Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0068-0050
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-09-22T04:00Z

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Appendix
Tables
A2.13
Appendix
Tables
Appendix
Table
2.1.
Puget
Sound
Stream
Flow
indexes,
mean
monthly
stream
flows
for
September
­
October
and
average
peak
instantaneous
flows
in
various
streams
for
differing
time
periods
between
1959
and
1995.

Appendix
Table
2.2.
Results
of
statistical
tests
of
significance
for
changes
in
mean
flows
and
peak
instantaneous
discharges
over
time
for
the
PSSFI
and
several
streams.
One
tailed
t­
tests
(
alpha=
0.05)
were
used
to
examine
the
null
hypotheses
of
equality
between
mean
flows
for
various
time
periods
(
see
Part
Two,
section
2.2.2.3).

Appendix
Table
2.3.
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
escapements
and
fall
chum
salmon
escapements
to
those
streams
with
summer
chum
populations
(
1974­
1998).

Appendix
Table
2.4.
Annual
liberations
of
Finch
Creek
stock
fed
and
unfed
fall
chum
fry
from
WDFW
hatcheries
in
Hood
Canal,
Washington,
1969­
93.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Appendix
Tables
A2.14
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Appendix
Tables
A2.15
Appendix
Table
2.1.
Puget
Sound
Stream
Flow
indexes,
mean
monthly
stream
flows
for
September
­
October
and
average
peak
instantaneous
flows
in
various
streams
for
differing
time
periods
between
1959
and
1995.

Brood
PSSFI
PSSFI
B.
Beef
Cr.
Duckabush
Snow
Cr.
Dungeness
Duckabush
Dungeness
Year
Low
10
High
10
Mean
Flow
Mean
Flow
Mean
Flow
Mean
Flow
Peak
Flow
Peak
Flow
1959
111.62
47.74
1960
­
7.36
23.39
1961
­
10.21
­
10.55
1962
6.39
13.40
1963
­
4.87
­
21.50
1964
36.55
7.93
1965
­
12.98
­
29.24
1966
­
13.02
23.12
1967
6.31
22.05
1968
54.00
­
16.71
246
207
2920
1100
1969
55.58
­
17.17
9.2
271
210
3830
1850
1970
0.75
­
5.48
6.4
159
133
2800
1340
1971
10.16
­
23.41
10.1
194
186
3020
1780
1972
­
3.09
17.94
6.3
144
178
3330
3630
1973
­
8.60
62.48
7.9
161
165
5650
4320
1974
­
28.03
­
7.19
5.0
124
189
6090
2170
1975
­
0.24
86.50
35.8
489
320
5780
5150
1976
­
21.20
­
58.31
6.1
101
165
1360
597
1977
­
1.49
27.01
7.0
230
3.9
165
5010
2440
1978
13.29
­
54.84
15.3
334
11.2
246
2160
1460
1979
­
26.14
66.37
7.7
376
3.9
204
7820
5350
1980
­
18.94
33.38
5.4
90
1.4
149
5670
4040
1981
10.73
­
18.40
24.6
368
7.4
252
4830
3240
1982
0.72
2.00
367
5.9
260
7450
3710
1983
­
11.47
28.73
5.8
130
13.6
182
6880
5510
1984
­
18.06
­
60.55
6.7
226
5.1
198
2390
1610
1985
­
23.61
­
32.37
12.9
335
6.6
243
6070
6550
1986
­
31.73
­
24.42
4.5
125
4.1
118
4110
3220
1987
­
45.43
­
32.57
3.1
54
1.8
99
4480
3300
1988
12.82
­
48.78
3.4
124
2.0
167
1910
1300
1989
­
19.23
15.53
5.7
214
4.4
141
3970
3650
1990
­
0.91
­
4.05
6.1
150
3.2
167
5500
7120
1991
­
12.31
­
12.04
6.5
131
3.5
4780
5090
1992
4.3
108
7.7
1990
1610
1993
3.5
69
112
6190
3240
1994
2.1
5760
4800
1995
9240
4500
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Appendix
Tables
A2.16
Appendix
Table
2.2.
Results
of
statistical
tests
of
significance
for
changes
in
mean
flows
and
peak
instantaneous
discharges
over
time
for
the
PSSFI
and
several
streams.
One
tailed
t­
tests
(
alpha
=
0.05)
were
used
to
examine
the
null
hypotheses
of
equality
between
mean
flows
for
various
time
periods
(
see
Part
Two,
section
2.2.2.3).

Puget
Sound
Stream
Flow
Index
(
10­
day
low
flows,
Sept.
15
­
Nov.
14)

Mean
1959­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1991
significantly
different
(
P=
0.016)

Puget
Sound
Stream
Flow
Index
(
10­
day
high
flows,
Nov.
15
­
Feb.
14)

Mean
1959­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1991
not
significantly
different
(
P=
0.135)

Spawning
Flows
(
September/
October
mean
flows)

Big
Beef
Creek
Mean
1968­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1993
not
significantly
different
(
P=
0.216)
Mean
1968­
1985
vs.
mean
1986­
1993
significantly
different
(
P=
0.006)
Mean
1968­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1985
not
significantly
different
(
P=
0.484)

Duckabush
River
Mean
1968­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1993
not
significantly
different
(
P=
0.433)
Mean
1968­
1985
vs.
mean
1986­
1993
significantly
different
(
P=
0.001)
Mean
1968­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1985
not
significantly
different
(
P=
0.128)

Dungeness
River
Mean
1968­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1993
not
significantly
different
(
P=
0.259)
Mean
1968­
1985
vs.
mean
1986­
1993
significantly
different
(
P=
0.001)
Mean
1968­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1985
not
significantly
different
(
P=
0.237)

Snow
Creek
Mean
1977­
1985
vs.
mean
1986­
1994
significantly
different
(
P=
0.031)

Incubation
Flows
(
October/
March
peak
instantaneous
flows)

Duckabush
River
Mean
1968­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1995
not
significantly
different
(
P=
0.068)
Mean
1977­
1985
vs.
mean
1986­
1995
not
significantly
different
(
P
=
0.279)

Dungeness
River
Mean
1968­
1976
vs.
mean
1977­
1995
significantly
different
(
P=
0.028)
Mean
1977­
1985
vs.
mean
1986­
1995
not
significantly
different
(
P=
0.493)
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Appendix
Tables
A2.17
Appendix
Table
2.3.
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
escapements
and
fall
chum
salmon
escapements
to
those
streams
with
summer
chum
populations
(
1974­
1998).

Return
Year
Summer
Chum
Escapements
Fall
Chum
Escapements
1974
12,281
20,231
1975
18,248
8,060
1976
27,715
23,319
1977
10,711
8,959
1978
19.710
39,460
1979
6,554
4,955
1980
3,776
7,338
1981
2,374
6,092
1982
2,623
5,133
1983
863
2,766
1984
1,414
10,479
1985
1,109
28,393
1986
2,552
14,752
1987
757
12,963
1988
2,967
18,007
1989
598
13,777
1990
429
15,339
1991
744
21,500
1992
2,368
59,221
1993
751
39,242
1994
2,423
101,160
1995
9,462
84,080
1996
20,514
168,164
1997
8,971
34,700
1998
4,020
54,891
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Appendix
Tables
A2.18
Appendix
Table
2.4
Annual
liberations
of
Finch
Creek
stock
fed
and
unfed
fall
chum
fry
from
WDFW
hatcheries
in
Hood
Canal,
Washington,
1969­
93.

Brood
Total
Pre
April
1
(%
Total
Pre
April
1
(%
Total)
(
Avg.
FPP)
Year
Total)
Unfed
Fry
Fed
Fry
1969
188,748
0
0%
795,040
0
0%
­
1970
0
0
0%
1,447,406
0
0%
­
1971
508,000
112,000
22.0%
855,110
0
0%
­
1972
64,600
64,600
100%
974,568
0
0%
­
1973
323,600
0
0%
2,012,198
0
0%
­
1974
0
0
0%
9,408,285
0
0%
­
1975
0
0
0%
8,465,125
0
0%
­
1976
85,000
0
0%
13,594,756
507,825
3.7%
650
1977
0
0
0%
7,939,467
1,324,075
16.7%
547
1978
5,230,000
475,000
9.1%
24,376,329
13,424,882
55.1%
684
1979
6,068,700
3,524,300
58.1%
33,041,394
1,781,700
5.4%
900
1980
5,842,192
0
0%
30,498,031
11,847,861
38.8%
704
1981
0
0
0%
16,859,884
4,253,000
25.2%
530
1982
7,921,700
2,500,000
31.6%
27,983,444
5,113,000
18.3%
649
1983
0
0
0%
28,325,669
5,000,000
17.7%
578
1984
4,374,157
1,445,000
33.0%
45,955,845
13,978,300
30.4%
869
1985
5,483,300
2,684,600
49.0%
31,051,700
9,010,100
29.0%
795
1986
6,400,600
0
0%
33,999,500
13,240,200
38.9%
640
1987
5,763,900
3,033,900
52.6%
34,358,600
14,189,700
41.3%
680
1988
5,284,500
5,284,500
100%
29,932,600
5,172,600
17.3%
916
1989
6,106,500
3,853,000
63.1%
28,415,000
10,410,200
36.6%
697
1990
0
0
0%
19,619,100
4,000,000
20.4%
733
1991
7,175,500
7,175,500
100%
31,463,600
12,508,300
39.8%
657
1992
8,744,000
8,494,000
97.1%
30,908,200
20,073,200
64.9%
494
1993
2,990,600
0
0%
30,215,050
7,294,000
24.1%
616
Average
3,142,224
1,545,856
49.2%
20,899,836
6,125,158
29.3%
686
Note:
Hatchery
production
data
from
WDFW
Hatcheries
Program,
March
21,
1997.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.1
Part
Three
Appendix
Contents
Page
Appendix
Reports
3.1
Specific
Criteria
Guiding
Supplementation
and
Reintroduction
Program
Operations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.3
3.2
Existing
Summer
Chum
Supplementation
and
Reintroduction
Projects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.15
3.3
Genetic
Hazards
Discussion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.27
3.4
Worksheets
for
Assessment
of
Supplementation
Hazards
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.45
3.5
Estuarine
Landscape
Impacts
on
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Summer
Chum
Salmon
and
Recommended
Actions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.111
3.6
Summer
Chum
Watershed
Narratives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.133
3.7
Riparian
Assessment
Methodology
and
Summary
of
Results
.
.
A3.233
3.8
Freshwater
Habitat
Data
Summary
and
Analysis
Criteria
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.239
3.9
General
Fishing
Patterns
and
Regulatory
Summary
by
Year,
Fishery,
and
Fleet
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.243
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.2
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.3
Appendix
Report
3.1
Specific
Criteria
Guiding
Supplementation
and
Reintroduction
Program
Operations
Following
are
specific
criteria
that
should
be
used
for
all
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction
programs
under
this
plan.
These
criteria
refine
general
criteria
for
conducting
supplementation
programs
that
were
previously
provided
in
Part
Two
of
the
plan.
Application
of
these
specific
criteria
will
help
minimize
adverse
ecological
and
genetic
effects
to
natural
summer
chum
populations.
The
criteria
also
define
practical
rearing
and
release
procedures
that
have
been
demonstrated
to
be
of
greatest
benefit
to
healthy
chum
fry
production
in
the
hatchery
environment
and
the
survival
of
released
fish
to
adulthood.

1.
Donor
Stock
Selection
and
Collection
Methods
Donor
stocks
selected
for
supplementation
programs
will
be
derived
from
the
indigenous
summer
chum
population
within
the
targeted
watershed.
For
reintroductions,
donor
stocks
selected
will
be
those
that
are
geographically
nearest
the
targeted
stream,
and
that
show
the
greatest
similarity
in
genetic
lineage,
life
history
patterns,
and
ecology
to
the
extirpated
population.
Donor
stocks
selected
for
reintroduction
will
only
be
used
at
one
location.

The
acceptable
minimum
and
maximum
broodstock
collection
levels,
based
on
the
abundance
of
the
donor
population,
are
indicated
in
Table
3.2
in
Part
Two
of
the
preceding
plan.
As
noted
in
the
table,
in
the
case
of
severely
depressed
populations
and
for
supplementation
programs
only,
if
the
entire
population
is
less
than
100
fish,
all
of
the
population
may
be
taken
for
use
as
broodstock
in
the
supplementation
program.
In
this
case,
a
minimum
of
25
pairs
should
be
targeted
for
the
supplementation
program.

Donor
broodstock
may
be
available
for
use
if
escapement
to
the
donor
stream
will:
1)
meet
an
identified
spawner
escapement
objective,
2)
provide
the
egg­
take
needs
of
any
on­
going
supplementation
program
operating
in
the
donor
stream;
and
3)
provide
a
minimum
of
25
pairs
required
for
a
reintroduction
program.

Summer
chum
should
be
collected
from
donor
populations
across
the
breadth
of
the
freshwater
return
(
mid
August
through
October
15
­
to
preclude
egg
takes
of
fall
chum),
and
at
weekly
levels
proportional
to
average
escapement
timings
for
the
returning
population.
Methods
used
to
collect
broodstock
are
as
follows:
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.4
°
fish
weirs
permitted
via
Hydraulic
Project
Approval,
Shoreline
Act,
and
SEPA
processes
positioned
at
or
very
near
the
downstream
limit
of
spawning
within
the
donor/
targeted
watershed;
°
snorkel
survey/
block
seine
collection
within
freshwater
fish
migration
and
holding
areas;
and
°
selective
fishery
(
e.
g.
beach
seine)
removal
in
the
targeted
stream,
or
in
extreme
terminal
marine
areas
immediately
adjacent
to
the
mouth
of
the
target
stream.

Collected
fish
will
be
transferred
as
soon
as
possible
from
trap
holding
boxes,
adult
holding
tubes
or
net­
pens
to
hatchery
holding
and
spawning
facilities.
During
all
capture,
holding
and
handling
phases,
fish
will
be
netted,
handled,
and
transferred
with
the
utmost
care,
ensuring
that
harm
to
the
fish,
including
the
duration
that
chum
are
out
of
water,
is
maintained
to
a
minimum.

2.
Spawning/
Mating
Protocols
The
two
main
goals
for
the
breeding
of
summer
chum
broodstock
are
for
every
adult
to
contribute,
and
for
the
genetic
contribution
from
each
fish
to
the
population
to
be
as
equal
as
possible
(
Phelps
1993).
These
goals
include
the
desire
to
minimize
loss
of
alleles
and
to
maintain
the
heterozygosity
present
in
the
existing
wild
populations.
In
meeting
these
goals,
spawning
protocols
will
be
applied
that
ensure
that
contributing
broodstocks
are
representative
of
wild
stock
diversity.
Fish
spawned
will
represent
the
breadth
of
the
summer
chum
return,
in
timing
and
proportion
by
timing.
The
entire
August
through
October
span
of
the
return
will
be
represented
in
spawning,
to
the
extent
feasible.

Mating
schemes
used
in
all
summer
chum
supplementation
programs
have
the
objective
of
incorporating
at
least
1:
1
male­
female
spawning
ratios.
Given
the
preceding
goals,
and
the
parameters
regarding
run
timing
representation,
all
matings
will
be
randomized
with
respect
to
fish
age,
size,
and
phenotypic
traits.
Intentional
selection
of
any
particular
trait
in
the
use
of
spawners,
including
age,
size,
and
other
morphological
characters,
will
be
avoided.

For
populations
scheduled
for
supplementation
that
are
small
(
25
pairs
or
less),
the
desire
to
ensure
that
every
adult
used
in
the
program
will
contribute
to
matings,
rather
than
equalized
contribution,
will
be
prioritized.
Matings
for
such
populations
on
any
given
spawning
day
will
be
conducted
by
dividing
each
female's
eggs
into
as
many
aliquots
as
there
are
ripe
males.
Each
aliquot
from
one
female
will
then
be
fertilized
with
a
different
male.
Fertilization
would
be
accomplished
by
adding
sperm
from
one
male,
mixing
the
eggs
thoroughly
for
30
seconds,
and
then
adding
sperm
from
a
different
back­
up
male
prior
to
water
hardening
the
eggs.
For
these
small
donor
populations,
males
can
be
held
after
spawning
for
use
on
more
than
one
spawning
day,
as
long
as
the
number
of
times
each
male
is
used
is
noted,
and
that
newly
captured
or
ripe
males
are
incorporated.
The
use
of
sperm
extenders
and
cryopreservation
are
also
viable
options
for
maintaining
sperm
for
crosses
made
for
small
populations.
Kapuscinski
and
Miller
(
1993)
provides
further
protocols
that
should
be
followed
in
devising
mating
schemes
for
depressed
populations
when
either
males
or
females
are
in
short
supply.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.5
3.
Incubation
and
Rearing
Protocols
Incubation
and
rearing
protocols
proposed
in
this
plan
are
designed
to
produce
the
most
summer
chum
fry
in
the
shortest
amount
of
time
in
the
hatchery,
while
producing
fish
that
are
as
genetically
and
ecologically
similar
as
possible
to
the
founding
natural
population.
Fish
health
maintenance,
disinfection,
and
fish
disease
treatment
procedures
set
forth
in
the
Washington
Co­
manager's
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
will
be
applied
throughout
the
husbandry
process
to
maintain
high
fish
quality
and
to
minimize
mortalities.
Environmental
conditions
during
incubation
and
propagation,
including
water
temperature
(
daily
and
seasonal
regimes),
water
quality,
and
photoperiod
will
be
equivalent
to,
or
closely
simulate,
conditions
found
in
the
natural
environment
for
the
founding
population.
To
help
meet
this
objective,
the
location
of
incubation
and
rearing
will
be
within
the
same
watershed,
and
in
close
proximity
to
the
planned
summer
chum
release
site.
To
the
extent
feasible,
achieving
this
latter
goal
will
also
involve
the
use
of
water
for
incubation
and
rearing
sourced
from
the
founding
river
for
supplementation
programs.
Husbandry
strategies
will
include
use
of
low
incubation
and
rearing
densities,
as
set
forth
in
the
following
sections.

The
following
survival
rate
objectives
for
each
life
stage
will
be
applied
to
all
programs.
These
rates
will
be
used
as
criteria
for
measuring
the
effectiveness
of
each
program.

Chum
Life
Stage
%
Survival
by
Life
Stage
Cum.
%
Survival
from
Green
Egg
Green
egg
to
eye­
up
90.0
%
90.0
%
Eye­
up
to
Swim­
up
99.5
%
89.5
%
Swim­
up
to
release
95.0
%
85.0
%

a)
Production
Levels
Annual
summer
chum
fry
production
levels
for
supplementation
and
reintroduction
programs
will
be
determined
through
estimation
of
the
number
of
smolts
required
to
meet
historical
spawning
levels
upon
return
as
adults.
Criteria
that
will
be
used
to
derive
the
desired
annual
production
levels
are
provided
in
section
3.2.2.3
of
the
preceding
plan.

Appendix
Table
3.1.1
presents
desired,
initial
planting
levels
derived
from
the
aforementioned
production
and
survival
criteria
for
summer
chum
streams
that
are
supplemented,
or
have
the
potential
to
be
supplemented
or
receive
fish
for
reintroductions,
in
the
future.
These
planting
levels
are
minimums,
based
on
1974­
78
average
escapement
estimates,
and
may
be
adjusted
if
research
shows
that
survival
rates
are
different
than
those
assumed.
It
is
recognized
that
there
is
likely
some
"
critical
mass"
for
a
chum
fry
release
that
must
be
achieved
for
the
propagated
population
to
exhibit
adult
returns
at
desired
survival
rates.
This
concept
is
based
on
the
premise
that
small
releases
(
e.
g.
<
15,000)
of
fish
of
1
gram
size
may
be
more
subject
to
loss
through
happenstance
or
natural
mortality
than
larger
release
groups
(
e.
g.
100,000).
In
studies
of
chum
fry
predation
on
Big
Beef
Creek,
Fresh
and
Schroder
(
1987)
corroborated
this
premise,
finding
that
the
number
of
fry
eaten
by
predators
increased
asymptotically
with
the
number
of
fry
released.
Chum
fry
were
most
vulnerable
at
low
abundance
and
least
vulnerable
when
abundance
was
high.
The
decreased
vulnerability
at
high
release
levels
generally
resulted
from
predator
satiation
or
from
time
constraints
arising
from
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.6
capturing
and
swallowing
prey.
The
upper
end
of
the
release
ranges
indicated
in
Appendix
Table
3.1.1
are
therefore
recommended.

Appendix
Table
3.1.1
Recommended
initial
annual
summer
chum
fry
supplementation
program
production
levels
needed
to
produce
adult
returns
equal
to
historical
(
1974­
78)
average
run
sizes.
1
Watershed
Run
Sizes
Survival
Rate
Level
(
1000s)
1974­
78
Average
Fed
Fry
Annual
Fry
Supplementation
2
3
4
Big
Quilcene
R.
3,152
0.81
­
1.63
%
193
­
389
Little
Quilcene
R.
1,418
0.81
­
1.63
%
87
­
175
Dosewallips
R.
3,355
0.81
­
1.63
%
206
­
414
Duckabush
R.
3,855
0.81
­
1.63
%
236
­
476
Hamma
Hamma
R.
6,503
0.81
­
1.63
%
399
­
803
Dewatto
R.
1,549
0.81
­
1.63
%
95
­
191
Tahuya
R.
5,732
0.81
­
1.63
%
352
­
708
Lilliwaup
R.
3,132
0.81
­
1.63
%
192
­
387
Anderson
Ck.
700
0.81
­
1.63
%
43
­
86
Big
Beef
Ck.
839
0.81
­
1.63
%
51
­
104
Union
River
700
0.81
­
1.63
%
43
­
86
Salmon
Ck.
859
0.81
­
1.63
%
53
­
106
Snow
Ck.
720
0.81
­
1.63
%
44
­
89
Chimacum
Ck.
700
0.81
­
1.63
%
43
­
86
Jimmycomelately
Ck.
700
0.81
­
1.63
%
43
­
86
Notes:
The
number
of
adult
summer
chum
recruiting
to
Puget
Sound
(
all
age
classes)
as
a
result
of
1
escapement
and
spawning
by
adult
fish
produced
through
the
supplementation
program
may
be
estimated
as
follows,
assuming
a
20%
fisheries
exploitation
rate:
multiply
the
expected
number
of
female
spawners
((
run
size*
0.8)/
2)
by
2,500
(
average
fecundity),
then
by
10%
(
estimated
wild
survival
green
egg
to
smolt),
and
then
by
1%
(
estimated
survival
of
wild
smolts
to
adult
return).
Run
size
estimates
over
700
represent
the
1974­
78
average
run
size
for
each
stream
or
stock.
For
2
populations
averaging
less
than
700
for
the
1974­
78
period,
the
run
size
level
is
listed
as
700.
This
700
fish
standard
is
derived
from
criteria
set
forth
in
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997)
which
defines
the
minimum
population
size
needed
for
a
stock
to
not
be
at
moderate
risk
of
extinction
(
use
N
of
e
2,500/
3.6
years
(
average
chum
generational
length)
=
700
fish).
These
levels
are
provisional,
and
will
be
changed
when
the
parties
to
this
plan
have
developed
agreed
escapement
and
run
size
objectives
to
be
applied
to
recover
the
populations.
The
run
size
figures
presented
here
are
used
to
derive
recommended
planting
levels.
Survival
rate
range
presented
is
based
on
the
estimated
average
percent
survival
rate
to
Puget
Sound
3
for
Hoodsport
Hatchery
fall
chum
(
1.63
%
from
Fuss
and
Hopley
1991)
and,
to
be
conservative,
½
that
average,
assuming
expected,
smaller
summer
chum
release
levels
and
potentially
lower
productivity
for
summer
chum.
Desired
annual
production
levels
were
derived
by
dividing
the
1974­
78
average
run
size
by
each
of
4
the
potential
survival
rates.
These
fry
release
ranges
assume
a
wild
fish
contribution
of
"
0".
To
account
for
wild
production,
annual,
estimated
wild
adult
returns
each
year
may
be
subtracted
from
base
year
average
run
sizes
to
refine
the
number
of
hatchery­
origin
fry
needed.

b)
Incubation
Eggs
and
alevins
will
be
incubated
under
density,
substrate,
light,
temperature,
and
oxygen
conditions
that
simulate
the
natural
intragravel
environment
(
Kapuscinski
and
Miller
1993),
or
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.7
exceed
its
quality,
to
the
extent
feasible.
Acceptable
incubator
types
for
use
in
proposed
supplementation
programs
are
listed
and
prioritized
as
follows:
Heath­
style
trays,
incubation
baskets
in
rearing
troughs,
remote
site
incubators
(
RSIs).
Incubation
trays,
baskets,
and
screens
will
be
loaded
at
conservative,
low
densities
that
produce
the
highest
survivals
and
quality
to
the
fry
stage.
Green
eggs,
eyed
eggs,
and
alevins
will
be
incubated
under
dark
or
low­
light
conditions
to
minimize
stress
and
decrease
energy
expenditure,
minimizing
the
incidence
of
yolk
malformation,
decreased
survival,
and
smaller
fry
at
swim­
up.
Artificial
substrate
will
be
used
during
incubation
and
hatching
of
eyed
eggs
to
mimic
the
natural
environment.
Shocking
and
removal
of
dead
eggs
will
be
accomplished
when
the
eggs
portray
a
well
developed,
strongly
pigmented
eye
(
after
the
accumulation
of
approximately
550
to
600
temperature
units).

Heath
trays
will
be
loaded
at
a
maximum
density
of
4,500­
5,000
green
eggs,
and
3,500­
4,000
eyed
eggs.
Flows
into
Heath
stacks
will
be
maintained
at
4
gallons
per
minute
to
provide
the
most
suitable
environment
to
reduce
bacterial
loads
(
T.
Kane
and
D.
Zajac,
USFWS,
pers.
comm.,
Feb.
1998).

Although
it
is
desirable
to
match
incubation
water
temperatures
with
ambient
stream
temperatures
to
match
wild
chum
emergence
timing,
water
supplies
for
RSIs
shall
be
spring
or
well­
sourced
to
minimize
the
risk
of
losses
due
to
flooding,
or
from
egg/
alevin
suffocation
caused
by
excess
siltation.
Eyed
eggs
are
the
preferred
life
stage
for
incubation
and
fifty­
five
gallon
RSIs
are
the
preferred
version
used
for
summer
chum
propagation.
RSIs
may
be
operated
with
up
to
five
or
six
incubation
screens,
with
each
screen
loaded
with
up
to
15,000
eggs
(
K.
Dimmitt,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.
April,
1998).
Loading
at
these
densities
will
lead
to
the
incubation
of
up
to
90,000
eyed
eggs
per
RSI.
Flows
into
RSIs
will
be
maintained
between
9
­
12
gpm
during
operation.
Bio­
saddles
will
be
used
to
harbor
incubating
alevins.
Bio­
saddles
should
be
loaded
to
occupy
a
minimum
depth
of
15"
of
the
bottom
portion
of
the
RSI
to
safely
hold
alevins
resulting
from
the
recommended
eyed
egg
loading
densities.

c)
Rearing
The
objective
of
all
summer
chum
supplementation
programs
shall
be
the
production
and
release
of
1
gram
average
size
smolts
for
release
during
March
(
Hood
Canal)
or
April
(
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca)
each
year.
It
is
recognized
that
summer
chum
naturally
have
little
tendency
to
rear
in
freshwater,
out­
migrating
seaward
immediately
after
swim­
up
(
see
Tynan
1997).
Therefore,
rather
than
mimicking
natural
rearing
behavior,
summer
chum
fry
and
fingerlings
will
be
reared
in
freshwater
under
density,
light,
temperature,
hydraulic
conditions,
and
oxygen
conditions,
and
with
diets
and
at
feeding
rates,
that
promote
the
production
of
healthy
smolts
that
will
exhibit
the
highest
possible
survival
rates
to
return.

1.
Densities
­
Hatchery
rearing
densities
will
be
those
that
yield
the
highest
number
survivals.
Given
that
the
actual
identification
of
such
densities
is
not
likely,
given
current
available
data,
the
following
conservative
"
standard"
and
"
maximum"
pond
loading
densities
will
be
applied
in
all
proposed
supplementation
programs
to
promote
the
release
of
healthy,
viable
fish
(
S.
Evans
and
T.
Tynan,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.
Feb.
1998).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.8
Pounds
fish/
gpm
inflow
Pounds
fish/
ft3
rearing
volume
Chum
size
Standard
Max.
Standard
Max.

Swim­
up
<
1.0
1.5
0.5
0.75
1200­
600/
lb
1.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
600­
400/
lb
1.5
3.0
1.0
2.0
Summer
chum
reared
in
marine
net­
pens
should
be
held
at
densities
no
greater
than
0.3
pounds
of
fish
per
cubic
foot
of
net­
pen
space,
assuming
the
pens
are
sited
in
an
area
with
moderate
tidal
exchange
(
see
marine
net­
pen
guidelines
from
Washington
Department
of
Ecology
for
siting
criteria
as
per
NPDES
Permit
requirements).

Accurate
estimates
of
the
biomass
of
the
rearing
population
are
needed
to
allow
for
the
calculation
of
pond
densities.
Weight
samples
should
be
taken
on
a
bi­
weekly
basis
to
determine
average
fish
size
to
be
applied
to
inventoried
numbers
of
fish
in
deriving
biomass
estimates.

2.
Light
conditions
­
Light
conditions
during
rearing
will
be
maintained
to
mimic
ambient
seasonal
photo­
periods.
Summer
chum
will
be
propagated
outdoors
to
the
extent
feasible
to
comply
with
this
objective.

3.
Hydraulic
conditions
­
Velocities
and
flow
patterns
in
freshwater
rearing
ponds
will
be
maintained
at
levels
that
provide
for
beneficial
exercise
of
rearing
fish,
promoting
prolonged
swimming
ability
while
optimizing
feed
distribution,
removal
of
fish
waste,
and
water
exchange.
The
occurrence
of
"
dead
spots"
in
rearing
ponds
should
be
minimized
to
help
avoid
gill
problems
and
to
maintain
fish
health.

4.
Oxygen
conditions
­
Oxygen
levels
in
rearing
ponds
will
be
maintained
at
levels
that
are
optimal
for
juvenile
salmon
growth
and
survival.
Oxygen
concentrations
at
inflow
should
be
at
or
near
saturation
(
11­
13
ppm).
Effluent
oxygen
concentrations
should
be
no
less
than
9
ppm.

5.
Fish
diets
and
feeding
rates
­
Diets
used
in
supplementation
programs
will
be
high
quality,
commercial
grade,
fish
meal­
based
moist
or
semi­
moist
feeds
currently
available
to
Pacific
Northwest
salmon
hatchery
operations.
Observed
food
conversion
rates
should
be
<
1.3
for
the
diets
used
and
as
achieved
through
the
methods
used
to
apply
the
feed.
Diets
selected
will
have
a
minimum
percentage
of
fines
to
minimize
the
risk
of
gill
irritation
and
disease.
Feed
sizes
will
be
matched
to
fish
size
as
follows:

Chum
size
Feed
Size
Swim­
up
#
1
1200­
600/
lb
#
1
or
#
2,
1/
32"
600­
350/
lb
#
2
or
1/
32"

Feed
will
be
applied
at
rates
that
balance
the
need
to
minimize
the
duration
of
rearing,
the
maintenance
of
acceptable
feeding
efficiencies,
and
the
desire
to
achieve
targeted
release
sizes
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.9
by
the
March
or
April
release
dates,
with
the
need
to
prevent
gill
irritation
and
disease
through
over­
application
of
feed.
At
all
times,
daily
feeding
rates
will
be
maintained
below
0.10
pounds
feed
per
gallon
per
minute
pond
inflow
per
day
to
minimize
gill
irritation,
and
to
guard
against
bacterial
gill
disease
out­
breaks.
Accurate
population
size
inventories,
and
average
fish
size
estimates,
are
needed
in
order
to
evaluate
whether
this
maximum
feeding
rate
limitation
is
being
met.
Direct
human
contact
with
fish
during
feeding
will
also
be
minimized
to
reduce
association
of
humans
with
food
and
to
allow
for
more
natural
development
of
predator
avoidance
behavior
in
rearing
fish.
Feed
shall
not
be
supplied
to
fish
that
will
be
fin­
clipped
or
tagged
beginning
one
day
in
advance
of
the
planned
handling
date.

6.
Fish
health
maintenance,
monitoring,
and
pre­
release
evaluation
­
Rearing
ponds
and
screens
will
be
maintained
in
a
manner
that
ensures
a
hygienic
environment
for
summer
chum
production.
Mortalities
should
be
removed
and
enumerated
at
least
daily
to
allow
for
monitoring
of
population
size
and
fish
health
status.
Rearing
units
should
be
cleaned
frequently
to
remove
accumulated
fish
waste
and
uneaten
feed.
Troughs
and
tanks
used
for
rearing
should
be
cleaned
daily,
and
raceways
should
be
cleaned
three
times
per
week
in
a
manner
that
does
not
re­
suspend
wastes
into
the
water
column
where
rearing
fish
may
be
adversely
affected.
The
frequency
of
rearing
unit
cleaning
should
be
balanced,
however,
with
the
need
to
minimize
disturbance
to
the
fish.

All
summer
chum
will
be
reared
under
the
guidance
of
certified
fish
health
personnel
and
in
accordance
with
the
Co­
Manager's
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
(
NWIFC
and
WDFW
1998).
Fish
will
be
monitored
daily
during
rearing
for
signs
of
disease,
through
observations
of
feeding
behavior
and
monitoring
of
daily
mortality
trends.
Preferred
and
maximum
pond
loading
and
feeding
parameters
will
be
adhered
to
at
all
times.
Summer
chum
will
be
examined
by
a
fish
pathologist
within
three
weeks
prior
to
release
to
determine
fish
health
status.

7.
Differentially
mark
all
hatchery
release
groups
­
To
allow
for
estimation
of
spawning
ground
return
rates,
contribution
rates
to
extreme
terminal
area
fisheries,
and
(
through
mass
marking)
differentiation
from
natural­
origin
fish,
summer
chum
produced
each
year
in
supplementation
programs
under
this
plan
will
be
marked.
All,
or
an
appropriate
proportion
of
each
hatchery
population
(
as
determined
by
population
size
and
the
proportion
identified
as
needed
to
form
valid
estimates
of
survival
and
contribution),
will
be
marked
through
thermal
banding
(
otoliths),
removal
of
the
adipose
fin,
application
of
a
coded
wire
tag,
or
application
of
a
coded
wire
tagadipose
clip
combination.
Marking
will
occur
at
the
appropriate
time
during
incubation
(
thermal
marking),
or
at
least
one
week
in
advance
of
release
(
adipose
fin
removal
or
CWT
application).

d)
Release
Strategies
Fish
liberation
strategies
will
be
designed
to
release
fry
of
a
size
and
condition,
and
at
a
time
that
will
maximize
freshwater
exodus
rates,
survival
from
the
river
to
the
estuary,
survival
during
estuarine
migration,
and
survival
to
adult
return.

1.
Life
stage
and
size
at
release
­
WDFW
fall
chum
hatcheries
in
Hood
Canal
have
achieved
high
fry
to
adult
survival
rates
(
0.62
­
3.23
%
­
Fuss
and
Hopley
(
1991))
through
the
release
of
fed
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.10
chum
fry
of
an
average
size
of
1
gram
(
400­
450/
pound),
equating
to
an
average
length
of
50­
52
mm.
This
size
at
release
was
set
as
a
target
by
WDFW
beginning
in
the
late
1970s
to
mimic
chum
production
programs
in
Japan
(
Hager
1980),
which
have
demonstrated
smolt
to
adult
survival
rates
for
one
gram
chum
fry
released
from
hatcheries
in
Hokkaido
of
2.0
­
3.1
%
(
1965­
1981
brood
year
data
from
Kaeriyama
1989).
Since
1993,
summer
chum
fry
of
approximately
one
gram
average
size
have
been
consistently
released
through
the
supplementation
program
at
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
with
similar,
high
apparent
adult
return
rates.

Further
rationale
for
the
release
of
fed
fry
is
the
increased
freshwater
survival
rates
accrued
through
the
release
of
larger
chum.
Fresh
et
al.
(
1980)
demonstrated
a
freshwater
survival
rate
of
46.2
%
for
unfed
fry
releases
(
39.2
mm
average
fork
length)
at
Big
Beef
Creek,
compared
to
84.7
%
survival
for
fed
fry
releases
(
55.7
mm
average
fork
length).

Therefore,
although
wild
summer
chum
migrate
to
seawater
immediately
after
swim­
up,
the
production
of
unfed
fry
will
not
be
the
preferred
method
for
supplementing
regional
summer
chum
populations
under
this
plan.
Consistent
with
the
desire
to
quickly
boost
the
abundance
of
populations
in
the
region
in
a
minimal
number
of
generations,
all
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction
programs
will
endeavor
to
release
fed
fry
of
an
average
size
of
one
gram
to
maximize
survival
rates.
The
minimal
duration
of
intervention
into
the
natural
summer
chum
life
cycle
attached
with
producing
a
fed
fry,
and
the
survival
rate
advantage
of
fed
fry
over
unfed
fry,
support
the
strategy
of
releasing
one
gram
summer
chum.
Achievement
of
a
one
gram
average
release
size
should
be
attained
by
the
normal
out­
migration
period
for
wild
summer
chum
fry
in
Hood
Canal
(
March)
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
April).

2.
Location
of
release
­
Summer
chum
fry
produced
through
this
plan
will
be
released
into
target
drainages
only
after
a
significant
level
of
incubation,
rearing,
and
therefore,
acclimation,
within
the
target
watershed.
On­
site
incubation
of
eyed
eggs,
or
transfer
of
unfed
fry,
for
rearing
of
fry
at
the
site
of
release
to
one
gram
size,
are
the
preferred
supplementation
strategies.
Transfers
of
chum
fry
reared
at
a
hatchery
facility
for
direct
release
into
another
drainage
will
not
be
allowed,
due
to
uncertainty
regarding
homing
ability
of
transferred
fish,
and
the
likely,
diminished
survivability
for
chum
fry
transferred
and
released
in
this
manner.
Acclimation
ponds
may
be
used
at
the
desired
release
location
to
receive
unfed
fry
incubated
and
hatched
at
another
facility,
if
the
duration
of
rearing
time
at
the
acclimation
site
is
deemed
sufficient
to
foster
imprinting.
Exceptions
to
this
limitation
may
be
made
for
hatchery
facilities
located
on
watersheds
that
share
the
same
discrete
estuary
with
a
stream
desired
for
planting
(
e.
g.
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers;
Salmon
and
Snow
creeks).
Research
has
shown
that
natural
stray
rates
between
such
geographically
proximate
streams
can
be
substantial
(
Tallman
and
Healey
1994).
The
comanagers
consider
streams
sharing
the
same
immediate
estuary
as
harboring
the
same
stock
under
this
plan,
and
straying
of
supplementation­
origin
fish
between
such
streams
is
therefore
not
a
concern.

Summer
chum
fry
released
from
freshwater
locations
should
be
liberated
as
close
to
the
estuary
as
possible
to
allow
for
rapid
exodus
from
freshwater,
and
to
minimize
the
number
of
fish
that
may
be
lost
to
predation
(
Fresh
et
al.
1980).
Freshwater
survival
for
Big
Beef
Creek
chum
was
estimated
to
be
73.7
%
for
fry
released
at
river
kilometer
2.3
and
48.2
%
for
fry
released
at
river
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.11
kilometer
10.0,
showing
that
increased
exposure
to
predators
decreases
survival
(
Fresh
et
al.
1980).
The
choice
of
a
liberation
site
in
the
lower
part
of
the
watershed
should
be
balanced
against
the
desire
to
distribute
returning
spawners
across
all
available
summer
chum
spawning
areas
upon
return.
Given
that
summer
chum
in
the
region
generally
spawn
in
the
lower
mile
of
each
watershed,
attempts
should
be
made
to
liberate
chum
fry
no
further
upstream
than
the
lowest
identified
spawning
locations.
Chum
fry
liberations
made
further
upstream
should
be
mitigated
by
releasing
the
fish
at
night
and
when
flows
are
amenable
for
flushing
the
fish
from
the
system
quickly.

Seawater
net­
pens
used
for
additional
rearing
of
summer
chum
should
be
located
within
the
immediate
estuary
of
the
watershed
where
freshwater
rearing
occurred.
Location
of
net­
pens
proximate
to
the
desired
return
stream
will
minimize
the
risk
of
straying
to
other
areas.

3.
Transport
methods
­
Methods
and
equipment
used
to
transport
summer
chum
from
freshwater
rearing
sites
to
acclimation
sites
or
seawater
net­
pens
shall
be
designed
to
minimize
harm
to
the
fish.
Where
feasible,
fish
should
be
transferred
from
ponds
to
transport
trucks
using
sanctuary
nets
to
retain
fish
in
water.
Transport
tanks
should
be
supplied
with
oxygen
at
prescribed
flow
rates,
providing
oxygen
concentrations
within
the
tank
of
at
least
10
ppm
during
transport..
Water
in
tanks
should
be
equal
in
temperature
to
the
source
rearing
pond,
and
fish
should
be
loaded
into
the
tanks
at
no
greater
than
0.285
pounds
of
fish
per
gallon
of
water
(
Ashcraft
1982).
Tank
lids
should
be
secured
with
quick­
release
latches
to
firmly
secure
the
lid
during
transport.
Fish
should
be
released
from
transport
tanks
into
acclimation
ponds
or
net­
pens
through
flex
hoses
connected
to
the
tanks
outlet,
avoiding
additional
dip­
netting
of
fish
from
tanks.

4.
Timing
of
release
­
Summer
chum
will
be
released
from
freshwater
facilities
during
the
seasonal
period
that
coincides
with
the
natural
out­
migration
time
for
wild
summer
chum
in
the
regions.
The
schedule
of
wild
fry
emigration
can
be
considered
the
optimum
release
period
because
its
evolution
is
geared
to
maximizing
survival
(
Cardwell
and
Fresh
1979;
Fresh
et
al.
1980
quoting
Kobayashi
1976).
For
Hood
Canal,
summer
chum
fry
are
estimated
to
migrate
into
the
estuary
and
out
of
Hood
Canal
between
the
first
week
in
February
and
the
third
week
in
April
(
Tynan
1997).
For
eastern
Strait
streams,
summer
chum
should
be
liberated
from
freshwater
facilities
or
net­
pens
between
the
first
week
in
February
and
the
fourth
week
in
May
(
Tynan
1997).
To
take
advantage
of
increases
in
estuarine
productivity
promoted
by
spring­
time
increases
in
photoperiod,
summer
chum
releases
should
be
timed
to
occur
towards
the
mid­
point
of
the
periods
mentioned.

Within
Hood
Canal,
it
is
also
desirable
to
release
summer
chum
prior
to
the
advent
of
hatchery
fall
chum
releases
from
the
southwest
Hood
Canal
facilities.
Releasing
summer
chum
prior
to
the
fall
chum
liberations
will
decrease
the
risk
of
competitive
interactions
that
have
the
potential
to
decrease
summer
chum
survival.
This
strategy
may
also
provide
summer
chum
with
a
competitive
advantage
by
providing
the
populations
first
opportunity
for
food
resources
in
the
Canal.
Beginning
in
1998,
WDFW
has
implemented
a
policy
to
release
fall
chum
fed
fry
from
all
southwest
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
after
the
first
week
in
April.
Therefore,
summer
chum
should
be
released
prior
to
the
end
of
March
to
minimize
interactions
with
hatchery­
origin
fall
chum.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.12
5.
Methods
of
release
­
Methods
for
liberating
fish
from
freshwater
facilities
will
be
employed
that
maximize
the
rate
of
fish
exodus
from
the
stream
to
seawater,
and
that
minimize
the
risk
of
predation
on
the
released
population.
In
all
cases,
hatchery
releases
should
be
made
between
dusk
and
midnight,
mimicking
the
natural
estuarine
arrival
period
for
wild
chum
fry,
reducing
the
likelihood
for
significant
fish
and
avian
predation,
and
facilitating
time
for
adaptation
of
the
fish
to
the
new
estuarine
environment
(
Fresh
et
al.
1980;
Salo
1991).
Fresh
et
al.
(
1980)
found
that
chum
fry
released
from
Big
Beef
Creek
had
freshwater
survival
rates
of
93.7
%
when
released
near
mid­
night,
compared
to
a
survival
rate
of
71.8
%
for
chum
fry
released
at
mid­
day
(
1100
hours).

Fish
should
be
released
directly
into
the
main
stream
channel
to
take
advantage
of
the
negative
rheotactic
response
inherent
in
egressing
chum,
fostering
rapid
downstream
exodus
in
the
main,
deepest
water
course.
Summer
chum
releases
should
be
made
so
that
the
arrival
of
the
fish
in
the
estuary
coincides
with
a
high
tide,
or
with
a
high
tide
that
is
just
beginning
to
ebb,
to
decrease
the
risk
of
stranding,
and
minimize
the
length
of
confinement
in
the
freshwater
channel
during
downstream
migration.

Fresh
et
al.
(
1980)
demonstrated
that
mortality
for
newly
released
chum
fry
was
inversely
density­
dependent
(
depensatory).
Freshwater
survival
for
Big
Beef
Creek
chum
was
shown
to
increase
non­
linearly
with
number
of
fry
released,
ranging
from
40.3
%
when
517
fry
were
released,
to
91.5
%
when
50,155
were
released
(
Fresh
et
al.
1980).
Chum
fry
should
therefore
be
released
en
masse
to
swamp
predators
in
freshwater
and
in
the
immediate
estuary,
and
to
promote
schooling
of
the
fish
when
in
seawater.
Schooling
has
been
shown
to
reduce
predation
losses
(
Cardwell
and
Fresh
1979,
citing
Brock
and
Riffenburg
1960
and
Major
1978).
This
release
strategy
is
chosen
over
practices
that
incorporate
temporal
and
spatial
variation
(
similar
to
wild
fry
emigration,
which
can
span
a
one
month
period)
because
of
the
optimized
time
of
release
(
during
the
period
when
natural
fish
have
been
successful
in
the
estuary),
and
the
survival
advantage
that
may
be
imparted
by
predator
swamping.
The
fact
that
rearing
in
freshwater
as
called
for
through
this
supplementation
plan
is
not
a
natural
trait
for
wild
summer
chum
is
also
considered.
The
desire
in
this
instance
is
to
maximize
survival
for
the
release
group,
and
not
to
mimic
natural
egression
characteristics
exhibited
by
unfed,
wild
fry.

Bibliography
Ashcraft,
W.
1982.
WDFW
memorandum
October
21,
1982
(
subject
Loading
rate
guidelines
for
hauling
fish).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
2
p.

Cardwell,
R.
D.,
and
K.
L.
Fresh.
1979.
Predation
upon
juvenile
salmon
(
draft
technical
paper,
September
13,
1979).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
19
p.

