 2008. Baseline 2008. Biological impacts of the Elwha River dams studies in the Elwha River ecosystem prior to dam and potential salmonid responses to dam removal. removal: introduction to the special issue. Northwest Northwest Science 82 (Special Issue):72-90. Science 82 (Special Issue):1-12. Pohl, M. 2004. Channel bed mobility downstream from the Fresh, K. , C. Simenstad, J. Brennan, M. Dethier, G. Gelfen- Elwha dams, Washington. The Professional Geogra- baum, F. Goetz, M. Logsdon, D. Myers, T. Mumford, pher 56:422-431. J. Newton, H. Shipman, and C. Tanner. 2004. Guid- Randle, T. J., J. Bountry, B. Jackson, and G. Smille. 2004. ance for protection and restoration of the nearshore Elwha River restoration project draft sediment manage- ecosystems of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore ment and monitoring plan, based on recommendations Partnership Report No. 2004-03. Published by Wash- of the Elwha River Physical Processes Monitoring ington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Workshop, 13-17 August, 2001, Port Angeles, WA. Seattle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclama- Fresh, K. L. 2006. Juvenile Pacific salmon and the nearshore tion, Denver, CO and National Park Service, Fort ecosystem of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Collins, CO.

Elwha Nearshore Restoration 57 Schwartz, M. 1972. Spits and bars. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Sweeting, R. M., R. J. Beamish and C. M. Neville. 2004. Ross, Publishers. Stroudsburg, PA. Juvenile salmon in Puget Sound and the Strait of Schwartz, M. 1994. Beach geomorphology at the Elwha River Georgia. In T. W. Droscher and D. A. Fraser (edi- delta in connection with removal of the Elwha and tors), Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Basin/Puget Glines canyon dams. A report to the Lower Elwha Sound Research Conference. Available online at http:// Tribal Council, Coastal Geologic Consultants, Inc. ww.psat.wa.gov/publications/03_proceedings/start.htm Bellingham, WA. (viewed on 7 Feb 2008). Seavy, F. and G. Ging 1995. Marine Resources of the Elwha Thom, R. and L. Hallum. 1990. Long term changes in the areal River Estuary. USFWS, North Pacific Coast Ecoregion, extent of tidal marshes, eelgrass meadows, and kelp Olympia, WA. forests of Puget Sound. FRI-UW-9008, Fisheries Re- Shaffer, J.A. 2000. Seasonal variation in understory kelp search Institute, University of Washington, Seattle. bed habitats of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Journal of Todd, S., N. Fitzpatrick, A. Carter-Mortimer, and C. Welle. Coastal Research 16:768-778. 2006. Historical changes to estuaries, spits, and associ- Shaffer, J. A., R. Moriarty, J. Sikes and D. Penttila. 2003. ated tidal wetland habitats in the Hood Canal and Strait Nearshore habitat mapping of the Strait of Juan de of Juan de Fuca regions of Washington. State Point Fuca: Phase 2. Final report to the Northwest Straits No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, WA. Commission, Clallam Marine Resources Committee, Uncles, R. J. 2003. From catchments to coastal zone: examples and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. of the application of models to some long-term prob- WDFW, Olympia, WA. lems. The Science of the Total Environment 314-316: Shaffer, J. A. 2004. Nearshore mapping of the Strait of Juan de 567-588. Fuca: II. Preferential use of nearshore kelp habitats by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). 1971. Report on juvenile salmon and forage fish.In T. W. Droscher and survey of Ediz Hook for beach erosion and related D. A. Fraser (editors), Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia purposes. Part II. Seattle District Army Corps of Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference. Available Engineers, Seattle, WA. at http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/03_proceed- VanBlaricom, G. R. and M. D. Chambers 2003. Testing a ings/start.htm. (Viewed on 7 Feb 2008). charismatic paradigm: Consequences of a growing sea Shaffer J. A. , L. Ward, P. Crain, B. Winter, K. Fresh, and C. otter population for nearshore benthic communities Lear. 2005. Elwha and Glines Canyon dam remov- along the south shore of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. als: nearshore restoration and salmon recovery of Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research the central Strait of Juan de Fuca. In S. Brace and D. Unit, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geologi- Fraser (editors), Proceedings of the 2005 Puget Sound cal Survey, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Georgia Basin Research Conference 2005. Available University of Washington, Seattle. online at http://www.engr.washington.edu/epp/psgb/ VanWagenen, R. F. 1998. Washington coastal kelp resources: 2005psgb/2005proceedings/index.html (viewed on Port Townsend to the Columbia River. A report to 7 Feb 2008). the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Shaffer, J. A., D. Penttila, M. McHenry, and D. Vilella. 2007. Olympia, WA. Observations of eulachon, Thaleichthys pacificus, in VanWagenen, R. F. 1996. Washington Coastal Kelp Resources: the Elwha River, Olympic Peninsula Washington. Port Townsend to the Columbia River. Final report for Northwest Science 81:76-81. the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Simenstad, C, M Logsdon, K. Fresh, H. Shipman, M. Dethier, Olympia, WA. J. Newton. 2006. Conceptual model for assessing Ward, L., P. Crain, B. Freymond, M. McHenry, D. Morrill, restoration of Puget Sound nearshore ecosystems. G. Pess, R. Peters, A. Shaffer, B, Winter, and B. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2006- ­Wunderlich. In Press. Elwha River Fish Restoration 03. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program, Plan Developed Pursuant to the Elwha River Eco- University of Washington, Seattle. system and Fisheries Restoration Act, PL 102-495. Simenstad, C. A., R. M. Thom, K. A. Kuzis, J. R. Cordell, and NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC#, D. K. Shreffler. 1988. Nearshore Community Studies of Seattle, WA. Neah Bay, Washington. FRI-UW-8811, University of Warrick, J., G. R. Cochrane, Y. Sagy, and G. Gelfenbaum. Washington Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle. 2008. Nearshore substrate and morphology offshore Strickland, R. 1983. The Fertile Fjord. Sea Grant Publications, of the Elwha River. Northwest Science 82 (Special University of Washington Press, Seattle. Issue):153-163. Stolnack, S. and R. Naiman. 2005. Summary of Research and Wunderlich, R. and C. Pantealeo. 1995. A Review of Methods Education Activities in the Elwha River Watershed to Re-Introduce Anadromous Fish in the Elwha River. and Adjacent Coastal Zone. University of Washing- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Assistance ton, Seattle. Office, Olympia, WA.

58 Shaffer et al.