Fresh,
K.
L.,
R.
D.
Cardwell,
B.
P.
Snyder,
and
E.
O.
Salo.
1980.
Some
hatchery
strategies
for
reducing
predation
upon
juvenile
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
in
freshwater,
p.
79­
89.
In
Melteff,
B.
R.,
and
R.
A.
Neve
(
eds.)
Proceedings
of
the
North
Pacific
Aquiculture
Symposium.
Alaska
Dept.
Fish
and
Game,
Juneau,
Alaska.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.13
Fuss,
H.
J.
and
C.
W.
Hopley.
1991.
Survival,
marine
distribution,
and
age
at
maturity
of
Hood
Canal
hatchery
chum,
p.
9­
16.
In
B.
White
and
I.
Guthrie
(
eds.)
Proceedings
of
the
15th
Northeast
Pacific
Pink
and
Chum
Salmon
Workshop.
Pacific
Salmon
Comm.,
and
Can.
Dept.
Fish
and
Oceans,
Vancouver,
B.
C.

Hager,
B.
1980.
History
of
chum
salmon
rearing
in
Washington
state,
p.
108­
118.
In
Kingsbury,
A.
P.
(
ed.)
Proceedings
of
the
1980
Northeast
Pacific
Pink
and
Chum
Salmon
Workshop.
Sitka,
Alaska.
Alaska
Dept.
Fish
and
Game,
Juneau,
AK.

Kaeriyama,
M.
1989.
Aspects
of
salmon
ranching
in
Japan.
Proceedings
of
the
International
Symposium
on
Chars
and
Masu
Salmon,
Oct.
1988,
p.
625­
638.
In
Kawanabe,
H.,
F.
Yamazaki,
and
D.
L.
G.
Noakes
(
eds.)
Physiology
and
Ecology
Japan,
spec.,
Vol.
1.
Hokkaido
Univ.,
Sapporo,
Japan.

Kapuscinski,
A.
R.,
and
L.
M.
Miller.
1993.
Genetic
guidelines
for
the
Yakima/
Klickitat
fisheries
project.
Co­
Aqua
consultants,
St.
Paul,
MN.
66
p.

Kobayashi,
T.
1976.
Salmon
propagation
in
Japan.
In
Proceedings
of
FAO
Technical
Conference
on
Aquiculture,
Kyoto,
Japan
26
May
 
2
June
1976.
Pub.
No.
FIR:
AQ/
CONF/
76/
E.
75.
12
p.

Phelps,
S.
1993.
WDFW
memorandum
to
Tim
Tynan
June
11,
1993
(
subject
Breeding
of
Quilcene
Hatchery
summer­
run
chum).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
1
p.

Salo,
E.
O.
1991.
Life
history
of
chum
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
keta,
p.
231­
309.
In
Groot,
C.,
and
L.
Margolis
(
eds.),
Pacific
Salmon
Life
Histories.
Univ.
B.
C.
Press,
Vancouver,
B.
C.,
Canada.

Tallman,
R.
F.
and
M.
C.
Healey.
1994.
Homing,
straying,
and
gene
flow
among
seasonally
separated
populations
of
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
51:
577­
588.

Tynan,
T.
J.
1997.
Life
history
characterization
of
summer
chum
salmon
populations
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions.
Tech.
Report
No.
H
97­
06.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia.
WA.
99
p.

WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife)
and
WWTIT
(
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes).
1998.
Co­
managers
of
Washington
fish
health
policy.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.1
A3.14
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.15
Appendix
Report
3.2
Existing
Summer
Chum
Supplementation
and
Reintroduction
Projects
Supplementation
has
been
applied
as
a
strategy
to
help
recover
summer
chum
populations
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
since
1992.
Programs
initiated
that
year
included
Big
Quilcene
River,
Lilliwaup
Creek,
and
Salmon
Creek
supplementation
projects.
A
supplementation
project
on
Hamma
Hamma
River
began
in
1987.
Beginning
in
1996,
the
regional
population
recovery
strategy
evolved
to
the
point
where
reintroductions
of
fish
into
streams
where
summer
chum
populations
had
been
extirpated
became
feasible.
Transfers
of
progeny
from
appropriate
broodstocks
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
into
Chimacum
Creek
and
Big
Beef
Creek
began
with
brood
year
1996.
All
of
these
summer
chum
recovery
programs
are
on­
going.

Descriptions
of
each
existing
supplementation
and
reintroduction
program,
including
program
objectives,
broodstock
collection
figures,
fry
production
data,
and
operating
procedures
and
objectives
are
presented
below.
These
programs
were
instituted
prior
to
the
full
development
and
completion
of
this
plan.
The
following
descriptions
of
existing
programs
may
therefore
include
objectives,
methods,
and
strategies
that
are
not
fully
consistent
with
the
tenets
of
the
plan.
However,
the
intent
is
to
adjust
existing
programs
to
comply
with
the
objectives,
risk
minimization
methods,
and
strategies
presented
in
the
preceding
document.

1.
Hood
Canal
Region
a)
Big
Quilcene
River
­
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
Program
Summer
chum
salmon
were
first
reared
at
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
(
QNFH)
from
1912
to
1937.
During
this
time,
eggs
were
collected
from
broodstock
in
various
rivers
of
western
Hood
Canal
­
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers,
Dosewallips
River,
and
Duckabush
River.
Eggs
were
hatched
and
fry
raised
at
QNFH,
with
fry
released
into
the
Big
Quilcene
River
or
into
the
river
where
the
broodstock
originated.
The
QNFH
summer
chum
salmon
program
was
terminated
in
1938
when
the
lower
Quilcene
River
was
"
modified"
and
the
fish
could
no
longer
make
it
back
to
the
hatchery.
By
the
late
1980s
and
early
1990s
the
adult
returns
to
the
Big
Quilcene
River
were
at
very
low
numbers
(
less
than
50
annually
1989­
91),
and
with
on­
going
habitat
threats
to
the
population,
there
was
a
possibility
that
summer
chum
could
go
extinct
in
this
system.
Thus
it
became
a
primary
candidate
for
supplementation.

A
supplementation
program
was
started
in
1992,
to
take
advantage
of
the
last
relatively
strong
summer
chum
cycle
year
return.
About
half
of
the
400
returning
adults
were
taken
for
brood
stock
purposes
and
delivered
to
QNFH.
A
portion
of
the
1992
brood
year
release
was
tagged
to
determine
the
success
of
supplementation
and
the
timing
and
distribution
of
the
stock.
Since
most
chum
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.16
salmon
do
not
migrate
as
far
up
the
river
as
the
hatchery,
the
1992
brood
stock
were
obtained
from
the
Quilcene
Bay
coho
fishery
and
through
collecting
in
the
lower
river.

With
the
first
brood
stock
collection,
various
objectives
and
provisions
were
identified.
Through
an
evolving
joint
interim
agreement
of
the
co­
managers,
the
following
guidelines
have
been
developed:
1)
the
summer
chum
program
would
attempt
to
rebuild
the
run
from
the
existing
low
level
while
preserving
its
genetic
character;
2)
the
program
would
continue
for
a
maximum
of
three
generations
(
12
years);
3)
brood
stock
would
be
captured
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
and
in
Quilcene
Bay;
4)
at
least
50%
of
adults
returning
to
Quilcene
Bay
in
any
given
year
will
be
allowed
to
escape
to
spawn
naturally;
5)
egg
takes
will
be
representative
of
the
timing
and
duration
of
the
run,
6)
brood
stock
would
be
sampled
for
GSI,
scales,
other
biological
characters,
and
for
disease
assessment
purposes;
7)
the
release
goal
would
be
400,000
maximum;
8)
resulting
hatchery
fry
would
be
released
into
the
Big
Quilcene
River
at
this
time;
9)
hatchery
practices
would
comply
with
the
comanager's
disease
policy;
and
10)
genetic
considerations
would
be
addressed
prior
to
the
use
of
this
broodstock
for
any
reintroductions.

Supplementation
efforts
have
continued.
Data
for
each
brood
year
are
summarized
in
Appendix
Table
3.2.1.
Over
2,500
fish
have
been
spawned
at
QNFH
and
1.98
million
fry
have
been
released
into
the
Big
Quilcene
River
since
the
inception
of
the
program.
This
program
may
have
been
immensely
important
in
1993
and
1996,
when
portions
of
the
Big
Quilcene
River
containing
summer
chum
redds
were
illegally
bulldozed.
The
extent
of
mortality
as
a
result
of
this
activity
in
1993
was
estimated
to
be
about
29%
of
the
natural
spawner
escapement
to
the
Big
Quilcene
River
(
Uehara
1994).
Given
that
the
adult
escapement
in
1993
was
only
89
chum,
the
mortality
level
that
year
was
significant.

Appendix
Table
3.2.1.
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
summer
chum
supplementation
program
data
­
1992­
971
Brood
Natural
Percent
#
Fed
Fry
Release
Release
Year
Spawners
Removed
Released
Size
(
gms)
Date
#
Males
#
Females
Total
Broodstock
Removals/
Swimins
1992
225
186
411
320
56.2
216,441
1.05
4/
13/
93
1993
19
17
36
97
27.1
24,784
1.46
3/
30/
94
1994
169
178
347
349
50.1
343,550
1.06
3/
27/
95
1995
228
256
484
4,029
10.7
441,167
1.06
3/
27/
96
1996
438
333
771
8,479
8.3
612,598
1.34
4/
10/
97
1997
274
261
535
7,339
6.8
340,744
1.62
4/
2,
15/
98
1998
315
232
547
2,244
19.6
343,530
1.28
3/
8,
3/
22,
1
4/
2/
99
Figures
do
not
include
204,000
fish
in
1997,
~
112,000
fish
in
1998,
~
200,000
fish
in
1999
of
QNFH
origin
1
produced
at
Big
Beef
Creek.

The
supplementation
program
at
QNFH
appears
to
have
been
particularly
effective
in
assisting
achievement
of
stock
recovery
objectives,
significantly
increasing
spawner
abundances
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River.
Observed,
large
adult
return
levels
in
1995­
98
relative
to
previous
years
have
coincided
with
the
timing
of
expected
returns
for
supplemented
brood
years
(
e.
g.
three
year
old
chum
from
the
first
supplementation
brood
year
of
1992
returned
in
1995)
The
increased
Big
Quilcene
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.17
River
returns
in
recent
years
are
likely
due
to
a
combination
of
factors,
including
harvest
management
actions
and
perhaps
a
change
in
ocean
conditions
that
may
have
increased
marine
survival.
But
the
escapements
appear
proportionally
much
higher
than
for
non­
supplemented
streams
within
the
same
time
period.
Average
returns
to
the
Big
Quilcene
River
over
the
1994­
98
period
increased
4,724
%
over
the
recent
period
(
1988­
93)
preceding
the
supplementation
program
(
4,488
fish
average
for
1994­
98
compared
with
95
fish
average
in
1988­
93).
This
high
percent
change
in
average
escapements
observed
for
the
Big
Quilcene
River
compares
to
1,002
%
and
480
%
increases
recorded
for
adjacent
non­
supplemented
stocks
in
the
Dosewallips
and
Duckabush
rivers,
respectively,
over
the
same
two
periods.
It
is
apparent
that
the
Big
Quilcene
supplementation
project
has
contributed
to
the
increased
returns
observed
for
this
stock.

b)
Lilliwaup
Creek
Cooperative
Program
Long
Live
The
Kings
Enhancement
Group
In
1992,
WDFW
initiated
a
cooperative
fish
rearing
project
with
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group
(
HCSEG)
to
rebuild
the
indigenous
summer
chum
salmon
population
in
Lilliwaup
Creek,
a
western
Hood
Canal
tributary,
through
a
hatchery
supplementation
program.
This
effort
was
conceived
as
part
of
a
multi­
agency
initiative
to
increase
the
abundance
of
summer
chum
in
response
to
declines
in
the
population
observed
in
the
1980s,
and
the
designation
of
west­
side
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
the
stock
as
critically
depressed
through
the
1992
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
WDF
et
al.
1993)
process.
In
1994,
Long
Live
the
Kings
(
LLTK)
assumed
primary
responsibility
for
this
project.
The
project
is
now
managed
by
LLTK
through
a
contractual
agreement
with
WDFW,
and
is
partially
funded
through
a
contract
administered
by
USFWS.
LLTK
consults
with
the
HCSEG
on
the
operation
of
the
project.

The
goal
of
the
Lilliwaup
project
is
to
contribute
to
the
restoration
of
a
healthy,
naturally
selfsustaining
population
of
Lilliwaup
Creek
summer
chum
salmon
which
maintains
the
genetic
characteristics
of
the
native
stock.
The
identified
objective
was
to
implement
an
effective
short­
term
recovery
effort
to
counteract
the
current
risk
of
extinction
due
to
the
small
population
size.

Supplementation
guidelines
for
the
project
dictate
that
recovery
planning
for
the
watershed
be
consistent
with
a
draft
version
of
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Plan
(
January
17,
1997).
The
contribution
of
the
Lilliwaup
project
and
its
potential
expansion
would
be
determined
through
this
comprehensive
planning
process.
Production
level
goals,
broodstock
collection
methods,
and
rearing
densities
would
be
set
in
accordance
with
principles
identified
in
the
conservation
plan.
Appendix
Table
3.2.2
summarizes
summer
chum
fry
production
in
Lilliwaup
Creek
for
1992­
97.

Through
joint
agreement
between
WDFW,
the
PNPTC
tribes,
and
LLTK,
the
following
guidelines
were
initially
applied
for
the
operation
of
the
project:
1)
the
program
would
attempt
to
rebuild
the
run
from
the
existing
low
level
while
preserving
its
genetic
character;
2)
the
program
would
continue
for
a
maximum
of
three
generations
(
12
years);
3)
all
brood
stock
would
be
captured
in
the
Lilliwaup
River;
4)
at
least
50%
of
adults
returning
to
river
in
any
given
year
will
be
allowed
to
spawn
naturally;
5)
egg
take
will
be
represented
throughout
the
timing
duration
of
the
run,
and
the
spawning
ratio
shall
be
one
female
to
one
male;
6)
brood
stock
would
be
sampled
for
GSI,
scales,
other
biological
characters,
and
for
disease
assessment;
7)
a
maximum
of
25
pairs
will
be
used
in
this
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.18
project,
unless
otherwise
agreed
by
the
parties;
8)
resulting
hatchery
fry
would
be
released
as
1
gram
fish
into
the
Lilliwaup
River;
9)
beginning
in
1997,
all
fry
released
will
be
otolith
marked;
10)
in
order
to
prevent
the
spread
of
viral
pathogens,
sampling
of
all
broodstock
will
follow
appropriate
actions
mandated
by
the
Co­
managers'
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy,
and
accepted
fish
health
practices
and
monitoring
will
be
applied
during
rearing;
and
11)
the
project
will
include
a
monitoring
and
evaluation
program.
Due
to
recent,
extremely
depressed
abundance
levels,
the
co­
managers
determined
in
1998
that
all
returning
fish
may
be
used
for
the
supplementation
program
as
an
emergency
measure.

Appendix
Table
3.2.2
Lilliwaup
Creek
summer
chum
supplementation
program
data
­
1992­
97
Brood
Natural
Percent
#
Fed
Fry
Release
Release
Year
Spawners
Removed
Released
Size
(
gms)
Date
#
Males
#
Females
Total
Broodstock
Removals/
Swimins
1992
­
­
18
90
16.7
20,000
0.4
March
1993
­
­
10
72
12.2
12,000
fed
March
1994
­
­
12
105
10.3
15,000
fed
March
1995
­
­
0
79
0
0
­
­
1996
­
­
12
40
23.1
15,000
fed
March
1997
11
7
18
10
64.3
14,200
1.0
March
1
Through
1997,
there
have
been
difficulties
in
collecting
adequate
numbers
of
brood
stock.
Attempts
in
this
regard
have
been
complicated
by
the
lack
of
a
fish
collection
weir,
low
overall
summer
chum
return
levels,
and
the
presence
of
pink
salmon
in
the
same
stream
areas
as
summer
chum.
In
1998,
WDFW
was
able
to
provide
limited
funding
for
this
project,
allowing
for
the
installation
of
a
weir
in
the
lower
creek,
increased
agency
assistance
during
fish
spawning,
and
increased
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
the
supplementation
program.

c)
Hamma
Hamma
River
Supplementation
Project
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group,
Long
Live
the
Kings,
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Skokomish
Tribe,
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
WDFW
The
Hamma
Hamma
multispecies
salmonid
recovery
project
was
developed
by
the
HCSEG
and
LLTK
with
support
from
others.
Out
of
this
effort
evolved
the
Hamma
Hamma
supplementation
project
on
John
Creek,
a
Hamma
Hamma
River
tributary.
Review
of
freshwater
habitat
conditions,
summer
chum
escapements,
potential
causes
for
decline
in
escapement,
and
current
restoration
efforts
in
Hood
Canal
by
the
tribes,
WDFW,
USFWS,
LLTK,
and
the
HCSEG
led
to
the
recommendation
for
a
summer
chum
supplementation
program
at
John
Creek
due
to
the
following
(
Hamma
Hamma
Supplementation
Subcommittee
1997):

°
The
returns
to
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
comprised
an
estimated
20
to
30%
of
the
summer
chum
returns
to
the
west
Hood
Canal
streams
in
the
1960s
and
1970s,
but
compromise
less
than
6%
of
the
total
run
in
the
past
two
years.
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.19
°
Recent
returns
to
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
(
566­
840),
unlike
the
total
number
of
returns
to
Hood
Canal,
are
not
within
the
range
of
returns
seen
in
the
1960s
and
1970s
(
1,772­
12,800).

°
The
slower
improvement
in
summer
chum
salmon
returns
to
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
than
in
the
nearby,
but
non­
supplemented,
Dosewallips
and
Duckabush
rivers.

°
Recent
improvement
in
returns
to
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
does
not
ensure
a
future
improvement,
therefore
providing
a
boost
to
the
population
through
supplementation
may
be
beneficial
if
risks
are
minimized.

°
A
summer
chum
salmon
supplementation
program
appears
to
have
been
successful
at
the
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
on
the
Big
Quilcene
River.
This
program
has
been
in
existence
since
1992
and
returns
to
this
system
have
increased
dramatically
since
1994.

°
A
supplementation
program
would
require
very
low
levels
of
human
intervention
for
up
to
12
years,
and
therefore
domestication
is
not
foreseen
as
a
problem.

The
goal
of
the
Hamma
Hamma
project
is
to
contribute
to
the
restoration
of
a
healthy,
naturally
selfsustaining
population
of
Hamma
Hamma
River
summer
chum
salmon
which
maintains
the
genetic
characteristics
of
the
native
stock.
The
stated
project
objective
is
to
lessen
the
current
risk
of
extinction
due
to
small
population
size
by
implementing
an
effective
short­
term
recovery
effort.
The
summer
chum
supplementation
project
is
managed
through
a
partnership
between
LLTK,
HCSEG,
and
WDFW.
The
project
is
staffed
by
LLTK
and
supported
by
HCSEG
volunteers.

Recovery
planning
for
this
watershed
was
to
be
consistent
with
the
draft
version
of
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative.
The
contribution
of
the
Hamma
Hamma
project
and
its
potential
expansion
will
be
determined
through
this
comprehensive
planning
process.
Due
to
lack
of
experience
in
working
with
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
River,
it
was
determined
that
a
small
supplementation
program
was
warranted
for
1997.
This
limitation
allowed
for
extra
protection
for
testing
of
new
procedures
at
a
new
site.

Through
joint
agreement
between
the
cooperators,
the
following
guidelines
were
applied
for
the
operation
of
the
project:
1)
the
program
would
attempt
to
rebuild
the
run
from
the
existing
low
level
while
preserving
its
genetic
character;
2)
the
program
would
continue
for
a
maximum
of
three
generations
(
12
years);
3)
all
brood
stock
would
be
captured
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
or
its
tributary,
John
Creek;
4)
at
least
50%
of
the
adults
returning
to
the
river
in
any
given
year
will
be
allowed
to
spawn
naturally;
5)
egg
take
would
be
represented
over
the
entire
spawning
period,
and
spawning
one
female
to
one
male
should
take
place;
6)
brood
stock
would
be
sampled
for
GSI,
scales,
and
other
biological
characters,
7)
34
pairs
were
recommended
for
broodstock
in
1997
to
ensure
a
minimum
effective
population
size
of
200
fish
in
the
program
(
i.
e.
for
a
minimum
N
of
200
e
fish,
and
an
assumed
chum
generational
length
of
3
years,
67
chum
(
34
pairs)
are
needed)
;
8)
in
order
to
prevent
the
spread
of
viral
pathogens,
sampling
of
all
broodstocks
will
follow
appropriate
actions
mandated
by
the
Co­
managers'
Disease
Policy,
and
accepted
fish
health
practices
and
monitoring
will
be
applied
during
rearing;
9)
all
fry
released
would
be
otolith
marked;
10)
resulting
hatchery
fry
would
be
released
as
1
gram
fish
into
John
Creek
or
until
naturally
spawned
fry
are
seen
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.20
moving
out
of
the
system;
11)
the
project
will
include
a
monitoring
and
evaluation
program;
and
12)
genetic
considerations
would
be
addressed
prior
to
any
reintroductions.

During
1997,
there
were
difficulties
collecting
adequate
numbers
of
brood
stock
due
to
flow
conditions
and
the
presence
of
pink
salmon
in
the
same
areas
as
summer
chum.
A
total
of
5
female
and
9
male
summer
chum
were
collected
and
spawned
(
T.
Johnson,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.,
September,
1998).
An
estimated
12,000
brood
1997
fry
were
subsequently
released
into
John
Creek
on
March
1,
1998
at
an
average
size
of
1.0
gram.
In
1998,
WDFW
was
able
to
supply
a
limited
amount
of
funding
for
this
project,
allowing
for
increased
agency
assistance
during
fish
spawning
and
increased
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
the
program.

d)
Big
Beef
Creek
Summer
Chum
Reintroduction
Project
This
reintroduction
project
is
operated
jointly
by
WDFW
and
USFWS
as
a
cooperative
with
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group.
Big
Beef
Creek
was
initially
identified
at
the
onset
of
long
term
conservation
planning
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
as
an
initial
candidate
for
summer
chum
reintroduction
from
the
QNFH
program.
This
eastside
Hood
Canal
drainage
showed
no
escapement
for
ten
consecutive
years
and
it
was
apparent
that
the
indigenous
population
was
extirpated.
Big
Beef
Creek
was
identified
as
a
suitable
location
for
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
from
the
QNFH
program
for
the
following
reasons:

°
It
has
historically
produced
summer
chum,
and
therefore
is
likely
to
still
possess
habitat
characteristics
that
support
self­
sustaining
natural
production
of
summer
chum;

°
The
proposed
donor
stock
is
indigenous
to
a
drainage
geographically
much
closer
to
Big
Beef
Creek
(
22.05
km
between
stream
mouths)
than
the
only
eastside
Hood
Canal
donor
population
from
which
donor
summer
chum
brood
stock
might
be
available
at
the
present
time
(
Union
River,
approx.
69
km
distance).
No
summer
chum
are
available
from
any
other
eastern
Hood
Canal
streams
for
introduction
into
Big
Beef
Creek
due
to
extremely
low
population
abundances.

°
The
spawning
ground
entry
timing
for
the
extirpated
Big
Beef
Creek
stock
was
nearly
the
same
as
the
entry
time
identified
for
the
Big
Quilcene
River
population;

°
The
existing
WDFW
coho
research
project
on
Big
Beef
Creek
provides
the
necessary
infrastructure
to
conduct
assessments
of
the
effects/
success
of
summer
chum
reintroduction,
including
adult
return
levels,
smolt
out­
migrant
levels/
timing,
etc;

°
Salmon
incubation
and
production
facilities
present
at
the
current
NMFS/
UW
program
on
Big
Beef
Creek
provide
opportunities
for
on­
site
incubation,
hatching
and
feeding,
ensuring
imprinting
of
released
fish
and
increasing
survival
potential;

°
It
is
desirable
from
a
genetic
conservation
perspective
to
establish
the
Big
Quilcene
River
summer
chum
genome
in
another
drainage
to
limit
the
risk
of
loss
of
the
population
due
to
catastrophic
events.
Over
the
last
few
years
there
have
been
two
major
flood
events
on
the
Quilcene.
In
the
areas
of
chum
spawning,
these
floods
have
been
especially
devastating
as
a
result
of
gravel
scouring,
gravel
deposition
and
altering
the
course
of
the
lower
river);
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.21
°
The
Big
Beef
summer
chum
run
is
recognized
by
all
parties
as
extirpated,
and
the
introduction
of
a
suitable
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
population
from
another
drainage
will
therefore
not
displace
or
affect
an
indigenous
population.

The
following
procedures
and
methods
were
used
in
introducing
summer
chum
from
the
Big
Quilcene
River
into
Big
Beef
Creek
during
the
1996
and
1997
seasons:

°
Eyed
eggs
identified
as
surplus
to
those
needed
to
meet
the
QNFH
on­
station
fed
fry
production
objective
will
be
transferred
to
BBC
for
incubation
and
hatching
in
existing
NMFS/
UW
facilities.

°
Personnel
needs
for
monitoring
incubators
and
rearing
fry
will
be
met
by
WDFW,
USFWS,
and
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group.

°
Existing
facilities
at
Big
Beef
Creek
will
be
used
for
incubating,
hatching
and
rearing
of
120,000
to
200,000
summer
chum
fry
for
release.

°
Procedures
used
to
transfer
eyed
eggs
will
comply
with
the
Co­
managers'
Fish
Disease
Policy.

°
Eyed
eggs
transferred
to
BBC
will
be
from
egg
takes
spread
across
the
breadth
of
the
Big
Quilcene
return
to
ensure
that
the
entire
summer
chum
return
timing
span
from
the
donor
stock
is
represented.

°
Fry
resulting
from
these
transfers
will
be
reared
to
a
target
size
of
1
gram
for
an
en
masse
release
into
Big
Beef
Creek
in
March.

In
1997,
204,000
brood
1996
summer
chum
fry
produced
in
RSIs
at
Big
Beef
Creek
were
released
between
early
February
and
early
March
after
one
to
four
weeks
of
rearing
in
a
net­
pen
positioned
in
a
pond
downstream
of
the
NMFS
hatchery.
The
approximate
average
size
at
release
for
1996
brood
chum
ranged
from
700­
1000
fpp.
In
1998,
approximately
112,000
brood
1997
fed
fry
at
a
size
of
0.91
grams
were
released
on
February
9,
after
three
to
four
weeks
of
rearing
in
a
24
foot
diameter
fiberglass
tank
located
in
the
NMFS
rearing
compound.
Approximately
210,000
1998
brood
one
gram
summer
chum
fry
will
be
released
during
March,
1999
to
complete
the
third
year
of
the
reintroduction
program.
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.22
2.
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Region
a)
Salmon
Creek
Summer
Chum
Supplementation
Program
WDFW,
North
Olympic
Salmon
Coalition,
and
Wild
Olympic
Salmon
Cooperative
The
Salmon
Creek
supplementation
project
is
a
cooperative
effort
between
the
North
Olympic
Salmon
coalition,
Wild
Olympic
Salmon
and
WDFW
that
was
begun
in
1992.
The
project
goal
is
to
contribute
to
the
restoration
of
a
healthy,
natural,
self­
sustaining
population
of
Salmon
Creek
summer
chum
that
will
maintain
the
genetic
characteristic
of
the
native
stock.
An
additional
goal
of
the
Salmon
Creek
program,
after
attaining
stable
healthy
return
levels,
is
to
create
a
donor
stock
for
the
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
into
Chimacum
Creek.

The
supplementation
program,
its
goal
and
guidelines,
are
identified
in
a
1995
rearing
protocol
document
(
WDFW
1995):
1)
recovery
planning
shall
be
consistent
with
other
WDFW
summer
chum
recovery
plans;
2)
recovery
actions
must
fully
address
impacts
to
other
salmonid
stocks
and
not
adversely
affect
their
population
status;
3)
recovery
strategies
should
put
the
summer
chum
stock
at
no
greater
risk
than
if
no
action
was
taken;
4)
the
hatchery
program
will
be
part
of
a
long­
term
recovery
effort
which
will
have
both
stock
rehabilitation
and
habitat
restoration
components;
5)
the
supplementation
program
is
intended
to
support
natural
production,
and
the
program
will
be
discontinued
once
natural
production
has
been
stabilized
at
healthy
stock
levels
as
defined
in
1992
SASSI
(
WDF
et
al.
1993);
6)
the
program
is
limited
to
twelve
years
(
three
chum
generations,
commencing
in
1992),
in
compliance
with
stock
genetic
integrity
objectives;
7)
at
least
50
%
of
adults
returning
to
Salmon
Creek
in
any
given
year
must
spawn
naturally;
and
8)
for
1995,
the
brood
number
is
initially
limited
to
10
%
of
the
total
number
of
chum
returning
to
the
watershed,
with
collections
occurring
over
the
entire
run­
timing
of
the
stock.

Following
the
successful
implementation
of
all
protocols
required
in
1995,
the
allowable
broodstock
collection
number
was
adjusted
upward
to
20
%
of
the
total
number
of
female
summer
chum
returning
to
the
watershed
beginning
in
1996.
In
1995,
there
were
several
modifications
made
to
the
facility
and
to
the
rearing
and
release
process
to
minimize
mortality
of
eggs
and
to
reduce
potential
straying.
The
current
program
requires
that
all
eggs
be
transferred
to
the
Dungeness
Hatchery
for
incubation
through
the
eyed
stage
of
development.
The
eyed
eggs
are
then
returned
to
the
Salmon
Creek
facility
for
hatching.
After
emergence,
fish
are
fed
in
freshwater
for
two
weeks
prior
to
transfer
to
saltwater
net
pens
in
Discovery
Bay.
The
release
will
be
made
when
the
fish
are
approximately
300
fish/
pound.
Appendix
Table
3.2.3
summarizes
releases
of
summer
chum
fry
since
1992
through
the
Salmon
Creek
program.
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.23
Appendix
Table
3.2.3.
Salmon
Creek
Summer
Chum
Supplementation
program
data
­
1992­
971
Brood
Spawner
Percent
#
Fed
Fry
Release
Release
Year
s
Removed
Released
Size
(
gms)
Date
Broodstock
Removals/
Swimins
Natural
#
Males
#
Females
Total
1992
35
27
62
371
14.3
19,200
1.1
5/
08/
93
1993
29
23
52
400
11.5
44,000
1.8
4/
24/
94
1994
12
12
24
137
14.9
2,000
1.3
4/
01/
95
1995
35
18
53
538
9.0
38,808
1.3
4/
24/
96
1996
59
50
109
785
12.2
62,000
1.3
4/
8,24/
97
1997
60
50
110
724
13.2
71,821
1.0­
1.3
3/
31,4/
16/
98
2
2
Release
number
and
size
data
from
Seymour
1993;
Scalf
1995,
1996,
1997;
G.
Correa,
WDFW,
Port
1
Townsend,
WA
pers.
comm.
Release
numbers
do
not
include
28,788
and
36,840
fry
of
Salmon
Creek­
origin
released
into
Chimacum
2
Creek
in
1997
and
1998
respectively.

b)
Chimacum
Creek
Summer
Chum
Reintroduction
Project
The
previously
described
Salmon
Creek
program
was
originally
conceived
with
the
objectives
to
rebuild
and
stabilize
the
Salmon
Creek
population
and
to
allow
for
the
transfer
of
surplus
eggs
or
fry
to
Chimacum
Creek.
Chimacum
Creek
was
reported
to
historically
have
an
indigenous
summer
chum
return,
but
the
run
was
apparently
extirpated
due
mainly
to
freshwater
habitat
degradation
and
poaching.
Chimacum
Creek
was
identified
as
a
suitable
location
for
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
from
Salmon
Creek
for
the
following
reasons:

°
Chimacum
Creek
historically
produced
summer
chum,
and
may
possess
habitat
characteristics
that
have
a
potential
to
support
self­
sustaining
natural
production;

°
Volunteer
groups
have
been
working
to
remedy
habitat
damage
in
the
Chimacum
drainage
limiting
to
salmon
production,
including
silt
removal
and
stream
bank
stabilization;

°
The
Salmon
Creek
summer
chum
stock
is
viewed
as
the
appropriate
stock
for
transfer
to
Chimacum,
as
the
Salmon
Creek
population
is
the
closest
summer
chum
stock
in
the
region,
the
two
streams
are
close
geographically
(
stream
mouths
approximately
34
km
apart
by
water),
the
watersheds
are
adjacent
to
each
other,
and
the
stream
characteristics
are
similar;

°
It
is
desirable
from
a
genetic
conservation
perspective
to
establish
the
Salmon
Creek
summer
chum
genome
in
another
drainage
to
limit
the
risk
of
loss
of
the
population
due
to
catastrophic
events.
Salmon
Creek
is
a
small
watershed
and
vulnerable
to
changes
that
could
alter
natural
chum
production;
and
°
The
Chimacum
summer
chum
run
is
extirpated,
and
the
introduction
of
a
suitable
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
population
from
another
drainage
will
therefore
not
displace
or
affect
an
indigenous
population.
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.24
Given
these
foundations
for
summer
chum
reintroduction,
the
following
procedures
and
methods
in
introducing
summer
chum
from
Salmon
Creek
into
Chimacum
Creek
during
the
1996­
97
and
1997­
98
seasons
were
employed:

°
Available
surplus
eyed
eggs
from
Salmon
Creek
were
transferred
to
Chimacum
Creek
for
incubation
and
hatching
in
RSIs
at
appropriate
locations;

°
Facilities
on
Chimacum
Creek
will
be
used
for
incubating,
hatching,
and
rearing
in
freshwater.
Additional
rearing
may
occur
in
seawater
net­
pens
in
Port
Townsend
Bay,
if
an
adequate
net­
pen
site
is
made
available.

°
Personnel
needs
for
monitoring
incubators
and
rearing
fry
will
be
met
by
volunteers
from
the
North
Olympic
Salmon
Coalition
and
Wild
Olympic
Salmon,
and
by
WDFW
staff.

°
Transfers
were
done
in
accordance
with
established
notification
process,
including
notation
in
the
Equilibrium
Brood
Document.

°
Procedures
used
to
transfer
eyed
eggs
complied
with
the
Co­
manager's
Fish
Health
Policy.

°
Eyed
eggs
transferred
to
Chimacum
Creek
will
be
from
egg
takes
spread
across
the
breadth
of
the
Salmon
Creek
return
to
ensure
that
the
entire
summer
chum
return
timing
span
from
the
donor
stock
is
represented.

°
Fry
resulting
from
this
transfer
will
be
reared
to
a
size
of
400
fpp
for
release
into
lower
Chimacum
Creek
(
or
from
net­
pens
into
Port
Townsend
Bay)
during
April.

°
Additional
transfers
in
the
future
will
be
determined
by
PNPTC
and
WDFW.

In
1997,
50,000
eyed
eggs
were
transferred
in
for
the
Chimacum
program.
An
estimated
28,788
1996
brood
summer
chum
fry
were
produced
from
the
egg
transfer
at
the
Chimacum
High
School
fish
hatchery.
These
fish
were
released
on
March
23
and
May
9
at
a
size
ranging
from
0.4
to
1.5
grams
each
from
a
marine
net­
pen
near
the
mouth
of
Chimacum
Creek
after
one
to
five
weeks
of
additional
rearing.
In
1998,
the
transfer
of
40,000
eyed
eggs
from
the
Salmon
Creek
program
led
to
the
production
of
36,840
1997
brood
fed
fry
at
an
approximate
size
of
0.7
grams.
These
fry
were
transferred
in
three
groups
from
a
rearing
site
on
Naylors
Creek,
a
Chimacum
Creek
tributary,
and
released
on
March
27,
April
11,
and
April
19
into
lower
Chimacum
Creek
above
the
estuary.
Initial
returns
of
three
year
old
summer
chum
from
brood
year
1996
and
1997
Chimacum
Creek
releases
are
anticipated
in
late
summer,
1999
and
2000.

Bibliography
Hamma
Hamma
Supplementation
Subcommittee.
1997.
Hamma
Hamma
River
summer
chum
salmon
supplementation
program
­
HCSEG,
LLTK,
PNPTC,
Skokomish
Tribe
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
USFWS,
and
WDFW.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.
Olympia,
WA.
12
pp.
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.25
Scalf,
C.
1995.
1993­
94
and
1994­
95
Salmon
Cr.
summer
chum
restoration
project
annual
reports.
Wild
Olympic
Salmon,
Chimacum,
WA.

Scalf,
C.
1996.
1995­
96
Salmon
Cr.
summer
chum
restoration
project
annual
report.
Wild
Olympic
Salmon,
Chimacum,
WA.

Scalf,
C.
1997.
1996­
97
Salmon
Cr.
summer
chum
restoration
project
annual
report.
Wild
Olympic
Salmon,
Chimacum,
WA.

Seymour,
S.
1993.
1992­
93
Salmon
Cr.
summer
chum
restoration
project
annual
report.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

Uehara,
J.
1994.
A
salmon
damage
assessment
for
the
December
1993
channelization
of
the
lower
Big
Quilcene
River
(
unpublished).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
21
p.

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries),
Washington
Department
of
Wildlife,
and
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes.
1993.
1992
Washington
State
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
212
p.
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.2
A3.26
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.27
Appendix
Report
3.3
Genetic
Hazards
Discussion
(
This
section
generally
taken
from
M.
Ford,
NMFS
and
K.
Currens,
NWIFC,
"
Puget
Sound
Comprehensive
Chinook
(
Draft)
Artificial
Production
Plan",
September,
1998)

Hazard:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
General
Discussion
Background
information
on
effective
population
size:
The
effective
size
of
a
population
(
Ne)
is
a
key
parameter
in
determining
both
the
amount
of
variation
that
can
be
maintained
in
the
population
and
the
relative
importance
of
genetic
drift
and
natural
selection
in
shaping
that
variation
(
Hartl
and
Clark
1989,
Lynch
and
Walsh
1998,
Falconer
1989).
A
population
with
a
small
effective
size
will
lose
adaptive
variation
and
gain
maladaptive
variation
at
a
faster
rate
than
an
equivalent
population
with
a
larger
effective
size
(
Lande
and
Barrowclough
1987,
Lande
1994,
1995).
The
effective
size
of
a
population
is
also
directly
related
to
the
level
of
inbreeding
that
is
occurring
in
the
population;
small
populations
have
higher
levels
of
inbreeding
than
larger
populations,
and
therefore
may
be
more
vulnerable
to
inbreeding
depression
than
are
larger
populations.

The
effective
size
of
a
population
is
defined
as
the
size
of
an
idealized
population
that
produces
the
same
level
of
inbreeding
or
genetic
drift
that
is
seen
in
an
observed
population
in
which
one
is
interested
(
see
Hartl
and
Clark
1989
and
Caballero
1994
for
reviews).
Attributes
of
such
an
idealized
population
typically
include
discrete
generations,
equal
sex
ratios,
binomial
variance
of
reproductive
success,
random
mating,
constant
breeding
population
size,
and
non­
selective
gameteto
adult
mortality.
Violation
of
any
these
attributes
usually
results
in
an
increase
in
the
rate
of
inbreeding
or
drift
compared
to
the
idealized
case,
and
therefore
a
reduction
in
effective
population
size.
For
example,
if
the
number
of
breeding
individuals
varies
from
generation
to
generation,
the
long
term
effective
size
will
be
equal
to
the
harmonic
mean
(
defined
in
plan
glossary)
of
the
number
of
breeders
each
generation
(
Caballero
1994).
Because
almost
no
natural
populations
are
ideal,
a
population's
effective
size
is
almost
always
smaller
than
the
observed
number
of
breeding
individuals
(
reviewed
by
Frankam
1995).

Minimum
viable
effective
populations
sizes:
There
are
a
number
of
recommendations
in
the
conservation
literature
on
guidelines
for
"
generic"
minimum
viable
effective
populations
sizes.
All
of
these
recommendations
are
based
on
effective
population
size
per
generation,
and
for
a
number
of
reasons
must
only
be
considered
as
rough
guidelines.
Franklin
(
1980)
and
Soule
(
1980)
suggested
that
an
effective
population
size
of
500
is
necessary
for
long
term
population
persistence.
This
value
is
based
on
estimates
of
the
rates
at
which
mutations
add
and
drift
and
selection
remove
variation
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.28
from
an
isolated
population.
Recently
Lande
(
1995)
has
pointed
out
that
because
~
90%
of
new
mutations
are
strongly
deleterious,
a
more
realistic
long
term
minimum
viable
effective
population
size
may
be
closer
to
5000
per
generation.
Based
on
the
probability
of
losing
rare
alleles,
Waples
(
1990)
has
suggested
that
100
effective
breeders/
year
is
necessary
to
maintain
genetic
variation
in
salmon
populations.
These
general
recommendations
have
some
severe
limitations
that
must
be
acknowledged
before
they
are
used
to
help
determine
levels
of
abundance
necessary
for
properly
functioning
salmon
populations.
First,
they
are
based
on
models
of
single,
reproductively
isolated
populations.
As
the
term
is
used
in
this
paper,
a
population
is
substantially
reproductively
isolated,
but
may
receive
regular
migrants
from
other
populations.
Migration,
like
mutation,
is
a
source
of
genetic
variation,
so
it
is
likely
that
populations
connected
by
migration
will
have
somewhat
lower
genetically
minimum
viable
population
sizes
than
completely
isolated
populations.
Second,
the
genetic
parameters
that
form
the
basis
for
the
Franklin
(
1980)
and
Lande
(
1995)
recommendations
were
estimated
from
limited
data,
and
must
therefore
be
regarded
as
preliminary.
Third,
there
is
some
debate
about
the
generality
of
the
genetic
model
used
to
obtain
these
recommendations
(
e.
g.
Barton
and
Turelli
1991).
None­
the­
less,
these
recommendations
may
be
a
reasonable
as
starting
points
for
determining
the
abundance
necessary
for
long­
term
genetic
viability,
especially
in
the
absence
of
additional
information.
Note
that
other
factors,
such
as
habitat
capacity
and
population
productivity
need
to
be
taken
into
account
when
determining
appropriate
levels
of
abundance
necessary
for
a
population
to
be
considered
healthy.

In
order
to
convert
these
recommendations
of
effective
population
size
per
generation
to
salmon
spawning
abundance
per
year,
it
is
necessary
to
know
the
ratio
of
the
effective
population
size
to
the
census
size
(
Ne/
N
ratio)
and
the
generation
time
for
the
population
in
question.
Ne/
N
ratios
estimated
from
six
populations
of
Snake
River
spring
chinook
and
one
population
of
Sacramento
River
winter
chinook
range
from
a
low
of
0.013
(
Bartley
et
al.
1992)
to
a
high
of
0.7
(
Waples
et
al.
1993)
and
average
~
0.4.
The
large
range
is
most
likely
due
both
to
large
sampling
errors
in
estimating
Ne
as
well
as
real
biological
differences
among
populations.
Assuming
that
an
Ne/
N
ratio
of
0.4
is
approximately
correct
for
salmon
and
steelhead
in
general,
the
recommended
minimum
long­
term
genetically
viable
population
sizes
discussed
above
range
from
925/
generation
(
Waples
1990,
assuming
a
3.6
year
generation
time)
to
12,500/
generation
(
Lande
1995).
The
minimum
spawning
population
size
recommended
by
WDFW
(
1997)
falls
in
the
middle
of
this
range
(
3,000/
generation).
For
populations
that
spawn
at
multiple
age
classes,
the
values
of
spawners/
generation
must
be
divided
by
the
generation
length
(
median
age
of
reproduction)
to
obtain
the
corresponding
numbers
of
spawners
per
year.
For
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
populations,
this
is
estimated
to
be
3.6
years.

Mechanisms
by
which
artificial
propagation
can
affect
Ne:
Hatchery
management
actions
can
affect
Ne
in
a
number
of
ways.
If
one
considers
a
hatchery
population
in
isolation,
factors
under
at
least
some
management
control
such
as
the
broodstock
size
each
year,
the
variance
in
productivity
among
individuals,
and
the
sex
ratio
all
strongly
affect
Ne.
For
a
given
abundance,
Ne
will
be
maximized
when
the
sex
ratio
is
equal
and
the
variance
in
productivity
among
individuals
is
minimized.
This
leads
to
recommendations
such
as
the
use
of
single
pair
or
factorial
mating
to
maximize
Ne
(
e.
g.
Tave
1993
Chapter
6,
Kapuscinski
and
Jacobsen
1987).
Rearing
methods
that
equalize
family
size
as
much
as
possible
can
also
be
used
to
increase
Ne.
For
example,
any
culling
or
transfers
to
other
locations
that
are
done
unequally
across
families
will
reduce
Ne.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.29
The
potential
effects
of
artificial
propagation
on
the
effective
population
size
of
a
composite
natural/
hatchery
system
are
more
complicated,
and
gaining
a
better
understanding
of
these
effects
is
an
active
area
of
research
(
Ryman
and
Laikre
1991,
Waples
and
Do
1994,
Cuenco
1994).
The
long
term
effects
of
hatchery
supplementation
on
the
effective
size
of
the
combined
wild/
hatchery
population
depend
a
great
deal
on
factors
such
as
the
relative
productivities
of
the
two
environments,
the
number
of
breeders
in
each
environment,
whether
or
not
the
natural
population
remains
large
after
supplementation
ceases,
the
age
structure
of
the
species,
the
number
of
brood
years
for
which
broodstock
are
collected,
whether
or
not
returning
hatchery
fish
are
avoided
for
broodstock
in
the
second
generation
of
supplementation,
and
the
environmental
and
genetic
effects
on
the
productivity
of
hatchery
fish
that
spawn
in
the
wild
(
Waples
and
Do
1994,
Cuenco
1994).
Because
of
the
complicated
and
contingent
nature
of
these
effects,
some
form
of
mathematical
modeling
may
be
useful
to
estimate
the
effects
on
total
effective
population
size
that
a
particular
hatchery
program
is
expected
to
produce.
In
the
absence
of
modeling,
it
is
important
to
keep
in
mind
several
key
factors
explored
in
other
modeling
efforts
(
Ryman
and
Laikre
1991,
Waples
and
Do
1994,
Cuenco
1994)
that
will
influence
the
likelihood
of
an
increase
or
decrease
in
effective
population
size.
These
are:
1)
Situations
where
a
small
number
of
wild
fish
are
taken
into
a
hatchery
and
produce
a
large
fraction
of
natural
spawners
the
following
generation
can
lead
to
a
substantial
short
term
reduction
in
effective
size
and
increase
in
inbreeding;
2)
If
the
supplemented
population
returns
to
its
presupplementation
size
after
supplementation
ceases,
then
a
decrease
in
effective
size
compared
to
the
non­
supplemented
case
is
possible,
especially
if
the
effective
size
in
the
hatchery
was
small.
This
suggests
that
a
key
component
of
a
supplementation
program
should
be
to
concurrently
address
the
primary
causes
that
depressed
the
population
in
the
first
place;
and
3)
If
the
supplementation
program
lasts
for
more
than
a
one
generation,
marking
~
100%
of
the
hatchery
fish
and
avoiding
marked
fish
for
use
as
broodstock
can
increase
effective
size.
The
reader
is
referred
to
Ryman
and
Laikre
(
1991),
Waples
and
Do
(
1994)
and
Cuenco
(
1994)
for
a
fuller
discussion
of
these
issues.

Severity
of
a
Reduction
in
Ne
That
Is
Considered
to
Be
a
Hazard
A
reduction
in
Ne
due
to
artificial
propagation
is
considered
to
be
a
hazard
if
1)
it
substantially
reduces
a
wild
population's
Ne;
or
2)
reduces
a
wild
population's
Ne
below
3000
effective
spawners/
generation;
or
3)
for
target
populations
below
3000/
generation,
is
expected
to
result
in
a
lower
long­
term
wild
population
Ne
than
would
be
the
case
in
the
absence
of
the
artificial
propagation
program.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.30
Rationale
for
Specific
Criteria
Used
in
the
Risk
Assessment
(
See
Worksheets
for
Assessment
of
Hazards
­
Appendix
Report
3.4)

Criteria
Rationale
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
the
Estimating
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
the
proportion
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
the
target
spawning
grounds
and
wild
fish
in
the
hatchery
is
population
and
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
essential
for
an
accurate
estimation
of
the
effective
size
the
hatchery
of
the
composite
population.

Natural
spawners
are
regularly
monitored
to
accurately
Same
as
above.
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
in
the
target
population.

In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
Meeting
this
criteria
ensures
that
a
small
number
of
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
equal
to
hatchery
fish
cannot
contribute
a
large
proportion
of
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
natural
spawners
the
next
generation
and
thus
hatchery
the
previous
generation
substantially
reduce
Ne.

OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
natural
abundance,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
larger
than
the
needs
to
be
larger
than
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
taken
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
into
the
hatchery
if
the
program
is
to
be
successful
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery
fish
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
36
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.

OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
the
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15
%
return
to
population.
In
a
supplementation
program
designed
to
increase
(
assuming
that
the
target
population
is
the
only
source
of
broodstock).
Assuming
that
the
hatchery
fish
are
successful
in
the
natural
environment
and
that
the
natural
population
is
at
least
productive
enough
to
be
self­
sustaining,
the
supplemented
population
should
increase
in
abundance
at
a
rate
approximately
equal
to
the
proportion
of
the
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish.

If
a
natural
population
is
not
able
to
sustain
itself
and
is
going
extinct,
then
maintaining
the
population
artificially
will
result
in
an
increase
in
Ne
compared
to
the
case
of
extinction
regardless
of
the
effective
population
size
in
the
hatchery.
In
this
situation
it
is
important,
however,
to
maintain
as
much
variation
as
possible
to
maximize
the
probability
that
population
may
be
naturally
viable
in
the
future.

In
the
case
of
reintroduction,
the
concern
is
potential
project­
origin
returns
to
the
donor
population.
A
small
return
if
any
should
not
affect
the
donor
population's
effective
population
size.

Hazard:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
General
Discussion
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.31
In
principal,
six
basic
parameters
are
likely
to
control
the
degree
to
which
a
hatchery
program
might
reduce
within
population
diversity;
that
is,
domesticate
a
wild
population.
These
are
1)
the
source
of
the
hatchery
broodstock,
2)
the
degree
to
which
the
broodstock
sample
is
representative
of
the
target
population
(
if
the
target
population
is
itself
the
broodstock
source),
3)
the
degree
of
difference
between
the
wild
and
hatchery
environments,
4)
the
duration
of
the
hatchery
program,
5)
the
level
of
gene
flow
between
the
hatchery
and
wild
environments,
and
6)
the
genetic
basis
of
the
traits
subject
to
domestication
selection
pressure.
These
factors
are
discussed
in
more
detail
below.

Broodstock
source:
For
the
purposes
of
minimizing
the
risk
of
domestication,
the
best
source
of
broodstock
is
likely
to
be
the
target
natural
population
itself
or
another,
similar,
wild
population.
Hatchery
populations
that
have
been
in
culture
for
many
generations
or
have
ever
been
deliberately
or
inadvertently
selected
for
particular
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
age
structure,
size,
etc)
are
likely
to
be
already
at
least
somewhat
domesticated
(
Reisenbichler
1997).
Hatchery
populations
that
have
been
in
culture
for
some
time
but
have
used
natural
rearing
and
mating
methods
and/
or
had
frequent
infusions
of
wild
fish
into
the
broodstock
may
fall
somewhere
in
the
middle
(
Maynard
et
al.
1995).
In
at
least
some
instances,
evidence
for
domestication
has
appeared
within
two­
to­
four
generations
of
hatchery
rearing
(
Fleming
and
Gross
1994,
Reisenbichler
and
McIntyre
1977).

Broodstock
collection:
A
second
potential
source
of
domestication
is
non­
representative
sampling
of
wild
fish
for
broodstock.
Most
natural
populations
exhibit
considerable
variation
in
morphological,
behavioral
and
life­
history
traits.
If
fish
with
certain
characteristics
are
more
likely
to
be
sampled
for
broodstock
than
their
frequency
within
the
population,
this
may
result
in
selection
for
those
characters
in
the
hatchery
population.
If
the
hatchery
population
is
itself
reproductively
integrated
with
a
wild
population,
then
the
distribution
of
the
selected
trait
may
also
change
in
the
wild
population.
In
many
instances
collecting
a
representative
broodstock
sample
is
not
likely
to
be
easy.
A
large
random
sample
will
approximate
the
distribution
from
which
it
was
drawn,
but
obtaining
a
truly
random
broodstock
sample
may
often
be
difficult
because
rarely
are
all
fish
in
the
population
available
for
sampling
at
the
same
time.
This
means
that
in
most
cases
a
sample
will
have
to
be
stratified
over
the
course
of
the
run
in
order
to
obtain
a
representative
sample
of
the
entire
population.

Hatchery
environment
and
duration
of
the
hatchery
program:
The
environment
that
a
fish
faces
in
a
most
hatcheries
is
different
from
the
wild
environment,
and
morphologies,
behaviors
and
lifehistory
strategies
favorable
in
a
hatchery
may
not
be
the
same
as
those
favorable
in
the
wild.
There
is
evidence
to
show
that
many
hatchery
populations
have
changed
over
time
at
a
number
of
behavioral
or
morphological
traits,
and
that
this
divergence
can
occur
over
a
relatively
short
time
period
(
e.
g.
Fleming
and
Gross
1989,
1992,
1993,
1994,
Fleming
et
al.
1996,
McGinnity
et
al.
1997,
Reisenbichler
1997,
Berejikian
et
al.
1997,
Swain
and
Riddell
1990,
Berejikian
1995).
These
changes
indicate
that
the
possibility
that
selection
pressures
different
from
those
in
the
wild
exist
in
many
hatcheries.
In
addition,
mildly
deleterious
mutations
arise
continually
in
all
populations
(
Kondroshov
and
Houle
1995)
and
these
may
accumulate
to
higher
levels
in
the
relatively
protected
hatchery
environment
than
they
do
in
the
wild
(
Schultz
and
Lynch
1997).
Hatchery
environments
that
closely
resemble
wild
environments
are
expected
to
be
less
likely
to
produce
substantial
domestication
pressure
than
those
that
are
very
different
from
wild
environments
(
Maynard
et
al.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.32
1995).
Likewise,
all
else
being
equal,
programs
of
short
duration
are
less
likely
to
cause
substantial
domestication
than
programs
of
long
duration.

Gene
flow
between
hatchery
and
wild
environments:
The
basic
concept
of
populations
connected
by
gene
flow
that
face
different
selection
regimens
has
been
modeled
for
both
the
case
of
traits
controlled
by
a
single
locus
(
e.
g.
Levene
1953,
Karlin
and
McGregor
1972)
as
well
as
traits
controlled
by
many
loci
(
e.
g.
Barton
1983,
Phillips
1996,
Lythgoe
1997).
The
results
of
these
models
suggest
that
high
levels
of
gene
flow
between
hatchery
and
natural
environments
will
ensure
that
a
composite
population
will
not
become
genetically
differentiated
into
two
distinct
components.
This
suggests
that
the
continual
infusion
of
wild
fish
into
hatchery
broodstocks
should
at
least
slow
the
domestication
process.
When
gene
flow
occurs
in
both
directions
(
wild
fish
into
the
hatchery
and
hatchery
fish
into
the
wild),
however,
these
models
suggest
that
the
potential
exists
for
a
composite
population
to
become
adapted
to
the
hatchery,
rather
than
remaining
adapted
to
the
wild.
At
this
time,
it
appears
impossible
to
quantitatively
predict
the
outcome
of
such
composite
systems.
However,
it
may
be
reasonable
to
assume
that
a
composite
population
will
respond
to
the
average'
environment
that
it
experiences,
weighted
by
the
proportion
of
the
population
in
each
distinct
environment.
A
reasonable
course
of
action
to
minimize
domestication
might
therefore
be
to
ensure
that
the
majority
of
a
composite
population
is
naturally
propagated.
This
is
an
area
where
theoretical
and
empirical
study
would
be
very
useful.

Genetic
basis
of
traits:
Most
traits
that
may
change
as
a
result
of
hatchery
rearing
(
e.
g.
age
structure,
run
timing,
size,
morphology,
etc)
are
quantitative
traits
that
are
likely
to
be
influenced
by
a
large
number
of
genes
as
well
as
the
environment
(
Hard
1995).
In
most
cases
there
is
little
information
on
the
detailed
genetic
architecture
of
these
traits,
but
most
animal
species,
including
salmonids,
appear
to
contain
some
heritable
variation
at
many
traits
(
Lynch
and
Walsh
1998,
Tave
1994).
For
purposes
of
risk
assessment,
it
therefore
seems
reasonable
to
conclude
that
most
traits
subject
to
domestication
selection
will
have
at
least
some
heritable
variation
upon
which
selection
can
act.

Diversity
within
a
population
may
also
be
reduced
by
hatchery
induced
genetic
swamping.
This
is
usually
caused
by
fewer
broodstock
being
collected
than
planned,
combined
with
the
successful
culture
and
release
of
a
large
number
of
fry
per
adult.
Thus,
a
relatively
small
proportion
of
the
natural
population
contributes
a
disproportionately
large
number
of
returning
spawners.
The
success
of
the
original
small
proportion
of
the
population
is
artificially
improved
leading
to
a
genetic
swamping
effect
(
see
Ryman
and
Laikre,
1991).

Severity
of
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
That
Is
Considered
to
Be
a
Hazard
For
purposes
of
this
risk
assessment,
loss
of
within
population
diversity
is
considered
to
be
a
hazard
if
it
will
compromise
the
ability
of
a
population
to
sustain
itself
naturally.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.33
Rationale
of
the
Criteria
Used
for
Risk
Assessment
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Rationale
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
It
appears
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
probability
of
domestication
of
a
substantially
domesticated
composite
population
is
high
if
the
hatchery
component
is
already
domesticated.
One
exception
might
be
the
case
where
the
hatchery
population
is
so
different
from
the
wild
population
that
the
hatchery
population
has
essentially
no
reproductive
success
in
the
wild.
In
that
case,
however,
an
isolated
program
may
be
more
feasible
or
appropriate.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Rationale
Distributions
of
morphological,
In
order
to
determine
if
the
distributions
of
traits
in
the
hatchery
part
of
behavioral
or
life­
history
traits
the
population
are
similar
to
those
in
the
wild,
it
is
necessary
to
have
an
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
understanding
of
the
wild
distributions.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
are
accurately
known
for
target
population
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
Differences
between
the
wild
and
hatchery
components
of
a
population
broodstock
sample
closely
matches
are
evidence
that
the
potential
exists
for
selective
differences
to
have
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
arisen
between
the
two
populations.
If
multi­
trait
distributions
are
similar,
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
then
one
may
be
at
least
somewhat
more
confident
that
domestication
is
spawn
timing,
size,
appearance,
not
occurring
than
if
differences
are
observed.
The
number
of
traits
age
structure,
etc)
examined
and
the
statistical
power
to
detect
differences
should
also
be
considered
in
making
this
determination
(
Hard
1995),
however.
This
is
an
area
where
generating
more
detailed
guidelines
would
be
useful.
Collection
is
technically
and
Collecting
a
representative
sample
of
a
population
may
sometimes
be
logistically
possible
(
e.
g.
site
is
logistically
difficult
(
e.
g.
Bugert
1998).
The
probability
of
success
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
depends
not
only
on
the
collection
plan
but
also
on
the
likelihood
that
it
will
not
be
blow
out,
necessary
can
be
successfully
carried
out.
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc)
The
effective
population
size
will
This
criterion
applies
in
order
to
minimize
reduction
of
effective
be
maintained
by
collecting
a
population
size
and
prevent
extinction.
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.34
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments)
and
duration
of
hatchery
program
Criteria
Rationale
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
Differences
in
mating
and
rearing
between
the
wild
and
hatchery
similar
enough
to
those
observed
environments
may
be
a
significant
source
of
potential
domestication.
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
Minimizing
these
differences
may
therefore
reduce
the
probability
of
domestication
selection
pressure
substantial
domestication.
(
see
below
for
suggested
values)

OR
The
genetic
aspects
of
domestication
are
a
form
of
evolutionary
change,
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
and
are
not
expected
to
occur
instantly.
Also,
populations
that
are
duration
(
3
generations)
temporarily
perturbed
are
probably
more
likely
to
evolve
back
to
their
OR
It
seems
likely,
therefore,
that
if
only
a
small
portion
of
the
composite
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
population
is
in
an
artificial
environment
substantial
domestication
will
that
are
hatchery
fish
in
the
target
not
occur.
This
is
another
area
where
additional
research
and
modeling
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
would
be
useful.
natural
state
than
populations
with
a
long
history
of
artificial
selection.
The
time
period
of
3
generations
appears
to
be
a
reasonable
starting
point,
because
summer
chum
would
be
subject
to
any
hatchery
domestication
effects
for
a
relatively
short
part
of
their
life
history
(
that
is,
incubation
and
early
fry
rearing).
This
is
an
area
where
additional
research
would
be
useful.

As
was
argued
above,
it
seems
likely
that
a
composite
population
responds
evolutionarily
to
the
average'
environment
that
it
experiences.

Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
Same
as
the
rationale
for
mating
and
release
methods
that
are
similar
to
at
essentially
the
same
sizes
and
wild
environment.
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
Same
as
above.
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Same
as
above.

Source:
Genetic
Swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)

Criteria
Rationale
Hatchery
induced
genetic
The
swamping
effect
is
likely
to
begin
with
fewer
broodstock
being
swamping
by
a
small
proportion
of
collected
than
planned.
Consequently,
the
supplementation
program
the
population
will
be
avoided.
improves
survival
of
a
small
proportion
of
the
natural
population
and,
as
a
result,
the
genetic
contribution
of
the
small
fraction
of
the
population
is
increased.
The
potential
for
shortfalls
in
broodstock
collection
should
be
addressed
in
program
planning.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.35
Hazard:
Loss
of
among
Population
Diversity
Endpoints:
Target
and
non­
target
populations
of
target
species,
populations
of
other
species
(
hatchery
structures
source)

General
Discussion
Evidence
for
local
adaptation:
Life
history
and
morphological
data
(
e.
g.
run
timing,
size,
weight,
fecundity,
age
structure)
have
been
collected
from
a
large
number
of
salmon
and
steelhead
populations
(
reviewed
by
Groot
and
Margolis
1991,
Ricker
1972,
Taylor
1991,
Weitkamp
et
al.
1995,
Busby
et
al.
1996,
Johnson
et
al.
1997,
Gustavson
et
al.
1997,
and
Myers
et
al.
1998),
and
show
that
salmon
populations
vary
with
respect
to
these
traits.
Although
the
genetic
basis
of
phenotypic
variation
within
and
among
natural
salmon
populations
has
rarely
been
directly
determined,
most
morphological
and
life
history
traits
in
salmon
exhibit
genetic
variation
in
captive
populations
(
reviewed
by
Tave
1992),
suggesting
that
much
of
the
variation
among
natural
salmon
populations
probably
is
locally
adaptive
and
due
to
genetic
differences
(
Ricker
1972
and
Taylor
1991).
Mark
recapture
data
(
e.
g.
Quinn
and
Fresh
1984,
Quinn
et
al
1991,
Labelle
1992)
indicate
that
straying
among
salmon
populations
tends
to
be
variable
but
generally
low,
and
molecular
genetic
data
(
e.
g.
Parkinson
1984,
Gharret
et
al
1987,
Reisenbichler
and
Phelps
1989,
Utter
et
al
1989,
Bartley
and
Gall
1990,
Wood
et
al
1994,
Ford
1998)
indicate
that
genetic
differences
exist
among
salmon
populations
and
that
many
populations
are
sufficiently
reproductively
isolated
for
local
adaptations
to
have
evolved
(
reviewed
by
Grant
1997).
In
general
it
appears
that
natural
salmon
populations
exist
in
a
dynamic
equilibrium
between
local
selection
and
genetic
drift
which
both
promote
genetic
divergence
among
populations
and
straying
which
promotes
genetic
homogenization
among
populations.

Threats
to
local
adaptation:
Variation
among
populations
may
contribute
to
the
potential
for
future
evolution
of
the
species,
and
local
adaptations
among
populations
probably
increase
species
fitness
by
allowing
populations
to
become
specialized
to
their
local
environments.
The
greatest
anthropogenic
threats
to
local
adaptation
are
probably
the
rapid
alteration
of
the
environment
to
which
a
local
population
is
adapted,
and
the
introduction
of
fish
of
non­
local
origin
that
interbreed
with
local
fish.
Habitat
alteration
is
discussed
in
Part
Three
of
the
plan,
and
the
remainder
of
this
section
deals
with
the
potential
effects
of
non­
local
introductions
and
how
these
might
be
hazardous
to
local
wild
populations.
Assuming
that
a
population
is
indeed
locally
adapted
to
its
particular
environment,
this
implies
that
fish
from
other,
non­
local,
populations
carry
genotypes
that
are,
on
average,
less
fit
in
the
local
environment
than
those
of
the
local
fish.
If
the
rate
of
migration
into
a
locally
adapted
population
is
below
some
threshold
(
discussed
below),
then
the
non­
local
genotypes
which
are
deleterious
in
the
local
environment
will
be
selected
against
and
the
population
will
come
to
an
equilibrium
where
deleterious
genotypes
are
removed
from
the
population
by
selection
at
the
same
rate
as
they
enter
the
population
by
migration
(
Barton
1983,
Felsenstein
1997).
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
rate
of
migration
is
greater
than
some
threshold,
the
rate
of
selection
against
deleterious
genotypes
will
be
lower
than
the
rate
of
introduction,
and
the
local
adaptations
contained
by
the
original
population
will
be
lost.
The
threshold
level
of
migration
separating
the
two
scenarios
depends
on
the
strength
and
genetic
architecture
of
local
adaptation
(
i.
e.
the
number
of
genes
involved
in
local
adaptation
and
how
they
interact
with
one
another)
and
the
level
of
interbreeding
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.36
between
local
and
non­
local
fish.
Strong
selection
against
migrants,
local
adaptations
that
involve
small
numbers
of
genes,
low
rates
of
recombination
among
genes
and
strong
assortative
mating
between
local
and
non­
local
fish
all
will
lead
to
relatively
high
threshold
migration
levels.
Weak
selection
involving
many
genes,
high
levels
of
recombination
and
random
mating
among
local
and
non­
local
fish
will
lead
to
relatively
lower
threshold
migration
levels
(
Karlin
and
McGregor
1972,
Barton
1983,
Lythgoe
1997).
The
number
of
genes
and
the
level
of
recombination
among
them
are
not
known
for
typical
local
adaptations,
and
cannot
safely
be
assumed
to
be
small.
In
fact,
most
traits
likely
to
be
involved
in
local
adaptation
are
quantitative
traits
that
are
probably
controlled
by
many
genes
(
Hard
1995),
and
because
salmon
have
a
large
number
of
chromosomes
(
Sola
et
al
1981)
it
is
probably
reasonable
to
assume
that
levels
of
recombination
among
genes
contributing
to
quantitative
traits
will
be
high.
This
suggests
that
in
general
selection/
migration
thresholds
for
locally
adapted
salmon
populations
are
likely
to
be
low.
In
this
context,
low"
means
that
the
threshold
migration
rate
will
be
much
less
than
the
total
strength
of
selection
against
migrants,
and
may
be
of
the
order
of
the
selection
coefficients
for
the
individual
genes
contributing
to
local
adaptation.
As
these
selection
coefficients
may
be
very
small
(
e.
g.
<
1%,
Grant
1997),
the
threshold
level
of
migration
may
also
be
very
small.

A
complete
evaluation
of
the
effect
of
straying
of
non­
native
hatchery
fish
should
evaluate
both
the
likelihood
of
the
loss
of
local
adaptation
(
discussed
above)
as
well
as
the
consequences
of
this
loss.
If
the
level
of
migration
is
above
the
selection/
migration
equilibrium
threshold,
the
maximum
loss
of
fitness
would
equal
the
difference
in
fitness
between
the
original
local
fish
and
the
non­
native
migrants.
In
some
cases
this
difference
could
be
very
large,
while
in
other
cases
the
difference
in
fitness
between
the
local
and
non­
local
fish
could
be
so
small
that
there
would
be
little
loss
of
the
population's
fitness
even
if
all
local
fish
were
replaced
by
migrants.

Although
ultimately
the
loss
of
among
population
diversity
is
considered
to
be
hazard
because
of
its
potential
effects
on
the
productivity
and
sustainability
of
the
populations
that
make
up
a
species
or
ESU,
from
an
adaptive
management
perspective
it
is
far
easier
to
monitor
and
control
the
effects
of
artificial
propagation
on
genetic
diversity
itself
rather
than
on
the
effects
of
its
loss
(
Busack
and
Currens
1995).
This
is
because
the
mean
fitness
of
a
population
and
the
traits
that
are
correlated
with
it
(
such
as
survival
between
various
life
stages)
varies
substantially
from
year
to
year
due
to
a
large
number
of
environmental
and
biological
factors.
Detecting
and
measuring
long
term
changes
in
population
fitness
is
difficult
to
begin
with,
and
positively
determining
that
any
one
factor,
such
as
loss
of
among
population
diversity
due
to
a
specific
hatchery
program,
is
responsible
for
the
trend
is
expected
to
be
extremely
difficult
under
most
circumstances.
Because
of
this
difficulty,
if
a
program
relies
on
monitoring
of
the
potential
effects
of
loss
of
diversity
(
changes
in
population
fitness
and
sustainability)
to
determine
adaptive
management
actions,
it
is
extremely
unlikely
that
such
effects
will
be
detected
and
appropriate
action
taken
until
long
after
substantial
genetic
change
has
already
occurred.
Based
on
this
argument,
Busack
and
Currens
(
1995)
advocate
treating
the
loss
of
diversity
itself
as
a
hazard
and
suggest
that
adaptive
management
actions
be
based
on
monitoring
genetic
diversity
directly,
rather
than
on
the
consequences
of
its
loss.
This
argument
does
not
negate
the
need
for
continuing
research
on
the
ultimate
effects
of
loss
of
diversity,
the
results
of
which
will
continue
to
increase
understanding
of
how
genetic
diversity
is
related
to
sustainability
and
productivity.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.37
Severity
of
Loss
of
among
Population
Diversity
That
Is
Considered
to
Be
a
Hazard
For
purposes
of
this
risk
assessment,
a
loss
of
among
population
diversity
is
considered
to
be
a
hazard
if
it
has
the
potential
to
result
in
the
loss
of
local
adaptation
among
populations.
A
reasonable
approach
to
limiting
potential
losses
due
to
straying
by
non­
local
hatchery
may
be
something
like
the
following:

Case
I:
When
non­
native
strays
are
from
a
different
ESU
or
are
from
the
same
ESU
but
exhibit
substantial
genetic,
behavioral,
life­
history,
or
morphological
differences
from
local
fish,
the
level
of
straying
should
be
considerably
less
than
the
selection/
equilibrium
threshold
or
a
reasonable
estimate
of
the
natural'
level
of
straying
between
populations
with
a
similar
degree
of
divergence.
Using
either
criteria,
this
will
generally
be
a
very
low
level
of
migration
(
e.
g.
<
1%
of
the
receiving
population
consisting
of
migrants).

Case
II:
When
non­
native
strays
are
from
the
same
ESU,
one
reasonable
approach
may
be
to
limit
stray
rates
such
that
they
are
similar
to
natural'
stray
rates
estimated
from
mark/
recapture
or
genetic
data.

The
second
case
is
most
applicable
to
Hood
Canal
summer
chum.

Rationale
for
Criteria
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Rationale
All
the
discrete
populations
within
One
way
in
which
a
loss
of
diversity
can
occur
is
if
two
or
more
discrete
the
watershed
containing
the
target
populations
are
mixed
during
broodstock
collection.
In
order
to
avoid
population
have
been
correctly
this,
it
is
necessary
to
have
a
sufficient
understanding
of
the
population
identified
structure
within
a
watershed
to
be
able
to
correctly
identify
a
discrete
population
for
broodstock
collection.
In
some
cases,
it
may
be
appropriate
to
group
two
or
more
populations
or
spawning
aggregates
into
larger
management
units,
and
this
also
requires
knowledge
of
the
population
structure
within
the
watershed.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
This
is
a
logical
necessity
to
avoid
a
loss
of
among
population
diversity.
substantially
genetically
similar
to
target
population
Broodstock
used
for
direct
By
limiting
donor
stocks
to
no
more
than
one
reintroduction
project
the
reintroduction
is
used
only
for
one
risk
of
reducing
diversity
among
the
total
stocks
of
the
ESU
is
reduced.
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Rationale
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
The
proposed
collection
protocol
must
be
such
that
it
is
possible
to
collect
location
and
time
such
that
only
only
the
population
(
or
other
appropriate
management
unit)
without
the
target
population
will
be
collecting
fish
from
other
populations
or
units.
collected
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.38
Source:
Straying
Criteria
Rationale
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
Fish
likely
will
become
more
strongly
imprinted
in
the
watershed
targeted
release
size
in
the
watershed
for
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
targeted
for
supplementation
or
reintroduction.

Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
An
effective
marking
program
must
be
planned
and
implemented
to
allow
provide
effective
estimation
of
for
estimation
of
straying.
straying.

Adjacent
spawning
populations
If
natural
populations
are
not
monitored,
it
is
not
possible
to
know
if
they
will
be
effectively
monitored
to
are
receiving
strays
or
not.
detect
straying.

Hazard:
Masking
of
Status
General
Discussion
One
hazard
of
artificial
propagation
is
that
if
substantial
numbers
of
artificially
produced
fish
stray
into
natural
populations,
the
health
and
status
of
those
population
can
be
masked.
This
can
occur
if,
for
instance,
the
hatchery
fish
are
not
marked
and
counted
separately
from
natural
fish.
In
this
case,
natural
abundance
would
be
overestimated.
Even
if
all
hatchery
fish
are
marked
and
counted
separately,
however,
if
first
generation
hatchery
fish
make
up
a
substantial
proportion
of
natural
spawners,
then
the
status
of
the
natural
population
can
still
be
obscured.
For
example,
one
reasonable
criteria
for
a
functional,
healthy
natural
population
is
that
it
is
capable
of
sustaining
its
itself
in
its
natural
environment
over
time.
This
means
that,
on
average,
the
number
of
naturally
produced
spawners
in
one
generation
should
equal
the
number
of
natural
spawners
the
previous
generation.
The
number
of
naturally
produced
spawners
in
one
generation
divided
by
the
number
of
natural
spawners
the
previous
generation
has
been
termed
the
Natural
Replacement
Rate
(
NRR,
Busby
et
al.
1996),
and
its
long
term
geometric
mean
will
be
equal
to
approximately
1.0
for
a
population
that
is
sustaining
itself
naturally.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
a
substantial
proportion
of
the
natural
spawners
are
first
generation
hatchery
fish
and
the
population
is
not
growing
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
the
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish,
then
the
long
term
NRR
will
be
less
than
1.0,
indicating
that
the
population
is
not
sustaining
itself
naturally.
An
example
of
this
can
been
seen
with
upper­
Columbia
River
steelhead,
where
the
NRR
is
estimated
to
be
~
0.3
(
Brown
1995).
This
statistic
is
difficult
to
interpret
however,
because
a
large
proportion
(
65%
­
85%)
of
the
natural
spawners
are
hatchery
fish.
If
one
assumes
that
naturally
spawning
hatchery
fish
are
equally
productive
as
naturally
spawning
wild
fish,
then
this
low
natural
replacement
rate
indicates
that
the
natural
population
is
falling
far
short
of
replacing
itself
and
the
presence
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery
fish
may
be
slowing
its
decline
or
keeping
it
from
going
extinct.
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
hatchery
fish
have
limited
productivity
in
the
wild
(
which
may
sometimes
be
the
case;
see
Reisenbichler
1997),
a
natural
replacement
rate
of
0.3
combined
with
65%
naturally
spawning
hatchery
fish
would
indicate
that
in
fact
the
natural
component
of
the
natural
spawners
may
be
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.39
replacing
itself.
As
long
as
a
large
proportion
of
the
natural
spawners
are
hatchery
fish,
determining
the
degree
to
which
a
population
is
naturally
self­
sustaining
is
very
difficult.

Severity
of
Masking
That
Is
Considered
to
Be
a
Hazard
For
purposes
of
this
risk
assessment,
masking
is
considered
to
be
a
hazard
if
it
substantially
compromises
the
ability
to
determine
if
a
population
is
sustaining
itself
naturally.

Justification
for
Criteria
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
Criteria
Rationale
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
In
order
to
determine
if
masking
is
a
problem,
it
is
necessary
to
fish
are
marked
to
estimate
distinguish
between
hatchery
and
natural
fish.
Marking
does
not
need
to
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
be
readily
visible,
and
may
based
on
scale
or
otolith
patterns
so
long
as
spawning
grounds
hatchery
and
wild
fish
can
be
reliably
distinguished.

Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
(
or
In
order
to
determine
if
masking
is
a
problem,
it
is
necessary
to
estimate
other
appropriate
areas
such
as
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish.
across
weirs
or
dams)
are
surveyed
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
Severity
of
masking
is
directly
related
to
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
grounds
is
(
or
will
be)
on
the
spawning
grounds.
The
value
of
5
­
15%
is
arbitrary,
but
seems
less
than
5
­
15%
reasonable.
In
some
cases
other
values
may
also
be
reasonable.

OR
Masking
is
not
a
substantial
concern
for
programs
of
short
duration,
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
because
natural
population
status
will
only
be
obscured
for
a
short
period
duration
(
three
generations)
of
time.

OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
During
the
initial
time
period
of
a
reintroduction
program
if
there
are
no
only
in
habitat
currently
without
natural
spawners
present,
there
is
by
definition
no
hazard
of
masking.
any
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species
Bibliography
Bartley
D.,
M.
Bagley,
G.
Gall,
and
M.
Bentley.
1992.
Use
of
linkage
dis­
equilibrium
data
to
estimate
effective
size
of
hatchery
and
natural
fish
populations.
Conservation
Biology
6:
365­
375.

Barton,
N.
H.
1983.
Multi­
locus
Clines.
Evolution
37:
454­
471.

Busack,
C.
A.
and
K.
P.
Currens.
1995.
Genetic
risks
in
hatchery
operations:
fundamental
concepts
and
issues.
Pp
71­
80
in
Schramm,
H.
L.
Jr.,
and
R.
G.
Piper
(
eds.)
Uses
and
effects
of
cultured
fishes
in
aquatic
ecosystems,
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
15.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.40
Brown,
L.
G.
1995.
Mid­
Columbia
River
summer
steelhead
stock
assessment:
A
summary
of
the
Priest
Rapids
steelhead
sampling
project
1986­
1994
cycles.
WDFW
prog.
Rpt.
AF95­
02.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

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
Berejikan,
B.
A.,
E.
P.
Tezak,
S.
L.
Schroder,
C.
M.
Knudsen,
and
J.
J.
Hard.
1997.
Reproductive
behavioral
interactions
between
wild
and
captively
reared
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch).
J.
Marine
Sci.
54:
1040­
1050..

Busby,
P.
J.,
T.
C.
Wainwright,
G.
J.
Bryant,
L.
J.
Lierheimer,
R.
S.
Waples,
F.
W.
Waknitz,
and
I.
V.
Lagomarsino.
1996.
Status
review
of
West
Coast
Steelhead
from
Washington,
Idaho,
Oregon,
and
California.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
27,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
261
p.

Caballero,
A.
1994.
Developments
in
the
prediction
of
effective
population
size.
Heredity
73:
657­
679.

Cuenco,
M.
L.
1994.
A
model
of
an
internally
supplemented
population.
Trans.
of
the
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
123:
277­
288.

Falconer,
D.
S.
1989.
Introduction
to
Quantitative
Genetics,
Third
Edition.
John
Wiley
and
Sons,
New
York,
NY.

Felsenstein.,
J.
1997.
Population
differentiation
and
evolutionary
processes.
Pp.
(?)
in
Genetic
effects
of
straying
of
non­
native
hatchery
fish
into
natural
populations:
proceedings
of
the
workshop
June
1­
2,
1995,
Seattle
WA.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
30,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.

Fleming,
I.
A.,
and
M.
R.
Gross.
1989.
Evolution
of
adult
female
life
history
and
morphology
in
a
pacific
salmon
(
coho:
Oncorhynchus
kisutch).
Evolution
43:
141­
157.

Fleming,
I.
A.,
and
M.
R.
Gross.
1992.
Reproductive
behavior
of
hatchery
and
wild
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
:
does
it
differ?
Aquaculture
103:
101­
121.

Fleming,
I.
A.,
and
M.
R.
Gross.
1993.
Breeding
success
of
hatchery
and
wild
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
in
competition.
Ecological
Applications
3:
230­
245.

Fleming,
I.
A.,
and
M.
R.
Gross.
1994.
Breeding
competition
in
a
Pacific
salmon
(
coho:
Oncorhynchus
kisutch):
Measures
of
natural
and
Sexual
selection.
Evolution
48:
637­
657.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.41
Fleming,
I.
A.,
B.
Jonsson,
M.
R.
gross,
and
A.
Lamberg.
1996.
An
experimental
study
of
the
reproductive
behavior
and
success
of
farmed
and
wild
Atlantic
salmon.
J.
Applied
Ecology
33:
893­
905.

Ford,
M.
J.
1998.
Testing
models
of
migration
and
isolation
among
populations
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha).
Evolution
52:
539­
557.

Frankham,
R.
1995.
Effective
population
size/
adult
population
size
ratios
in
wildlife:
a
review.
Genet.
Res.
66:
95­
107.

Franklin,
I.
R.
1980.
Evolutionary
change
in
small
populations.
Pp.
135­
149
in
Soule,
M.
E.
and
B.
A.
Wilcox
(
eds.)
Conservation
Biology,
An
Evolutionary­
Ecological
Perspective.
Sinauer
Associates,
Sunderland,
MA.

Grant,
W.
S.
(
ed.).
1997.
Genetic
effects
of
straying
of
non­
native
hatchery
fish
into
natural
populations:
proceedings
of
the
workshop
June
1­
2,
1995,
Seattle
WA.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
30,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA..

Gharret,
A.
J.,
S.
M.
Shirley,
and
G.
R.
Tromble.
1987.
Genetic
relationships
among
populations
of
Alaskan
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
44:
765­
774.

Groot,
C.,
and
L.
Margolis
(
eds.).
1991.
Pacific
Salmon
Life
Histories.
Univ.
B.
C.
Press,
Vancouver,
BC,
Canada.

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.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
33,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
282
p.

Hard,
J.
J.
1995.
Genetic
monitoring
of
life
history
characters
in
salmon
supplementation.
Pp.
212­
225
in
Schramm,
H.
L.,
and.
and
R.
G.
Piper
(
eds.)
Uses
of
and
effects
of
Cultured
Fishes
in
Aquatic
Ecosystems.
Am.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
15.

Hartl,
D.
L.
and
A.
G.
Clark.
1989.
Principles
of
Population
Genetics,
Second
Edition.
Sinear
Associates,
Sunderland,
MA.

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.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
32,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
280
p.

Karlin,
S.,
and
J.
McGregor.
1972.
Application
of
method
of
small
parameters
to
multi­
niche
population
genetic
models.
Theor.
Pop.
Biol.
3:
186­
209.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.42
Kondrashov,
A.
S.
and
D.
Houle.
1995.
Genotype­
environment
interaction
and
the
estimation
of
the
genomic
mutation
rate
in
Drosophila
melanogaster.
Proceedings
of
the
Royal
Society
of
London,
Series
B
Biological
Sciences
258:
221­
227.

Labelle,
M.
1992.
Straying
patterns
of
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
stocks
from
southeast
Vancouver
Island,
B.
C.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
49:
1843­
1855.

Lande,
R.
1994.
Risk
of
population
extinction
from
fixation
of
new
deleterious
mutations.
Evolution
48:
1460­
1469.

Lande
R.
and
G.
F.
Barrowclough.
1987.
Effective
population
size,
genetic
variation,
and
their
use
in
population
management.
Pp
89­
123
in
Soule,
M.
E.
(
ed.)
Viable
Populations
for
Conservation.
Cambridge
Univ.
Press,
New
York,
NY.

Lande,
R.
1995.
Mutation
and
Conservation.
Conservation
Biology
9:
782­
791
Levene,
H.
1953.
Genetic
equilibrium
when
more
than
one
ecological
niche
is
available.
Amer.
Nat.
87:
811­
813.

Lynch,
M.
and
B.
Walsh.
1998.
Genetics
and
Analysis
of
Quantitative
Traits.
Sinauer
Associates.
Sunderland,
MA.

Lythgoe,
K.
A.
1997.
Consequences
of
gene
flow
in
a
spatially
structured
populations.
Genet.
Res.
69:
49­
60.

Maynard,
D.
J.,
T.
A.
Flagg,
and
C.
W.
Mahnken.
1995.
A
review
of
semi­
natural
culture
strategies
for
enhancing
the
post­
release
survival
of
anadromous
salmonids.
Pp.
307­
316
in
Schramm,
H.
L.,
and.
and
R.
G.
Piper
(
eds.)
Uses
of
and
effects
of
Cultured
Fishes
in
Aquatic
Ecosystems.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
15.

McGinnity,
P.,
C.
Stone,
J.
B.
Taggart,
D.
Cooke,
D.
Cotter,
R.
Hynes,
C.
McCamley,
T.
Cross,
and
A.
Ferguson.
1997.
Genetic
impact
of
escaped
farmed
Atlantic
salmon
Salmo
salar
L.
on
native
populations:
use
of
DNA
profiling
to
assess
freshwater
performance
of
wild,
farmed,
and
hybrid
progeny
in
a
natural
river
environment.
J.
Marine
Sci.
54:
in
press.

Meyers,
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.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
35,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
443
p.

Parkinson,
E.
A.
1984.
Genetic
variation
in
populations
of
steelhead
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
in
British
Columbia.
C.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
41:
1412­
1420.

Phillips,
P.
C.
1996.
Maintenance
of
polygenic
variation
via
a
migration­
selection
balance
under
uniform
selection.
Evolution
59:
1334­
1339.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.43
Quinn,
T.
P.,
and
K.
Fresh.
1984.
Homing
and
straying
in
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
from
the
Cowlitz
R.
hatchery,
WA.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
41:
1078­
1082.

Quinn,
T.
P.,
R.
S.
Nemeth,
and
D.
O.
McIsaac.
1991.
Homing
and
straying
patterns
of
fall
chinook
salmon
in
the
lower
Columbia
River.
Trans.
Am.
Fish
Soc.
120:
150­
156.

Reisenbichler,
R.
R.,
and
J.
D.
McIntyre.
1977.
Genetic
differences
in
growth
and
survival
of
juvenile
hatchery
and
wild
steelhead
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri).
J.
Fish.
Res.
Board
Can.
34:
123­
128.

Reisenbichler,
R.
R.
and
S.
R.
Phelps.
1989.
Genetic
variation
in
steelhead
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
from
the
North
Coast
of
Washington.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
46:
66­
73.

Reisenbichler,
R.
R.
1997.
Genetic
factors
contributing
to
declines
of
anadromous
salmonids
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Pp.
223­
244
in
Sounder,
D.
J.,
P.
A.
Bisson,
and
R.
J.
Nainman
(
eds.)
Pacific
Salmon
&
Their
Ecosystems:
Status
and
Future
Options.
Chapman
&
Hall,
New
York,
NY.

Ricker,
W.
E.
1972.
Hereditary
and
environmental
factors
affecting
certain
salmonid
populations.
In
Simon,
R,
C.
and
P.
A.
Larkin
(
eds.)
The
Stock
Concept.
of
Pacific
Salmon.
MacMillian
Lectures
in
Fisheries,
University
of
British
Columbia,
Vancouver
B.
C.

Ryman,
N.
and
L.
Laikre.
1991.
Effects
of
supportive
breeding
on
the
genetically
effective
population
size.
Conservation
Biology
5:
325­
329.

Schultz,
S.
T.,
and
M.
Lynch.
1997.
Mutation
and
extinction:
The
role
of
variable
mutational
effects,
synergistic
epistasis,
beneficial
mutations,
and
degree
of
out­
crossing.
Evolution
51:
1363­
1371.

Sola,
L.
S.,
S.
Cataudella,
and
E.
Capanna.
1981.
New
developments
in
vertebrate
cytotaxonomy
III.
Karyology
of
bony
fishes:
a
review.
Genetica
54:
285­
328.

Soule,
M.
E.
1980.
Thresholds
for
survival:
Maintaining
fitness
and
evolutionary
potential.
Pp.
151­
169
in
Soule
M.
E.,
and
B.
A.
Wilcox
(
eds.)
Conservation
Biology,
An
Evolutionary­
Ecological
Perspective.
Sinauer
Associates,
Sunderland,
MA.

Swain,
D.
P.,
and
B.
E.
Riddell.
1990.
Variation
in
agnostic
behavior
between
newly
emerged
juveniles
from
hatchery
and
wild
populations
of
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
47:
566­
571.

Tave,
D.
1993.
Genetics
for
fish
hatchery
managers,
second
edition.
AVI,
New
York,
NY.

Taylor,
E.
B.
1991.
A
review
of
local
adaptation
in
Salmonidae,
with
particular
reference
to
Pacific
and
Atlantic
salmon.
Aquaculture
98:
185­
207.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.3
A3.44
Utter,
F.,
G.
Milner,
G.
Stahl,
and
D.
Teel.
1989.
Genetic
population
structure
of
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Fish.
Bull.
87:
239­
264.

Waples,
R.
S.
1990a.
Conservation
genetics
of
Pacific
salmon
II.
Effective
population
size
and
rate
of
loss
of
genetic
variability.
J.
Heredity
81:
267­
276.

Waples,
R.
S.,
O.
W.
Johnson,
P.
B.
Aebersold,
C.
K.
Shiflett,
D.
M.
VanDoornick,
D.
J.
Teel,
and
A.
E.
Cook.
1993.
A
genetic
monitoring
and
evaluation
program
for
supplemental
populations
of
salmon
and
steelhead
in
the
Snake
R.
Basin.
Annual
Report
of
Research
to
the
Division
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Bonneville
Power
Administration,
Department
of
Energy,
Project
89­
096.

Waples
R.
S.
and
C.
Do.
1994.
Genetic
risk
associated
with
supplementation
of
Pacific
salmonids:
captive
broodstock
programs.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
51
(
suppl.
1):
310­
329.

Weitcamp,
L.
A.,
T.
C.
Wainwright,
G.
J.
Bryant,
G.
B.
Milner,
D.
J.
Teel,
R.
G.
Kope,
and
R.
S.
Waples,
1995.
Status
Review
of
Coho
Salmon
from
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.
1995.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
24,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
258
p.

WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife).
1997.
Watershed
resource
inventory
process.
Fish
supplementation
and
rearing
projects.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.45
Appendix
Report
3.4
Worksheets
for
Assessment
of
Supplementation
Hazards
A
set
of
worksheets
is
used
to
help
assess
the
risk
of
hazards
from
undertaking
a
supplementation
or
reintroduction
project.
The
worksheets
include
1)
a
list
of
the
hazards
being
evaluated
(
e.
g.,
loss
of
within
population
diversity),
2)
the
specific
sources
of
each
hazard
(
e.
g.,
broodstock
collection),
3)
criteria
to
minimize
risk
of
each
hazard
(
e.
g.,
collecting
broodstock
in
a
manner
that
maintains
traits
of
the
target
population),
4)
a
rating
of
the
likelihood
that
each
criterion
will
be
achieved
(
e.
g.,
H
=
High,
M
=
Moderate
and
L
=
Low),
and
5)
notes
or
explanation
of
the
rationale
behind
each
criterion
rating.
Background
information
of
the
hazards
is
provided
in
the
discussion
paper
contained
in
Appendix
Report
3.3.

A
set
of
worksheets
has
been
completed
for
each
of
the
potential
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
that
are
subject
to
risk
assessment
in
Part
Three
of
the
conservation
plan
and
is
included
in
this
appendix.
The
potential
projects
are:

Supplementation
Union
Lilliwaup
Hamma
Hamma
Duckabush
Dosewallips
Big
Quilcene
Salmon
Jimmycomelately
Dungeness
Reintroduction
Big
Beef
Chimacum
Tahuya
Dewatto
Skokomish
Anderson
Finch
The
rating
for
each
criterion
of
the
worksheets
generally
is
determined
as
follows.
A
specific
criterion
is
given
a
high
likelihood
or
probability
rating
where
the
project,
or
the
procedure
required
by
the
criterion,
is
well
understood
and
there
is
certainty
that
the
resources
are
available
to
meet
the
criterion.
A
moderate
likelihood
or
probability
is
given
where
there
is
less
certainty
that
the
resources
or
knowledge
is
or
will
be
available.
Finally,
when
there
is
a
high
level
of
uncertainty,
a
low
probability
is
given.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.46
Union
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Site
and
personnel
undetermined.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Specific
project
design
not
yet
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
determined.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Expect
to
site
project
with
low
risk
of
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Will
be
key
design
element.
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
would
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
for
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
for
operations.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation.
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
L
Uncertain.
But
experience
indicates
that
this
factor
may
be
difficult
to
control.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.47
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
Criteria
Probability
Notes
larger
than
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Broodstock
has
not
previously
been
domesticated.
propagated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Trained
staff
will
record
pertinent
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
will
be
to
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
will
be
key
element
of
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
will
be
incorporated
in
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
plan.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.48
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
per
female.
be
a
project
objective.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
not
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)

Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
are
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
unknown
but
avoiding
this
effect
will
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
be
a
key
element
of
project.
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
within
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
watershed
surveyed
since
1982.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
N.
A.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Only
target
population
exists
in
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
watershed.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.49
Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Location
of
facilities
in
watershed
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
will
be
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
will
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.

Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Expect
would
be
key
element
to
plan
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
for
operations.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Expect
returning
hatchery­
origin
fish
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
will
spawn
in
habitat
currently
under­
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
utilized
and
project
is
of
short
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.50
Lilliwaup
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
H
One
person
lives
on­
station.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Hatchery
Manager
is
on
24
hour
stand
by.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
H
Alarm
system
is
in
place.
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Experienced
hatchery
manager.
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
Trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
H
Facilities
are
located
in
areas
of
low
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
flooding
risk.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Capability
has
been
demonstrated
at
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
site.
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Surface
water
source
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
WDFW
staff
support
ensures
proper
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
procedures
and
treatment.
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Funding,
equipment
and
staff
are
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
available
to
otolith
mark
all
releases.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Intent
is
to
sample,
read
and
analyze
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
otoliths
of
spawning
population,
but
spawning
in
target
population.
funding
and
resources
have
not
yet
been
secured.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
H
The
target
population
is
at
high
risk
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
of
extinction
with
average
of
61
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
spawners
over
past
five
years
(
1993­
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
97)
compared
to
five
year
average
of
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
1978.
Broodstock
is
to
be
collected
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
consistent
with
guidelines
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
937
spawners
from
1974
through
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.51
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
(
i.
e.,
50
pairs
unless
total
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
population
is
less
than
100
fish).
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Project
begun
with
brood
year
1992.
domesticated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Trained
staff
records
pertinent
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Location,
timing
and
protocol
of
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
collection
intended
to
achieve
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
matching.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
New
plan
and
staff
in
place
were
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
successful
in
first
year.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
New
plan
and
staff
in
place
were
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
successful
in
first
year.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.52
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
to
be
per
female.
used.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
to
be
of
short
duration
­
not
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)

Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
New
broodstocking
site
and
weir
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
being
tested.
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
within
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
watershed
surveyed
since
mid­
70s.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
N.
A.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Only
target
population
exists
in
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
watershed.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.53
Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
located
in
watershed.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Staff,
equipment
and
funding
exist
to
estimation
of
straying.
otolith
mark
all
releases.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Funding
and
resources
have
not
been
monitored
to
detect
straying.
secured
for
otolith
sampling,
reading
and
analysis.

Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
All
releases
will
be
otolith
marked.
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Intent
is
to
sample,
read
and
analyze
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
otoliths
of
spawning
population
but
funding
and
resources
have
not
yet
been
secured.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
in
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
short
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
target
population
and
project
is
of
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.54
Hamma
Hamma
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Hatchery
personnel
do
not
live
onresponse
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
site
but
no
major
risk
to
water
supply
has
been
demonstrated.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
No
alarm
system
presently
exists
but
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
no
major
risk.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Experienced
volunteers.
Trained
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Rearing
pond
may
be
susceptible
at
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
high
flows.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Capability
has
been
demonstrated
at
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
site.
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Ground
water
source
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
WDFW
staff
support
ensures
proper
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
procedures
and
treatment.
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Funding,
equipment
and
staff
are
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
available
to
otolith
mark
all
releases.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
are
regularly
monitored
to
M
Intent
is
to
sample,
read
and
analyze
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
otoliths
of
spawning
population,
but
spawning
in
target
population.
funding
and
resources
have
not
yet
been
secured.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
L
Uncertain.
But
experience
indicates
that
this
factor
may
be
difficult
to
control.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.55
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Project
begun
with
brood
year
1997.
domesticated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
L
Effective
broodstocking
and
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
sampling
does
not
yet
exist.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Location,
timing
and
protocol
of
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
collection
intended
to
achieve
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
matching.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
L
Effective
approach
to
broodstock
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
collection
not
yet
developed.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
L
Effective
collection
still
lacking.
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
per
female.
be
used.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
to
be
of
short
duration
­
not
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.56
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
New
broodstock
collection
plan
but
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
untested.
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
within
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
watershed
surveyed
since
mid­
70s
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
N.
A.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Only
target
population
exists
in
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
watershed.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
located
in
watershed.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Staff,
equipment
and
funding
exist
to
estimation
of
straying.
otolith
mark
all
releases.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Funding
and
resources
have
not
been
monitored
to
detect
straying.
secured
for
otolith
sampling,
reading
and
analysis.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.57
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
All
releases
will
be
otolith
marked.
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Funding
and
resources
have
not
been
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
secured
for
otolith
sampling,
reading
and
analysis.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
in
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
short
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
target
population
and
project
is
of
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.58
Duckabush
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Site
and
personnel
undetermined.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Specific
project
design
not
yet
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
determined.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Undetermined
but
expect
to
site
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
project
with
low
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Will
be
key
design
element.
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
would
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
for
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
for
operations.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
L
Uncertain.
But
experience
indicates
that
this
factor
may
be
difficult
to
control.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.59
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Broodstock
has
not
previously
been
domesticated.
propagated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Trained
staff
will
record
pertinent
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
will
be
to
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
will
be
key
element
of
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
will
be
incorporated
in
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
plan.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
per
female.
be
a
project
objective.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.60
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
not
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
Induced
Genetic
Swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)

Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
are
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
unknown
but
project
will
be
operated
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
to
avoid
this
effect.
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
within
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
watershed
surveyed
since
1982.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
N.
A.
only
for
one
site.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.61
Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Only
target
population
exists
in
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
watershed.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Location
of
facilities
in
watershed
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
will
be
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
will
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.

Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Would
be
key
element
to
plan
for
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
operations.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
spawn
in
habitat
currently
under­
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
utilized
and
project
is
of
short
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.62
Dosewallips
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Site
and
personnel
undetermined.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Specific
project
design
not
yet
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
determined.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Undetermined
but
expect
to
site
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
project
with
low
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Will
be
key
design
element..
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
would
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
for
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
for
operations.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
L
Uncertain.
But
experience
indicates
that
this
factor
may
be
difficult
to
control.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.63
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Broodstock
has
not
previously
been
domesticated.
propagated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Trained
staff
will
record
pertinent
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
will
be
to
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
will
be
key
element
of
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
will
be
incorporated
in
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
plan.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
per
female.
be
a
project
objective.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
not
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.64
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
Induced
Genetic
Swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)

Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
are
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
unknown
but
project
will
be
operated
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
to
avoid
this
effect.
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
within
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
watershed
surveyed
since
1982.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
N.
A.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Only
target
population
exists
in
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
watershed.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Location
of
facilities
in
watershed
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
will
be
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
will
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.65
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Would
be
key
element
to
plan
for
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
operations.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
spawn
in
habitat
currently
under­
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
utilized
and
project
is
of
short
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.66
Big
Quilcene
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
H
Three
occupied
residences
on­
site.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
H
Alarm
system
is
in
place.
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Trained
and
experienced
USFWS
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
staff
work
on
station
or
are
otherwise
methods.
available.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
not
H
Facilities
are
in
hatchery
facility
at
prone
to
flooding.
low
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Capability
has
been
demonstrated
at
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
site.
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Surface
water
sources
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
USFWS
pathologists
ensure
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
compliance
with
agreed
fish
health
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
practices.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Staff
and
equipment
exist
to
mark
all
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
releases
with
adipose
fin
clip.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
USFWS
will
fund
marking
for
spawning
in
hatchery.
duration
of
program.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
H
WDFW
index
survey
stream.
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
USFWS
staff
also
perform
surveys.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
available.
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
The
high
escapements
since
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery­
origin
returns
were
first
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
L
There
has
not
yet
been
an
effective
estimate
of
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
in
the
target
population.
However,
all
released
fish
are
now
marked
beginning
with
brood
year
1997
and
future
estimates
will
be
expected
(
as
3
year
olds)
suggest
that
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
greater
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.67
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
previous
generation.
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.
than
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Project
begun
with
brood
year
1992.
domesticated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
M
Trained
staff
records
pertinent
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
biological
data
but
required
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
collection
procedure
limits
trait
target
population.
assessment.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Collection
procedure
limits
trait
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
assessment.
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
H
Demonstrated
technical
and
logistical
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
collection
capability
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
H
Past
experience
shows
high
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
probability
of
meeting
criterion.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
One
to
one
matings
are
used.
per
female.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
to
be
of
short
duration
­
not
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.68
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
are
reared
to
1
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
gram
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
Induced
Genetic
Swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)

Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
H
Past
experience
shows
high
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
probability
of
meeting
criterion.
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
of
stock
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
surveyed
since
mid­
70s.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
H
Only
one
direct
reintroduction
site,
only
for
one
site.
separate
from
Quilcene
stock
is
being
used;
i.
e,
Big
Beef.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Broodstock
collection
within
the
bay
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
most
likely
to
be
from
target
stock
(
i.
e.,
fish
in
the
two
streams
of
Quilcene
Bay
are
assumed
to
be
same
stock).

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
located
in
watershed.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Staff
and
equipment
exist
to
mark
all
estimation
of
straying.
releases
with
adipose
fin
clip.
USFWS
will
fund
marking
for
duration
of
project.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
H
Adjacent
spawning
populations
are
monitored
to
detect
straying.
monitored
on
regular
basis.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.69
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
The
intent
is
to
mark
all
released
fish
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
with
adipose
fin
clip.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
H
Adjacent
spawning
areas
are
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
regularly
surveyed
index
streams.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Project
is
of
short
duration.
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.70
Salmon
Creek
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Eggs
are
incubated
at
Dungeness
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Hatchery
with
on­
station
24
hour
personnel.
Water
source
at
rearing
facility
in
Salmon
Creek
watershed
is
reasonably
secure.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
H
Alarm
system
is
in
place
at
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
Dungeness
Hatchery
and
at
Salmon
rearing
areas.
Creek
facility.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Experienced
volunteers
supervised
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
by
trained
WDFW
staff.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
H
Facilities
are
located
in
areas
of
low
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
flooding
risk.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Capability
has
been
demonstrated
at
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
site.
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Surface
water
source
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed
for
rearing
lifestage.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
WDFW
staff
support
ensures
proper
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
procedures
and
treatment.
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Funding,
equipment
and
staff
are
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
available
to
otolith
mark
all
releases.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
H
Funding,
equipment
and
staff
are
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
available
to
sample,
read
and
analyze
spawning
in
target
population.
otoliths
of
spawning
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
origin
proportion
exceeds
the
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
proportion
of
spawners
taken
for
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
production
in
the
previous
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
M
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
unknown
at
this
time.
Spawners
are
being
sampled
and
an
estimate
of
the
proportion
should
be
forthcoming.
There
is
some
risk
that
the
hatchery­
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.71
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
generation.
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Project
begun
with
brood
year
1992.
domesticated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Trained
staff
and
supervised
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
volunteers
will
record
pertinent
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
biological
data.
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
H
Location,
timing
and
protocol
of
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
collection
indicates
matching.
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
H
Demonstrated
successful
collection
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
at
permanent
weir.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
H
Yes.
Meeting
criterion
is
ensured
by
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
collection
at
weir.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
One
to
one
matings
are
used.
per
female.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
to
be
of
short
duration
­
not
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.72
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
H
Meeting
criterion
is
ensured
by
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
collection
at
weir.
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
within
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
watershed
surveyed
since
mid­
70s.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
H
Only
one
direct
reintroduction
site,
only
for
one
site.
separate
from
Snow/
Salmon
stock,
is
being
used
­
Chimacum.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Only
target
population
exists
in
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
watershed.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Rearing
facilities
located
in
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
watershed.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Staff,
equipment
and
funding
exist
to
estimation
of
straying.
otolith
mark
all
released
fish.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
M
Funding
and
resources
have
not
been
monitored
to
detect
straying.
secured
for
otolith
sampling,
reading
and
analysis
of
other
watersheds.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.73
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
All
released
fish
will
be
otolith
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marked.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
H
Funding,
equipment
and
staff
are
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
available
to
sample,
read
and
analyze
otoliths
of
spawning
population.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Project
is
of
short
duration.
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.74
Jimmycomelately
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Site
and
personnel
undetermined.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Specific
project
design
not
yet
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
determined.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Expect
to
site
project
with
low
risk
of
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Will
be
key
design
element..
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
would
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
for
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
for
operations.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
M
Broodstock
is
believed
to
be
at
high
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
risk
of
extinction.
Expect
to
collect
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
as
many
breeders
as
possible
given
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
the
available
broodstock.
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.75
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
hatchery­
origin
fish
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Broodstock
has
not
previously
been
domesticated.
propagated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Trained
staff
will
record
pertinent
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
will
be
to
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
will
be
key
element
of
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
will
be
incorporated
in
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
plan.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
per
female.
be
a
project
objective.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
not
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.76
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
are
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
unknown
but
avoiding
this
effect
will
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
be
a
key
element
of
project.
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
within
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
watershed
surveyed
since
1982.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
N.
A.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Only
target
population
exists
in
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
watershed.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Location
of
facilities
in
watershed
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
will
be
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
will
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.77
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Expect
would
be
key
element
to
plan
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
for
operations.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%.
spawn
in
habitat
currently
under­
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
utilized
and
project
is
of
short
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.78
Dungeness
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
On­
site
living
is
possibility
if
existing
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
hatchery
facilities
used.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Alarm
system
exists
if
existing
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
hatchery
facilities
are
used.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Undetermined
but
expect
to
site
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
project
with
low
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Would
be
key
design
element.
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
would
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expect
would
be
key
element
to
plan
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
for
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Expect
would
be
key
element
to
plan
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
for
operations.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
L
The
population
status
is
unknown.
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.79
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Dungeness
stock
has
never
been
domesticated.
propagated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Trained
staff
would
record
pertinent
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
would
be
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
to
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
would
be
key
element
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
of
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
would
be
incorporated
in
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
plan.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
per
female.
would
be
project
objective.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
not
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.80
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
be
reared
to
1
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
gram
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
are
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
unknown
but
avoiding
this
effect
will
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
be
a
key
element
of
project.
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
L
Population
status
is
unknown.
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
M
Lack
knowledge
about
stock
but
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
likely
to
be
true.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
M
Uncertain.
Broodstock
source
only
for
one
site.
depends
on
undetermined
stock
status.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
M
Undetermined
since
population
status
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
and
broodstock
source
are
unknown.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Locating
facilities
in
watershed
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
would
be
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
would
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.81
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Expect
would
be
key
element
to
plan
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
for
operations.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
in
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
of
short
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
target
population
and
project
will
be
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.82
Big
Beef
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
H
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
H
Functioning
alarm
system
in
place.
water
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Experienced
volunteers.
Trained
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
M
Facilities
location
is
currently
at
that
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
moderate
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Capability
has
been
demonstrated
at
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
site.
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
H
Ground
water
source
within
or
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
WDFW
staff
support
ensures
proper
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
procedures
and
treatment.
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Funding,
equipment
and
staff
are
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
available
to
otolith
mark
all
releases.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
are
regularly
monitored
to
H
Funding,
equipment
and
staff
are
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
available
to
sample,
read
and
spawning
in
target
population.
evaluate
results
of
otolith
samples
from
spawning
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
H
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
summer
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
chum
to
Big
Beef
Creek
using
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
broodstock
from
the
Big
Quilcene
/
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
Little
Quilcene
stock.
Big
Beef
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
the
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers
that
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
the
likelihood
of
returns
to
the
donor
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
stock
watersheds
from
releases
at
Big
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
Creek
is
sufficiently
removed
from
Beef
Creek
is
small.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.83
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
hatchery­
origin
fish
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Quilcene
in­
river
broodstocking
domesticated.
began
1992.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
M
Trained
staff
records
pertinent
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
biological
data
but
required
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
collection
procedure
(
in
Quilcene
target
population.
Bay)
limits
trait
assessment.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Collection
procedure
limits
trait
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
assessment.
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
H
Demonstrated
success
with
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
broodstock
source
at
Quilcene.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
H
Again,
demonstrated
success.
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
Successfully
implemented
with
per
female.
Quilcene
Project.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
to
be
of
short
duration
­
not
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.84
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
H
Demonstrated
success
with
the
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
broodstock
source
at
Quilcene.
hatchery
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
within
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
watershed
surveyed
since
mid­
70s.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
H
Big
Beef
is
only
reintroduction
only
for
one
site.
project
using
Quilcene
broodstock.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Only
target
population
exists
in
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
watershed.
collected.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Rearing
facilities
located
in
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
watershed.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Staff,
equipment
and
funding
exist
to
estimation
of
straying.
otolith
mark
all
releases.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.85
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
All
releases
will
be
otolith
marked.
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
H
Funding,
equipment
and
staff
are
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
available
to
sample,
read
and
evaluate
results
of
otolith
samples
from
spawning
population.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
in
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
habitat
currently
not
being
utilized
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
and
project
is
of
short
duration.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.86
Chimacum
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Eggs
are
incubated
at
Dungeness
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Hatchery
with
on­
station
24
hour
personnel.
Water
source
at
rearing
facility
in
Chimacum
Creek
watershed
is
reasonably
secure.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
H
Alarm
system
is
in
place
at
water
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
Dungeness
Hatchery
and
at
rearing
areas.
Chimacum
Creek
facility.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Experienced
volunteers
supervised
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
by
trained
WDFW
staff.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
H
Facilities
are
located
in
area
of
low
that
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
flooding
risk.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Capability
has
been
demonstrated
at
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
site.
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
H
Surface
water
source
within
or
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed
for
rearing
lifestage.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
WDFW
staff
support
ensures
proper
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
procedures
and
treatment.
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Funding,
equipment
and
staff
are
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
available
to
otolith
mark
all
releases.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Intent
is
to
sample,
read
and
analyze
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
otoliths
of
spawning
population,
but
spawning
in
target
population.
funding
and
resources
have
not
yet
been
secured.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
H
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
summer
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
chum
to
Chimacum
Creek
using
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
broodstock
from
Salmon
Creek.
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
Chimacum
Creek
is
sufficiently
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
or
no
adult
returns
to
Salmon
Creek
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
are
expected.
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
removed
from
Salmon
Creek
that
few
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.87
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Salmon
Creek
broodstocking
began
domesticated.
1992.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Trained
staff
and
supervised
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
volunteers
record
pertinent
biological
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
data.
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
H
Location,
timing
and
protocol
of
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
collection
indicates
matching.
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
H
Demonstrated
success
with
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
broodstock
source
at
Salmon
Creek.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
H
Again,
demonstrated
success.
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
H
Successfully
implemented
with
per
female.
Salmon
Creek
Project.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
to
be
of
short
duration
­
not
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.88
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
H
Demonstrated
success
with
the
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
broodstock
source
at
Salmon
Creek.
hatchery
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Total
accessible
area
within
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
watershed
surveyed
since
mid­
70s.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
is
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
H
Chimacum
is
only
reintroduction
only
for
one
site.
project
using
Salmon/
Snow
broodstock.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Only
target
population
exists
in
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
donor
population's
(
Salmon
Creek)
collected.
watershed.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Rearing
facilities
located
in
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
watershed.
reintroduction.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.89
Source:
Straying
(
cont.)
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Staff,
equipment
and
funding
exist
to
estimation
of
straying.
otolith
mark
all
released
fish.

Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Funding
and
resources
have
not
been
monitored
to
detect
straying.
secured
for
otolith
sampling,
reading
and
analysis.

Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
All
released
fish
will
be
otolith
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marked.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Funding
and
resources
have
not
yet
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
been
secured
for
otolith
sampling,
reading
and
analysis.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Project
is
of
short
duration.
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.90
Tahuya
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Site
and
personnel
undetermined.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Specific
project
design
not
yet
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
determined.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Expect
to
site
project
at
site
with
low
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Will
be
key
design
element.
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
would
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expect
to
be
key
element
to
plan
for
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Expect
to
be
key
element
to
plan
for
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
operations.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
M
Broodstock
undetermined
but
key
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
project
design
element
will
be
to
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
find
appropriate
broodstock.
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
Alternatives
to
be
considered
would
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
River
that
expected
adult
returns
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
from
project
to
donor
population
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
would
be
few
or
none.
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
be
sufficiently
removed
from
Tahuya
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.91
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Broodstock
undetermined
but
domesticated.
unlikely
to
be
domesticated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
M
Expect
trained
staff
will
record
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
pertinent
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
will
be
to
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
will
be
key
element
of
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
will
be
incorporated
in
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
plan.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
M
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
per
female.
be
a
project
objective.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
not
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.92
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)

Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
undetermined
but
key
element
of
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
project
will
be
to
avoid
this
effect.
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Unknown
broodstock
source
but
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
expect
to
meet
criterion.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
will
be
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
H
General
requirement
for
all
projects.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Broodstock
undetermined
at
this
time
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
but
expect
to
meet
criterion.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Location
of
facilities
in
watershed
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
will
be
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
will
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.93
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Expect
would
be
key
element
to
plan
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
for
operations.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
spawn
in
habitat
currently
not
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
utilized
and
project
would
be
of
short
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.94
Dewatto
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Site
and
personnel
undetermined.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Specific
project
design
not
yet
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
determined.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Expect
to
site
project
at
site
with
low
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Will
be
key
design
element..
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
would
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
for
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Expected
to
be
key
element
to
plan
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
for
operations.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
M
Broodstock
undetermined
but
key
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
project
design
element
will
be
to
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
find
appropriate
broodstock.
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
Alternatives
to
be
considered
would
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
Dewatto
River
that
any
adults
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
returning
from
project
to
donor
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
population
would
be
few
or
none.
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
likely
be
sufficiently
removed
from
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.95
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
(
cont.)
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Broodstock
undetermined
but
domesticated.
unlikely
to
be
domesticated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Expect
trained
staff
will
record
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
pertinent
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
will
be
to
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
will
be
key
element
of
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
will
be
incorporated
in
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
plan.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.96
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
M
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
per
female.
be
a
project
objective.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
not
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
undetermined
but
key
element
of
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
project
will
be
to
avoid
this
effect.
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Unknown
broodstock
source
but
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
expect
to
meet
criterion.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
will
be
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
H
General
requirement
for
all
projects.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Broodstock
undetermined
at
this
time
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
but
expect
to
meet
criterion.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.97
Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Location
of
facilities
in
watershed
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
will
be
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
will
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.

Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Expect
would
be
key
element
to
plan
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
for
operations.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
spawn
in
habitat
currently
not
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
utilized
and
project
is
of
short
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.98
Skokomish
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
On­
site
living
is
possibility
if
existing
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
hatchery
facilities
are
used.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Alarm
system
exists
if
hatchery
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
facilities
in
watershed
are
used.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Undetermined
but
expect
to
site
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
project
with
low
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Would
be
key
design
element.
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
would
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expected
to
be
key
element
of
plan
for
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Expected
to
be
key
element
of
project
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
operations.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
M
Broodstock
undetermined
but
key
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
project
design
element
will
be
to
find
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
appropriate
broodstock.
Alternatives
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
to
be
considered
would
be
sufficiently
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
adult
returns
from
project
to
donor
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
population
would
be
few
to
none.
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
removed
from
Skokomish
River
that
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.99
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Broodstock
undetermined
but
expect
domesticated.
to
meet
criterion.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Expect
trained
staff
will
record
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
pertinent
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
will
be
to
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
will
be
key
element
of
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
will
be
incorporated
in
plan.
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
M
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
be
per
female.
project
objective.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
not
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.100
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
be
reared
to
1
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
gram
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
undetermined
but
key
element
of
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
project
will
be
to
avoid
this
effect.
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Unknown
broodstock
source
but
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
expect
to
meet
criterion.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
will
be
target
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
H
General
requirement
for
all
projects.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Broodstock
undetermined
at
this
time
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
but
expect
to
meet
criterion.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Locating
facilities
in
watershed
will
be
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
will
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.101
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Expect
would
be
key
element
to
plan
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
for
operations.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
in
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
habitat
currently
underutilized
and
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
project
will
be
of
short
duration.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.102
Anderson
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
Site
and
personnel
undetermined.
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Specific
project
design
not
yet
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
determined.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Expect
to
site
project
at
site
with
low
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Will
be
key
design
element.
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
would
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expect
to
be
key
element
to
plan
for
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
M
Expect
to
be
key
element
to
plan
for
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
operations.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
M
Broodstock
undetermined
but
key
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
project
design
element
will
be
to
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
find
appropriate
broodstock.
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation
Alternatives
to
be
considered
would
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
Anderson
Creek
that
expected
adult
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
returns
from
project
to
donor
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
population
would
be
few
or
none.
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
be
sufficiently
removed
from
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.103
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock.
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Broodstock
undetermined
but
domesticated.
unlikely
to
be
domesticated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Expect
trained
staff
will
record
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
pertinent
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
will
be
to
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
will
be
key
element
of
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
will
be
incorporated
in
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
plan.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.

Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
M
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
per
female.
be
a
project
objective.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
not
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.104
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
undetermined
but
key
element
of
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
project
will
be
to
avoid
this
effect.
the
natural
spawning
population.

Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Unknown
broodstock
source
but
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
expect
to
meet
criterion.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
will
be
target
genetically
similar
to
target.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
H
General
requirement
for
all
projects.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Broodstock
undetermined
at
this
time
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
but
expect
to
meet
criterion.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Location
of
facilities
in
watershed
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
will
be
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
will
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.105
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
M
Expect
would
be
key
element
to
plan
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
for
operations.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
spawn
in
habitat
currently
not
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
utilized
and
project
would
be
of
short
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.106
Finch
Project
Hazard
I:
Hatchery
Failure
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
M
On­
site
living
is
possibility
if
existing
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
hatchery
facilities
are
used.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
M
Alarm
system
exists
if
hatchery
supplies
serving
summer
chum
incubation
and
facilities
in
watershed
are
used.
rearing
areas.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
H
Expect
experienced
volunteers
and
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
trained
WDFW
staff
support.
methods.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
M
Expect
to
site
project
at
site
with
low
are
not
prone
to
flooding.
risk
of
flooding.

Hazard
II:
Ecological
Effects
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
H
Will
be
key
design
element.
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
H
Water
source
would
be
within
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
watershed.
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
H
Expected
WDFW
staff
support
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
would
ensure
proper
procedures
and
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
treatment.
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
H
Expect
to
be
key
element
to
plan
for
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
operations.
target
population
and
proportion
of
wild
fish
spawning
in
hatchery.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
H
Presence
of
hatchery
rack
facilitates
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
monitoring.
spawning
in
target
population.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
M
Broodstock
undetermined
but
key
spawners
that
are
hatchery
fish
is
approximately
project
design
element
will
be
to
equal
to
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
find
appropriate
broodstock.
into
the
hatchery
the
previous
generation,
Alternatives
OR
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
sufficiently
removed
from
Finch
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
larger
than
Creek
that
expected
adult
returns
the
proportion
of
wild
fish
that
were
taken
into
the
from
project
to
donor
population
hatchery
the
previous
generation
AND
the
wild
population
is
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish,
to
be
considered
would
be
would
be
few
or
none.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.107
Hazard
III:
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
OR
The
target
wild
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
35
years
AND
the
effective
number
of
breeders
in
the
hatchery
is
as
large
as
possible
given
the
available
broodstock,
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15%
return
to
target
population.

Hazard
IV:
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
Source:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
H
Broodstock
undetermined
but
domesticated.
unlikely
to
be
domesticated.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Distributions
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
H
Expect
trained
staff
will
record
history
traits
(
e.
g.
run
or
spawn
timing,
size,
pertinent
biological
data.
appearance,
age
structure,
etc)
will
be
collected
for
target
population.
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
sample
closely
M
Broodstock
collection
parameters
matches
the
multi­
trait
distribution
of
target
unknown
but
key
element
will
be
to
population
(
e.
g.
similar
run
and
spawn
timing,
size,
obtain
close
match
to
target
appearance,
age
structure,
etc).
population.
Collection
is
technically
and
logistically
possible
M
Unknown
but
will
be
key
element
of
(
e.
g.
site
is
accessible
throughout
run,
weirs
have
project.
reasonable
chance
of
continuous
operation
throughout
season,
necessary
staff
are
available
to
carry
out
collection,
funding
is
available
to
measure
traits,
etc).
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
by
M
Criterion
will
be
incorporated
in
collecting
a
minimum
of
50
pairs
except
where
the
plan.
total
population
is
less
than
100
fish.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.108
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
The
minimum
standard
for
matings
will
be
one
male
M
One
to
one
or
factorial
matings
will
per
female.
be
a
project
objective.
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
H
Project
will
be
of
short
duration
­
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
not
to
exceed
12
years.
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
Source:
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
(
degree
of
difference
between
wild
and
hatchery
environments
and
duration)
(
cont.)
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
H
Hatchery
progeny
to
reared
to
1
gram
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
size
before
release;
however,
target
population
at
the
time
of
release
program
will
be
of
short
duration.
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
generations)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatcheryorigin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.

Source:
Hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
effect)
Broodstocking
does
not
collect
a
small
fraction
of
the
M
Broodstocking
limitations
spawner
population
and,
through
use
of
hatchery
undetermined
but
key
element
of
operation,
generate
a
subsequent
large
proportion
of
project
will
be
to
avoid
this
effect.
the
natural
spawning
population.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.109
Hazard
V:
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
Source
of
hazard:
Broodstock
selection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
All
the
discrete
populations
within
the
watershed
H
Unknown
broodstock
source
but
containing
the
target
population
have
been
correctly
expect
to
meet
criterion.
identified.
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
H
Broodstock
source
will
be
target
genetically
similar
to
target.
population.
Broodstock
used
for
direct
reintroduction
is
used
H
General
requirement
for
all
projects.
only
for
one
site.

Source:
Broodstock
collection
Criteria
Probability
Notes
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
H
Broodstock
undetermined
at
this
time
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
collected.
but
expect
to
meet
criterion.

Source:
Straying
Criteria
Probability
Notes
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
H
Location
of
facilities
in
watershed
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
will
be
key
element
of
project.
reintroduction.
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
H
Fish
will
be
marked
to
differentiate
estimation
of
straying.
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
spawners
within
watershed.
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
L
Undetermined
at
this
time.
monitored
to
detect
straying.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.4
A3.110
Hazard
VI:
Masking
of
Population
Status
Criteria
Probability
Notes
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
are
marked
H
Expect
to
provide
for
adequate
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
marking.
grounds.
Sufficient
wild
spawning
areas
are
surveyed
to
H
Presence
of
hatchery
rack
facilitates
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
accurately.
monitoring.
Proportion
of
hatchery
fish
on
spawning
grounds
is
H
Returning
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
(
or
will
be)
less
than
5­
15%
spawn
in
habitat
currently
not
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
3
duration.
generations
equal
to
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
underutilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.
utilized
and
project
would
be
of
short
Coordinator
of
the
Wetland
Ecosystem
Team
­
School
of
Fisheries,
University
of
Washington.
Report
prepared
for
1
the
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council
(
January
1998).
The
term
subestuary
is
herein
used
to
define
estuarine
deltas
at
the
termini
of
watersheds,
while
the
receiving
body
of
2
water,
perhaps
more
appropriately
termed
an
inland
sea,
is
still
technically
an
estuary
because,
although
it
encloses
a
number
of
subestuaries,
freshwater
is
measurably
diluted
by
seawater.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.111
Appendix
Report
3.5
Estuarine
Landscape
Impacts
on
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Summer
Chum
Salmon
and
Recommended
Actions
by
Charles
A.
Simenstad1
Introduction
Summer
chum
salmon
rely
on
natural
features
and
processes
of
estuarine
and
nearshore
habitats
during
their
juvenile
rearing
in
subestuary
deltas
and
migration
through
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
2
Fuca
(
Appendix
Figure
3.5.1).
Watershed
and
summer
chum
population
factors
that
influence
timing
and
condition
of
fry
emigration
to
deltas
are
often
disconnected
from
carrying
capacity
conditions
affecting
productivity
and
carrying
capacity
within
the
deltas.
These
within­
delta
factors
are
in
turn
often
independent
of
factors
over
the
broader
migratory
route
of
summer
chum
during
their
vulnerable
transition
to
the
North
Pacific
Ocean.
However,
research
on
the
estuarine
ecology
of
juvenile
salmon
has
typically
focused
on
subestuarine
delta,
and
particularly
emergent
wetland,
habitats
but
much
less
on
salmonid
use
of
nearshore
marine
habitats
that
interconnect
deltas
in
estuarine
inland
sea
systems
such
as
Hood
Canal,
Puget
Sound
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
By
bridging
the
widely
dispersed
deltas,
natural
nearshore
"
landscape
linkages"
of
natural
beaches,
eelgrass
beds
and
unimpacted
drift
cells
provide
productive,
protected
migratory
corridors
for
summer
chum
to
span
delta
rearing
areas
and
effectively
transition
to
open­
water
migration
(
Appendix
Figure
3.5.2).
Cumulative
impacts
on
the
integrity
of
these
nearshore
corridors
threaten
not
only
the
function
of
the
corridors
but
also
the
opportunity
to
exploit
the
intervening
delta
habitats.
This
report
addresses
the
need
for
a
broader,
landscape
perspective
and
assessment
of
the
role
of
these
nearshore
corridors
in
the
early
estuarine­
marine
life
history
of
summer
chum.
In
justifying
this
argument,
I
describe:
1)
the
regional
and
watershed
setting,
2)
pertinent
genetic
and
life
history
characteristics
of
summer
chum,
3)
estuarine
landscape
structure
and
how
anthropogenic
changes
have
altered
its
function,
4)
a
conceptual
model
of
summer
chum
rearing
and
migration,
5)
important
aspects
of
the
response
by
summer
chum
to
landscape
structure
and
these
changes,
and
6)
research
and
management
gaps
required
to
incorporate
estuarine
landscape
structure
into
recovery
efforts
for
summer
chum.

As
with
almost
all
other
fisheries
science
approaches
to
anadromous
fishes,
accounting
for
factors
that
have
likely
led
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon,
as
well
as
considerations
of
recovery
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.112
Appendix
Figure
3.5.1.
Nearshore
movement
(
black
arrows)
of
juvenile
summer
chum
among
subestuary
deltas
(
circles)
in
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
that
are
important
estuarine
rearing
habitats
and
migratory
corridors.
Primary
corridors
for
fry
early
after
their
entry
into
Hood
Canal
are
focused
tightly
along
the
shoreline,
but
as
the
fish
grow
larger
they
appear
more
frequently
in
open
water
and
will
cross
the
Canal
(
as
indicated
by
some
arrows
in
the
middle
of
the
Canal).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.113
Appendix
Figure
3.5.2.
Segment
of
Jefferson
County
(
upper
Dabob
Bay)
of
Washington
Coastal
Zone
Atlas
showing
delta
and
shoreline
migratory
habitats
of
juvenile
summer
chum;
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers
delta
occupy
left
center
of
image,
while
portion
of
Tarboo
Creek
estuary
is
in
upper
right.
This
original
Atlas
map
has
been
enhanced
to
illustrate
eelgrass
(
dark
gray­
black)
and
algae
(
stippled
light
gray)
habitats
and
direction
of
along­
shore
drift
(
arrows).
Note
contrast
between
broad
expanses
of
eelgrass
and
algae
habitats
on
estuarine
deltas
with
the
narrow,
confined
migratory
corridors
along
shorelines
that
are
often
interrupted.
Indicated
nearshore
drift
is
from
Johannessen
(
1992).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.114
Appendix
Figure
3.5.3
Status
of
knowledge
about
salmon
ecology
as
a
function
of
life
history
stanzas.
initiatives,
has
traditionally
conformed
to
an
"
hourglass"
distribution
relative
to
their
life
history
(
Appendix
Figure
3.5.3).
That
is,
the
basis
of
knowledge
and
attribution
of
importance
to
the
survival
and
resilience
of
summer
chum
has
predominantly
centered
on
freshwater
phases
of
their
life
history
and
diminished
with
transition
to
and
from
their
oceanic
phase.
This
is
particularly
the
case
for
the
"
estuary
transition"
phases
where
juvenile
chum
salmon
are
still
confined
to
shallow
water
habitats
but
for
a
variety
of
behavioral
and
ecological
mandates
are
migrating
beyond
the
subestuary
directly
associated
with
their
watershed
of
origin.
Next
to
chinook
salmon,
juvenile
chum
salmon
have
been
described
as
the
species
most
dependent
on
estuaries
(
Healey
1982;
Levy
and
Northcote
1982;
Simenstad
et
al.
1982;
Salo
1991).
This
"
dependence"
is
inferred
from
extended
residence
time
(
average
individual
residence
time
~
25
days;
Simenstad
et
al.
1982)
that
is
assumed
to
result
in
rapid
growth
and
larger
size
at
emigration
from
the
estuary
in
an
environment
of
comparatively
lower
predation
rate.

A
multitude
of
factors,
including
size
and
physiological
condition
upon
entry,
available
prey,
surface
outflow,
shoreline
habitat
structure,
refugia
from
predators,
can
potentially
influence
residence
time
in
an
estuary
like
Hood
Canal
because
the
rate
of
migration
is
influenced
heavily
by
the
carrying
capacity
of
the
estuarine
environment
and
the
ecophysiological
state
of
the
fish.
Most
research
that
provides
insight
into
these
factors
originates
from
distinct
subestuaries
at
the
termini
of
major
rivers
and
watersheds
that
have
large
chum
salmon
populations.
Other
than
the
earlier
investigations
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
distribution
in
the
Strait
of
Georgia
(
e.
g.,
Robinson
1969)
and
Hood
Canal
(
e.
g.,
Salo
et
al.
1980,
Wissmar
and
Simentad
1988),
there
has
been
very
little
research
on
the
larger
scale
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
ecology,
as
they
migrate
among
subestuaries
along
the
"
estuarine
landscape"
before
entering
the
North
Pacific
Ocean.

Regional
Watershed
and
Estuarine
Structure
As
for
many
anadromous
fishes,
salmon
have
developed
diffuse
population
and
life
history
traits
that
indicate
strong
natural
selection
in
response
to
variation
in
aquatic,
estuarine
and
ocean
environments.
Life
history
traits
can
reflect
both
watershed­
subestuary
variation
as
well
as
whole­
system
variability.
Summer
chum
of
the
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
have
evolved
in
a
complex
landscape
and
estuarine
setting,
with
strong
regional
variation
in
land
form,
riverine
inflow,
and
estuarine
circulation
and
habitat
structure.
Furthermore,
human
modifications
to
these
regional
characteristics
have
introduced
both
cumulative
and
far­
reaching
impacts
to
the
estuary.
To
effectively
assess
the
decline
of
summer
chum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.115
salmon
populations,
as
well
as
their
recovery,
the
larger
estuarine
landscape
scale
as
well
as
the
watershedestuary
scale
must
be
considered.

Hood
Canal
straddles
a
sharp
break
in
landform,
between
the
Olympic
Mountains
to
the
west
and
the
Willamette­
Puget
Lowland
to
the
east,
with
it's
watersheds
positioned
on
quaternary
and
Tertiary
volcanic
rocks
or
Upper
and
Lower
Tertiary
sedimentary
rocks,
and
strongly
divided
between
ultisol
(
haplohumult)
soils
on
the
west
and
inceticol
(
haplumbrept,
with
some
cryumbrept)
soils
on
the
east
(
Jackson
and
Kimerling
1993).
The
Olympic
Mountains
produce
a
strong
influence
on
seasonal
precipitation
and
riverflow
on
the
western
region,
with
up
to
2.5
m
mean
annual
runoff
within
the
watersheds
draining
into
the
western
side
of
Hood
Canal,
1.5­
2.0
m
on
the
southern
edge
of
the
Olympics,
~
1
m
on
the
lowlands
draining
into
the
eastern
side,
and
<
0.5
m
in
the
"
rain
shadow"
of
some
regions
of
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
As
a
result,
rivers
draining
into
Hood
Canal
from
the
eastern
Olympics
have
average
flows
of
between
10
(
e.
g.,
Hamma
Hamma)
and
43
m
s
(
e.
g.,
Elwha),
but
with
peak
flows
as
high
as
250
3
­
1
(
Duckabush)
to
760
m
s
(
Skokomish).
In
contrast,
streams
on
the
eastern
side
draining
the
Kitsap
3
­
1
Peninsula
have
very
low
flows
(
e.
g.,
<
0.01
m
s
)
especially
in
late
summer
and
early
fall.
Land
use
in
the
3
­
1
watershed
is
heavily
oriented
toward
forest
harvest,
with
some
pasture
and
very
little
cropland.

Hood
Canal
is
a
fjord
type
of
estuary:
long
(
100
km),
narrow
(
0.8­
6.4
km;
avg.
2.4
km)
and
deep
(
avg.
>
150
m)
with
glacial
sills
that
restrict
circulation.
Because
of
this
structure,
except
under
strong
wind
forcing,
the
water
column
of
the
Canal
is
usually
highly
stratified,
with
a
shallow
lens
of
fresh
to
brackish
water
at
the
surface
overlaying
waters
of
near­
ocean
salinity.
Due
to
the
sills,
water
exchange
and
turnover
are
limited
and
residence
time
long,
especially
in
the
southern
reaches
of
the
Canal
and
Dabob
Bay,
and
cold,
nutrient­
rich
upwelling
water
from
the
North
Pacific
intrudes
only
in
late
summer
(
Friebertshauser
et
al.
1971;
Yoshinaka
and
Ellifrit
1974;
Strickland
1983).

The
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
shared
to
a
lesser
degree
with
the
Strait
of
Georgia)
is
the
primary
point
of
exchange
between
oceanic
and
Puget
Sound
waters
and
the
migration
route
of
most
juvenile
summer
chum
from
Hood
Canal
to
the
North
Pacific
Ocean.
The
deep,
fjord
structure
of
the
eastern
Strait
was
excavated
by
the
advancement
and
retreat
of
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
lobe
of
the
Cordilleran
Ice
Sheet
(
Burns
1985).
It's
gently
sloping
U­
shaped
cross­
channel
profile
is
18
km
wide
at
it's
narrowest
point
(
Race
Rocks­
Angeles
Pt.)
and
its
depth
is
>
150
m
except
over
the
shallow
(
55
m)
glacial
sill
that
spans
the
eastern
end
south
from
Victoria,
B.
C.
(
Thomson
1981).
Unlike
the
strong
salinity
stratification
in
Hood
Canal,
salinity
distribution
in
the
Strait
is
more
of
an
estuarine
"
salt
wedge"
but
salinities
are
still
>
31
ppt
except
in
the
spring
when
freshwater
outflow
from
Puget
Sound
and
the
Fraser
River
drop
surface
waters
to
28­
30
ppt.
Due
to
the
stronger
wind,
wave
and
current
regimes
in
the
eastern
Strait
(
Downing
1983),
shoreline
habitats
are
much
more
dynamic
and
dominated
by
steeper,
coarser
sediments
than
in
Hood
Canal.
However,
Discovery,
Sequim
and
Dungeness
bays
that
are
the
termini
of
watersheds
supporting
summer
chum
tend
to
be
more
protected
and
are
characterized
by
beach
environments
similar
to
Hood
Canal.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.116
Genetic
and
Life
History
Characteristics
of
Summer
Chum
Populations
Summer
chum
have
evolved
into
discrete
metapopulations
that
reflect
their
estuarine
rearing,
as
well
as
their
watershed
spawning
and
incubating,
setting
within
each
watershed.
Likely
reflecting
the
regional
physiography
over
which
they
reproduce
and
rear,
summer
chum
salmon
from
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
are
genetically
isolated
from
other
chum
salmon
populations
in
the
region
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
In
fact,
the
genetic
structure
(
based
on
34
loci)
of
the
nine
summer
chum
stocks
analyzed
by
Johnson
et
al.
(
1997)
were
entirely
displaced
from
other
chum
stocks
(
including
four
southern
Puget
Sound
summer
chum)
on
the
basis
of
multidimensional
scaling
in
two
dimensions
of
chord
genetic
differences.
Within
the
Hood
Canal­
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region,
visible
separation
(
based
on
graphical
interpretation)
was
also
evident
for
populations
of
1)
the
five
eastern
Olympic
Mountains
watersheds
from
those
of
2)
a
southern
Canal
(
Union)
river,
and
3)
three
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
rivers.
Internal
variation
was
apparently
high
even
within
these
groupings,
as
indicated
by
the
separation
among
the
three
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
rivers.
Earlier
(
Wright
1978,
cited
in
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994)
classification
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
stocks
based
on
genetic
distance
indicated
strongest
affinities
among
the
Union
River
and
other
Hood
Canal
stocks
but
more
distinct
separation
from
the
Jimmycomelately
Creek
(
Sequim
Bay)
and
Salmon
and
Snow
creeks
(
Discovery
Bay)
stocks.

While
there
is
little
comprehensive
documentation
of
life
history
characteristics
among
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations,
comparison
of
river
entry
and
spawning
timing
for
several
rivers
groupings
also
indicates
comparable
variation
that
may
correspond
to
regional
physiography
and
genetic
distinction.
The
window
of
river
entry
for
the
Union
River
(
early
August
past
mid­
September)
is
earlier
than
at
other
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
Discovery
Bay)
streams
(
early
September
past
mid­
October)
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
Spawning
may
be
even
more
distinct:
late
August
to
early
October
in
the
Union
River
(
greater
delay
between
river
entry
and
spawning);
early
September
past
mid­
October
in
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
short
to
no
delay);
and,
mid­
September
to
late
October
in
other
Hood
Canal
rivers
(
shorter
delay
than
Union
River).
This
suggests
that,
if
the
Union
River
is
representative,
juveniles
from
the
southern
Hood
Canal
populations
will
be
entering
the
Canal
earlier
than
the
central
and
northern
Hood
Canal
fish,
particularly
if
river
temperatures
in
the
Olympic
Mountains
watersheds
are
significantly
lower
than
the
Puget
Lowland
rivers,
promoting
more
rapid
egg
and
alevin
development.
Thus,
there
are
genetic
traits
to
physiographically
separated
populations
that
have
significant
implications
to
estuarine
utilization
by
summer
chum.

Estuarine
Landscape
Structure
The
fjord
estuary
structure
of
Hood
Canal,
Puget
Sound
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
is
particularly
important
to
the
linkage
of
watersheds
and
subestuary
deltas
supporting
summer
chum
as
they
emigrate
from
freshwater
and
migrate
seaward.
Because
juvenile
salmon
tend
to
migrate
in
surface
waters,
and
in
particularly
shallow
water
as
fry
early
in
their
estuarine
life
history,
they
are
somewhat
confined
to
migratory
corridors
between
these
subestuary
patches
that
are
distributed
along
the
shoreline
adjacent
to
the
deeper,
open
waters
of
the
Canal,
Admiralty
Inlet
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
see
Conceptual
Model
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.117
Appendix
Figure
3.5.4.
Estimated
historic
dimensions
of
subestuary
deltas
within
documented
summer
chum
distribution;
see
earlier
subestuary
descriptions
for
methodology
in
estimating
historic
delta
areas.
section,
below).
Thus,
while
the
broad
expanses
of
intertidal
delta
habitats
(
emergent
marsh,
mudflat,
eelgrass,
dendritic
channels)
at
the
subestuary
termini
of
the
major
watersheds
comprise
expansive
rearing
habitats
(
Appendix
Figure
3.5.2;
but
see
individual
subestuary
accounts
that
describe
proportional
and
qualitative
loss
of
habitat),
these
deltas
are
relatively
dispersed
"
patches"
along
the
deep
channel
"
matrix"
of
the
fjord
axis
(
Appendix
Figure
3.5.1).
Eleven
of
the
twenty
deltas
(
55%)
are
less
than
1
km
in
area,
2
and
only
two
are
>
2
km
.
The
largest
deltas
(
Skokomish,
Dosewallips,
Dabob
Bay
deltas,
Dungeness)
2
are
widely
separated
along
the
>
150
km
distribution
of
summer
chum
systems.
Thus,
the
estuarine
rearing
capacity
for
summer
chum
fry
early
in
their
seaward
migration
is
a
function
of
the
interlinked
system
of
subestuary
deltas
and
shallow
nearshore
corridors.

The
resulting
summer
chum
salmon
migratory
corridors
between
subestuary
deltas
tend
to
be
composed
of
a
relatively
higher
energy,
narrow
intertidal­
shallow
subtidal
beaches
of
moderate
gradient
and
usually
comprised
of
mixed
cobble,
gravel
and
coarse
sand
(
Appendix
Figure
3.5.4).
Natural
beach
erosion
and
Drift
cells
have
been
mapped
for
the
Hood
Canal
region,
covering
Kitsap
and
Jefferson
counties,
by
3
Schwartz
et
al.
(
1991)
and
Johannessen
(
1992).
It
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
report
to
describe
drift
cell
structure
and
processes
in
detail.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.118
shoreline
drift
maintain
these
beach
processes
that
continuously
supply,
transport
and
deposit
sediments
along
discrete
beach
"
drift
cells"
or
"
drift
sectors."
Important
zones
within
drift
cells
are
the
areas
of
3
sediment
origin
or
'
source
zones,'
the
'
transport
zone'
of
prominent
longshore
drift,
and
the
termini
or
'
sink
zones'
where
drift
cells
end
by
either
sediment
accretion
or
by
transport
into
deeper
water
(
Canning
and
Shipman
1994).

Perhaps
one
of
the
most
important
habitats
for
summer
chums
salmon
within
this
zone
is
a
typically
dense
band
of
the
native
eelgrass,
Zostera
marina.
Eelgrass
provides
a
vast
array
of
direct
(
i.
e.,
"
habitat")
functions
in
support
of
estuarine
biota
but
may
be
equally
as
important
as
one
of
the,
if
not
the,
major
sources
of
organic
matter
to
intertidal/
shallow
subtidal
food
webs
in
Hood
Canal
(
Simenstad
and
Wissmar
1985).
Eelgrass
is
somewhat
constrained
to
a
longitudinal
patch
concentrated
in
tidal
elevations
between
+
1
m
(
in
areas
of
low
elevation
gradient)
to
­
2
m
(
but
may
occur
as
deep
as
­
6.6
m
in
extremely
clear
waters;
Phillips
1984)
relative
to
MLLW.
This
eelgrass
corridor
is
often
(
in
the
absence
of
shoreline
development)
contiguous
within
a
drift
cell
but
also
occurs
in
fragmented
patches
between
drift
cells,
depending
upon
the
nature
of
the
shoreline
at
convergence
of
drift
cells.

Thus,
the
steeper
the
beach
gradient
and
more
turbid
the
waters,
the
narrower
the
eelgrass
corridor.
Eelgrass
recruits
to
and
persists
optimally
in
mud
or
muddy­
sand
to
sandy­
gravel
substrates
(
Phillips
1984)
and
can
be
inhibited
by
shifts
to
coarser
substrates
(
e.
g.,
gravel,
cobble)
and
by
shading,
including
by
overwater
structures
such
as
docks
(
see
Simenstad
et
al.
1998).
Other
prominent
habitats
that
are
integrated
with
the
eelgrass
corridor
are
macroalgae
and
kelps
and
mud­
and
sandflats.
From
a
variety
of
ecological
standpoints,
the
functions
of
this
beach
landscape
for
migrating
juvenile
summer
chum
should
be
viewed
as
the
net
effect
of
the
arrangement
of
habitat
patches,
rather
than
the
independent
effect
of
any
one
habitat.

There
are
two
other
scales
of
this
landscape
that
should
also
be
considered
beyond
drift
cell
segments.
The
next
step
in
the
hierarchy
of
scale
is
the
"
nearshore
reach"
between
subestuary
deltas
that
are
often
composed
of
multiple
drift
cell
segments.
The
number
of
segments
would
often
dictate
the
extent
of
eelgrass
corridor
connectivity
between
subestuary
delta
rearing
areas
for
summer
chum.
The
other
scale
of
importance
involves
the
larger
physiographic
areas
of
embayments
and
'
clusters'
of
deltas
(
Appendix
Figure
3.5.1).
In
this
respect,
the
location
and
position
of
the
southern
"
Big
Bend,"
Dabob
Bay,
Discovery
and
Sequim
bays
will
also
play
a
role
in
terms
of
summer
chum
interaction
with
the
estuarine
landscape,
depending
upon
the
origin
of
migrating
fry.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.119
Human
Alterations
of
Estuarine
Landscape
Structure
Likely
Impacting
Juvenile
Summer
Chum
Human
alterations
of
the
subestuary
deltas
have
been
described
earlier.
While
some
of
the
same
human
alterations
to
these
deltas
(
e.
g.,
filling,
excavation,
and
jetties)
also
occur
along
the
nearshore
corridors,
a
number
of
modifications
impose
particular
impacts
to
these
beach
habitats.
Acute
impacts,
involving
relatively
permanent
loss
of
habitat
by
filling
or
excavation
that
are
common
in
some
of
the
Hood
Canal
subestuary
deltas
are
not
necessarily
as
prevalent
in
the
intervening
shorelines
between
these
deltas.
However,
shoreline
development
has
caused
some
direct
and
considerable
indirect
impacts
in
these
reaches.
Among
those
documented
to
cause
impacts
are
intertidal
fills,
installation
of
bulkheads
and
docks
and
destruction
of
shoreline
vegetation.
Bulkheads
that
intrude
into
the
intertidal
zone
increase
the
rate
of
beach
erosion
by
intensifying
the
wave
energy
regime,
causing
the
coarsening
of
sediments
(
Macdonald
et
al.
1994;
Canning
and
Shipman
1995).
Bulkheads
and
other
beach
armoring
or
"
hardening"
also
inhibit
or
eliminate
sources
of
beach
sediment
material
in
the
source
regions
of
drift
cells.
Both
of
these
factors
decrease
the
amount
and
maintenance
of
fine­
sediment
structure
to
shorelines,
which
can
ultimately
alter
habitat
structure
from
eelgrass
and
other
mixed­
fine
substrate
communities
to
more
coarse
substrate
communities
with
less
habitat
value
for
migrating
salmon
fry
(
Thom
and
Shreffler
1994).
The
consequence
is
either
fragmentation
or
loss
of
eelgrass
as
a
viable
migratory
corridor
and
degradation
of
habitat
for
prey
and
salmon
foraging.
Low
(
intertidal)
elevation
bulkheads,
other
types
of
fills,
and
docks
can
force
fry
from
shallow
water
into
deeper
water,
where
risk
to
predation
may
be
significantly
higher.
Shading
and
the
physical
structure
from
docks
also
eliminates
eelgrass
and/
or
prevents
its
recruitment.
Removal
of
shoreline
vegetation
reduces
shade
and
import
of
large
woody
debris
(
LWD),
which
impacts
the
supply
of
terrestrial
insects
(
that
salmon
also
feed
on),
epibenthic
prey
resources,
and
the
spawning
habitat
of
baitfish
which
are
prey
resources
of
larger
juvenile
and
resident
salmon.

Other
potential
impacts
that
are
suspected
but
have
not
been
thoroughly
evaluated
include
boat
activity,
leakage
of
septic
tanks,
and
some
aquaculture
and
shellfish
harvesting
methods.
Associated
boat
activity
can
result
in
propeller
scouring
of
benthic
communities
and
potentially
remove
whole
segments
of
eelgrass
patches.
Leaking
septic
tanks
could
enter
beach
habitats
and
cause
nutrient
enrichment
along
beach
groundwater
seepage
zones,
and
concordant
response
by
macroalgae
if
excessive
could
cause
localized
areas
of
intense
organic
decomposition
and
sediment
anoxia.
Some
shellfish
aquaculture
practices,
such
as
diking
and
mechanical
harvesting
can
be
deleterious
to
eelgrass
under
some
conditions,
but
the
scale
(
size,
intensity
or
frequency)
of
disturbance
must
be
of
significant
threshold
to
cause
impact.
For
instance,
the
impact
of
beach
graveling
and
predator
exclusion
netting
for
clam
enhancement
on
juvenile
salmon
prey
resources
depends
upon
the
scale
of
application
(
Simenstad
and
Fresh
1995).
Harvesting
of
natural
shellfish
populations
may
also
impose
some
isolated,
small­
scale
impacts,
as
in
hydraulic
harvesting
of
geoduck
(
Panope
generosa)
clams
in
intertidal
and
shallow
subtidal
habitats,
including
eelgrass
beds
despite
the
fact
that
that
practice
is
against
WDFW/
DNR
and
tribal
policy
and
regulations.

While
the
imprint
of
any
one
of
these
impacts
is
small
compared
to
the
10s
to
100s
of
acres
of
diked
emergent
marshes
in
subestuary
deltas,
the
cumulative
effect
can
be
exceedingly
destructive
of
summer
chum
habitat
along
the
fry's
migratory
corridor.
Fragmentation
of
eelgrass
may
be
one
of
the
more
insidious
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.120
impacts
because
of
the
multifunctional
role
of
eelgrass
in
providing
a
migratory
corridor
with
both
abundant
prey
resources
and
a
continuous
"
strip"
patch
that
offers
refuge
from
predation.
Although
this
has
not
been
examined
scientifically,
loss
and
disruption
of
the
eelgrass
corridor
infers
reduced
prey
resources,
diminished
carrying
capacity
under
some
circumstances,
migration
delays
and
increased
predation
risk.

Conceptual
Model
of
Estuarine
Rearing
and
Migration
of
Juvenile
Chum
Salmon
The
relationship
of
summer
chum
salmon
to
the
structure
of
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
can
best
be
defined
within
the
context
of
a
simple
conceptual
model
that
describes
our
current
level
of
understanding,
albeit
limited,
about
the
factors
affecting
their
response
to
estuarine
conditions.
This
remains
a
conceptual
model,
rather
than
a
more
deterministic
or
predictive
model,
because
most
of
the
functional
relationships
between
juvenile
salmon
response
to
estuarine
factors
remain
unquantified.

In
addition
to
the
body
of
literature
that
presently
encapsulates
our
understanding
of
the
estuarine
life
history
and
ecology
of
juvenile
salmon
in
Pacific
Northwest
estuaries
(
e.
g.,
Healey
1982;
Levy
and
Northcote
1982;
Simenstad
et
al.
1982;
Salo
1991;
see
also
Johnson
et
al.
1997
for
a
discussion
of
the
role
of
estuaries
relative
to
the
status
of
chum
salmon
populations),
there
is
a
considerable
body
of
both
published
and
unpublished
information
on
chum
salmon
ecology
in
Hood
Canal
from
University
of
Washington
research
from
the
1960s
through
the
mid­
1980s.
This
research
originated
in
studies
of
chum
salmon
population
structure,
behavior
and
ecology
in
Big
Beef
Creek
(
University
of
Washington
field
research
station).
Although
this
research
did
not
specifically
address
the
estuarine
phase
of
chum
salmon
life
history,
it
considerably
expanded
our
understanding
of
the
factors
influencing
the
timing,
behavior
and
condition
of
chum
salmon
fry
emigrating
from
freshwater
to
Hood
Canal
(
Koski
1975).
In
the
1970s,
comprehensive
studies
of
the
potential
impact
of
the
U.
S.
Navy
submarine
base
expansion
at
Bangor
on
chum
salmon
(
among
other
nearshore
fishes)
contributed
considerable
fundamental
information
on
the
migratory
demographics
and
ecology
of
chum
salmon
moving
through
the
shoreline
construction
(
e.
g.,
turbidity
plumes)
and
installations
(
e.
g.,
Bax
et
al.
1980;
Salo
et
al.
1980).
Earlier
results
from
components
of
the
Bangor
studies
focused
on
chum
salmon
feeding
ecology
and
prey
resource
assessments
(
Simenstad
1977;
Simenstad
and
Kinney
1979;
Salo
et
al.
1980;
Simenstad
et
al.
1980;
Simenstad
and
Salo
1982)
led
to
more
directed
experimental
and
laboratory
research
on
the
carrying
capacity
limitations
of
chum
salmon
prey
resources
in
Hood
Canal
supported
by
the
National
Science
Foundation
in
the
early
1980s
(
Simenstad
et
al.
1982;
Simenstad
and
Wissmar
1984;
Volk
et
al.
1984;
Wissmar
and
Simenstad
1988).
At
the
same
time,
Washington
Sea
Grant
supported
research
on
nearshore
food
webs
also
provided
further
insight
to
the
food
web
pathways
supporting
juvenile
salmon
and
their
prey
resources
(
Wissmar
and
Simenstad
1984;
Simenstad
and
Wissmar
1985).
While
some
of
this
research
specifically
included
summer
chum,
much
of
it
was
directed
toward
or
utilized
fall
chum,
and
often
included
both.
It
is
generally
assumed
here
that,
apart
from
timing
differences,
both
runs
have
similar
life
history
and
ecological
responses
to
limiting
factors.
The
following,
abbreviated
conceptual
model
of
the
estuarine
ecology
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
is
synthesized
from
this
body
of
research.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.121
There
are
several
caveats
that
should
be
acknowledged
to
limit
our
interpretations
from
this
conceptual
model:

1.
Much
of
fundamental
data
originates
from
hatchery­
propagated
fish,
whose
estuarine
demography,
behavior
and
even
ecology
may
not
be
entirely
applicable
to
wild
chum,
and
in
particular
summer
chum
because
most
hatchery
stocks
are
from
normal,
fall­
run
populations.

2.
Data
is
more
limited
for
early
(
e.
g.,
February­
early
March)
migrating
fry,
such
as
summer
chum,
than
for
'
normal'
and
late
stocks,
which
are
predominantly
hatchery
fish;
any
summer
chum
from
late
in
their
outmigration
overlapped
early
'
normal'
and
late
stock
outmigrants
and,
if
different,
would
have
simply
shown
up
as
"
noise"
in
the
data.

3.
There
is
little
or
no
individual
fish­
based
data,
because
chum
fry
had
to
be
mass
marked
rather
than
individually
tagged
because
of
their
small
size.

4.
There
is
little
corroborative
data
on
physicochemical
conditions
in
Hood
Canal
at
the
time
of
most
of
these
studies,
that
would
provide
any
insight
to
how
estuarine
forcing
factors
(
e.
g.,
circulation,
water
temperature,
etc.)
influenced
fish
migration,
feeding,
etc.

Demography
of
freshwater
emigration
The
relationship
of
different
summer
chum
life
history
characteristics
to
their
response
to
conditions
in
the
Hood
Canal­
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
landscape
is
influenced
by
factors
that
affect
the
timing
of
entry
into
the
nearshore
landscape
and
their
movement
and
growth
through
it.
For
this
reason,
even
freshwater
factors
have
some
influence
on
the
function
of
the
estuarine
landscape,
and
anthropogenic
changes
in
the
watershed
that
alter
juvenile
migration
timing
influence
subsequent
responses
by
summer
chum
to
both
natural
and
altered
nearshore
conditions
in
the
estuary.
Because
chum
fry
gradually
"
grow
out"
of
reliance
on
nearshore
habitats
and
transcend
to
more
open­
water
habitats
over
their
first
few
weeks,
factors
that
affect
both
their
growth
rate
and
the
timing
of
this
"
epibenthic­
neritic"
(
see
below)
transition
tend
to
operate
on
the
landscape
scale,
not
necessarily
within
a
single
subestuary.

The
demography
(
abundance
of
fish
over
time)
of
juvenile
summer
chum
fry
emigration
to
the
estuary
is
a
particularly
important
variable
in
the
early
life
history
of
summer
chum
because
variation
in
winter­
early
spring
estuarine
conditions
can
impose
constraints
on
the
eventual
fish
size
and
timing
of
the
fishes'
migration
to
the
North
Pacific.
Fish
size
and
timing
of
summer
chum
entering
North
Pacific
coastal
waters
are
assumed
to
play
a
large
role
in
determining
ocean
mortality.
Both
genetic
and
environmental
factors
affect
emergence
and
emigration
to
estuary,
much
of
which
is
a
function
of
the
metapopulation
characteristics
of
spawning
adults
the
prior
fall.
For
instance,
emigration
timing
is
influenced
by
time
of
spawning
(
genetic)
and
late
fall­
winter
water
temperatures
(
environmental).
A
number
of
researchers
(
e.
g.,
Koski
1975)
have
suggested
that
timing
of
emigration
to
the
estuary
is
an
adaptation
to
maximize
survival.
An
alternative
hypothesis
that
I
adhere
to
is
that
diversity
in
emigration
timing
may
be
the
actual
adaptive
advantage
given
that
estuarine
conditions
are
highly
stochastic.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.122
Adult
summer
chum
spawn
from
early
September
to
mid­
October
over
a
period
of
anywhere
between
~
45­
65
days,
but
according
to
historical
accounts
summer
chum
may
have
entered
Hood
Canal
streams
even
as
early
as
August.
Age
structure
may
be
somewhat
different
than
'
normal'
fall
and
latter
run
stocks,
with
slightly
higher
proportion
of
3­
ocean
aged
fish
and
somewhat
smaller
female
spawners.
Historically,
summer
chum
were
considerably
much
more
abundant
than
today,
from
whence
these
data
are
derived,
and
summer
chum
spawner
densities
are
now
much
lower
compared
to
normal
and
late­
run
stocks.
Because
fecundity
and
egg
size
may
indicate
evolutionary
mechanisms
to
compensate
for
mortality
factors
later
in
their
life
history,
it
is
interesting
to
note
that
summer
chum
fecundity
is
generally
higher
(
100
kg
)
­
1
for
earlier
spawning
fish
than
equivalent
female
size
of
later
spawning
fish.
Egg
size
(
0.2­
0.5
mm
dia.)
would
also
appear
to
be
somewhat
larger
for
summer
chum.

Despite
some
evidence
of
insignificant
differences
in
survival
rate
to
emergence
among
early,
normal
and
late­
spawning
stocks,
overall
survival
through
this
stage
in
their
early
life
history
may
be
slightly
higher
for
summer
chum
than
normal
or
late­
run
stocks
due
to
late­
winter
spring
freshwater
flow
impacts.
Summer
chum
fry
emerge
form
spawning
redds
mid­
winter,
between
January
and
April.
For
instance,
50%
of
the
now­
extinct
(
since
mid­
1980s)
early­
run
stock
at
Big
Beef
Creek
emerges
by
mid­
March
(
can
even
be
earlier,
e.
g.,
in
1977
it
was
mid­
February)
and
90%
by
early
April,
compared
to
late
April­
mid­
May,
or
~
35
days
earlier
than
'
normal'
and
late
spawning
stocks
(
Koski
1975).
Stocks
on
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal
may
be
~
15
days
later
than
the
east
side
if
Big
Beef
Creek
was
representative
of
the
latter
(
Koski
1975).
The
duration
of
emergence
averages
~
20
days
(
90%
emerge
between
12­
53
days
at
Big
Beef
Creek)
and
depends
upon
time
of
spawning,
gravel
composition,
temperature,
and
dissolved
oxygen.
Temperature
appears
to
be
a
critical
factor,
wherein
early
stocks
require
considerably
more
temperature
units
than
'
normal'
and
late
stocks
by
12­
13
days
(
11%­
17%).
Emergence
occurs
primarily
during
the
initial
hours
of
darkness.

The
size
and
developmental
state
of
summer
chum
fry
at
emergence
may
also
differ
from
normal
fall­
or
late­
run
chum,
where
fry
of
early
spawning
fish
have
lower
length­
weight
condition,
but
lower
rate
of
premature
fry.
Size
increases
if
there
is
any
residence
in
the
stream.
But,
stream
residence
appears
to
be
minimal
for
summer
run
as
well
as
normal
fall­
or
late­
run
stocks
and
emigration
to
estuary
is
typically
immediately
after
emergence.

Thus,
natural
emigration
of
summer
chum
from
one
watershed
to
the
estuary
is
spread
out
over
days,
if
not
weeks
(
This
is
in
stark
contrast
to
hatchery
releases
of
fall
chum
that
may
be
on
the
order
of
1.8
to
4.7
x
10
fry
released
over
a
number
hours).
Instream
feeding
during
migration
is
insignificant
except
in
very
large
6
rivers.
Summer
chum
fry
school
but
the
schools
are
not
compact,
with
lots
of
dispersion
at
night.
Schooling
lessens
as
the
fish
approach
the
estuary.
There
is
some
evidence
that
chum
fry
avoid
pink
fry
during
migration.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.123
Physiological
adaptation
of
fry
to
estuarine
waters
Transition
from
freshwater
to
brackish
and
saline
waters
of
the
estuary
is
relatively
brief,
e.
g.,
on
the
order
of
<
12
hr.
Although
relatively
brief,
the
time
required
to
adapt
appears
to
vary
with
fish
size
(
longer
transition
with
increasing
size/
freshwater
residence),
riverflow,
and
the
configuration
of
the
estuary
(
e.
g.,
extent
of
mixing
zone).
There
have
been
observations
that
chum
fry
preferentially
seek
out
the
brackish
(
10­
15 )
layer
of
water.
This
suggests
that
in
small
estuaries
this
adaptation
zone
may
be
a
verticallymixed
horizontal
gradient
within
the
delta,
while
in
larger,
stratified
estuaries
this
brackish
layer
("
lens")
may
be
a
vertical
feature
that
chum
fry
can
follow
for
extensive
distances.

Dispersion
in
estuary
Water
circulation
can
play
a
large
role
in
dispersion
of
chum
fry,
especially
along
the
mainstem
axis
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Under
strong
freshwater
outflow,
fish
likely
are
pushed
out
with
the
freshwater
plume
unless
there
are
extensive
emergent
wetlands
and
dendritic
channels
in
the
delta
where
the
fry
can
escape
high
water
velocities.
Nearshore
water
movement
along
beaches
may
also
influence
dispersion
away
from
the
primary
("
subestuary")
delta,
especially
if
the
fish
are
pushed
out
into
the
freshwater
plume.
Rheotactic
response
may
be
positive
or
negative,
depending
upon
magnitude
of
flow,
because
of
the
swimming
speed
limitations
of
fry.
Initial
directional
behavior
(
dispersion
vs.
cross­
canal)
also
appears
to
depend
on
size.
Fry
<
50
mm
FL
have
been
shown
to
stay
within
or
disperse
to
deltas,
where
they
may
reside
for
>
5
days,
while
fry/
fingerlings
>
50­
55
mm
FL
move
more
into
open
"
neritic"
waters
and
may
initially
cross
the
Canal.
Thus,
an
important
landscape
feature
is
the
proximity
to
rearing
habitats,
where
large
delta
habitats
may
serve
as
"
attractors;"
e.
g.,
Bax
(
1983)
experimental
release
of
Enetai
fish
showing
>
25%
remaining
on
Skokomish
River
delta
after
4
days.

Directed
migration
through
estuary
Once
chum
fry
have
initiated
their
migration
after
some
(
unknown,
but
likely
<
1
week
on
larger
deltas)
estuarine
delta
residence,
migration
rates
along
the
length
of
Hood
Canal
average
between
4
and
14
km
d
,
and
generally
decrease
as
the
juvenile
migration
season
progresses.
But,
given
the
early
period
of
­
1
summer
chum
migration,
migration
rate
may
be
generally
high
although
there
is
not
much
data
that
is
specifically
applicable
to
summer
chum
fry.

There
are
two
modes
of
migration
that
reflect
the
fish's
habitat,
behavior
and
ecology
and
which
are
directly
correlated
with
size
stanzas.
Initially,
"
epibenthic"
fry
<
50­
55
mm
FL
stay
very
close
to
shore,
in
shallow
water
~
2
m
deep
(
they
are
often
seen
swimming
within
15
cm
depth),
when
they
migrate
as
relatively
dense
schools
during
daylight,
but
break
up/
disperse
during
darkness.
I've
termed
them
"
epibenthic"
(
bottom
associated)
because
they
are
closely
associated
with
shallow
water
and
feed
primarily
on
epibenthic
organisms.
In
this
mode,
summer
chum
fry
migrate
very
close,
but
not
necessarily
in,
native
eelgrass
(
Zostera
marina)
habitat.
Maximum
average
densities
of
epibenthic
summer
chum
fry
are
~
1
fish
m
.
­
2
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.124
In
the
second,
subsequent
mode,
"
neritic"
fry
>
50­
55
mm
FL
begin
to
venture
into
open
neritic
(
open
surface)
water,
especially
at
night.
By
the
time
they
are
~
60
mm
FL
most
chum
fry
appear
to
freely
migrate
and
feed
in
neritic
waters.

Three
factors
influence
the
migration
rate
of
summer
chum
through
the
Canal,
the
transition
between
epibenthic
and
neritic
mode,
and
thus
total
estuarine
residence
time:

1.
Foraging
success,
where
the
frequency
of
encounter
(
relative
abundance)
of
preferred
prey
species
for
epibenthic
fry
may
dictate
their
migration
rate;
don't
know
if
same
applies
for
neritic
fish
(
see
below);

2.
Surface
water
circulation
in
Canal,
which
is
generally
S
6
N,
is
likely
to
transport
neritic
fry
that
are
away
from
the
shoreline,
thus
affecting
the
migration
rate
of
fry
>
50
mm
FL;
and,

3.
The
availability
of
shallow
water
(<
2
m)
habitat
may
also
influence
the
movement
of
epibenthic
fry,
with
eelgrass
serving
as
an
important
migratory
corridor.

Feeding
These
differences
between
migratory
habitats
and
behavior
of
migrating
chum
fry
in
epibenthic
and
neritic
modes
are
reflected
in,
or
perhaps
even
caused
by,
their
feeding
ecology.
Although
terrestrial
"
drift"
insects
are
often
prominent
in
the
diets
of
chum
fry
in
the
inner
portion
of
subestuary
deltas
or
along
the
margin
of
large
deltas,
epibenthic
chum
fry
within
nearshore
environments
feed
primarily
on
small
crustaceans
such
as
harpacticoid
copepods
and
other
epibenthic
invertebrates
(
e.
g.,
small
gammarid
amphipods).
Their
diet
is
surprisingly
specific.
Typically,
only
two
or
three
species
of
harpacticoid
copepods
(
Harpacticus
uniremis
and
Tisbe
sp.,
and
sometimes
Zaus
sp.)
feature
prominently
in
their
diet,
in
contrast
to
several
dozen
harpacticoid
species
seemingly
available
to
them.
There
is
even
some
indication
of
preference
for
ovigerous
female
harpacticoids
(
C.
Simenstad
and
J.
Cordell,
Univ.
Wash.;
unpubl.),
which
may
be
related
to
either
visual
prominence
(
H.
uniremis
egg
sacks
are
actually
brightly
colored)
or
bioenergetic
value
(
high
nutritional
value,
perhaps
slower
escape
responses
by
ovigerous
female
copepods).
As
chum
fry
grow
and
transcend
to
neritic
migration,
they
begin
to
feed
principally
on
planktonic
prey
such
as
large
calanoid
copepods,
euphausiids,
amphipods,
larvaceans.
Certain
species
(
e.
g.,
Calanus
spp.)
appear
to
be
preferred
in
contrast
to
the
overall
availability
of
similar
plankton
taxa.

The
relative
temporal
and
spatial
availability
of
some
of
these
prey
organisms
may
explain
some
of
the
apparent
selectivity.
Some
are
available
throughout
the
migration
period,
others
not;
for
instance,
H.
uniremis,
which
is
univoltine,
appears
and
declines
early
in
the
outmigration
(
February­
April),
replaced
by
Tisbe
sp.,
which
is
multivoltine
(
April­
June).
Preferred
species
also
are
distributed
in
dense
patches,
perhaps
enabling
fish
to
localize
on
patches?
Epibenthic
prey
are
typically
associated
with
algae,
either
epiphytes
on
eelgrass
or
diatom
mats
or
other
algae
typical
of
intertidal
habitats,
and
extremely
high
densities
often
occur
in
eelgrass;
neritic
prey
tend
to
be
diel
vertical
migrators
(
e.
g.,
deep
in
the
water
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.125
column
during
day,
but
migrating
up
into
shallower
water
at
night)
or
very
patchily
distributed
on
water
surface
(
e.
g.,
"
neuston"
on
or
just
beneath
the
surface
tension
film).

Estuarine
growth,
nearshore­
offshore
transition
and
emigration
The
relatively
sharp
size
transition
between
epibenthic
and
neritic
chum
fry
implies
that
growth
(
as
surrogate
for
development
of
burst
swimming
speed,
cognitive
capability
to
adapt
capture,
or
feeding
organs
such
as
mouth
gape?)
is
correlated
to
estuarine
residence
time.
Growth
of
early
migrating
chum
fry,
including
some
summer
chum,
ranges
between
1%
and
4%
body
weight
per
day
(
BW
d
)
but
can
be
>
6%
BW
d
­
1
­
1
for
mid­
to
late
stock
migrants.

Residence
time
within
Hood
Canal
has
been
found
to
range
between
4
and
32
days;
the
average
residence
time
is
approximately
24
days.
Their
success
in
effectively
foraging
for
optimum
prey
is
likely
linked
to
the
timing
and
ability
of
chum
fry
to
effectively
make
the
epibenthic­
neritic
transition
and
emigrate
to
the
North
Pacific.
However,
it
is
relatively
unknown
whether
neritic
prey
populations
respond
to
the
same
environmental
controlling
factors
as
epibenthic
prey
populations.
It
is
conceivable
that
neritic
prey
resources
of
summer
chum
may
under
some
circumstances
be
on
different
production
schedules
than
epibenthic
prey
resources,
thus
potential
growth
of
the
fish
may
differ
between
the
two
modes.
As
a
result,
foraging
success
may
strongly
affect
residence
time
because
fish
that
do
not
make
the
transition
because
of
limiting
prey
resources
and
slow
growth
in
the
nearshore
may
not
be
able
to
tap
abundant
neritic
prey
resources
by
the
time
they
migrate
out
of
the
Canal
Marine
survival
Obviously,
overall
marine
survival
of
summer
chum
is
influenced
by
many
more
factors
than
those
influencing
their
estuarine
life
history.
There
is
some
suggestion
that
marine
survival
is
significantly
lower
(
0.5%­
0.8%)
for
early
(
including
summer
chum)
migrants
in
Hood
Canal
as
compared
to
late
chum
stocks
(
1.1%­
2.6%)
even
though
late
stocks
had
higher
proportions
of
5­
yr
fish
(
Koski
1975;
assuming
0.5
estimated
average
fishing
exploitation
rate).
While
this
could
be
attributable
to
estuarine
conditions,
these
stocks
don't
necessarily
share
the
same
ocean
conditions.
Oceanic
migration
routes
and
rearing
areas
of
summer
chum
could
be
significantly
different
than
normal
fall­
and
late
chum
stocks
due
to
shifts
in
ocean
circulation
between
early
and
later
entry
to
the
nearshore
ocean,
e.
g.,
dependent
on
shifts
in
California
current,
Aleutian
low,
etc.
Koski's
(
1975)
assumption
of
equal
fishing
mortality
at
the
time
may
also
not
be
valid.
Statistical
concordance
among
early/
late,
wild/
hatchery
chum
recruit:
spawner
ratios
and
age
class
structure
suggests
all
are
influenced
by
same
oceanic
conditions,
but
this
question
is
relatively
unexplored.

Response
of
Juvenile
Summer
Chum
to
Estuarine
Landscape
Structure
As
inferred
from
this
conceptual
model
(
above),
responses
of
juvenile
summer
chum
to
the
structure
of
the
estuarine
landscape
depends
upon
the
size
and
status
(
physiological,
behavioral)
of
the
fish.
Fry
that
have
not
yet
achieved
the
neritic
phase
are
constrained
to
migrate
along
shallow­
water
habitats
where
their
rate
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.126
of
migration,
bioenergetic
status
and
vulnerability
to
predation
is
likely
dependent
upon
the
state
of
shoreline
habitats.
As
habitat
for
juvenile
summer
chum
salmon
(
see
below)
eelgrass
is
likely
the
primary
migratory
corridor
linking
the
subestuary
deltas
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Its
multifunctionality
in
providing
both
prey
resources
and
refuge
from
predation
suggests
that
it
may
be
an
important
feature
connecting
subestuary
deltas
and
may
provide
bridges
between
these
larger
rearing
areas.
Information
from
regions
other
than
Hood
Canal
suggest
that
disruptions
of
contiguous
natural
habitats
by
shoreline
structures
(
e.
g.,
dock,
piers)
may
modify
juvenile
salmon
behavior,
causing
apparent
confusion
during
migration
and
altering
the
intensity
of
schooling
behavior
(
Simenstad
et
al.,
in
prep.).

The
concept
and
reality
of
limited
estuarine
carrying
capacity
for
juvenile
salmon
is
still
debated
(
Simenstad
and
Wissmar
1984;
Simenstad
1997b).
There
is
some
evidence
that
summer
chum
encounter
limited
prey
resources
early
in
their
estuarine
migration
period,
and
the
response
is
more
rapid
migration
rates
and
lower
growth.
Whether
this
is
driven
by
exogenous
physical
forcing,
such
as
surface
water
transport,
or
an
ecological
response
to
availability
of
preferred
prey
(
Wissmar
and
Simenstad
1988)
remains
to
be
determined.
The
potential
of
the
latter,
however,
implies
that
both
habitat
loss
and
artificially
increased
densities
(
from
earlier
hatchery
releases)
could
increase
such
carrying
capacity
responses.

Recommendations
for
Further
Research,
Protection
and
Restoration/
Mitigation
of
Estuarine
Landscape
Impacts
There
are
four
major
information
needs
required
to
resolve
the
influence
of
estuarine
landscapes
on
summer
chum
and
the
potential
contribution
that
estuarine
habitat
restoration
and
management
could
make
to
summer
chum
recovery:

1.
Validation
of
critical
assumptions
relating
estuarine
habitats
to
summer
chum;

2.
Testing
for
mechanisms
of
impact
on
summer
chum
at
the
estuarine
landscape
scale;

3.
Relating
delta
and
shoreline
modifications
to
impacts
on
migrating
and
rearing
summer
chum;
and,

4.
Assessment
of
restoration
measures
that
would
enhance
estuarine
summer
chum
habitat
at
both
the
subestuary
delta
and
estuarine
landscape
scales.

Much
of
the
conceptual
model's
description
of
summer
chum
dependence
upon
landscape
structure,
as
well
as
the
subsequent
assessment
of
factors
contributing
to
summer
chum
population
declines,
are
inferential
and
not
necessarily
derived
for
summer
chum.
The
scientific
concepts
of
landscape
ecology
and
the
development
of
testable
hypotheses
and
analytical
approaches
are
a
phenomenon
of
only
the
last
few
decades
of
ecological
research.
Furthermore,
landscape
ecology
principles
have
been
applied
to
estuarine
habitat
"
landscapes"
in
only
a
few
instances
and
only
preliminarily
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
A
number
of
critical
information
gaps
need
to
be
addressed
to
validate
many
of
the
critical
assumptions
that
influence
the
interpretation
of
impact
mechanisms
and
the
scale
of
impact.
For
instance,
the
assumption
that
shoreline
transitions
between
subestuary
deltas
are
critical
links
among
estuarine
rearing
habitats
for
summer
chum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.127
needs
to
be
examined
within
the
context
of
salmon
behavior
between
deltas
as
well
as
the
importance
of
shoreline
habitats
to
the
fry's
successful
epibenthic­
neritic
transition.
The
relationship
between
chum
salmon
and
their
subestuary
delta
and
nearshore
prey
resources
is
based
largely
upon
research
on
normal
and
late
chum
stocks.
Thus,
the
assumptions
that
summer
chum
migration
behavior
(
e.
g.,
migration
rate)
is
contingent
upon
prey
availability,
and
that
eelgrass
and
other
mixed­
fine
substrate
beach
habitats
are
essential
sources
of
preferred
summer
chum
prey
organisms,
both
require
further
validation
specific
to
summer
chum
fry.
Interactions
and
strength
of
the
preferred
prey
relationship
and
other
(
e.
g.,
physical
forcing)
factors
influencing
estuarine
migration
rate
and
residence
time
also
need
further
exploration.

While
mechanisms
of
impact
at
the
subestuary
delta
scale
are
based
on
empirical
evidence
(
albeit
somewhat
limited),
impacts
at
the
landscape
scale
are
considerably
less
substantiated.
Perhaps
one
of
the
most
important
issues
is
whether
disruption
of
eelgrass
patches
inhibits
the
migration
and
survival
of
summer
chum.
The
effect
of
eelgrass
and
other
littoral
habitat
fragmentation
on
summer
chum
migration
behavior
needs
to
be
evaluated
and
quantified
if
possible.
In
order
to
capture
the
importance
of
landscape
structure,
any
investigation
of
habitat
fragmentation
should
take
into
account
within­
and
between­
drift
cell
responses
to
habitat
change
by
migrating
summer
chum.
Drift
cell
convergences
and
divergences
can
both
be
areas
of
change
in
natural
habitat
structure,
and
it
would
provide
insight
to
understand
how
juvenile
salmon
relate
to
these
features.

Changes
in
the
estuarine
nearshore
environment,
such
as
habitat
fragmentation,
are
often
caused
by
human
modification
of
the
shoreline
or
underlying
processes
(
e.
g.,
water
flow,
sediment
inputs)
but
can
also
occur
as
a
result
of
natural
processes.
Thus,
monitoring
and
assessment
of
sources
of
impact
on
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
shorelines
and
summer
chum
salmon
must
consider
human
stressors
within
the
context
of
natural
variability
in
estuarine
landscape
structure.
Human
stressors
such
as
the
extent
and
type
of
shoreline
bulkheading
and
armoring,
or
the
number
and
dimensions
of
overwater
docks,
must
be
evaluated
and
quantified
within
the
context
of
natural
variability
in
habitat
elements
(
e.
g.,
eelgrass
corridors
and
patches)
that
they
are
known
or
suspected
to
impact.
As
with
the
evaluation
of
impacts
on
summer
chum,
this
assessment
of
stressors
should
be
organized
around
natural
shoreline
processes
and
geomorphic
regimes
such
as
drift
cells.

Protection
of
existing
shoreline
habitat
through
land
use
regulation
can
be
improved
and
would
be
facilitated
by
more
specific
information
and
understanding
of
current
effects
of
shoreline
development
on
the
habitat
and
summer
chum.
Identification
of
shoreline
areas
where
eelgrass
beds
have
been
impacted
(
and
of
the
kinds
and
magnitude
of
shoreline
developments),
as
well
as
areas
where
beds
are
not
yet
impacted
but
may
be
susceptible,
would
provide
a
basis
for
local
governments
to
develop
effective
land
use
management
actions.

Restoration
and
mitigation
of
degraded
nearshore
habitat
should
be
equally
important
to
recovery
of
sustainable
summer
chum
populations
as
any
recovery
actions
in
freshwater
or
estuarine
deltas.
In
conjunction
with
subestuary
delta
habitat
restoration
or
mitigation,
the
integrity
of
nearshore
corridors
needs
to
be
enhanced
or
restored
through
removal
or
modification
of
major
man­
made
structures
that
disrupt
the
maintenance
of
natural
nearshore
attributes.
This
would
involve
not
only
removal
or
modification
of
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.128
shoreline
structure
that
impedes
fish
migration,
but
should
also
promote
restoration
of
natural
nearshore
processes.
Restoration/
mitigation
actions
that
will
directly
contribute
to
recovery
of
summer
chum
habitat
in
the
nearshore
include:

1.
Removal
of
intertidal
fill
that
has
changed
nearshore
habitat
structure,
beach
gradient
or
circulation;
and,

2.
Removal
or
modifications
of
docks
that
by
shading
or
other
disruption
increase
habitat
fragmentation
and
decrease
patch
connectivity.

However,
steps
to
restore
fundamental
nearshore
processes
are
equally
important
to
the
long­
term
redevelopment
and
maintenance
of
summer
chum
migratory
corridors.
These
restoration
actions
should
include:

1.
Removal
of
bulkheads
that
similarly
intrude
into
intertidal
or
block
sediment
supply
to
drift
cells;

2.
Restoration
of
impacted
supply
and
transport
of
beach
sediments;

3.
Transplanting
(
using
adjacent
source
material)
of
eelgrass
to
bridge
unvegetated
gaps
in
eelgrass
habitat
that
has
been
impacted
by
human
structural
or
process
changes;
and,

4.
Modification
of
aquaculture
and
other
management
practices
that
impose
unnatural
disturbance
of
nearshore
habitats.

If
there
is
one
guiding
concept
to
the
ideas
expressed
in
this
document,
it
is
that
estuarine
nearshore
summer
chum
habitat
is
an
essential
segment
in
a
continuum
that
bridges
their
natal
freshwater
with
open
ocean
rearing
ecosystems.
Ignoring
causes
for
decline
and
actions
for
recovery
within
the
estuarine
landscape
will
likely
neutralize
any
significant
recovery
actions
in
individual
watersheds
or
subestuary
deltas.
Much
work
remains
to
validate
our
hypotheses
related
to
the
importance
of
the
estuarine
landscape
to
summer
chum;
nonetheless,
even
our
present­
day
knowledge
base
is
sufficient
to
indicate
that
failure
to
act
on
estuarine
landscape­
scale
recovery
will
postpone
or
prevent
recovery
of
summer
chum
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Immediate
actions
needed
to
prevent
further
degradation
of
nearshore
estuarine
habitat
include:

1.
Protection
of
existing,
unaltered
shorelines
 
As
development
has
spread
along
the
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
shoreline,
remaining
unaltered
natural
shoreline
segments
have
been
diminished
in
number
and
extent.
From
a
landscape
perspective,
these
remnant
habitat
patches
are
likely
critical
to
the
overall
integrity
of
summer
chum
rearing
and
migration
habitat,
and
are
thus
worthy
of
immediate
protection.
New
bulkhead,
pier,
and
dock
construction
along
the
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
shoreline
threatens
to
further
fragment
summer
chum
nearshore
rearing
and
migration
habitat.
These
activities
should
be
prohibited
until
individual
project
evaluations
determine
that
activities
will
not
appreciably
degrade
or
diminish
nearshore
habitats.
Individual
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.129
projects
should
be
evaluated
in
the
context
of
overall
nearshore
habitat
condition
within
the
adjoining
drift
cell.

2.
Establishment
of
adequate
shoreline
buffers
 
Unstable
and
eroding
bluffs
pose
safety
threats
to
homes
that
are
constructed
without
adequate
setbacks.
Moreover,
eroding
"
feeder
bluffs"
constitute
an
important
source
of
sediment
and
organic
debris
for
nearshore
habitats.
Setback
distances
should
be
conservative,
designed
to
provide
for
natural
erosion
of
feeder
bluffs
over
time
and
to
protect
natural
vegetation
and
homes.
Again,
individual
cases
should
be
evaluated
within
the
context
of
overall
habitat
conditions
within
the
adjoining
drift
cell.

References
Cited
Bax,
N.
J.,
E.
O.
Salo,
and
B.
P.
Snyder.
1980.
Salmonid
out­
migration
studies
in
Hood
Canal:
A
summary
of
1977.
Pp.
171­
201
in
McNeil,
W.
J.,
and
D.
C.
Himsworth
(
eds.)
Salmonid
Ecosystems
of
the
North
Pacific.
Univ.
of
Oregon
Press.
Sea
Grant
College
Program,
Univ.
of
Oreg.,
Corvallis,
OR.
331
p.

Burns,
R.
1985.
The
shape
and
form
of
Puget
Sound.
Wash.
Sea
Grant
Prog.,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
100
p.

Canning,
D.
J.,
and
H.
Shipman.
1995.
Coastal
erosion
management
studies
in
Puget
Sound,
Washington:
Executive
summary,
Coastal
Erosion
Mgmt.
Studies,
Vol.
1.
Rpt.
no.
94­
74,
Water
&
Shorelands
Restoration
Prog.,
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia
WA.
100
p.

Downing,
J.
1983.
The
coast
of
Puget
Sound:
its
processes
and
development.
Wash.
Sea
Grant
Prog.,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
126
p.

Friebertshauser,
M.
et
al.
1971.
Puget
Sound
and
approaches;
seasonal
variations
of
oceanographic
parameters
in
its
near
surface
waters.
Rep.
Contract
RD­
NE4,
5
vols.,
Wash.
Sea
Grant
Prog.,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Healey,
M.
C.
1982.
Juvenile
Pacific
salmon
in
estuaries:
the
life
support
system.
Pp.
315­
341
in
V.
S.
Kennedy
(
ed.)
Estuarine
Comparisons.
Academic
press,
New
York,
NY.
709
p.

Jackson,
P.
L.,
and
A.
J.
Kimerling.
1993.
Atlas
of
the
Pacific
Northwest,
8th
ed.
OSU
Press,
Corvallis,
OR.
152
p.

Johannessen,
J.
1992.
Net
shore­
drift
of
San
Juan,
and
parts
of
Jefferson,
Island,
and
Snohomish
counties,
Washington.
Shorelands
and
Coastal
Zone
Management
Program,
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia
WA.
58
p.
+
maps.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.130
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.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFSNWFSC
32,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
280
p.

Koski,
K.
V.
1975.
The
survival
and
fitness
of
two
stocks
of
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
from
egg
deposition
to
emergence
in
a
controlled
stream
environment
at
Big
Beef
Creek.
Ph.
D.
thesis,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle.
212
p.

Levy,
D.
A.,
and
T.
G.
Northcote.
1982.
Juvenile
salmon
residency
in
a
marsh
area
of
the
Fraser
R.
estuary.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
39:
270­
276.

MacDonald,
K.,
D.
Simpson,
B.
Paulson,
J.
Cox,
and
J.
Gendron.
1994.
Shoreline
armoring
effects
on
physical
coastal
processes
in
Puget
Sound,
Washington.
Coastal
Erosion
Mgt.
Studies,
Water
&
Shorelands
Restoration
Prog.,
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia
WA.

Orsborn,
J.
F.
and
S.
C.
Ralph.
1994.
An
aquatic
resource
assessment
of
the
Dungeness
River
system:
phase
II
 
physical
channel
analysis,
hydrology
and
hydraulics,
and
phase
III
 
fisheries
habitat
survey.
Prepared
for
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Sequim,
WA.

Phillips,
R.
C.
1994.
The
ecology
of
eelgrass
meadows
in
the
Pacific
Northwest:
A
community
profile.
USFWS
tech.
rep.
FWS/
OBS­
84/
24.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Inter.,
Fish
and
Wild.
Serv.
85
p.

Robinson,
D.
G.
1969.
Data
record
:
Number,
size
composition,
weight,
and
food
of
larval
and
juvenile
fishes
caught
with
a
two­
boat
surface
trawl
in
the
Strait
of
Georgia
July
4­
6,
1976.
Manuscript
rep.
series
1012,
Fish.
Res.
Bd.
Can.
Biol.
Stat.,
Nanaimo,
BC,
Canada.
71
p.

Salo.
E.
O.,
N.
J.
Bax,
T.
E.
Prinslow,
C.
J.
Whitmus,
B.
S.
Snyder,
and
C.
A.
Simenstad.
1980.
The
effects
of
the
construction
of
naval
facilities
on
the
out­
migration
of
juvenile
salmonids
from
Hood
Canal,
Washington
(
final
rpt.,
Jan.­
Dec.
1979).
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
8006,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
159
p.

Salo,
E.
O.
1991.
Life
history
of
chum
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
keta.
Pp.
231­
309
in
Groot,
C.,
and
L.
Margolis
(
eds.)
Pacific
Salmon
Life
Histories.
Univ.
B.
C.
Press,
Vancouver,
BC,
Canada.

Schwartz,
M.
L.
et
al.
1991.
Net
shore­
drift
in
Washington
state:
Vol.
4.
Shorelands
and
Coastal
Zone
Management
Program,
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia
WA.
51
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.
1977.
Prey
organisms
and
prey
community
composition
of
juvenile
salmonids
in
Hood
Canal,
Washington.
Pp.
163­
176
in
Simenstad,
C.
A.,
and
S.
Lipovsky
(
eds.)
Proc.
First
Pac.
NW
Tech.
Workshop
Fish
Food
Habits
Studies,
Oct.
13­
15,
1976,
Astoria,
OR.
Wash.
Sea
Grant
Publ.
WSG­
WO­
77­
2,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
193
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.131
Simenstad,
C.
A.
and
W.
J.
Kinney.
1979.
Selection
of
epibenthic
plankton
by
outmigrating
chum,
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
Washington.
Pp.
243­
289
in
Mason,
J.
(
ed.)
Proc.
1978
Pink
and
Chum
Salmon
Workshop,
March
1978,
Parksville,
B.
C.
Canada.
Pac.
Biol.
Sta.,
Nanaimo,
BC.
448
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.,
W.
J.
Kinney,
S.
S.
Parker,
E.
O.
Salo,
J.
R.
Cordell,
and
H.
Buechner.
1980.
Prey
community
structure
and
trophic
ecology
of
out­
migrating
juvenile
chum
and
pink
salmon
in
Hood
Canal,
Washington:
A
synthesis
of
three
years'
studies,
1977­
1979.
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
no.
FRIUW
8026.
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
111
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.,
D.
M.
Eggers,
R.
C.
Wissmar,
and
E.
C.
Volk.
1982.
Beyond
GUTS:
The
powers
and
pitfalls
of
experimentally
documenting
functional
aspects
of
fish
foraging
behavior.
Pp.
33­
46
in
Calliet,
G.
M.,
and
C.
A.
Simenstad
(
eds.)
GUTSHOP
'
81,
Proc.
Third
Pacific
Workshop,
Fish
Food
Habits
Studies,
6­
9
Dec.
1981,
Pacific
Grove,
California.
Wash.
Sea
Grant
WSG­
WO­
82­
2,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
312
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.
and
E.
O.
Salo.
1982.
Foraging
success
as
a
determinant
of
estuarine
and
Nearshore
carrying
capacity
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
in
Hood
Canal,
Washington.
Pp.
21­
37
in
Melteff,
B.
R.,
and
R.
A.
Neve
(
eds.)
Proc.
North.
Pacific
Aquaculture
Symp.,
18­
27
August
1980,
Anchorage
AK
and
Newport,
OR.
OSU
Sea
Grant
College
Prog.
ORESU­
W­
83­
001.
327
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.,
K.
L.
Fresh,
and
E.
O.
Salo.
1982.
The
role
of
Puget
Sound
and
Washington
coastal
estuaries
in
the
life
history
of
Pacific
salmon:
An
unappreciated
function.
Pp.
343­
364
in
Kennedy,
V.
S
(
ed.)
Estuarine
Comparisons.
Academic
Press,
New
York,
NY.
709
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.,
and
R.
C.
Wissmar.
1984.
Variability
in
estuarine
food
webs
and
production
may
limit
our
ability
to
enhance
pacific
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
spp.)
Pp.
273­
286
in
Pearcy,
W.
G.
(
ed.)
The
influence
of
ocean
conditions
on
the
production
of
salmonids
in
the
North
Pacific.
Proc.
salmonid
oceanography
workshop,
8­
10
Nov.
1983,
OSU
Marine
Science
Center,
Newport,
OR.
OSU
Sea
Grant
College
Prog.
ORESU­
W­
83­
001.
327
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.,
and
R.
C.
Wissmar.
1985.
d13C
evidence
of
the
origins
and
fates
of
organic
carbon
in
estuarine
and
nearshore
marine
food
webs.
Mar.
Ecol.
Prog.
Ser.
22:
141­
152.

Simenstad,
C.
A.
and
K.
L.
Fresh.
1995.
Influence
of
Intertidal
aquaculture
on
benthic
communities
in
Pacific
Northwest
estuaries:
scales
of
disturbance.
Estuaries
18:
43­
70.

Simenstad,
C.
A.
1997.
The
relationship
of
estuarine
primary
and
secondary
productivity
to
salmonid
productivity:
bottleneck
or
window
of
opportunity?
Pp.
133­
145
in
Emmett,
R.
and
M.
Schiewe
(
eds.)
Proc.
Estuarine
and
Ocean
Survival
of
Northeastern
Pacific
salmon
workshop
March
20­
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.5
A3.132
22,
1996,
Newport,
OR.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
29,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
Seattle,
WA.
313
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.,
T.
M.
Thom,
and
A.
M.
Olsen
(
eds.).
1998.
Mitigating
potential
impacts
of
ferry
terminal
siting
and
design
on
eelgrass
impact.
Wash.
Sea
Grant
WSG
98­
05.
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Simenstad,
C.
A.,
T.
M.
Thom,
D.
A.
Shreffler,
B.
Nightengale,
A.
M.
Olson,
and
J.
R.
Cordell.
In
prep.
Effects
of
overwater
structures
on
the
behavior
and
habitat
of
migrating
juvenile
salmon.
An
assessment
of
the
scientific
and
technical
literature.
Report
to
Wash.
Dept.
Transportation.
School
of
Fisheries,
Univ.
Of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Strickland,
R.
M.
1983.
The
fertile
fjord;
plankton
in
Puget
Sound.
Wash
Sea
Grant
Prog.,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
145
p.

Thom,
R.
M.,
and
D.
K.
Shreffler.
1994.
Shoreline
armoring
effects
on
coastal
ecology
and
biological
resources
in
Puget
Sound,
Washington.
Coastal
Erosion
Mgmt.
Studies,
Vol.
7,
94­
74.
Water
&
Shorelands
Restoration
Prog.,
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia
WA.

Thomson,
R.
E.
1981.
Oceanography
of
the
British
Columbia
coast.
Can.
Spec.
Publ.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
56.
291
p.

Volk,
E.
C.,
R.
C.
Wissmar,
C.
A.
Simenstad,
and
D.
M.
Eggars.
1984.
The
relationship
between
otolith
microstructure
and
the
growth
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
under
different
prey
conditions.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
41:
126­
133.

WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
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.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
424
p.

Wissmar,
R.
C.
and
C.
A.
Simenstad.
1984.
Surface
foam
chemistry
and
productivity
in
the
Duckabush
R.
estuary.
Pp.
331­
348
in
Kennedy,
V.
(
ed.)
The
Estuary
as
a
Filter.
Academic
Press,
Orlando,
FL.
511
p.

Wissmar,
R.
C.
and
C.
A.
Simenstad.
1988.
Energetic
constraints
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
migrating
in
estuaries.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
45:
1555­
1560.

Yoshinaka,
M.
S.,
and
N.
J.
Ellifrit.
1974.
Hood
Canal
­
priorities
for
tomorrow;
An
initial
report
on
fish
and
wildlife,
developmental
aspects,
and
planning
considerations
for
Hood
Canal.
U.
S.
Dept.
Inter.,
Fish
Wild.
Serv.,
Portland
OR.
97
pp
+
17
fig.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.133
Appendix
Report
3.6
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Watershed
Narratives
Contents
Dungeness
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
18.0018)
Jimmycomelately
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
17.0286)
Salmon
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
17.0245)
Snow
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
17.0219)
Chimacum
Watershed
Narrative
(
17.0203)
Little
Quilcene
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
17.0076)
Big
Quilcene
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
17.0012)
Dosewallips
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
16.0442)
Duckabush
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
16.0351)
Hamma
Hamma
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
16.0251)
Lilliwaup
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
16.0230)
Skokomish
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
16)
Union
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
15.0503)
Big
Mission
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
15.0495)
Tahuya
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
15.0446)
Dewatto
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
15.0420)
Big
Anderson
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
15.0412)
Stavis
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
15.0404)
Seabeck
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
15.0400)
Big
Beef
Watershed
Narrative
(
WRIA
15.0389)
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.134
Dungeness
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
18.0018
Watershed
Description
The
Dungeness
watershed
is
located
in
the
northeastern
corner
of
the
Olympic
Peninsula.
The
western
portion
of
the
City
of
Sequim
is
the
only
incorporated
area
in
the
watershed.
The
watershed
drains
270
square
miles
beginning
about
6,400
feet.
It
flows
thirty­
two
miles
before
entering
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
at
sea­
level.

The
Dungeness
watershed
contains
a
diverse
array
of
land
uses
and
cover
types.
Thirty
percent
of
the
upper
watershed
(
80
square
miles)
is
in
the
Olympic
National
Park.
Also
in
the
upper
portion
of
the
watershed
are
public
and
private
forestlands
totaling
117
square
miles
(
43%
of
the
watershed).
This
includes
public
lands
that
are
mandated
for
uses
(
wilderness
protection,
endangered
species,
wild
and
scenic
rivers,
etc.)
other
than
timber
production.

In
the
middle
and
lower
watershed
are
rural
and
agricultural
lands
occupying
56
square
miles
or
21%
of
the
watershed.
Of
this
land
16
square
miles
are
agricultural
and
used
for
crop,
hay
and
pastureland.
Seventy
to
eighty
percent
of
the
agricultural
land
is
irrigated
from
water
diverted
from
the
Dungeness
River
and
area
streams
through
an
extensive
network
of
irrigation
ditches.
An
agricultural
survey
identified
604
small
farms
(
non­
commercial)
and
34
commercial
farms.
This
number
is
changing
as
farms
convert
to
residential
developments.
Private
woodlots,
which
are
not
intensively
managed
for
timber
production,
make
up
another
13
square
miles,
(
five
percent
of
the
watershed).
Land
under
conversion,
predominately
from
forest
or
agricultural
to
residential
use
covered
nearly
4
square
miles
in
1990.

Urban
areas
cover
410
acres
in
the
watershed
including
portions
of
the
City
of
Sequim
and
the
Sunland
development,
a
golf
course
and
retirement
complex.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Good
information
on
spawning
distributions
and
escapement
estimates
do
not
exist
as
of
yet,
but
ripe
adults
have
been
recovered
at
the
Dungeness
Hatchery
(
River
Mile
10.8,
D.
Rogers,
WDFW
Dungeness
Hatchery,
Sequim,
WA
pers.
comm.).

Population
Status
Summer
chum
spawning
surveys
were
conducted
in
1996
and
a
limited
number
of
summer
chum
were
observed.
Peak
summer
chum
counted
was
199
fish
in
1976.
Since
1987,
one
to
60
summer
chum
have
been
observed
annually
during
pink
salmon
surveys.
Indications
are
a
small
self­
sustaining
population
is
present,
but
its
status
is
uncertain.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.135
Factors
for
Decline
The
lower
10.8
miles
of
the
Dungeness
River
is
the
primary
focus
of
habitat
restoration
planning
because
of
its
high
habitat
value
and
sensitivity
to
disturbances
originating
in
other
parts
of
the
watershed.
The
lower
river
is
judged
to
be
the
reach
most
altered
by
and
most
susceptible
to
human
alteration.
Virtually
all
of
the
bank
hardening
(
rip
rap),
diking,
water
withdrawals,
gravel
mining,
channel
alignment,
bed
aggradation
from
upriver
input
sources,
floodplain
development,
riparian
clearing
and
woody
debris
removal
has
occurred
in
this
terminal
section
of
river.
Dikes
have
reduced
or
eliminated
the
floodplain,
concentrating
all
of
the
energy
and
sediment
of
floods
into
the
main
channel.
By
inhibiting
normal
meander
development,
important
stable
side
channel
habitat
has
been
eliminated,
as
well
as
the
opportunity
for
the
creation
of
new
side
channel
habitat.
Historically,
removal
of
large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
and
log
jams
was
a
prominent
element
of
flood
control
activities
on
the
Dungeness
River.
Stable
log
jams
are
now
scarce
throughout
this
lower
section
of
river.

The
habitat
above
RM
10.9
has
been
altered
by
bridge
crossings,
sediment
input
associated
with
timber
harvesting,
chronic
landslides
and
road
failures.
But
overall
the
effect
has
been
far
less
persistent
than
that
occurring
in
the
lower
river.

In
order
for
restoration
efforts
to
succeed,
sediment
inputs
must
be
in
balance
with
the
sediment
transport
and
storage
capacity
of
the
river
channel,
floodplain
and
estuary.
Increased
sediment
recruitment,
aggradation
and
the
loss
of
floodplain
have
been
well
recognized;
changes
at
the
river
mouth
and
estuary
have
received
less
attention.
Since
1855,
the
river
mouth
has
moved
to
a
location
approximately
2,000
feet
northeast
of
its
earlier
location,
and
approximately
75
acres
of
river
delta
have
been
formed.
The
river
that
once
ran
through
an
intertidal
salt
marsh
estuary
at
its
mouth,
and
now
bisects
the
delta
cone
that
has
developed
since
diking
began
along
the
bay.
The
tidal
prism
(
an
important
sediment
transporting
feature)
in
the
vicinity
of
the
river
mouth
appears
to
have
decreased
in
size
by
over
100
acres
during
this
time
period.
The
implications
of
these
changes
warrant
further
study
to
assess
the
type
of
estuary­
related
restoration
actions
needed.

For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.
Limiting
factors
that
have
contributed
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
include:

°
Channel
complexity
(
LWD,
Channel
condition,
loss
of
side
channel,
and
channel
instability)­
Spawning,
incubation
and
adult
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Depletion
of
stable
log
jams,
loss
of
historical
floodplain
and
the
concentration
of
flows
by
diking
and
man­
made
constrictions
have
reduced
channel
complexity.
This
has
resulted
in
an
absence
of
stable
mainstem
spawning
habitat
and
good
quality
pool
habitat
as
well
as
a
lack
of
high
flow
refugia
and
stream
energy
dissipation.
Frequent
channel
shifting,
deep
scour
and
deposition
occur
after
even
moderate
high
flow
events.
This
has
been
validated
by
postflood
salmon
redd
sampling
data,
scour
chain
data,
aerial
photo
analysis,
and
field
observations
of
channel
location
over
time.

°
Riparian
condition
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
For
the
purposes
of
analysis
and
restoration,
the
lower
10.8
miles
of
the
Dungeness
River
was
divided
into
four
reaches.
Reach
one
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.136
(
RM
0.0
­
4.0)
contains
45%
of
the
riparian
zone
(
a
200
ft
wide
strip)
in
forested
buffer.
Where
riparian
buffers
are
lacking,
land
uses
include
40%
in
dikes,
10
%
in
agriculture
and
5%
in
residential.
Fifty­
six
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
is
less
than
66
feet
in
width.
Reach
two
(
RM
4.0
­
6.6)
contains
74%
in
forested
buffer.
Eighty­
four
percent
of
this
buffer
is
in
small
size
classes
(<
20
in.
dbh).
Twenty­
three
percent
of
the
riparian
buffer
is
less
than
66
feet
in
width.
Reach
three
(
RM
6.6
­
8.8)
contains
fifty­
six
percent
of
its
buffer
length
in
forested
buffer.
In
areas
lacking
in
forest
buffer,
land
uses
include
26%
in
dikes
and
18%
in
residential.
Sixty­
three
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
is
less
than
66
feet
in
width.
Reach
four
(
RM
8.8
­
10.8)
contains
56%
of
its
length
in
forested
buffer.
Additional
land
uses
in
areas
lacking
in
forested
buffer
contains
35%
in
dikes
and
9%
in
residential
uses.
Sixty­
two
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
is
less
than
66
feet
in
width.
Sixty­
nine
percent
of
the
entire
forested
buffer
is
in
small
size
classes
(<
20
in
dbh).

°
Estuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
(
diking,
filling,
ditches
and
remnant
dikes,
road
causeways)
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
The
Dungeness
River
delta,
which
is
estimated
to
have
originally
covered
3.93
km
(
970.2
ac,
2.7
mi.
perimeter),
is
second
only
to
the
2
Skokomish
River
delta
in
terms
of
historical
summer
chum
estuarine
rearing
habitat
area.
However,
this
delta
has
been
extensively
diked
for
agriculture,
urban
and
commercial
needs.
At
least
12
diked
areas,
totaling
0.55
km
(
136.7
ac),
now
prevent
tidal
inundation
of
over
at
least
14%
of
the
original
delta.
2
Diking,
in
conjunction
with
road
routing,
has
significantly
marginalized
juvenile
summer
chum
salmon
migration
corridors
across
the
delta,
and
their
access
to
adjacent
rearing
habitats.

Two
obvious
intertidal
fills
have
impacted
0.08
km
(
18.7
ac;
1.9%
of
historic
delta)
of
the
delta,
but
it
2
is
likely
that
this
is
a
gross
underestimate.
Three
ditches
or
remnant
dikes
still
impact
summer
chum
habitat
along
0.63
km
(
0.4
mi),
constraining
tidal
circulation
and
fish
movement
within
and
across
the
delta.
Side
tributaries
and
tidal
channels
have
also
been
extensively
channelized
and
rerouted,
as
evidenced
on
both
the
eastern
and
the
western
margins
of
the
delta.
Six
roads
and/
or
causeways
intrude
upon
or
bisect
the
delta
over
a
combined
length
of
2.27
km
(
1.4
mi).
As
with
ditches
and
remnant
dikes,
modification
of
tidal
inundation
patterns
likely
alters
fish
movement
and
rearing
potential
even
among
the
remaining
emergent
marshes
and
intertidal
flats.
Between
1987
and
1993,
eelgrass
declined
by
31%
in
Dungeness
Bay,
in
large
measure
due
to
the
impact
of
ulvoid
algae
mats
(
Wilson
1993).
Ulva
sp.
is
commonly
found
to
respond
positively
to
increased
nitrogen
loading
in
marine
waters.
Furthermore,
ulvoids
within
Dungeness
Bay
have
been
theorized
to
have
forced
ecosystem
shifts
by
changing
both
water
flow
and
substrate
composition
(
Shaffer
and
Burge,
in
press).

°
Low
Flow­
Spawning
and
adult
migration
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
Limitations
in
the
quantity
of
spawning
habitat
and
impediments
to
adult
salmonid
migration,
results
from
a
combination
of
irrigation
withdrawals
and
an
aggraded
riverbed.
Negotiations
with
the
irrigation
community
have
led
to
a
series
of
agreements
that
should
allow
for
more
water
to
be
left
in
the
river
during
critical
low
flow
period.
The
effects
of
this
on
habitat
will
be
monitored.

Factors
for
Recovery
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.137
Restoring
Dungeness
River
salmonid
habitat
will
be
based
on
reversing
or
reducing
human
impacts
responsible
for
degradation
throughout
the
lower
10.8
miles.
Some
projects
will
need
to
be
applied
throughout
the
lower
river
in
order
to
restore
in­
channel
and
floodplain
functions,
i.
e.
riparian
planting,
large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
placement
or
side
channel
creation/
stabilization.
Other
projects
will
be
more
riverreach
specific
due
to
the
location
of
the
problem
area,
i.
e.
dikes.
For
a
general
discussion
of
protection
and
restoration
strategies
by
habitat
parameter,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

Restoring
salmonid
habitat
in
the
Dungeness
River
will
require
the
following
seven
elements:

°
Reestablish
functional
floodplain
in
the
lower
2.6
miles
through
dike
management
and
constriction
abatement.
°
Abate
man­
made
constrictions
upstream
of
the
COE
dike
(
everything
above
RM
2.6).
°
Create
numerous
stable
long­
term
log
jams.
°
Manage
sediment
to
stabilize
the
channel
and
reduce
the
risk
of
flooding.
°
Construct
and/
or
protect
side
channels.
°
Restore
suitable
riparian
vegetation
and
riparian­
adjacent
upland
vegetation.
°
Conserve
instream
flows.

In
addition,
initial
strategies
for
restoring
rearing
and
migration
habitat
within
the
estuarine
delta
include
the
following:

°
Removal
of
remnant
dikes
and
filling
of
borrow
and
other
created
ditches.
°
Removal
of
unnecessary
(
e.
g.,
recreational)
roads
and
fills
°
Reconnection
of
blocked
and
diverted
channels
°
Removal
of
tidegates
and
enlarging
of
culverts
Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
The
Dungeness
Watershed
has
been
the
focus
of
numerous
planning
processes
(
Dungeness
River
Area
Watershed
Management
Plan,
Dungeness­
Quilcene
Water
Resources
Management
Plan,
Dungeness
Watershed
Analysis)
and
studies
(
Orsborn
and
Ralph
1992,
1994;
Lichatowich,
1993).
In
addition,
a
Watershed
Council
(
Dungeness
River
Management
Team)
and
a
technical
work
group
(
Dungeness
River
Restoration
Work
Group)
have
been
working
for
several
years
to
put
together
a
restoration
plan
to
guide
efforts
to
restore
salmonids
at
risk.
The
plan
was
approved
by
the
Team
in
June
1998.
Confidence
in
the
assessment
of
habitat
factors
is
high
based
on
the
extensive
work
that
has
been
done
in
the
watershed.
Information
that
is
still
needed
includes:

1.
An
understanding
of
the
physical
processes
that
affect
the
river's
sediment
supply
from
the
upstream
watershed
and
processes
that
affect
the
transport
and
deposition
of
sediment
on
the
alluvial
fan
and
estuary
are
crucial
to
the
assessment
of
current
and
future
conditions.
The
Bureau
of
Reclamation
(
BOR)
has
proposed
to
establish
a
sediment
budget
for
the
Dungeness
River
that
would
quantify
the
sediment
supply
from
the
upstream
watershed
and
quantify
aggradation
rates
on
the
alluvial
fan
and
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.138
estuary.
Coupled
with
a
geomorphological
investigation
and
the
application
of
numerical
models,
BOR
proposes
to
improve
our
understanding
of
the
following:

°
Prediction
of
flooding
impacts
from
alternative
management
actions.
°
Prediction
of
scour
and
fill,
channel
meandering,
and
bank
erosion
from
alternative
management
actions.
°
Determine
the
existing
effects
of
bridges
on
the
river
channel
and
the
effects
of
possible
bridge
modifications.
°
Predict
the
impacts
on
flooding
from
the
introduction
or
removal
of
large
woody
debris.
°
Determine
the
sensitivity
of
the
river
channel
to
sediment
supply
and
riverflow
°
Explanation
of
the
historical
channel
changes.

2.
A
recent
life
history
study
of
juvenile
salmonids
rearing
in
the
Dungeness
River
has
revealed
that
rearing
conditions
in
the
mainstem
of
the
river
are
limited
by
the
lack
of
optimum
habitat.
During
the
winter
many
of
the
juveniles
move
into
side
channels
to
rear
and
seek
refuge
from
the
high
flows.
Assessments
should
continue
of
juvenile
use
of
side
channels
with
available
methodolgies
of
trapping
and
netting
as
well
as
an
evaluation
of
the
number
and
condition
of
side
channels
available.

3.
Elevated
fecal
coliform
bacteria
counts
have
occurred
in
Dungeness
Bay
in
recent
months.
The
counts
have
been
over
threshold
standards
allowable
for
safe
shellfish
harvest
set
by
the
Federal
Drug
Administration
and
administered
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Health
­
Shellfish
Program.
A
Dungeness
Bay
Shellfish
Closure
Prevention
Response
Strategy
has
been
developed
by
local
and
State
Agencies
that
will
provide
extensive
monitoring
to
identify
bacterial
sources
and
increase
enforcement
through
the
years
1999­
2000.
This
water
quality
issue
has
not
been
identified
as
a
factor
that
would
affect
summer
chum
at
the
present
time.
It
is
suggested
that
as
monitoring
is
developed
that
criteria
be
developed
that
would
identify
any
problems
that
could
affect
summer
chum
during
any
part
of
their
life
history
strategy
e.
g.
adult
migration
and
spawning,
incubation,
juvenile
emergence
and
emigration,
and
rearing.

4.
The
tidal
prism
or
area
of
the
intertidal
delta
in
the
vicinity
of
the
river
mouth
appears
to
have
decreased
in
size
by
over
100
acres
since
the
earliest
recorded
survey
in
1855.
The
implications
of
these
changes
to
sediment
transport
processes
and
summer
chum
rearing
conditions
in
the
estuary
need
to
be
assessed.

References
Dungeness
Area
Watershed
Analysis
Cooperative
team.
1995.
Dungeness
Watershed
Analysis.
Dungeness
Area
Watershed
Analysis
Cooperative
team
for
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Forest
Service,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.

Hirschi,
R.
and
M.
Reed.
1998.
Salmon
and
trout
life
history
study
in
the
Dungeness
River.
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Blyn,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.139
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe
(
coordinating
entity).
1994.
The
Dungeness­
Quilcene
Water
Resources
Management
Plan.
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Blyn,
WA.

Lichatowich,
J.
1993.
Dungeness
River
pink
and
chinook
salmon
historical
abundance,
current
status,
and
restoration.
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Blyn,
WA.

Orsborne,
J.
F.,
and
S.
C.
Ralph.
1994.
An
aquatic
resource
assessment
of
the
Dungeness
River
system:
Phase
II
­
physical
channel
analysis,
hydrology,
and
hydraulics,
and
Phase
III
­
fisheries
habitat
survey.
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Blyn,
WA.

Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team.
1991.
Dungeness
River
watershed
report.
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Blyn,
WA.

Shaffer,
J.
A.
and
C.
Burge.
In
press.
Ulvoid
mats
and
shellfish
of
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca:
a
pilot
study.
Estuarine
and
Coastal
Sciences
Association
Bulletin,
vol.
32.

Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Clallam
County,
U.
S.
Fish
Wild.
Serv.,
U.
S.
Forest.
Serv.,
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe
et
al.
1997.
Recommended
restoration
projects
for
the
Dungeness
River.
Dungeness
River
Restoration
Work
Group,
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Blyn,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.140
Jimmycomelately
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
17.0286
Watershed
Description
The
Jimmycomelately
Creek
(
JCL)
watershed
enters
Sequim
Bay
in
the
eastern
region
of
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
on
the
northeastern
corner
of
the
Olympic
Peninsula.
The
JCL
watershed
headwaters
at
an
elevation
of
about
3,800
ft.,
encompasses
a
watershed
area
of
19
square
miles,
and
has
a
stream
length
of
approximately
20
miles.
With
the
exception
of
the
lower
two
miles,
the
watershed
is
primarily
managed
by
the
Forest
Service.
Below
river
mile
(
RM)
1.0,
land
use
is
mostly
rural
residential
and
hobby
farms.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
The
current
upper
extent
of
summer
chum
salmon
is
believed
to
be
about
RM
1.5.
However,
summer
chum
may
have
historically
occurred
as
far
upstream
as
RM
1.9
at
the
point
of
an
impassable
falls.

Population
Status
Escapement
ranged
from
several
hundred
to
over
1,000
in
the
1980s,
with
one
year
below
100.
In
the
1990s
escapement
dropped,
with
61
spawners
or
less
in
three
of
the
past
five
years
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).

Factors
for
Decline
A
Watershed
Analysis
is
being
planned
for
the
JCL
watershed,
but
as
of
this
date
little
information
exists
on
the
impacts
from
timber
harvest
and
roadbuilding
in
the
upper
and
middle
watershed.
Nonetheless,
some
information
exists
from
a
USFS
habitat
survey
(
Donald
1990).
Observations
regarding
riparian
buffer
conditions
throughout
the
JCL
indicate
that
logging­
related
and
road
failures
have
continued
to
contribute
sediment
to
the
creek.
Severe
aggradation
in
the
lower
half
mile
of
the
creek
has
caused
problems
not
only
for
fish
but
landowners
as
well.
Landowner
attempts
to
control
flooding
with
retaining
walls,
anchored
logs
and
other
means
have
resulted
in
concentrated
flood
flows
which
have
increased
the
susceptibility
of
redds
to
scour.

One
of
the
dominant
causes
for
the
severe
problems
in
the
lower
JCL
is
that
in
the
early
part
of
this
century
it
was
moved
into
an
artificial
channel.
This
channel
was
constructed
too
narrow,
dredge
spoils
were
placed
as
de
facto
dikes,
and
no
provision
was
made
to
ensure
that
the
creek
was
functionally
tied
to
the
estuary.
The
JCL
has
become
effectively
isolated
from
the
marine
environment.
Vegetation
non­
native
to
salt
marshes
(
willow,
alder,
cottonwood,
canary
grass,
black
berry,
scotch
broom)
have
colonized
and
stabilized
the
de
facto
dikes
and
other
associated
fill,
eventually
causing
further
constriction
of
the
over­
narrow
stream
channel.
A
cycle
of
bed
aggradation,
flooding
and
dredging
has
resulted.
In
1997
the
lowest
reaches
of
JCL
were
perched
spectacularly
above
the
former
estuary
creating
an
effective
barrier
to
spawning
summer
chum.
Limiting
factors
for
chum
salmon
in
JCL
include
increased
scour
of
redds
and
deposition
of
fines
in
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.141
spawning
gravel
as
well
as
adult
migration
barriers
to
the
spawning
beds.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Channel
complexity
(
LWD,
channel
condition,
loss
of
side
channel,
channel
instability)­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
In
the
lower
reaches
riparian
buffers
have
been
reduced
or
eliminated,
stable
log
jams
are
scarce
and
side
channels
and
associated
wetlands
have
been
eliminated
or
cutoff
from
the
main
channel.
A
USFS
survey
completed
in
1990
found
0.09
pieces
of
LWD
per
meter,
a
level
that
was
considered
a
high
impact.
Pool
habitat
is
also
scare
(
30%
by
surface
area,
pool
frequency
of
9.0,
Appendix
Report
3.8).
Confinement
of
the
channel
by
bank
hardening
in
one
form
or
another
in
addition
to
the
loss
of
LWD
has
reduced
inchannel
complexity
resulting
in
aggradation,
increased
peak
flows
and
increased
bed
scour.
Scour
of
redds
is
perhaps
the
dominant
limiting
factor
for
summer
chum
in
the
lower
reaches
of
the
Jimmycomelately
Creek.
This
altered
hydrologic
capacity
of
the
stream
has
affected
low
flows
as
well,
but
it
is
not
known
to
what
extent.

°
Sediment
(
aggradation)­
Spawning,
incubation
and
adult
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Rerouting
of
the
channel,
loss
of
instream
channel
complexity
and
a
decrease
in
tidal
energy
have
decreased
the
channel's
ability
to
route
sediment
through
the
system.
Increased
aggradation
levels
have
resulted
in
increased
scour
of
redds.
Adult
summer
chum
have
been
inhibited
in
their
migration
to
spawning
beds
due
to
barriers
created
by
the
aggraded
bed.

°
Riparian
condition
­
spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Within
the
lower
1.5
mile
of
summer
chum
spawning,
the
riparian
buffer
consists
of
34%
in
forest,
12%
in
agriculture,
9%
in
roads
and
dikes,
and
7%
in
residential
land
uses
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
One
hundred
percent
of
the
forested
riparian
buffer
is
in
diameter
classes
less
than
20
in.
dbh.
Sixty­
nine
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
is
less
than
66
feet
in
width
and
31
percent
between
66
and
132
feet
in
width.
Bank
armoring
in
the
lower
half
mile
has
also
reduced
the
full
functions
of
the
riparian
forest
buffer.

°
Subestuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
(
diking,
filling,
log
storage
and
associated
features,
road
causeways)
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
The
delta
of
Jimmycomelately
Creek
was
estimated
to
originally
cover
0.56
km
(
139.4
ac;
4.3
km
[
2.7
mi]
2
perimeter).
Two
diked
areas,
totaling
0.02
km
(
3.9
ac),
have
impacted
2.8%
of
the
original
delta.
2
In
addition
to
the
small
diked
areas,
three
intertidal
fills
have
impacted
0.01
km
(
3.1
ac;
2.2%
of
2
historic
delta)
of
the
delta.
Most
of
these
fills
are
associated
with
residential
and
commercial
development
along
the
Highway
101
corridor
and
the
railroad
grade.

Log
storage
and
other
associated
features
in
two
areas
appear
to
impact
a
total
of
0.01
km
(
1.7
ac;
1.2%
of
2
original
delta)
of
delta
habitat.
These
activities
are
also
associated
with
portions
of
the
road
and
causeways
impacts.
Although
dependent
entirely
on
log
storage
and
handling
practices,
there
is
likely
low
to
moderate
impact
to
benthic
communities
beneath
and
near
these
areas.
Heavy
disturbance
of
the
benthos,
and
longterm
input
of
bark
and
wood
fragments,
is
likely
to
degrade
juvenile
summer
chum
foraging
habitat.
The
fish
may
also
be
disrupted
in
their
migration
across
the
delta
if
they
are
behaviorally
compromised
by
the
floating
log
booms.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.142
Three
roads
and/
or
causeways
intrude
upon
the
delta
over
a
combined
length
of
0.56
km
(
0.4
mi).
Highway
101,
associated
roads
and
the
railroad
grade
cut
off
the
non­
tidal
floodplain
from
the
tidal
delta
as
well
as
constrain
circulation
and
fish
movement
among
the
emergent
marshes
and
flats
of
the
outer
delta.

Factors
for
Recovery
A
critical
step
for
restoring
stability
in
the
Jimmycomelately
will
require
re­
establishing
a
functional
estuary/
freshwater
linkage.
Estuaries
have
long
been
recognized
as
one
of
the
most
productive
aquatic
environments
due
to
their
abundant
food
supply
and
wide
salinity
gradients.
In
addition
to
their
productivity
and
importance
to
fish,
estuaries
provide
a
critical
linkage
for
routing
stream
sediment
into
the
marine
environment
and
thereby
contribute
significantly
to
both
horizontal
and
vertical
bed
stability
in
the
lower
reaches
of
creeks
and
rivers,
as
well
as
maintaining
the
integrity
of
emergent
marshes
on
the
outer
deltas.

In
highly
functional
estuaries,
tidal
energy
is
manifested
and
harnessed
for
sediment
routing
through
a
network
of
tidal
surge
plains
and
channels,
collectively
referred
to
as
tidal
basins,
that
serve
as
tributaries
to
the
fresh
stream
channel.
Tidal
energy
is
effective
at
moving
sediment
where
stream
gradient
becomes
approximately
zero
at
the
marine
interface.
As
elevations
and
gradient
drop,
stream
energy
declines
and
in
this
transition
zone
tidal
surge
energy
increases.

Thus,
sediment
is
transported
and
distributed
widely
into
far­
lower
tidal
elevations
than
channel
gradient
and
stream
energy
alone
would
appear
to
allow.
Linking
of
fresh
water
and
tidal
basins
is
the
mechanism
responsible
for
creating
stable,
slowly­
evolving,
complex
and
productive
estuaries.

Perhaps
no
other
aquatic
environment
on
the
east
and
north
slopes
of
the
Olympic
Peninsula
have
been
so
altered
by
human
impacts
as
estuaries.
Diking,
road
and
railroad
grade
building,
and
land
filling
have
truncated
significant
portions
of
most
of
the
region's
estuaries.
To
date
there
has
been
no
estuary
restoration
measure
taken
to
specifically
restore
these
critical
functions
of
estuaries.
Specific
actions
appropriate
for
Jimmycomelately
Creek
include:

°
Reconnection
and
expansion
of
connections
between
the
freshwater
reaches
of
the
floodplain
and
the
tidal
delta;
°
Removal
of
secondary
roads
and
railroad
grade
that
are
significant
deterrents
to
tidal
circulation
and
fish
movement;
°
Filling
of
remnant
ditches;
and
°
Mitigation
or
elimination
of
the
log
storage
and
handling
impacts.

Restoration
in
the
Jimmycomelately
Creek
will
require
a
complex
strategy
of
long
and
short
term
restoration
actions.
A
Jimmycomelately
Creek
Estuary
Technical
Working
Group
has
been
established
to
identify
the
scope
of
work/
activities
for
the
restoration
project,
as
well
as
potential
funding
sources
and
time
line.
Members
of
the
Working
Group
consist
of
the
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Clallam
County,
WDFW,
Clallam
Conservation
District,
WSU
Cooperative
Extension,
Washington
Department
of
Transportation
and
landowners
in
the
watershed.
Planning
efforts
include;
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.143
°
Relocation
of
the
Jimmycomelately
Creek
channel
and
reconnection
to
the
estuary,
°
Restoration
of
inchannel
habitat
and
sinuousity,
°
Restoration
of
the
estuary,
°
Reconnection
of
the
floodplain
to
the
channel
°
Negotiations
with
Department
of
Transportation
over
an
improved
Highway
101
crossing
over
the
Creek,
°
Negotiations
with
Clallam
County
for
a
solution
to
the
flooding
and
maintenance
at
the
County
Bridge
site
over
Jimmycomelately
Creek,
°
Negotiations
with
owners
of
the
log
dump
for
culvert
and
private
road
realignment
over
a
portion
of
the
estuary,
and
°
Negotiations
with
landowners
for
possible
land
acquisition.

In
addition,
it
has
been
recognized
that
a
comprehensive
solution
to
flooding
and
fisheries
habitat
degradation
in
the
lower
basin
requires
reconnection
of
another
creek
(
Dean
Creek)
to
its
historic
estuary,
restoration
of
Dean
Creek
fish
habitat
east
of
Highway
101,
and
reduction
of
flooding
hazard
to
Highway
101
at
the
Dean
Creek
crossing.
For
a
general
discussion
of
protection
and
restoration
strategies
by
habitat
parameter,
refer
to
Part
Three,
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Confidence
in
the
assessment
of
habitat
factors
for
decline
is
high.
Information
needs
include:

1.
An
assessment
of
low
and
peak
flow
events
(
hydrologic
model)
in
Jimmycomelately
Creek.
2.
An
assessment
of
the
estuary's
rearing
habitat
conditions.
3.
A
comprehensive
hydrologic
and
hydraulic
analysis
of
drainage
patterns
and
channel
conditions
throughout
the
lower
basin.

References
Donald,
M.
A.
1990.
Jimmycomelately
stream
survey.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.,
Olympic
Nat.
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.144
Salmon
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
17.0245
Watershed
Description
Salmon
Creek
originates
on
the
northern
slopes
of
Mount
Zion
at
an
elevation
of
3,400
feet,
has
a
watershed
area
of
19
square
miles,
and
flows
9
miles
into
Discovery
Bay,
which
is
located
in
the
eastern
portion
of
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.

Salmon
Creek
merges
with
Snow
Creek
to
form
a
common
delta,
although
both
have
distinct
distributary
channels
through
to
the
outer
delta.
The
historical
manipulation
of
Salmon
and
Snow
creeks
is
found
in
the
Snow
Creek
narrative.
The
upper
and
mid­
delta
of
both
systems
is
heavily
impacted
by
transportation,
commercial
and
some
residential
development
associated
with
the
Highway
101
corridor
that
passes
around
the
southern
end
of
Discovery
Bay.
A
railroad
grade
also
parallels
the
highway
in
transecting
the
delta.

Salmon
Creek
is
one
of
three
major
perennial
creeks
that
drain
approximately
49%
of
the
greater
Discovery
Bay
Watershed
(
Snow
Creek
and
Contractors
Creek
are
the
other
creeks).
The
Salmon
Creek
Watershed
contains
a
diverse
array
of
land
uses
but
is
dominated
by
forest
cover.
Land
use
includes
both
public
and
private
forest,
hay
and
pasture
lands
and
residential
areas.
Much
of
the
commercial
forestland
is
in
public
ownership
and
private
industrial.
The
largest
acreage
of
agricultural
lands
occur
in
the
lower
Snow
Creek
Valley,
through
which
both
Salmon
and
Snow
creeks
flow.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
The
highest
density
of
spawners
is
below
Uncas
Road
(
approx.
R.
M.
0.7),
however
spawning
extends
up
to
River
Mile
(
RM)
2.0.

Population
Status
Escapements
have
generally
been
estimated
to
be
in
the
hundreds,
ranging
up
to
approximately
3,000
in
one
year.
In
1992,
a
supplementation
program
was
started
as
a
strategy
to
increase
or
stabilize
the
abundance
to
allow
transfer
of
eggs
to
Chimacum
Creek
without
adversely
affecting
the
spawning
population
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).

Factors
for
Decline
The
most
significant
issues
believed
to
be
affecting
fish
habitat
in
Salmon
Creek
center
around
changes
in
peak
flow
and
low
flow
regimes,
sediment
accumulation
and
poor
water
quality
in
the
lower
reaches.
Summer
chum
life
history
stages
most
impacted
by
these
factors
in
the
fresh
water
environment
include
spawning
and
incubation.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.145
°
Channel
complexity
(
LWD,
channel
condition,
loss
of
side
channel,
channel
instability)
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Timber
and
agricultural
land
uses
in
the
watershed
have
combined
to
reduce
or
eliminate
riparian
buffers,
large
woody
debris
(
LWD),
side
channels
and
associated
wetlands.
LWD
levels
were
0.06
individual
pieces
per
meter,
or
0.15
pieces
if
log
jams
are
included,
and
rated
as
a
high
impact
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).
Pool
habitat
is
limited
(
39%
by
surface
area,
pool
frequency
of
4.8)
and
also
rated
a
high
impact.
Reductions
in
the
type
and
amount
of
LWD
have
reduced
habitat
in
the
form
of
pools
and
provide
for
channel
stability.

°
Peak
flow
 
Incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Reduction
of
LWD
has
also
reduced
instream
roughness
that
can
dissipate
the
erosive
force
of
floods.
Excessive
scour
and
deposition
is
one
form
of
channel
instability
that
occurs
during
peak
flow
events,
leading
to
redd
scour
and
egg
mortality.
Attempts
to
"
fix"
the
channel
in
place
by
bank
hardening,
in
one
form
or
another,
has
ensured
the
loss
of
potential
side
channel
development.
Confinement
of
the
channel
by
cutting
off
meanders
and
eliminating
side
channels
and
associated
wetlands
has
altered
the
hydrologic
capacity
of
the
stream
ensuring
that
peak
flow
events
are
much
more
severe
than
they
were
historically.

°
Riparian
condition
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Thirty­
two
percent
of
the
lower
1.5
miles
of
summer
chum
spawning
distribution
is
in
forested
buffer.
The
dominant
land
use
excluding
forested
buffers
includes
43%
in
agriculture.
Seventy
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
is
less
than
66
feet
in
width
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
A
habitat
survey
conducted
by
the
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council
under
the
Centennial
Clear
Water
Act
Fund
found
the
number
of
pools
in
relation
to
surface
area
of
the
creek
to
be
very
low
(
39%
­
Appendix
Report
3.8).
Pools
are
dependent
on
the
amount
of
large
woody
debris
which
are
in
turn
dependent
on
the
extent,
age,
and
species
composition
of
the
riparian
buffer.
The
poor
condition
of
the
riparian
buffer
is
a
strong
determinant
of
the
poor
condition
of
instream
habitat.

°
Subestuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
(
diking
and
road
causeways)
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
The
common
delta
of
Salmon
Creek
and
Snow
Creek
was
estimated
to
have
covered
0.28
km
(
70.4
ac;
4.5
km
[
2.8
mi]
perimeter).
Three
diked
areas,
totaling
2
0.02
km
(
5.3
ac),
now
prevent
tidal
inundation
in
approximately
25.3%
of
the
original
delta.
Ten
2
roads
or
causeways
cross
or
encompass
the
delta,
the
most
deleterious
of
which
is
Highway
101,
but
the
railroad
grade
poses
almost
equivalent
impacts
because
it
is
located
in
the
center
of
emergent
marsh
rearing
habitat.
The
railroad
grade
is
likely
a
major
contributor
to
muted
tidal
circulation
across
the
delta,
especially
in
emergent
wetland
habitat
between
the
railroad
grade
and
Highway
101.
The
total
length
of
these
various
segments
is
~
2
km
(
1.2
mi).

°
Sediment
(
fines,
aggradation)
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
Very
little
information
exists
regarding
the
sources
of
sediment
accumulation
in
the
lower
reaches.
Land
uses
that
confine
the
channel
in
the
lower
reaches
increase
the
potential
for
sediment
accumulation,
redd
scour
and
egg
mortality.
The
degree
to
which
this
occurs
needs
to
be
verified.
Fine
sediment
sampling
completed
in
1994
indicated
15%
fines
by
volume
less
than
0.85
mm
in
size,
rated
as
a
moderate
impact
to
the
spawning
life
stage.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.146
Factors
for
Recovery
A
general
discussion
of
habitat
factors
for
decline
and
recovery
is
found
in
Section
IV,
toolkit.
Knowledge
of
the
historic
conditions
in
Salmon
Creek
is
limited.
The
historic
channel
probably
had
a
more
sinuous
shape
than
we
see
today
including
connecting
side
channels
and
associated
wetlands.
We
know
that
Snow
Creek
was
a
tributary
to
Salmon
Creek
in
the
lower
reaches.
Large
woody
debris
was
more
abundant
throughout
the
watershed.

°
Channel
complexity
and
sediment
 
The
historic
removal
of
large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
and
log
jams
was
a
prominent
element
of
flood
control
activities
throughout
the
Northwest.
Stable
log
jams
are
now
scarce
throughout
the
lower
reaches
of
Salmon
Creek.
Restoration
of
the
lower
channel
will
include
restoring
a
sinuous
channel
pattern
upstream
of
the
WDFW
weir,
replacement
of
riprap
entirely
or
with
bioengineered
solutions,
controlling
sediment
inputs
that
are
in
excess
of
the
channel's
capacity
to
store
and
transport,
and
creating
stable
log
jams.

°
Riparian
forests
 
Only
32%
of
the
summer
chum
reach
is
cover
by
a
riparian
forest,
agriculture
(
43%)
is
the
primary
landuse
in
the
riparian
zone.
Restoration
of
riparian
forests
should
follow
recommendations
outlined
in
the
Riparian
forest
toolkit
(
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2).
This
will
include
replanting
appropriate
species,
and
fencing
livestock
out
of
the
riparian
zone
(
if
necessary).

°
Subestuary
habitat
loss
and
degradation­
Restoration
of
the
diked
delta
areas
will
be
problematic
because
of
the
integration
of
the
diked
areas
with
the
Highway
101
transportation
corridor.
Removal
of
the
railroad
grade,
however,
poses
one
of
the
more
direct
strategies
to
remove
a
significant
blockage
to
riverine­
tidal
circulation
and
fish
movement
across
the
delta.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
There
has
been
a
Federal
Watershed
Analysis
(
USFS
1996),
a
report
produced
by
the
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team
(
PSCRBT
1992),
and
a
community
based
watershed
management
plan
produced
in
Discovery
Bay
(
Discovery
Bay
Watershed
Management
Committee
1994).
Information
needs
include:

1.
An
in­
stream
summer
chum
flow
assessment.
2.
An
assessment
of
the
channel's
ability
to
accommodate
peak
flood
flows.
3.
An
assessment
of
the
extent
of
scour
and
deposition
within
the
spawning
range
of
summer
chum.
4.
An
inventory
of
landslides,
road
related
and
other
sources
of
sediment.
5.
An
assessment
of
the
estuary's
rearing
habitat
condition.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.147
References
Discovery
Bay
Watershed
Management
Committee.
1994.
Discovery
Bay
watershed
management
plan:
A
community
based
resource
management
plan.
Jefferson
County,
Port
Townsend,
WA.

PSCRBT
(
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team).
1992.
Discovery
Bay
Watershed;
Jefferson
and
Clallam
County.
Jefferson
County,
Port
Townsend,
WA.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service).
1996.
Snow
and
Salmon
Cr.
Watershed
Analysis.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Service,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.148
Snow
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
17.0219
Watershed
Description
The
headwaters
of
Snow
Creek
originate
at
approximately
3,600
ft
elevation
on
the
northeast
and
east
slopes
of
Mount
Zion.
The
stream
flows
east
through
a
confined
valley
and
then
turns
north
into
a
wide
valley
before
entering
Discovery
Bay.
The
stream
is
about
10
miles
long
and
its
major
tributaries
are
Andrews
Creek
(
inclusive
of
Crocker
Lake)
and
Trapper
Creek.

Since
European
settlement
a
number
of
changes
have
been
made
to
the
lower
channel.
At
one
time
Snow
Creek
was
a
tributary
to
Salmon
Creek,
and
emptied
into
Salmon
Creek
just
upstream
of
Discovery
Bay.
The
lower
0.6
miles
of
Snow
creek
was
moved
to
the
eastern
edge
of
the
valley
and
a
new
channel
dredged
to
Discovery
Bay.
During
flood
events,
Snow
Creek
has
been
known
to
overflow
into
its
original
channel.

The
upper
tributary
to
Snow
Creek,
Andrews
Creek,
was
also
diverted.
Once
a
tributary
to
Lake
Leland
within
the
Little
Quilcene
River
drainage,
it
was
diverted
into
Crocker
Lake.
Crocker
Lake
had
no
natural
outlet
prior
to
diversion
of
Andrews
Creek.
After
exiting
Crocker
Lake,
Andrews
Creek
flows
a
short
distance
before
entering
Snow
Creek
at
river
mile
(
RM)
3.5.

The
Snow
Creek
Watershed
contains
a
diverse
array
of
land
uses
but
is
dominated
by
forest
cover.
Land
use
includes
both
public
and
private
forest,
hay
and
pasture
lands
and
residential
areas.
Much
of
the
commercial
forestland
is
in
public
ownership
and
private
industrial
forestland.
The
largest
area
of
agricultural
lands
occurs
in
the
lower
Snow
Creek
Valley,
through
which
both
Snow
and
Salmon
creeks
flow.
Sixty­
four
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
below
RM
3.0
is
forested.
Twenty­
six
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
is
devoted
to
agriculture,
4%
to
roads
or
dikes,
and
2%
as
rural
residences
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).

At
the
entrance
to
Discovery
Bay,
Salmon
Creek
and
Snow
Creek
form
a
common
intertidal
delta;
the
discussion
of
factors
for
decline
and
recovery
below
will
treat
this
as
one
ecosystem
component.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
The
majority
of
summer
chum
spawn
below
Uncas
Road
(
approximately
RM
1.5),
however
there
are
reports
that
summer
chum
salmon
spawned
upstream
to
RM
3.0
in
past
years.

Population
Status
Escapement
until
the
late
1980s
was
estimated
to
be
in
the
hundreds,
varying
from
to
over
800
spawners
to
three
years
having
below
200.
In
the
late
1980s
and
early
1990s,
escapement
dropped
to
very
low
levels,
with
a
maximum
of
33
spawners
between
1989
and
1995
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).
Strays
from
the
Salmon
Creek
supplementation
project
may
have
accounted
for
escapements
of
160
in
1996
and
67
in
1997
(
fry
are
released
from
a
net
pen
in
Discovery
Bay).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.149
Factors
for
Decline
Channel
instability
and
problems
with
peak
and
low
flows,
loss
of
LWD,
and
deposition
of
fines
in
spawning
gravels
are
attributed
as
the
principal
habitat
limiting
factors.
These
changes
have
likely
resulted
in
an
increase
in
redd
scour
and
a
reduction
of
quality
spawning
habitat.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.
Factors
for
decline
in
Snow
Creek
include:

°
Channel
complexity
(
LWD,
channel
condition,
loss
of
side
channel,
channel
instability)­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
In
the
lower
reaches
of
Snow
Creek;
riparian
buffers
have
been
reduced
or
eliminated;
stable
log
jams
are
scarce
and
side
channels
and
associated
wetlands
have
been
largely
eliminated.
TFW
ambient
monitoring
completed
by
PNPTC
in
1993
found
0.07
pieces
of
LWD
per
meter,
rated
as
a
high
impact
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).
The
relative
scarcity
of
pool
habitat
(
47%
by
surface
area,
pool
frequency
of
5.7)
was
considered
a
moderate
to
high
impact.
Confinement
of
the
channel
by
bank
hardening
in
one
form
or
another,
in
addition
to
the
loss
of
LWD,
has
reduced
in­
channel
complexity
resulting
in
aggradation
and
an
unstable
channel.
These
factors
have
lead
to
increased
channel
instability
with
a
likely
increase
in
redd
scour
and
egg
mortality
during
peak
flow
events.

°
Sediment
(
fines,
aggradation)­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Re­
routing
of
the
channel
and
loss
of
instream
channel
complexity
have
decreased
the
channel's
ability
to
route
sediment
through
the
system.
Increased
aggradation
levels
have
resulted
in
increased
scour
of
redds.
It
is
not
known
to
what
degree
adult
summer
chum
are
inhibited
in
their
migration
to
spawning
beds
due
to
barriers
created
by
lower
than
normal
low
flow
conditions
as
a
result
of
the
aggradation.
Sediment
sampling
of
spawning
gravel,
completed
by
PNPTC
in
1994,
indicated
18%
fines
by
volume
less
than
0.85
mm,
rated
as
a
high
impact
to
the
spawning
life
stage.

°
Flow,
peak
and
summer
low­
Spawning
and
incubation,
rated
high
impact.
In
recent
years
higher
than
normal
sediment
aggradation
has
been
observed
in
the
lower
reaches.
The
extensive
re­
routing
and
channelization
in
the
lower
reaches
of
Snow
Creek
has
lowered
the
channel
capacity
to
route
sediment
into
the
bay.
The
increase
in
aggradation
in
the
lower
reaches
combined
with
the
reduced
channel
capacity
has
altered
the
hydrologic
regime
causing
increased
winter
peak
flows
and
lower
summer
flows.
It
is
unknown
how
the
re­
routing
of
Andrews
Creek
into
Snow
Creek
has
impacted
the
hydrologic
conditions
in
Snow
Creek.

°
Riparian
condition
(
species
composition,
age,
and
extent)­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Historic
timber
and
agricultural
land
uses
along
with
re­
routing
and
confinement
of
the
channel
has
reduced
or
eliminated
riparian
buffers
along
lower
Snow
Creek.
Sixty­
four
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
below
RM
3.0
is
forested.
Seventy­
six
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
is
<
66
ft
in
width.
Fifty­
six
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
is
either
absent
or
<
20
in
dbh
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
The
riparian
forest
is
in
poor
condition
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.150
°
Estuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
(
diking
and
road
causeways)
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
The
common
delta
of
Salmon
Creek
and
Snow
Creek
was
estimated
to
have
covered
0.28
km
(
70.4
ac;
4.5
km
[
2.8
mi]
perimeter).
Three
diked
areas,
totaling
2
0.02
km
(
5.3
ac),
now
prevent
tidal
inundation
in
approximately
25.3%
of
the
original
delta.
2
Downstream
of
Highway
101,
both
sides
of
the
bank
are
diked,
with
the
estuary
filled
behind
the
right
bank
dike.
Two
roads
or
causeways
cross
or
encompass
the
delta,
the
most
deleterious
of
which
is
Highway
101,
but
the
railroad
grade
poses
almost
equivalent
impacts
because
it
is
located
in
the
center
of
emergent
marsh
rearing
habitat.
The
railroad
grade
is
likely
a
major
contributor
to
muted
tidal
circulation
across
the
delta,
especially
in
emergent
wetland
habitat
between
the
railroad
grade
and
Highway
101.
The
total
length
of
these
various
segments
is
~
2
km
(
1.2
mi).

Factors
for
Recovery
In
order
for
restoration
efforts
to
succeed,
sediment
inputs
must
be
in
balance
with
capacity
of
the
channel
to
transport
and
store
sediment
in
the
river
channel,
floodplain
and
estuary.
This
will
require
reducing
excessive
sediment
input,
abating
constrictions
to
the
channel
and
re­
establishment
of
a
functional
floodplain.
A
general
discussion
of
limiting
factors
and
protection/
restoration
strategies
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

Historically,
removal
of
large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
and
log
jams
was
a
prominent
element
of
flood
control
activities
throughout
the
Northwest.
Stable
log
jams
are
now
scarce
throughout
the
lower
reaches
of
Snow
Creek.
In
concert
with
sediment
control,
the
creation
of
numerous
stable,
long­
term
log
jams
will
increase
the
following
functions:
dissipation
of
stream
energy
to
enhance
channel
and
bank
stability,
creation
of
stable
pools
and
riffles,
reduction
of
bank
erosion,
development
of
physical
habitat
and
cover
for
fish,
and
the
creation
of
stable
spawning
sites.
This
restoration
strategy
can
be
implemented
in
the
short
term.
The
reintroduction
of
a
functional
riparian
buffer
for
future
recruitment
of
LWD
will
require
both
a
protection
strategy
and
recognition
that
this
is
an
important
long­
term
effort
due
to
the
current
conditions
of
the
riparian
buffer.

In
addition,
a
critical
step
for
restoring
stability
in
lower
Snow
Creek
will
require
re­
establishing
a
functional
estuary/
freshwater
linkage.
Once
associated
with
a
significant
estuary,
Snow
Creek
was
relocated
into
an
artificial
channel
located
on
the
margin
of
its
estuary.
Estuaries
have
long
been
recognized
as
one
of
the
most
productive
aquatic
environments
due
to
their
abundant
food
supply
and
wide
salinity
gradients.
In
addition
to
their
productivity
and
importance
to
fish,
estuaries
provide
a
critical
linkage
for
routing
stream
sediment
into
the
marine
environment
and
thereby
contribute
significantly
to
both
horizontal
and
vertical
bed
stability
in
the
lower
reaches
of
creeks
and
rivers.

In
highly
functional
estuaries,
tidal
energy
is
manifested
and
harnessed
for
sediment
routing
through
a
network
of
tidal
surge
plains
and
channels,
collectively
referred
to
as
tidal
basins,
that
serve
as
tributaries
to
the
fresh
stream
channel.
Tidal
energy
is
effective
at
moving
sediment
where
stream
gradient
becomes
approximately
zero
at
the
marine
interface.
As
elevations
and
gradient
drop,
stream
energy
declines
and
in
this
transition
zone
tidal
surge
energy
increases.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.151
Thus,
sediment
is
transported
and
distributed
widely
into
far­
lower
tidal
elevations
than
channel
gradient
and
stream
energy
alone
would
appear
to
allow.
Linking
of
fresh
water
and
tidal
basins
is
the
mechanism
responsible
for
creating
stable,
slowly
evolving,
complex
and
productive
estuaries.

Perhaps
no
other
aquatic
environment
on
the
east
and
north
slopes
of
the
Olympic
Peninsula
have
been
so
altered
by
human
impacts
as
estuaries.
Diking,
road
and
railroad
grade
building,
and
land
filling
have
truncated
significant
portions
of
most
of
the
region's
estuaries.
To
date
there
has
been
no
estuary
restoration
measure
taken
to
specifically
restore
these
critical
functions
of
estuaries.

In
1995
and
1996,
two
phases
of
an
early
Snow
Creek
restoration
project
were
implemented.
These
consisted
of
constriction
abatement/
floodplain
creation
in
the
lowest
reaches
north
of
Highway
101
and
west
of
State
Road
20,
pool
re­
establishment,
streambed
lowering,
and
large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
inputs.
No
specific
estuary
restoration
measures
were
incorporated,
although
approximately
150
feet
of
old
de
facto
dike
were
removed
from
the
high
salt
marsh.
The
actions
created
a
modest
in­
channel
tidal
surge
reservoir,
which
in
December
1996
was
seen
to
harbor
adult
salmon
and
white
sturgeon.
Evidence
of
bedload
accumulation
in
recent
years
indicates
that
the
most
important
step
to
restoring
Snow
Creek
is
to
re­
establish
the
freshwater/
estuary
link.

Restoration
of
much
of
the
diked
areas
of
the
delta
will
be
problematic
because
of
the
integration
of
the
diked
areas
with
the
Highway
101
transportation
corridor.
Removal
of
the
railroad
grade,
however,
poses
one
of
the
more
direct
strategies
to
remove
a
significant
blockage
to
riverine­
tidal
circulation
and
fish
movement
across
the
delta.

Recommended
restoration
actions
include:

°
Reconnect
Snow
Creek
to
Salmon
Creek
within
its
historic
channel.
This
would
require
the
cooperation
of
state
and
federal
agencies,
Jefferson
County,
Jamestown
Tribe,
and
the
local
landowners.
If
this
is
not
possible,
then
establish
a
functional
floodplain
in
lower
reaches
of
Snow
Creek
through
abatement
of
man­
made
constrictions
to
the
channel.
°
Restore
sinuosity
below
Uncas
Road
(
RM
1.5)
through
to
the
river
mouth.
°
Control
sediment
inputs
that
are
in
excess
of
the
channel's
capacity
to
store
and
transport
material.
°
Create
numerous
stable,
long­
term
log
jams.
°
Re­
introduce
a
functional
riparian
buffer
for
future
recruitment
of
large
woody
debris.
°
Remove
the
railroad
grade
in
the
estuary
to
remove
a
significant
blockage
to
riverine­
tidal
circulation
and
fish
movement
across
the
delta.
°
Re­
integrate
estuary
with
Snow
Creek
through
salt
marsh
and
mud
flat
restoration.
°
Remove
dikes
on
both
sides
of
the
estuarine
channel
and
remove
fill
located
behind
the
right
bank
dike.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
There
has
been
a
Federal
Watershed
Analysis
(
USFS
1996),
a
report
produced
by
the
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team
(
PSCRBT
1992),
and
a
community
based
watershed
management
plan
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.152
produced
in
Discovery
Bay
(
Discovery
Bay
Watershed
Management
Committee
1994).
Information
needs
include:

1.
An
assessment
of
the
minimum
summer
low
flows
necessary
to
support
the
desired
summer
chum
escapement.
2.
An
assessment
of
the
channel's
ability
to
accommodate
flood
flows.
3.
An
assessment
of
the
estuary's
rearing
habitat
conditions.

References
Discovery
Bay
Watershed
Management
Committee.
1994.
Discovery
Bay
watershed
management
plan:
A
community
based
resource
management
plan.
Jefferson
County,
Port
Townsend,
WA.

PSCRBT
(
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team).
1992.
Discovery
Bay
Watershed;
Jefferson
and
Clallam
County.
Jefferson
County,
Port
Townsend,
WA.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service).
1996.
Snow
and
Salmon
Cr.
Watershed
Analysis.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Service,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.153
Chimacum
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
17.0203
Watershed
Description
Chimacum
Creek
is
located
in
east
Jefferson
County,
on
the
northeast
side
of
the
Olympic
Peninsula.
The
mouth
of
the
stream
enters
Admiralty
inlet
approximately
five
miles
south
of
the
city
of
Port
Townsend.
The
Chimacum
watershed
is
approximately
37
square
miles
in
area,
with
a
combined
stream
length
of
about
30
miles.
In
the
rain
shadow
of
the
Olympic
Mountains,
the
watershed
generally
receives
from
35
inches
of
rain
in
its
headwaters
to
less
than
22
inches
at
the
mouth.

Chimacum
Creek
originates
in
a
number
of
spring
fed
tributaries
and
lakes
in
the
forested
hills,
and
then
flows
into
two
glacially
carved
lowland
valleys
dominated
by
pastureland
with
peat
and
muck
soils.
The
surrounding
hills
are
used
for
rural
residences
and
logging
of
second
and
third
growth
timber,
and
the
lowland
valleys
are
dominated
by
agricultural
use,
primarily
pastureland.
Near
the
confluence
of
the
east
and
west
forks
of
Chimacum
Creek
at
RM
2.9,
are
the
towns
of
Chimacum,
Port
Hadlock,
and
Irondale
with
rapidly
growing
residential
and
commercial
development.
The
mainstem
enters
a
moderately
confined
and
forested
ravine
below
RM
1.3.
At
RM
0.2,
the
stream
continues
through
a
comparatively
unimpacted
estuarine
lagoon,
salt
marsh
and
relatively
deep
inlet
to
the
open
saltwater
of
Admiralty
Inlet.
The
Creek
empties
into
a
short,
partially
forested
tidal
floodplain
but
has
no
distinct
tidal
delta,
and
drains
into
a
comparatively
deep
inlet
that
adjoins
Admiralty
Inlet.

Fifty
one
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
below
RM
3.0
is
covered
by
riparian
forests,
most
of
which
is
in
the
forested
ravine
located
below
RM
1.3
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
Between
RM
1.3
and
3.0,
are
minimal
riparian
forests
and
extensive
landuse.
Here,
49%
of
the
riparian
zone
is
comprised
of
agriculture
(
16%),
rural
residences
(
17%),
and
urban
or
commercial
development
(
16%).

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Summer
chum
were
documented
spawning
below
RM
1.3,
between
the
river
mouth
and
Irondale
road
crossing,
by
Ray
Lowrie
and
his
Chimacum
High
School
class
from
1971
to
1976;
WDFW
documented
summer
chum
in
the
same
reach
in
six
surveys
between
1974
and
1983.
Art
Giles,
a
long
time
landowner
on
a
headwater
tributary
of
Chimacum
Creek
(
WRIA
17.0213,
Barnhouse
Creek),
recalls
seeing
chum
spawning
in
abundance
in
this
headwater
stream
decades
ago
(
pers.
comm.,
1998).
Because
Chimacum
Creek
maintains
a
low
gradient,
the
historic
distribution
may
well
have
extended
more
than
eight
miles
upstream
in
both
valleys
to
the
hillside
tributaries
(
Bahls
and
Rubin
1996).
However,
for
this
analysis,
we
are
basing
the
assessment
on
the
more
likely
potential
distribution
below
RM
3.0.

Population
Status
No
summer
chum
salmon
were
observed
during
spawning
surveys
conducted
by
the
Port
Gamble
S'Klallam
Tribe
during
the
past
five
years,
indicating
that
the
population
is
extinct.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.154
Spawning
surveys
conducted
by
Ray
Lowrie
and
his
Chimacum
high
school
students
between
1971
and
1976
show
counts
of
over
100
fish
for
some
years,
however
no
escapement
estimates
were
made.
A
reintroduction
program
was
begun
in
1996
using
Salmon
Creek
stock.

Factors
for
Decline
The
riparian
zone
and
estuarine
lagoon
below
RM
1.3
of
Chimacum
Creek
remains
in
good
condition
with
large
second
growth
conifer
and
no
development
within
the
ravine.
Above
the
ravine,
95%
of
the
wide,
low
gradient,
glacial
valley
was
ditched
for
pasture
and
cropland
beginning
in
the
1920s
(
Bahls
and
Rubin
1996).
These
upstream
changes
in
land
use
have
impacted
the
habitat
in
a
number
of
ways.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Fine
sediment
­
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
In­
stream
habitat
has
been
severely
degraded
by
a
combination
of
upstream
impacts.
Siltation
from
de­
forested
and
channelized
segments
has
degraded
spawning
gravel
conditions.
In
addition,
the
collapse
of
the
Irondale
road
crossing
(
RM
1.3)
and
its
fill
in
1983
caused
downstream
sedimentation
and
"
cementing"
of
the
stream
gravel
making
redd
construction
difficult
for
salmon
(
Ray
Lowrie,
pers.
comm.,
1996).
These
conditions
have
improved
in
recent
years,
but
percentage
of
fine
sediment
in
the
spawning
gravel
remains
high
(
M.
Kennedy,
stream
restoration
volunteer,
private
comm.).

°
Peak
flow,
freshwater
wetland
loss,
and
channel
instability
­
incubation
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
The
historic
conversion
of
the
Chimacum
lowland
valleys
from
beaver
pond
wetlands
and
forested
bogs
to
pasturelands
may
increase
the
duration
and
magnitude
of
winter
flood
flows.
The
valley
still
serves
as
a
flood
reservoir
however
it
is
suspected
the
valley
may
release
floodwater
more
rapidly
than
the
previous
beaver­
pond
dominated
valley.
Areas
around
Chimacum,
Port
Hadlock,
and
Irondale
are
rapidly
urbanizing,
with
an
expected
increase
to
the
severity
of
winter
floods
from
impervious
surfaces.

°
Low
flow
­
spawning
life
stage,
rated
moderate­
low
impact.
Water
withdrawal
for
irrigation
and
loss
of
wetlands
in
the
Chimacum
valley
may
impact
summer
chum
survival,
with
a
more
severe
impact
in
years
when
the
summer
dry
season
overlaps
the
Summer
Chum
spawning
season
(
mid
August
to
mid
October).
DOE
has
an
administrative
closure
to
further
surface
water
diversion
(
DOE
1998).

°
Water
quality
­
spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
moderate­
low
impact.
The
good
condition
of
this
riparian
zone
helps
reduce
high
summer
stream
temperatures
coming
from
the
agricultural
valleys
upstream.
Temperature
monitoring
(
1998)
at
the
mouth
indicates
that
while
state
AA
standards
were
exceeded
in
July,
by
the
end
of
August
temperatures
averaged
14
°
C
and
declined
to
below
12
°
C
by
the
end
of
September.
Chum
prefer
spawning
temperature
of
12­
14
°
C,
this
is
considered
a
moderate
to
low
impact.
Dissolved
oxygen
at
the
river
mouth
averaged
between
9.3
and
above
10
mg/
L,
with
the
state
AA
standard
of
9.5
mg/
L.
In
1998,
fecal
coliform
at
RM
1.1
averaged
just
below
the
state
AA
standard
of
50
FC/
ml
(
Al
Latham,
JCCD).
However,
in
dry
years
when
the
summer
dry
season
overlaps
the
fall
spawning
season,
stream
temperatures
may
be
a
significant
impact.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.155
°
Riparian
forest
­
spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
low
impact.
The
riparian
forests
range
from
absent
or
severely
degraded,
to
those
in
advanced
stages
of
recovery.
Most
of
the
degraded
riparian
forests
occur
between
RM
1.3­
3.0.
Above
RM
1.3,
riparian
forests
are
small
diameter
(<
12
in),
deciduous
or
grass
dominated
and
narrow
in
extent
(<
66
ft).
Below
RM
1.3,
the
forested
strip
is
wide
(>
200
ft),
mixed
conifer/
deciduous,
and
with
a
medium
average
diameter
(
12­
20
in).
Since
summer
chum
is
primarily
found
below
RM
1.3,
it
is
these
forest
conditions
that
reduced
the
overall
riparian
impact
from
moderate/
high
to
low.

°
Subestuary
habitat
loss
and
degradation
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
Out
of
all
the
20
sub­
estuaries,
this
was
the
only
one
that
did
not
have
a
road
directly
across
or
shortly
upstream
of
the
subestuary.
However,
south
of
the
river
mouth
approximately
30
ac
of
tidal
marshland
was
filled,
probably
in
the
late
1800s.
A
road
now
crosses
most
of
the
fill,
but
ends
at
the
river
mouth.
There
are
no
other
roads,
jetties
or
dikes,
dredged,
ditched
or
excavated
areas
evident
in
this
comparatively
small,
0.02
km
(
5.2
ac,
1
km
[
0.6
mi]
perimeter)
delta.
Historically,
2
the
bay
at
the
mouth
of
the
creek
was
used
for
log
storage.

Factors
for
Recovery
The
following
recommendations
are
provided
to
allow
recovery
of
Summer
Chum
habitat
in
the
lower
river.
Jefferson
County
should
realize
that
designating
Chimacum,
Port
Hadlock,
and
Irondale
as
Urban
Growth
Areas
under
the
Growth
Management
Act
should
consider
the
impact
to
the
lower
Chimacum
Creek
and
subestuary.
A
general
discussion
of
protection
and
restorations
strategies
for
each
habitat
factor
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

°
Fine
sediment
and
water
quality
­
Investigate
replacement
of
the
fill
and
culvert
at
the
Irondale
Road
crossing
with
a
bridge
to
remove
the
possibility
of
future
culvert
failure.
The
costs
and
benefits
of
this
project
should
be
weighed
against
other
Chimacum
Creek
projects.
Within
the
valley,
reestablish
forested
riparian
zones
along
the
east
and
west
forks
of
Chimacum
Creek
to
reduce
high
summer
water
temperatures
and
input
of
fine
sediment.

°
Peak
flow
and
summer
low
flow
­
Restore
wetlands
where
possible
to
increase
flows
in
the
summer
and
to
help
reduce
the
impacts
from
peak
flows
in
the
winter.
There
are
several
areas
where
wetland
and
beaver
pond
restoration
could
be
accomplished
without
impacting
existing
farmers.
Conduct
an
extensive
assessment
of
surface
and
groundwater
withdrawals
to
determine
the
extent
of
impact
on
summer
low
flow
and
to
identify
potential
remedies.
Locate
and
monitor
potential
runoff
sources
from
impervious
surfaces.
Monitor
the
potential
impacts
from
peak
flows
to
the
channel
bed
with
scour
chains.

°
Riparian
forest
and
LWD
­
Protect
the
riparian
and
wetland
habitat
in
the
entire
lower
1.3
miles
(
below
Irondale
Road)
and
upstream
areas
that
are
still
forested
and
in
good
condition.
The
Jefferson
Land
Trust
and
WDFW
are
currently
working
to
acquire
conservation
easements
to
protect
key
salmon
refugia
throughout
the
watershed.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.156
°
Protect
tidal
floodplain
and
estuary
­
The
subestuarine
fill
site
has
been
highlighted
by
conservation
groups
for
aquisition
and
restoration.
Upstream
of
the
mouth,
the
subestuary
narrows
and
enters
a
canyon
where
it
is
relatively
unimpacted
by
development.
The
subestuary
in
the
canyon
is
contiguous
with
the
undeveloped
lower
1.3
miles
of
riparian
forest.
This
entire
stretch
should
be
protected
with
easements
or
outright
purchase.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
The
Chimacum
Watershed
Coho
Salmon
Restoration
Assessment
(
Bahls
and
Rubin
1996)
provides
a
fairly
thorough
base
of
information
upon
which
to
evaluate
the
status
of
habitat
for
summer
chum
salmon.
However,
because
most
of
the
impacts
on
summer
chum
habitat
are
an
indirect
result
of
upstream
habitat
changes,
confidence
in
the
assessment
is
moderate.

The
following
are
research
and
monitoring
needs:

1.
Determine
the
impact
(
if
any)
on
surface
and
groundwater
withdrawals
on
summer
low
flow.
2.
Conduct
scour
monitoring
to
determine
the
magnitude
of
peak
flow
on
redd
scour.
3.
Annual
monitoring
of
fine
sediment
both
above
and
below
Irondale
Road.
4.
Continuous
temperature
monitoring
at
regular
intervals
below
RM
3.0.

References
Bahls,
P.
and
J.
Rubin.
1996.
Chimacum
watershed
coho
salmon
habitat
restoration
assessment.
Port
Gamble
Tribe
Fish
Management,
Kingston,
WA.

WDOE
(
Wash.
Dept.
of
Ecology).
1998.
Needs
assessment
for
the
Eastern
Olympic
Water
Quality
Management
Area.
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.157
Little
Quilcene
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
17.0076
Watershed
Description
The
Little
Quilcene
watershed
drains
to
Quilcene
Bay.
It
is
bounded
by
Snow
Creek
to
the
North,
Donovan
and
Tarboo
Creek
to
the
east,
Big
Quilcene
to
the
south,
and
Dosewallips
to
the
west.
The
Little
Quilcene
has
a
watershed
area
of
30
square
miles,
total
mainstem
length
of
12.2
miles
and
combined
tributary
length
of
81.2
miles.
The
upper
1/
3
of
the
watershed
lies
within
the
basalt­
rich
Crescent
formation,
and
is
primarily
Forest
Service
land.
Watersheds
of
this
rock
type
are
steeply
dissected
with
limited
anadromous
habitat
(
e.
g.
similar
to
most
of
west
Hood
Canal
from
the
Big
Quilcene
south).
Port
Townsend
diverts
water
(
9.6
cfs
water
right,
with
a
6
cfs
mimimum
instream
flow
requirement
at
diversion)
at
RM
7.1
to
Lords
Lake
Reservoir
on
Howe
Creek,
which
is
removed
from
the
watershed
(
USFS
and
WDNR
1994).
This
water
right
is
junior
to
a
total
of
5
cfs
water
rights
held
by
landowners
in
Quilcene.
Lords
Lake
(
generally
filled
during
April
and
May)
is
used
to
supplement
Port
Townsend
water
diverted
from
the
Big
Quilcene
when
flows
decline
below
the
Big
Quilcene
minimum
instream
flow
level,
or
when
the
Big
Quilcene
contains
excessive
suspended
sediment
during
floods
(
USFS
and
WDNR
1994,
S.
Cupp,
US
Forest
Service,
pers.
comm.
1994).
WDOE
has
an
administrative
closure
to
further
surface
water
diversion
(
WDOE
1998).

From
approximately
RM
7.0
to
the
mouth,
the
watershed
is
composed
of
unconsolidated
glacial
sediment
layers
interbedded
with
siltstone
and
sandstone,
and
alluvium
deposited
by
the
river
(
Grimstad
and
Carson
1981).
This
portion
of
the
watershed
contains
extensive
low­
gradient
anadromous
habitat
and
associated
development
for
agriculture,
homes,
and
the
town
of
Quilcene.
The
Little
Quilcene
reaches
the
town
of
Quilcene
at
about
RM
1.0.

Sixty
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
below
RM
3.0
is
developed
(
major
landuse
are
33%­
Agriculture,
11%
roads
or
dikes,
8%
rural
residences
and
6%
forestry,
Appendix
Report
3.7),
which
is
considered
a
high
impact.
The
lower
0.8
miles
contains
dikes
and
bank
armoring
for
floodplain
residences.
Dikes,
roads,
and
ditches
impact
the
tidal
delta.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Summer
chum
spawn
in
the
mainstem
up
to
RM
3.0,
however
most
spawning
occurs
below
RM
1.8.
It
is
unlikely
summer
chum
use
tributaries
such
as
Leland
Creek
due
to
low
summer
flows.

Population
Status
Escapement
declined
in
the
1980s
from
the
several
hundreds
with
occasional
escapements
of
over
one
thousand
to
less
than
two
hundred
spawners.
From
1989
through
1994
escapement
was
12
spawners
or
less,
with
four
years
of
0
or
1.
An
improvement
in
escapement
to
265
was
seen
in
1996.
In
1997
escapement
dropped
to
29,
but
was
again
265
in
1998
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).
The
recent
increases
may
be
affected
by
the
summer
chum
supplementation
project
in
the
immediately
adjacent
Big
Quilcene
River.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.158
Factors
for
Decline
The
Little
Quilcene
is
similar
to
the
Big
Quilcene
in
terms
of
factors
for
decline.
The
habitat
is
in
poor
condition,
especially
below
RM
0.8.
Factors
for
decline
are:
water
withdrawal,
low
channel
complexity,
estuarine
diking,
channel
aggradation,
and
young
or
absent
riparian
vegetation.
These
factors
are
not
separate,
but
interact
to
increase
pressure
across
all
life
stages.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Low
flow­
Spawning
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Mean
annual
flow
for
the
Little
Quilcene
is
54
cfs,
with
low
flows
of
5
to
13
cfs
(
Jamestown
S'Klallam
1994).
The
Little
Quilcene
is
overallocated
during
low
flow
periods.
The
City
of
Port
Townsend
and
local
landowners
combined
hold
a
total
of
14.6
cfs
in
water
rights.
The
5
cfs
of
senior
irrigation
water
rights
held
by
local
landowners
in
the
lower
river
is
downstream
of
the
6
cfs
the
City
of
Port
Townsed
is
required
to
maintain
in
the
river.
The
City
of
Port
Townsend
(
and
Port
Townsend
Paper)
"
divert
very
little
if
any
water
from
the
first
part
of
September
until
the
first
major
rains
in
the
fall"
(
Stan
Cupp,
Port
Townsend
Paper,
pers.
comm.).
The
impact
of
water
withdrawal
on
fish
habitat
needs
further
investigation.
For
eastern
Jefferson
County,
water
consumption
is
expected
to
increase
78%
(
over
1990
levels)
by
the
year
2020
(
Jamestown
S'Klallam
1994).
Developing
water
resources
in
the
glacial
deposits
of
the
Little
Quilcene,
where
continuity
may
exist
between
surface
water
and
groundwater,
may
further
reduce
already
low
summer
flows.
An
aquifier
study
for
the
Big
Quilcene
was
inconclusive
on
the
connectivity
between
the
Big
Quilcene
and
the
glacial
deposits
between
the
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
(
Schwartzman
1998).
This
relationship
needs
further
study
for
both
rivers.

°
Channel
complexity­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
high
impact.
From
habitat
surveys,
the
Little
Quilcene
has
(
within
the
summer
chum
range)
32%
pool,
0.1
pieces
of
LWD/
m.,
and
an
average
of
5.3
channel
widths
between
pools.
Together
these
numbers
translate
into
highly
degraded
channel
habitat.
A
1932
survey
of
the
Little
Quilcene
noted
many
logjams
and
six
areas
of
beaver
activity
in
the
lower
10
miles
(
Amato
1996).
Most
of
these
logjams
are
gone.
Six
hydraulic
permits
for
LWD
removal
were
issued
from
1989
to
1995
alone
(
WDFW
HPA
database).
The
stream
catalog
reported
ditching
of
the
Little
Quilcene
below
RM
0.8
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
Portions
of
the
south
riverbank
currently
are
hardened
with
riprap
(
B.
Rot,
pers.
comm.).

°
Subestuary
habitat
loss
and
degradation­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Undiked
river
mouths
are
connected
to
multiple
slough
channels,
which
are
heavily
utilized
by
summer
chum
for
spawning
and
rearing.
Dikes
along
the
river
and
paralleling
the
coast
south
of
the
river
mouth
have
physically
isolated
the
river
channel
from
slough
habitat.
Through
aerial
photo
analysis,
we
estimate
that
25%
of
the
historic
delta
area
of
approximately
230
ac.
is
diked
along
the
western
margin
of
the
delta.
These
diked
areas
appear
to
be
controlled
by
at
least
two
tidegates.
Four
road
or
causeway
segments
totaling
0.45
mi.
in
lineal
extent,
may
constrict
or
prevent
natural
tidal
inundation
of
adjoining
wetlands.
Ditches,
filling
and
dredging
were
not
detected
in
the
delta.
No
docks,
log
storage,
jetties
or
other
structures
are
evident.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.159
°
Riparian
forest­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Seventy
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
contains
small
trees
(<
12
in
dbh),
51%
is
deciduous
dominated
or
has
no
riparian
forest,
and
60%
is
<
66ft
in
width
and/
or
sparsely
vegetated
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
The
riparian
forest
was
first
harvested
in
the
early
1900s
by
the
Otto
Beck
Logging
Company
to
supply
the
Green
Shingle
Mill
located
in
Quilcene
(
Amato
1996).
At
the
time,
the
floodplain
between
and
surrounding
the
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers
was
mostly
old
growth
cedar
swamp
and
forest.
The
mill
was
closed
in
1915
when
the
accessible
cedar
had
been
harvested.
In
addition
to
historical
effects,
bank
armoring,
home
building,
and
agriculture
in
the
100­
year
floodplain
has
reduced
the
extent
of
functional
riparian
forest.

°
Sediment­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
The
channelized
and
diked
lower
river
near
the
mouth
has
resulted
in
channel
aggradation
and
avulsions
at
least
three
times
in
the
past
six
years
below
RM
0.3,
leaving
the
main
channel
dry
for
at
least
several
weeks
(
R.
Johnson,
WDFW,
Port
Angeles,
WA,
pers.
comm.).
The
channel
avulsed
both
north
and
south
of
the
diked
mainstem.
While
very
little
information
exists
regarding
potential
sediment
sources
within
the
watershed,
failing
Forest
Service
roads,
diking
of
the
estuary
and
lower
channel,
and
increasing
percentage
of
impervious
surfaces
are
suspected
primary
factors.

Factors
for
Recovery
A
general
discussion
of
protection
and
restoration
strategy
for
each
factor
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

°
Low
flow­
the
extent
of
water
usage
or
draw­
down
by
Port
Townsend
during
August
and
September
and
its
potential
impact
to
summer
chum
spawning
is
unknown.
While
DOE
has
the
river
on
administrative
closure,
the
IFIM
study
currently
in
progress
is
expected
to
provide
information
needed
regarding
relative
impacts
of
surface
water
withdrawal
on
fish.
Further
study
is
needed
on
whether
there
is
a
relationship
between
well
use
and
instream
flows.

°
Property
buyout
and
floodplain
easements­
protect
the
few
remaining
spawning
areas
in
the
lower
three
miles
with
intact
riparian
forest
and
good
instream
habitat.
Identification
of
these
areas
could
be
done
with
the
assistance
of
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Sanctuary
group.

°
Construction
permits­
below
RM
0.7,
the
100­
year
floodplain
has
extensive
development
to
the
south
of
the
river.
Except
for
a
road,
the
north
side
is
relatively
undeveloped,
although
at
least
one
lot
is
for
sale.
A
recent
springtime
flood
crossed
this
property.
In
areas
of
high
channel
migration,
bank
hardening
follows
floodplain
development.
The
county
should
restrict
future
development
to
areas
outside
of
the
100­
year
floodplain
throughout
the
summer
chum
zone.

°
Riparian
forest
and
LWD­
educate
local
landowners
on
the
importance
of
LWD
to
channel
complexity
and
connected
forested
floodplains.
Encourage
farmers
and
residential
landowners
to
plant
conifer
where
the
forest
is
absent
or
dominated
by
deciduous
species,
and
discourage
removal
of
LWD
(
see
Riparian
Forests
toolkit,
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.160
°
Channel
aggradation­
conduct
an
assessment
using
the
methodology
in
the
Watershed
Analysis
mass
wasting
module
to
determine
the
source
of
channel
aggradation.
°
Restoration
of
estuarine
diked
areas
 
Purchase
or
obtain
an
easement
of
estuarine
property,
remove
dikes
(
both
paralleling
the
channel
and
the
coast
south
of
the
channel)
and
restore
connection
to
the
lower
floodplain
and
subestary.
In
addition,
restore
channel
sinuosity
through
this
reach.
This
represents
a
potential
recovery
of
over
25%
of
the
historic
juvenile
summer
chum
rearing
and
migration
habitat
in
this
estuary
(
see
Subestuarine
toolkit,
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2).
Conversion
of
fill
road
causeways
to
pile
causeways
may
also
recover
additional
estuarine
habitat.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Confidence
in
the
assessment
is
high
given
the
channel
habitat
surveys,
riparian
forest
and
landuse
data
for
the
Little
Quilcene,
coupled
with
the
large
amount
of
data
for
the
nearby
Big
Quilcene
River.

Information
needs
include:

1.
An
understanding
of
the
range
of
annual
summer
low
flows
(
given
withdrawal)
and
whether
these
are
adequate
to
support
recruitment
goals.
If
not,
what
flow
is
necessary
and
what
density
will
the
existing
range
of
flows
support.
2.
A
study
to
look
at
well
development
and
instream
flows.
3.
A
sediment
source
assessment
for
the
watershed.
4.
A
study
evaluating
the
relative
effect
of
road
fill
causeways
on
the
creation
and
maintenance
of
tidal
slough
channels,
and
the
feasibility
of
dike
removal
in
the
lower
channel
and
estuary.

References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

Grimstad
and
Carson.
1981.
Geology
and
ground­
water
resources
of
eastern
Jefferson
County,
Washington.
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.
125
p.

Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe.
1994.
The
Dungeness­
Quilcene
water
resources
management
plan.
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Sequim,
WA.

Schwartzman,
P.
1998.
Study
of
residential
well
connectivity
between
Quilcene
and
Big
Quilcene
R.
Jefferson
County
Dept.
Pub.
Works,
Port
Townsend,
WA.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service)
and
WDNR
(
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources).
1994.
Big
Quilcene
watershed
analysis
­
an
ecological
report
at
the
watershed
level.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.161
WDOE
(
Wash.
Dept.
of
Ecology).
1998.
Needs
assessment
for
the
Eastern
Olympic
Water
Quality
Management
Area.
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

Williams,
R.
W.,
R.
M.
Laramie,
and
J.
J.
Ames.
1975.
A
catalog
of
Washington
streams
and
salmon
utilization,
Volume
1,
Puget
Sound
Region.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
974
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.162
Big
Quilcene
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
17.0012
Watershed
Description
The
Big
Quilcene
watershed
drains
to
Quilcene
Bay
in
west
Hood
Canal,
and
is
bounded
by
the
Little
Quilcene
to
the
north,
the
Dungeness
to
the
west,
and
the
Dosewallips
to
the
south.
The
Big
Quilcene
has
a
watershed
area
of
68
square
miles,
total
mainstem
length
of
19
miles,
and
combined
tributary
length
of
80
miles.
Thirty
percent
of
the
Big
Quilcene
watershed
(
headwater)
is
contained
in
the
Buckhorn
wilderness.
Below
the
Buckhorn,
the
Forest
Service,
State,
and
private
forestland
owners
manage
most
of
the
remaining
watershed
for
timber
production.
This
portion
of
the
watershed
is
steep,
with
relatively
weak,
easily
eroded
rock.
The
Big
Quilcene
is
a
tier
II
Key
Watershed
under
the
President's
Forest
Plan
(
FEMAT
1993).
The
primary
water
source
for
the
City
of
Port
Townsend
(
30
cfs
water
right)
is
diverted
at
RM
(
river
mile)
9.4.
This
is
a
consumptive
use
and
is
diverted
out
of
the
basin.
The
majority
of
water
supports
the
operation
of
a
paper
mill.

Below
RM
4.8,
the
channel
gradient
moderates
and
flows
through
an
increasingly
wide
floodplain.
This
area
of
small
private
land
blocks
occupies
about
5%
of
the
watershed.
The
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
(
QNFH)
is
located
at
RM
2.8,
and
utilizes
water
from
both
the
Big
Quilcene
and
nearby
Penny
Creek.
On
the
Big
Quilcene,
they
have
a
15
cfs
water
right
with
an
additional
25
cfs
when
flows
in
the
mainstem
at
the
hatchery
exceed
50
cfs
from
July
1
to
February
28,
and
83
cfs
from
March
1
to
June
30
(
Jamestown
S'Klallam
1994).
This
water
is
removed
from
the
Big
Quilcene
for
about
1/
2
mile
between
the
hatchery
intake
and
outlet.
Penny
Creek
is
a
25
cfs
water
right
(
Jamestown
S'Klallam
1994).

Thirty
eight
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
to
RM
4.8
is
occupied
by
landuse,
primarily
roads
or
dikes
(
21%)
and
agriculture
(
10%,
Appendix
Report
3.7).
The
channel
below
RM
0.8
is
diked,
and
portions
of
the
channel
between
RM
0.8
and
4.8
has
been
dredged,
diked,
or
the
bank
armored.
The
Big
Quilcene
flows
through
the
town
of
Quilcene
at
approximately
RM
0.8.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Summer
chum
spawn
in
the
mainstem
up
to
RM
2.8
where
the
hatchery
weir
prevents
further
passage,
however
most
spawning
occurs
below
RM
1.0.
Since
historical
summer
chum
distribution
may
have
extended
up
to
RM
5.0
on
the
mainstem
(
USFS
1994),
we
examined
habitat
conditions
up
to
RM
5.0.
It
is
unlikely
that
summer
chum
historically
spawned
in
tributaries
such
as
Penny
Creek
due
to
low
summer
flows.

Population
Status
Escapement
dropped
substantially
from
estimated
in
the
thousands
prior
to
1978
to
estimates
below
on
hundred
from
1983
to
1991,
excepting
1998
with
120
spawners
in
1988
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).
In
1992,
the
Tribes,
WDFW,
and
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
initiated
a
12­
year
brood
stocking
program
(
USFWS
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.163
1994).
The
run
was
to
be
restarted
from
chronically
low
levels
while
chum
habitat
was
enhanced
to
support
a
wild
run.

Factors
for
Decline
The
Big
Quilcene
watershed
has
historically
been
managed
for
timber,
water,
and
hatchery
fish
production.
The
habitat
is
in
poor
condition,
especially
below
RM
1.0
where
the
primary
summer
chum
spawning
grounds
are
located.
The
habitat
is
degraded
due
to:
water
withdrawal,
low
channel
complexity,
subestuarine
modifications;
sediment
accumulation,
and
a
young
deciduous
dominated
(
or
absent)
riparian
forest.
The
decline
in
summer
chum
cannot
be
attributed
to
any
one
factor.
These
factors
are
not
mutually
exclusive,
but
interact
to
increase
pressure
across
all
life
stages.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Low
flow­
Spawning
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Discharge
(
below
the
diversion
dam
from
August
15
to
October
15,
for
the
years
1994­
1996)
ranged
between
23
to
82
cfs,
with
an
average
of
30
cfs.
Summer
chum
return
to
the
Big
Quilcene
in
late
August
and
spawn
from
September
to
mid­
October.
In
1994,
Port
Townsend
agreed
to
reduce
or
halt
water
withdrawal
during
low
flow
to
maintain
a
minimum
of
25
cfs
in
the
channel
for
fish.
Prior
to
that,
an
informal
arrangement
between
the
dam
operators
and
the
hatchery
ensured
enough
water
was
maintained
in
the
river
to
satisfy
QNFH
needs.
Another
issue
is
whether
residential
or
municipal
wells
have
the
potential
for
drawing
down
the
Big
Quilcene
R.
(
e.
g.
whether
hydrologic
continuity
exists
between
the
two).
A
recent
study
was
not
conclusive
(
Schwartzman
1998).

°
Channel
complexity
and
floodplain
loss­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
In
the
late
1950s,
the
lower
Big
Quilcene
between
RM
1.0
and
3.8
was
a
narrow,
meandering,
single
thread
channel,
with
reported
good
levels
of
LWD,
pools,
and
an
intact
riparian
forest.
A
structurally
complex
channel
reduces
the
amount
of
stream
energy
available
to
scour
summer
chum
redds.
The
channel
is
now
wide,
braided
and
in
poor
condition.
The
river
has
few,
widely
spaced
pools
(
31%
spaced
at
5.1
channels
widths
between
each
pool)
and
relatively
few
pieces
of
LWD
(
0.16/
m,
PNPTC
1992,
Appendix
Report
3.8).
While
simplification
of
the
channel
has
occurred
throughout
the
past
150
years,
substantial
LWD
has
been
removed
since
the
1960s
by
the
WDF
stream
improvement
division
and
also
by
local
landowners.
More
recently,
dredging
(
RM
2.5
to
2.2,
and
below
RM
1.0),
bank
armoring,
and
dike
construction/
enhancement
(
RM
2.5
to
2.2,
and
below
RM
1.0)
have
increased
the
continuing
channel
instability.
During
floods,
a
diked
reach
will
have
more
energy
to
scour
redds
to
a
greater
depth
than
an
undiked
reach
at
the
same
location.
In
1995,
Jefferson
County
removed
a
portion
of
the
northern
dike
below
RM
0.5
as
a
first
step
to
reduce
flooding
hazard
and
improve
fish
habitat
(
Williams
et
al.
1995).
Channel
cross
sections
surveyed
annually
by
the
Jefferson
County
Conservation
District
since
1993
indicate
a
period
of
channel
stability
during
that
time.
Further
dike
removal
is
needed
(
Jefferson
County
1998).

°
Subestuary
habitat
loss
and
degradation­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Undiked
river
mouths
are
connected
to
estuarine
slough
channels,
which
are
utilized
by
summer
chum
for
spawning
and
rearing.
Dikes
along
the
river
and
paralleling
the
coast
south
of
the
river
mouth
have
physically
isolated
the
river
channel
from
slough
habitat.
Summer
chum
juveniles
are
unable
to
access
estuarine
rearing
habitat
without
first
moving
into
Quilcene
Bay.
Predation
impacts
resulting
from
this
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.164
are
unknown.
In
the
past
100
years,
the
river
mouth
has
extended
1,700
ft
out
into
the
bay
due
to
dredging
and
diking
(
Jefferson
County
1998).
Dikes
obstruct
about
21%
of
the
estimated
historic
delta
area
of
125
ac
(
3.5
mi.
perimeter).
About
3%
of
the
historic
delta
is
filled
for
commercial
and
residential
use
in
four
areas
primarily
located
in
the
southeastern
corner
of
the
delta.
About
2%
of
the
historic
delta
area
was
excavated
for
one
large
pond
(
for
use
by
waterfowl).
No
dredging
in
the
intertidal
zone,
or
road
causeways
in
the
delta
has
been
observed.
One
piledike
0.45
mi.
in
length
apparently
runs
along
the
outer
edge
of
the
southern
delta.
The
influence
of
this
piledike
on
estuarine
circulation
cannot
be
determined.
No
other
log
storage,
docks,
or
other
structures
were
observed
in
the
delta.

°
Sediment
aggradation­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
high
impact.
Forest
Service
logging
roads
built
between
the
1940s
and
1960s
were
poorly
located
and
constructed,
and
form
a
dense
network
in
the
middle
and
upper
watershed.
Road
failure
in
these
areas,
with
sediment
accumulation
in
the
lower
watershed
has
been
a
chronic
problem
since
the
late
1960s.
The
simplified,
braided
channel
(
below
RM
4.0)
with
its
lower
capacity
to
transport
sediment
(
see
channel
complexity)
has
increased
local
channel
movement
and
bank
erosion
which
has
introduced
even
more
sediment
into
the
system.
Recovery
begins
with
stabilization
or
removal
of
roads
and
properly
sized
culverts
on
Forest
Service
land
as
outlined
in
the
Watershed
Analysis
(
USFS
1994).
This
is
needed
to
permanently
reduce
the
amount
of
sediment
moving
through
the
Big
Quilcene
watershed.

°
Riparian
forest­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
A
mature
conifer
dominated
riparian
forest
will
provide
stable
LWD
to
create
structurally
complex
channels.
Forty
four
percent
of
the
lower
Big
Quilcene
is
<
12
in
dbh,
49%
is
deciduous
dominated
or
has
no
riparian
forest,
and
45%
of
the
forested
portion
of
the
riparian
zone
is
<
66
ft
in
width
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
Recruitment
of
stable
LWD
in
the
future
is
poor
to
moderate
due
to
the
composition
of
the
surrounding
riparian
forest.
If
the
primary
chum
spawning
reaches
below
RM
2.8
were
only
considered,
the
riparian
forests
would
rate
a
high
impact.
Diking,
agriculture,
harvest
and
erosion
in
the
lower
Big
Quilcene
have
reduced
the
extent
of
functional
riparian
forest.

Factors
for
Recovery
A
general
discussion
of
the
protection
and
restoration
strategies
for
each
habitat
factor
is
presented
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

°
Low
flow
 
Starting
in
1998,
there
was
a
cooperative
effort
to
monitor
stream
flows
for
spawning
availability
between
the
City
of
Port
Townsend,
QNFH,
Port
Townsend
Paper
Co.,
USFWS,
Jefferson
County
Conservation
District,
and
Tribes.
An
IFIM
study
recently
conducted
by
WDFW
in
part
leaves
unanswered
whether
the
given
low
flow
of
25
cfs
is
sufficient
to
provide
good
spawning
habitat
for
summer
chum.
The
IFIM
flow
recommendations
were
well
in
excess
of
late­
summer
flows
in
the
absence
of
withdrawal,
and
likely
are
better
applied
to
fall
chum.
Data
developed
by
the
cooperative
effort
will
be
needed
to
assess
the
impacts
of
stream
flow
on
spawning
habitat.

°
Dike
removal
and
property
buyout
in
lower
mile
 
This
relates
to
the
low
channel
complexity
and
sediment
aggradation
habitat
factors.
The
1998
Big
Quilcene
Flood
Management
Plan
(
Jefferson
County
1998,
and
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.165
Williams
et
al.
1995)
calls
for
dike
removal
and
property
buyout
from
willing
landowners
on
the
north
side
of
the
river
below
RM
1.0.
Floodplains
are
dynamic
through
time;
to
maintain
residences
on
them
has
high
social,
economic,
and
ecological
costs.
The
dike
north
of
the
channel
would
be
set
back
to
the
outer
extent
of
the
100
year
floodplain.
Additionally,
the
Linger
Longer
bridge
would
be
extended
as
a
causeway
to
allow
floodwaters
to
flow
underneath
it
and
across
the
floodplain.
Finally,
a
sinuous
channel
pattern
found
in
lowest
portion
of
the
channel
should
be
restored.
These
projects
may
have
several
benefits,
1)
sediment
aggradation
will
be
reduced
in
the
mainstem
below
RM
1.0,
with
the
capacity
to
store
sediment
on
the
floodplain.
In
turn,
flooding
hazard
to
the
houses
to
the
south
of
the
main
channel
should
be
lowered.
2)
The
level
of
energy
or
stream
power
for
a
given
flood
level
will
decline
with
the
dissipation
of
floodwaters
across
the
floodplain,
thereby
reducing
the
erosive
energy
available
to
scour
summer
chum
redds.

°
Subestuary
habitat
loss
and
degradation
 
Removal
and
dike
setback
could
restore
up
to
about
21%
of
the
currently
obstructed
historic
area
of
the
delta
to
juvenile
and
adult
summer
chum
use.
Filling
the
excavated
pond
would
restore
an
additional
3%
of
the
historic
area.
Restoration
of
a
sinuous
channel
pattern
through
the
estuary
would
increase
the
amount
of
habitat
for
chum.
Where
feasible,
intertidal
fills
could
also
be
removed.
Combined,
these
actions
could
reconnect
the
mainstem
to
tidal
estuarine
channels,
heavily
utilized
by
chum.

°
Floodplain
easement
purchase
(
RM
1.0­
2.8)
 
The
channel
is
active
and
dynamic
between
RM
1.3
and
the
Hwy
101
bridge
at
RM
2.5.
Bank
armoring
or
riprap
is
utilized
in
this
reach
to
stabilize
streambanks,
although
the
Jefferson
County
Conservation
District
has
tried
more
recently
other
techniques
more
favorable
to
habitat.
Allowing
or
creating
a
sinuous
channel
pattern
will
over
time
decrease
stream
power,
increase
available
habitat,
and
reduce
aggradation
downstream.
A
potential
mechanism
to
achieve
channel
migration
is
outright
property
buyout
or
purchase
of
floodplain
easements
from
willing
property
owners.
Riverbank
within
each
easement
area
could
be
stabilized
with
LWD
and
the
easement
area
planted
with
conifers
to
serve
as
a
future
source
of
LWD
to
the
channel.
Several
areas
of
relatively
intact
riparian
forests
exist
between
RM
1.0
and
2.5.
Protection
of
these
forests
would
provide
a
base
to
develop
a
riparian
forest
protection
plan.

°
Sediment
aggradation
 
The
1994
Big
Quilcene
watershed
analysis
identified
mass
wasting
from
Forest
Service
roads
as
a
causal
factor
for
downstream
channel
aggradation.
Removal
of
LWD,
diking,
and
channel
manipulations,
especially
below
the
QNFH,
is
also
considered
important
(
Jefferson
County
1998).
The
City
of
Port
Townsend
has
entered
an
agreement
with
the
Forest
Service
to
pursue
road
obliteration
in
the
portion
of
the
watershed
upstream
of
the
diversion
dam.
The
Forest
Service
has
successfully
obliterated
roads
in
several
sub­
basins,
however
with
budget
cuts,
district
office
closures,
and
staff
cutbacks
it
is
unclear
whether
they
will
be
able
to
complete
all
the
mass
wasting
prescriptions
outlined
in
the
watershed
analysis.
This
needs
to
be
monitored.
In
addition
the
severity
of
the
scour
problem
(
due
to
unstable
sediment)
in
the
lower
river
has
not
been
quantified.
The
USFWS
has
the
equipment
and
personnel
to
study
this
problem,
it
is
hoped
that
funding
will
continue
to
be
available.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.166
Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
The
Big
Quilcene
is
one
of
the
most
intensively
studied
watersheds
in
Hood
Canal.
Confidence
in
the
assessment
of
habitat
factors
for
decline
is
high.
Further
research
and
monitoring
is
needed
on
the
following:

1.
Determine
whether
new
wells
located
in
Quilcene
between
the
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
will
impact
streamflow.
2.
Continue
to
develop
an
understanding
of
the
relationship
of
actual
streamflow
to
the
availability
of
summer
chum
spawning
habitat.
3.
Study
the
depth
of
bed
scour
throughout
the
summer
chum
zone
concentrating
on
the
diked
areas
below
RM
0.8.
4.
Update
mass
wasting
data
on
Forest
Service
land
from
the
1994
watershed
analysis
and
determine
the
extent
that
presciptions
have
been
followed
and
whether
the
prescriptions
have
met
resource
objectives.

References
FEMAT
(
Forest
Ecosystem
Management
Team).
1993.
Forest
Ecosystem
Management:
an
ecological,
economic,
and
social
assessment.
Report
of
the
Forest
Ecosystem
Management
Team,
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office
1993­
783­
071.
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office
for
the
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.;
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Inter.,
Fish
and
Wild.
Serv.,
Bureau
of
Land
Mgt.,
and
Nat.
Park
Serv.;
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Comm.,
Nat.
Ocean.
and
Atmospheric
Admin.
and
Nat.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.;
and
U.
S.
Envir.
Prot.
Ag.

Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe.
1994.
The
Dungeness­
Quilcene
water
resources
management
plan.
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Sequim,
WA.

Jefferson
County.
1998.
Lower
Big
Quilcene
R.
comprehensive
flood
hazard
management
plan.
Jefferson
County
Dept.
Pub.
Works,
Port
Townsend,
WA.
38
p.
+
fig.

Schwartzman,
P.
1998.
Study
of
residential
well
connectivity
between
Quilcene
and
Big
Quilcene
R.
Jefferson
County
Dept.
Pub.
Works,
Port
Townsend,
WA.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service)
and
WDNR
(
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources).
1994.
Big
Quilcene
watershed
analysis
­
an
ecological
report
at
the
watershed
level.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.

USFWS
(
Unites
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service).
1994.
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
 
annual
report.
USFWS
Western
Wash.
Fish.
Res.
Off.,
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Inter.,
Fish
and
Wild.
Serv.
Olympia,
WA.

Williams,
P.
B.,
L.
Fishbain,
K.
G.
Coulton,
and
B.
Collins.
1995.
A
restoration
feasibility
study
for
the
Big.
Quilcene
River.
Phillip
Williams
and
Assoc.,
Ltd.
San
Francisco,
CA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.167
Dosewallips
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
16.0442
Watershed
Description
The
Dosewallips
River
is
located
in
east
Jefferson
County
on
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal.
The
Dosewallips
is
one
of
the
largest
watersheds
contributing
to
Hood
Canal,
draining
122
square
miles
and
containing
28
miles
of
mainstem
and
140
miles
of
tributary
habitat
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
It
is
bounded
on
the
north
by
Big
Quilcene
and
Dungeness
watersheds,
and
on
the
south
by
the
Duckabush
watershed.
The
Dosewallips
originates
within
the
Olympic
Mountains,
flows
east
through
steep
terrain,
and
enters
Hood
Canal
near
the
town
of
Brinnon.
The
middle
portion
of
the
watershed
lies
within
the
basalt­
rich
Crescent
formation,
while
various
sandstone,
siltstone,
and
slate
bedrock
formations
predominate
at
the
headwaters.
Relatively
limited
glacial
and
alluvial
deposits
occur
along
the
lower
13
miles
of
the
river.
Average
annual
discharge
is
446
cfs
(
range
67­
13,200
for
the
years
1931­
1958)
at
RM
7.1.
There
are
two
annual
runoff
peaks,
one
occurring
November­
February
associated
with
winter
rain,
the
other
occurring
in
May­
June
associated
with
spring
snowmelt
(
USFS
1999).

The
lower
2.5
miles
of
river
is
fringed
by
a
large
floodplain
that
has
been
developed
for
agricultural
and
rural
residential
use.
Of
all
Hood
Canal
tributary
deltas,
the
Dosewallips
is
second
only
to
the
Skokomish
in
size,
historically
occupying
444.6
acres
(~
1.8
km
)
with
a
perimeter
of
6.2
miles
(
9.9
km).
North
of
the
river
2
mouth
numerous
blind
tidal
sloughs
(
e.
g.
Walcott
Slough)
drain
a
large
estuarine
marsh.

The
upper
60%
of
the
Dosewallips
watershed
is
undeveloped
and
protected
within
Olympic
National
Park,
while
the
middle
30%
of
the
basin
is
in
Olympic
National
Forest.
As
with
other
west
Hood
Canal
watersheds,
private
land
is
concentrated
along
sensitive
lower
reaches
of
the
river
where
use
is
dominated
by
pastureland,
residential
development,
and
clearcut
logging.
Dosewallips
State
Park
occupies
land
on
the
south
side
of
the
river
near
the
mouth,
and
the
town
of
Brinnon
is
located
to
the
north
within
the
floodplaindelta
area.
Brinnon
has
no
municipal
water
system;
area
residents
derive
domestic
water
supplies
from
individual
wells,
stream
diversions,
or
shared
community
water
sources.
Since
1956,
the
City
of
Port
Townsend
has
maintained
a
permitted
water
right
to
continuously
divert
50
cfs
of
water
from
the
Dosewallips
for
municipal
use,
but
this
application
has
never
been
acted
upon
(
USFS
1999).
Currently,
DOE
has
an
administrative
closure
on
further
surface
water
diversion
for
the
July­
October
period.
Minimum
flow
criteria
have
been
developed
for
the
Dosewallips
River
but
have
not
been
formally
adopted
(
Rushton
1985).
The
river
is
classified
as
a
AA
surface
flow
waterbody
by
the
state
and
is
not
listed
on
EPA's
303(
d)
list
of
impaired
and
threatened
waterbodies,
though
available
ambient
water
quality
data
is
limited
(
USFS
1999).

Historically,
intensive
timber
harvest
and
fires
have
impacted
the
slopes
of
the
middle
and
lower
watershed.
Logging
in
the
watershed
began
in
1859
using
ox
teams,
and
progressed
to
the
use
of
railroads
and
splash
dams
near
the
turn
of
the
century,
which
were
replaced
by
trucks
after
1920.
A
splash
dam
built
by
the
Sims
Logging
Company
at
the
head
of
the
Dosewallips
canyon
(
RM
3.2)
in
1917
was
in
operation
for
9­
10
years.
When
water
was
released,
most
logs
that
had
been
accumulated
behind
the
dam
were
flushed
all
the
way
to
Hood
Canal
suggesting
the
erosive
power
of
these
releases
was
likely
catastrophic
for
salmon
and
their
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.168
habitat
in
the
lower
river.
Railroad
logging
of
the
watershed
was
extensive;
the
longest
railroad
line
was
built
on
the
south
side
of
the
river
from
Brinnon
upstream
to
approximately
RM
10.2.
Most
logging
and
road
building
on
Forest
Service
land
has
occurred
in
the
Rocky
Brook
subwatershed;
between
1920
and
1990,
65%
of
this
subwatershed
was
clearcut.
A
landslide
inventory
based
on
historic
and
current
aerial
photos
identified
128
slope
failures
that
have
occurred
in
the
watershed
since
1939.
Forty­
five
(
35%)
were
road­
or
harvest­
related
with
42
(
93%)
of
these
occurring
within
Rocky
Brook
subwatershed
(
USFS
1999).

While
only
14%
of
the
entire
Dosewallips
watershed
has
ever
been
harvested
for
timber,
80%
of
the
lower
river
area
(
upstream
to
the
confluence
with
Rocky
Brook)
has
experienced
forest
harvest
(
which
encompasses
the
range
of
summer
chum;
USFS
1999).
Beginning
in
the
late
1800s,
the
lower
river
valley
(
below
RM
3.0)
was
converted
from
a
forested
floodplain,
rich
in
LWD
jams,
side
channels
and
active
floodplain
wetlands
to
a
channelized
river
with
adjacent
pastureland
(
Amato
1996).
The
subsequent
construction
of
Highway
101
and
development
of
Brinnon
resulted
in
further
wetland
loss
and
degradation,
severed
the
connection
of
numerous
tidal
channels
to
the
river
and/
or
Hood
Canal,
and
reduced
tidal
circulation
in
the
estuary.
Nearly
20%
of
the
present­
day
riparian
zone
(
by
area)
below
RM
4.3
has
been
negatively
impacted
by
recent
land
use
(
7%
rural
residences,
6%
urban/
commercial,
3%
agriculture,
and
3%
forestry
­
Appendix
Report
3.7).

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Natural
barriers
and
high
stream
gradients
limit
summer
chum
to
the
lower
4.3
miles
of
the
Dosewallips
and
most
spawning
occurs
below
RM
2.5.

Population
Status
Summer
chum
population
data
only
extends
back
to
1972
for
the
Dosewallips
River.
During
the
1970s,
most
escapements
were
over
1,000
spawners,
extending
up
to
over
3,000.
Escapement
decreased
during
the
1980s
to
less
than
100
spawners
in
some
years
and
several
hundred
in
other
years.
In
1995
and
1996
escapement
rose
to
almost
3,000
and
7,000,
respectively,
then
declined
again
to
47
and
336
spawners
in
1997
and
1998,
respectively
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).

Factors
for
Decline
Low
channel
complexity,
estuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation,
riparian
degradation,
and
freshwater
wetland
loss
appear
to
be
the
principal
factors
associated
with
the
decline
of
summer
chum
in
the
Dosewallips
watershed.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Low
channel
complexity
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate­
to­
high
impact.
Much
of
the
lower
river
below
RM
3.0
has
been
simplified
since
the
late
1800s
by
the
placement
of
riprap,
dike
construction,
large
woody
debris
removal,
the
scouring
action
of
splash
dam
operation,
and
conversion
of
floodplain
to
pastureland
and
residential
development.
As
a
result,
the
river
has
become
isolated
from
its
floodplain,
reducing
habitat
diversity
and
complexity
and
likely
reducing
the
availability
of
stable
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.169
spawning
gravels.
Recovery
has
been
hampered
by
the
loss
of
riparian
forests,
which
supply
LWD
to
the
channel,
and
the
continuing
removal
of
LWD
from
the
channel
by
area
residents
(
Frissell
1998,
T.
Labbe,
pers.
comm.).
Although
there
are
no
habitat
surveys
for
the
lower
mainstem,
1990
US
Forest
Service
surveys
of
Rocky
Brook
Creek
identified
23%
of
the
habitat
area
in
pools
and
0.02
LWD
pieces/
m
in
the
lower
half
mile
of
stream
which
indicate
degraded
habitat
conditions
(
P.
DeCillis,
USFS,
pers.
comm.).
Additional
surveyed
reaches
upstream
also
had
poor
habitat
conditions
(
29%
of
habitat
area
in
pools
and
0.08
LWD
pieces/
m)
While
summer
chum
are
not
known
to
utilize
Rocky
Brook
Creek,
it
is
the
largest
tributary
to
the
lower
Dosewallips
mainstem
(
entering
at
RM
3.6)
and
its
degraded
condition
has
important
consequences
for
the
supply
of
LWD
and
sediment
to
the
lower
river.

°
Estuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
­
Juvenile
rearing/
migration
life
stage,
rated
moderate­
to­
high
impact.
At
least
six
diked
areas,
totaling
68.5
ac,
now
occupy
15.4%
of
the
original
summer
chum
rearing
and
migration
habitat
in
the
Dosewallips
estuary.
Four
tidegates
appear
to
regulate
or
prevent
tidal
inundation
in
these
diked
areas,
and
one
ditch
or
remnant
dike
0.4
mi
long
attests
to
past
attempts
to
further
eliminate
tidal
inundation
along
the
delta
face.
Ten
road
causeways
totaling
1.2
mi
bisect
or
fringe
the
delta,
the
most
deleterious
of
which
is
the
cross­
delta
routing
of
Highway
101.
Construction
of
the
highway,
and
the
subsequent
development
that
derived
from
it,
essentially
cut
off
most
of
the
secondary
tidal
channel
connectivity
across
the
delta,
in
particular
two
major
distributary
channels
that
appear
to
have
historically
linked
with
the
river
higher
in
the
delta.
Five
identifiable
fill
areas
associated
with
residential
or
agricultural
development
occupy
2.5
ac
(
0.6%
of
historical
delta
area).
One
aquaculture
or
similar
modification
to
the
delta
surface
covers
2.9
ac
(
0.6%),
but
it
is
not
evident
whether
this
poses
a
significant
loss
of
estuarine
habitat
function,
which
depends
to
a
large
degree
on
the
scale
and
frequency
of
disturbance
to
important
habitat
areas
such
as
eelgrass.

°
Riparian
degradation
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Logging
of
oldgrowth
floodplain
forests,
river
channelization,
and
the
expansion
of
pasture
and
residential
areas
along
the
lower
3.0
miles
of
the
river
has
reduced
both
the
original
extent
of
riparian
forests
and
the
potential
for
LWD
recruitment
to
the
channel.
Fifty­
one
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
below
RM
4.3
is
dominated
by
small
trees
(<
12
in
dbh)
and
41%
is
deciduous
dominated,
but
52%
is
mixed
conifer
and
deciduous
forest
and
58%
of
the
forested
buffer
is
greater
than
132
ft
wide
(
all
percentages
by
length).
An
analysis
of
riparian
LWD
recruitment
potential
completed
by
the
Olympic
National
Forest,
(
Quilcene
Ranger
District)
as
part
of
the
Dosewallips
Watershed
Analysis
also
identified
fair
(
28%,
by
stream
length)
to
poor
(
40%)
riparian
conditions
predominating
along
the
entire
length
of
the
river
mainstem.
In
addition,
the
analysis
found
poor
(
91%,
by
stream
length)
riparian
LWD
recruitment
potential
along
Rocky
Brook
Creek,
indicating
that
LWD
volumes
in
stream
channels
both
in
and
above
the
zone
of
summer
chum
use
will
remain
limited
in
the
foreseeable
future,
unless
mitigation
occurs
(
USFS
1999).
For
additional
information
about
riparian
data
refer
to
Appendix
Report
3.7.

°
Floodplain
loss
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
As
discussed
above,
the
loss
of
floodplain
forests,
most
of
which
were
probably
forested
wetlands,
likely
reduced
the
amount
and
diversity
of
habitats
and
increased
the
impact
of
flood
flows
on
mainstem
channel
habitat
due
to
lost
floodwater
storage
capacity.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.170
Factors
for
Recovery
Like
other
west
Hood
Canal
watersheds,
the
Dosewallips
is
remote
from
the
development
pressures,
such
as
exist
on
the
Kitsap
peninsula,
and
much
of
its
headwaters
are
managed
by
public
agencies
with
mandates
for
the
conservation
of
indigenous
species.
However,
development
pressures
are
highly
concentrated
in
and
around
the
lower
3.0
miles
of
river,
where
most
summer
chum
use
occurs.
Nonetheless,
compared
to
other
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
watersheds,
prospects
for
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
are
good.
A
general
discussion
of
protection
and
restoration
strategies
for
each
habitat
factor
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

Recovery
of
summer
chum
in
the
Dosewallips
watershed
requires:

°
Protection
and
restoration
of
the
lower
3.0
miles
of
river
mainstem
and
associated
riparian
floodplain
habitats.
Properties
in
the
lower
floodplain
should
be
targeted
for
acquisition
or
conservation
easements
from
willing
landowners,
and
conifers
replanted
in
the
riparian
zone.
This
sensitive
lower
river
area
should
also
be
examined
for
potential
placement
of
engineered
logjams
to
enhance
channel
complexity
and
stabilize
spawning
gravels
for
summer
chum.
The
proximity
and
number
of
private
residences
in
this
lower
river
area
also
creates
a
potential
for
harassment
and
poaching,
which
needs
further
investigation
(
Frissell
1998).

°
Restoration
of
full
tidal
action
to
the
various
extant
and
failed
diked
wetlands
across
the
delta.
Numerous
tidal
channels
north
of
the
river
mouth
could
be
reconnected
to
the
river
and/
or
Hood
Canal,
which
would
restore
valuable
summer
chum
rearing
habitat.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Very
little
habitat
research
or
survey
data
exists
for
the
Dosewallips
River,
although
it
represents
one
of
the
larger,
more
pristine
watersheds
in
Washington
with
high
salmon
production
potential.
A
U.
S.
Forest
Service
watershed
analysis
has
been
completed
for
the
Dosewallips.
Most
of
the
conclusions
presented
here
are
based
on
observations
of
current
habitat
conditions
in
the
watershed
and
knowledge
gained
from
historical
research
and
habitat
studies
conducted
in
other
similar
watersheds,
such
as
the
Big
Quilcene
watershed.
The
strength
of
the
evaluation
is
thus
rated
moderate
to
low
due
to
the
lack
of
site­
specific
field
studies.
Information
needs
include:

1.
Habitat
surveys
of
the
lower
river.
2.
An
assessment
of
channel
stability
as
it
relates
to
spawning
and
incubation
life
stages.
3.
A
study
of
impacts
to
estuarine
rearing
potential
from
road
causeway
constrictions
(
necessarily
involving
multiple
estuaries
under
various
degrees
of
impact).

References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.171
Frissell,
C.
A.
1998.
Landscape
refugia
for
conservation
of
Pacific
salmon
in
selected
river
basins
of
the
Olympic
Peninsula
and
Hood
Canal,
Washington.
Open
File
Report
#
147­
98.
Flathead
Lake
Biological
Station,
Univ.
of
Montana,
Billings,
MT.

Rushton,
C.
D.
1985.
Skokomish­
Dosewallips
WRIA
16
technical
document
supplement,
office
report
74­
B,
background
data
and
Information.
Water
resources
planning
and
management
section,
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service)
1999.
Dosewallips
River
Watershed
Analysis.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Service,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.

Williams,
R.
W.,
R.
M.
Laramie,
and
J.
J.
Ames.
1975.
A
catalog
of
Washington
streams
and
salmon
utilization,
Volume
1,
Puget
Sound
Region.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
974
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.172
Duckabush
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
16.0351
Watershed
Description
The
Duckabush
River
is
located
in
east
Jefferson
County
on
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal.
The
Duckabush
watershed
is
over
75
square
miles
in
area
and
contains
25
miles
of
mainstem
and
91
miles
of
tributary
habitat
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
It
is
bounded
on
the
north
by
the
Dosewallips
and
on
the
south
by
the
Hamma
Hamma
watersheds.
The
river
originates
in
the
Olympic
mountains,
flows
east
through
rugged
terrain,
and
enters
Hood
Canal
approximately
four
miles
south
of
the
town
of
Brinnon.
As
in
the
Dosewallips
watershed,
various
sandstone,
siltstone,
and
slate
bedrock
formations
predominate
at
the
headwaters
while
the
lower
two­
thirds
of
the
watershed
lies
within
the
basalt­
rich
Crescent
formation.
Limited
alluvial
deposits
are
found
along
the
lower
6
miles
of
river.
Average
annual
discharge
is
411
cfs
(
range
46­
9,240
for
the
years
1939­
1996)
at
RM
4.9.
There
are
two
annual
runoff
peaks,
one
occurring
in
November­
February
associated
with
winter
rain,
the
other
occurring
in
May­
June
associated
with
spring
snowmelt
(
USFS
1997).
The
Duckabush
enters
Hood
Canal
over
a
broad
291.6­
acre
(
1.2
km
)
estuarine
delta
with
2
minimal
development
impacts
excepting
those
associated
with
Highway
101.

The
upper
80%
of
the
watershed
is
protected
in
Olympic
National
Park
and
the
Brothers
Wilderness
(
Olympic
National
Forest).
Timber
extraction
is
the
dominant
land
use
in
the
lower
watershed,
on
both
National
Forest
and
private
lands.
Timber
harvest
on
lands
now
under
National
Forest
ownership
began
in
the
1900s.
Webb
Logging
Company
of
Brinnon,
Washington
built
a
logging
railroad
up
the
Duckabush
and
logged
most
of
lower
and
middle
portions
of
the
watershed
in
the
early
1900s.
Before
the
construction
of
the
logging
railroad,
timber
was
harvested
as
far
upstream
as
Collins
Campground
(
RM
5.5)
and
floated
downstream
to
Hood
Canal.
There
is
limited
evidence
that
early
loggers
may
have
employed
splash
damming
in
the
Duckabush
(
USFS
1997).
The
WDF
Stream
Improvement
Division
removed
logjams
and
dynamited
falls
in
the
river
between
1955
and
1970
with
the
goal
of
improving
fish
passage
(
Amato
1996).
More
recently,
dense
recreational
homesite
development
has
occurred
along
the
lower
1.5
miles
of
the
floodplain.

The
Washington
Department
of
Ecology
maintains
an
administrative
closure
on
issuance
of
further
surface
water
rights
for
the
July­
October
period,
and
minimum
flow
criteria
have
been
developed
for
the
Duckabush
River
but
have
not
been
formally
adopted
(
Rushton
1985).
The
loss
of
LWD
and
development
on
the
floodplain
has
confined
the
river
to
a
single
channel
and
reduced
channel
complexity.
Overall
road
density
in
the
watershed
is
low
(
0.6
mi/
mi
),
but
moderately
high
road
densities
in
the
lower
Duckabush
(
2.2
mi/
mi
)
2
2
subwatershed
(
which
encompasses
the
range
of
summer
chum)
has
contributed
to
mass
wasting
(
USFS
1997).
A
landslide
inventory
based
on
historic
and
current
aerial
photos
identified
191
slope
failures
that
have
occurred
in
the
watershed
since
1939,
133
(
70%)
of
which
were
located
within
the
lower
half
of
the
watershed.
At
least
65
(
34%)
were
road­
or
harvest­
related
and
148
(
78%)
were
estimated
to
have
delivered
sediment
to
stream
channels
(
USFS
1997).
As
in
other
Hood
Canal
watersheds,
road
causeways
impact
the
Duckabush
estuary,
disrupting
tidal
circulation,
and
impeding
fish
access
to
productive
marsh
and
slough
habitats.
Nearly
25%
of
the
riparian
zone
(
by
area)
below
RM
3.0
is
now
developed
(
12%
urban/
commercial,
9%
rural
residences,
and
3%
roads/
dikes).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.173
Summer
Chum
Distribution
A
series
of
cascades
between
RM
3.5
and
4.5
confine
summer
chum
to
the
lower
river.
Most
summer
chum
spawning
occurs
in
the
lower
2.2
miles.

Population
Status
Escapement
estimates
shows
the
Duckabush
falling
from
levels
in
the
thousands
in
the
1970s
to
less
than
100
spawners
in
several
years
of
the
1980s.
In
the
1990s,
escapement
estimates
increased
to
the
hundreds,
except
for
2,650
spawners
in
1996,
overall
still
substantially
less
than
the
1970s
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).

Factors
for
Decline
Low
channel
complexity,
estuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation,
riparian
degradation,
and
freshwater
wetland
loss
appear
to
be
the
principal
factors
associated
with
the
decline
of
summer
chum
in
the
Duckabush
watershed.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Low
channel
complexity
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate­
to­
high
impact.
The
channel
in
the
lower
river
appears
to
have
been
greatly
simplified
since
the
late
1800s
by
the
scouring
action
of
splash
damming,
large
woody
debris
removal,
and
conversion
of
floodplain
to
pastureland
and
residential
development.
As
a
result,
habitat
diversity
and
complexity
has
been
reduced
(
e.
g.
side
channels,
deep
holding
pools,
and
stable
spawning
gravels).
A
1992
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
survey
from
RM
0.2­
2.3
found
31%
of
habitat
area
in
pools
and
sparse
woody
debris,
which
indicates
degraded
habitat
conditions
(
Tabor
et
al.
1993).

°
Subestuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
­
Juvenile
rearing/
migration
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
Two
diked
areas
totaling
3.9
acres
occupy
2.8%
of
the
original
291.6
acres
of
estuarine
delta
habitat;
these
diked
areas
are
located
at
the
northern
edge
of
the
delta
in
association
with
residential
development
adjacent
to
a
small
distributary
channel.
An
estimated
0.2
acres
(
0.1%)
of
the
historic
delta
area
has
been
filled
and
two
ditches
or
remnant
dikes
with
a
total
length
of
0.3
mi
are
evident
in
the
delta.
Five
roads
traverse
the
delta
at
various
locations,
the
most
obvious
of
which
is
Highway
101.
The
total
length
of
these
road
segments
is
0.4
mi
but,
as
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
and
other
Hood
Canal
estuaries,
these
relatively
short
road
causeways
represent
a
major
disruption
to
tidal
circulation
and
fish
movement
across
emergent
wetlands
in
the
mid­
reaches
of
the
delta.

°
Riparian
degradation
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Logging
of
old
growth
floodplain
forest
and
conversion
to
pasture
and
residential
areas
has
greatly
reduced
the
potential
for
LWD
recruitment
to
the
channel.
The
forested
buffer
below
RM
3.0
is
dominated
by
medium­
sized
(
12­
20
in
dbh)
trees
(
66%)
and,
to
a
lesser
degree,
small
(<
12
in
dbh)
trees
(
32%).
As
in
the
Dosewallips,
mixed
conifer
and
deciduous
forests
predominate
(
57%)
in
the
riparian
zone,
and
59%
of
the
forested
buffer
is
>
132
ft
in
width
(
all
percentages
by
length).
By
comparison,
another
analysis
of
riparian
LWD
recruitment
potential
along
both
the
mainstem
river
and
tributaries
in
the
lower
Duckabush
watershed
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.174
identified
approximately
36%
of
riparian
forests
in
poor
condition,
11%
in
fair
condition,
and
53%
in
good
condition
(
USFS
1997).
These
data
suggest
that
riparian
forests
are
currently
degraded,
and
that
near­
term
LWD
volumes
in
stream
channels
both
in
and
above
the
zone
of
summer
chum
use
will
remain
limited
in
the
foreseeable
future,
unless
mitigation
occurs.

°
Floodplain
loss
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
As
discussed
above,
the
loss
of
floodplain
forests,
most
of
which
were
probably
forested
wetlands,
likely
reduced
the
amount
and
diversity
of
habitats
available
to
summer
chum
during
freshwater
life
stages.

Factors
for
Recovery
Like
other
west
Hood
Canal
watersheds,
the
Duckabush
is
remote
from
development
pressures
such
as
exist
on
the
Kitsap
peninsula,
and
much
of
its
headwaters
are
managed
by
public
agencies
with
mandates
for
the
conservation
of
indigenous
species.
As
a
result,
prospects
for
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
are
good.

Recovery
of
summer
chum
in
the
Duckabush
watershed
requires:

°
Protection
and
restoration
of
riparian
floodplain
habitat
along
the
lower
2.5
river
miles.
Properties
in
the
lower
floodplain
should
be
targeted
for
acquisition
or
conservation
easements
from
willing
landowners,
and
conifers
replanted
in
the
riparian
zone.
This
sensitive
lower
river
area
should
also
be
examined
for
potential
placement
of
engineered
logjams
to
enhance
channel
complexity
and
stabilize
spawning
gravels
for
summer
chum.

°
Restoration
of
a
natural
tidal
distributary
channel
system
across
the
waist
of
the
estuarine
delta
through
reduction
of
the
impact
from
the
Highway
101
road
causeway.
Rerouting
or
refitting
of
the
Highway
101
road
causeway
across
the
delta
would
be
required
to
significantly
restore
natural
tidal
circulation
and
juvenile
salmon
movement
across
or
residence
in
the
delta.
One
of
the
diked
areas
in
the
northern
delta
represents
a
viable
opportunity
for
restoration
of
juvenile
summer
chum
foraging
habitat
through
the
dike
removal
and
recovery
of
full
tidal
inundation.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Very
little
research
has
been
conducted
on
fish
habitats
of
the
Duckabush
watershed,
although
it
represents
one
of
the
larger,
more
pristine
watersheds
in
Washington
with
a
high
salmon
production
potential.
Only
recently,
a
U.
S.
Forest
Service
watershed
analysis
was
completed.
Only
cursory
habitat
survey
data
exist
for
the
lower
Duckabush
River
(
Tabor
et
al.
1993).
Information
needs
include:
1)
more
detailed
habitat
surveys
of
the
lower
river,
2)
an
assessment
of
channel
stability
as
it
relates
to
spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
and
3)
a
study
of
impacts
to
estuarine
rearing
potential
from
road
causeway
constrictions
(
necessarily
involving
multiple
estuaries
under
various
degrees
of
impact).
Most
of
the
conclusions
presented
here
are
based
on
observations
of
current
habitat
conditions
in
the
watershed
and
knowledge
gained
from
historical
research
and
habitat
studies
conducted
in
other
similar
watersheds,
such
as
the
Big
Quilcene
watershed.
The
strength
of
the
evaluation
is
thus
rated
moderate
to
low
due
to
the
lack
of
site­
specific
field
studies.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.175
References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

Rushton,
C.
D.
1985.
Skokomish­
Dosewallips
WRIA
16
technical
document
supplement,
office
report
74­
B,
background
data
and
Information.
Water
resources
planning
and
management
section,
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

Tabor,
R.
et
al.
1993.
Ambient
monitoring
data.
Unpublished.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Inter.,
Fish
and
Wild.
Serv.,
Lacey,
WA.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service).
1998.
Hamma
Hamma
R.
and
Hood
Canal
Tributaries
Watershed
Analysis.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.

Williams,
R.
W.,
R.
M.
Laramie,
and
J.
J.
Ames.
1975.
A
catalog
of
Washington
streams
and
salmon
utilization,
Volume
1,
Puget
Sound
Region.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
974
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.176
Hamma
Hamma
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
16.0251
Watershed
Description
The
Hamma
Hamma
River
is
located
in
northern
Mason
and
southern
Jefferson
counties
on
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal.
It
is
bounded
on
north
by
the
Duckabush,
on
the
west
by
the
Skokomish,
and
on
the
south
by
the
Lilliwaup
and
Jorsted
creeks
watersheds.
The
Hamma
Hamma
watershed
is
about
85
square
miles
in
area
and
contains
18
miles
of
mainstem
and
93
miles
of
tributary
habitat
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
Average
annual
discharge
is
559
cfs
(
range
39­
6,010
for
the
years
1951­
1979).
There
are
two
annual
runoff
peaks,
one
occurring
in
November­
February
associated
with
winter
rains,
the
other
occurring
in
May­
June
associated
with
spring
snowmelt
(
USFS
1997).
The
Hamma
Hamma
originates
on
the
rugged,
eastern
flank
of
the
Olympic
mountains
and
flows
east
through
steep,
forested
terrain
and
drains
to
Hood
Canal
at
the
town
of
Eldon.
Except
for
limited
sandstone,
siltstone,
and
slate
bedrock
formations
at
the
headwaters,
most
of
the
watershed
is
underlain
by
the
basalt­
rich
Crescent
formation
with
glacial
and
alluvial
deposits
along
the
river
mainstem.
Below
RM
1.5
the
stream
gradient
moderates
and
the
river
is
flanked
by
a
large
floodplain.
A
major
tributary,
John
Creek,
enters
at
RM
1.4.
The
lower
0.6
miles
of
the
Hamma
Hamma
is
tidally
influenced,
and
at
high
tide
at
least
one
small
secondary
channel
connects
the
mainstem
with
a
large
tidal
marsh,
just
north
of
the
main
channel.

Nearly
95%
of
the
watershed
is
under
public
ownership;
60%
is
managed
public
forestland
and
34%
is
protected
in
National
Park
or
designated
wilderness.
Private
lands
(
5%)
are
concentrated
in
the
productive,
low­
elevation
areas
near
the
river
mouth,
and
are
managed
primarily
for
timber
extraction
(
Heller
et
al.
1995).
By
the
1930s
most
of
the
Hamma
Hamma
watershed
had
been
logged.
Removal
of
LWD
from
streams
began
as
early
as
1953
when
John
Creek
was
cleared
or
diverted
around
12
log
jams.
In
1958
the
Hamma
Hamma
Logging
Company
constructed
a
dike,
placed
riprap,
and
dredged
the
mouth
of
the
river
to
facilitate
log
booming
(
Amato
1996).
A
1930s­
era
Hamma
Hamma
Logging
Company
timber
cruise
map
reveals
a
0.3­
mile­
long
side
channel
at
RM
0.8
that
is
no
longer
in
existence.

Manipulation
of
and
timber
salvage
from
the
main
channel
has
continued
to
the
present,
and
some
of
this
activity
has
been
illegal
(
T.
Labbe
personal
observation,
Cook­
Tabor
1996).
Recent,
intensive
clearcut
logging
has
likely
contributed
to
severe
landslides
along
John
Creek
and
in
the
mainstem
gorge
area
(~
RM
2.0;
USFS
1997).
Overall
road
density
in
the
watershed
is
low
(
1.4
mi/
mi
),
but
in
the
lower
Hamma
2
Hamma
subwatershed
(
inclusive
of
John
Creek)
road
densities
are
high
(
2.4
mi/
mi
),
approaching
a
level
2
where
significant
channel
degradation
can
be
expected
to
occur
(
USFS
1997).

Most
of
the
floodplain
area
along
the
lower
1.5
miles
of
the
Hamma
Hamma
has
been
appropriated
for
agricultural
and
residential
uses.
Cattle
have
unlimited
access
to
most
of
this
lower
river
area.
Thirty­
five
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
(
by
area)
below
RM
3.3
has
been
impacted
by
recent
intensive
landuse
(
23%
forestry,
10%
agriculture,
2%
rural
residences).
The
Washington
Department
of
Ecology
maintains
an
administrative
closure
on
issuance
of
further
surface
water
rights
for
the
July­
October
period,
and
minimum
flow
criteria
have
been
developed
for
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
but
have
not
been
formally
adopted
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.177
(
Rushton
1985).
An
application
by
Mason
County
Public
Utility
District
for
hydroelectric
development
on
the
Hamma
Hamma
is
currently
pending
before
the
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Natural
barriers
and
high
stream
gradients
in
the
middle
and
upper
watershed
limit
anadromous
fish
use
to
the
lower
2.0
miles
of
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
and
to
the
lower
1.8
miles
of
John
Creek.
Most
summer
chum
spawning
occurs
below
RM
1.8
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
and
below
RM
0.3
in
Johns
Creek.

Population
Status
Through
the
1970s,
escapement
for
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
and
John
Creek
combined
numbered
in
the
thousands.
After
1979,
spawner
density
declined
to
hundreds
per
year.
In
the
1990s,
estimated
spawner
density
fluctuated
from
below
100
to
several
hundred
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).

Factors
for
Decline
Low
channel
complexity,
estuarine
habitat
loss,
altered
sediment
dynamics,
and
riparian
degradation
appear
to
be
the
principal
habitat
factors
associated
with
the
decline
of
summer
chum
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
watershed.
These
factors
are
interrelated
and
the
most
severe
impacts
have
occurred
in
the
extreme
lower
reaches
of
the
river,
where
summer
chum
spawning
is
concentrated.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Low
channel
complexity
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate­
to­
high
impact.
Dredging
and
bank
hardening
of
the
lower
mainstem,
and
removal
of
LWD
from
streams
have
reduced
overall
channel
complexity
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
watershed.
A
1996
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
habitat
survey
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
from
approximately
RM
0.5­
1.8
found
50%
of
the
habitat
area
in
pools,
which
is
considered
fair,
and
a
LWD
loading
of
0.13
pieces/
m
which
is
considered
poor
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).
In
the
lower
1.8
miles
of
John
Creek,
pools
composed
51%
of
the
total
habitat
area
(
rated
fair)
but
LWD
loading
was
extremely
poor
(
0.06
LWD
pieces/
m).
Most
notably,
large­
sized,
"
key"
LWD
pieces,
which
are
important
habitat­
forming
and
stabilizing
features
of
larger
rivers,
were
completely
absent
from
the
Hamma
Hamma
mainstem
suggesting
streambed
instability
that
may
result
in
redd
scour
during
peak
flow
events
is
a
potential
threat
to
summer
chum
in
this
watershed
(
Cook­
Tabor,
1996).

°
Subestuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
 
Juvenile
rearing/
migration
life
stage,
rated
moderate­
to­
high
impact.
Over
13%
of
the
estimated
368.5­
acre
historic
delta
is
diked
in
three
areas,
accounting
for
a
loss
of
48
acres
of
summer
chum
rearing
habitat.
One
filled
area
in
the
outer,
southern
corner
of
the
delta
accounts
for
a
loss
of
3.2
acres
(
1%
of
historic
delta
habitat).
An
estimated
2.4
acres
(
0.6%
of
historic
delta
area)
of
the
mainstem
distributary
channel
where
it
crosses
the
outer
intertidal
area
has
been
dredged,
and
at
least
seven
areas
of
aquaculture
or
other
modifications
of
the
delta
surface
are
apparent
from
contemporary
aerial
photographs
which
total
2.2
acres
(
0.6%
of
historic
delta
area).
Three
jetties
or
piledikes,
totaling
0.4
mi
in
length,
are
evident
in
the
delta.
In
addition,
eight
road
and
causeway
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.178
segments,
totaling
1
mile
in
length,
transect
the
delta,
the
largest
of
which
is
the
Highway
101
causeway
that
has
caused
a
direct
loss
of
habitat
and
constrained
tidal
action
and
fish
movement
across
the
delta.
The
apparent
isolation
of
the
north
bank
estuarine
marsh
from
the
main
river
by
dredging
and
dike/
road
causeway
construction
at
the
river
mouth
has
eliminated
the
connectivity
of
the
river
with
a
critical
chum
rearing
habitat.
As
a
result,
outmigrant
chum
fry
are
routed
directly
into
deepwater
habitat
and
must
reenter
the
marsh
from
the
east
(
via
Hood
Canal).
The
impacts
of
such
a
severe
transition
on
summer
chum
outmigrants
are
unknown
but
they
are
suspected
to
be
severe
given
the
relative
vulnerability
of
this
life
stage
to
physiological
stress,
predation,
etc.

°
Altered
sediment
dynamics
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Sediment
aggradation
in
the
lower
reaches
of
John
Creek
has
resulted
in
a
series
of
high
gradient
cascades
near
the
mouth
where,
in
some
years,
subsurface
flow
occurs
during
late
summer
when
summer
chum
adults
return
to
spawn.
In
addition
to
impeding/
delaying
the
spawning
migration
of
summer
chum
into
John
Creek,
there
is
potential
for
the
dewatering
of
redds.
Logging­
induced
landslides
in
upper
John
Creek
have
likely
resulted
in
elevated
sediment
delivery
rates
to
the
channel.

°
Riparian
degradation
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Reduction
in
riparian
forest
extent
has
eliminated
recruitment
sources
for
LWD.
Moreover,
a
shift
from
conifer­
dominated
to
alder­
dominated
riparian
communities
(
along
lower
John
Creek,
in
particular)
has
diminished
the
longevity
and
stability
of
LWD
in
the
channel
because
alder
logs
are
typically
smaller
than
conifers
and
do
not
persist
as
long
in
streams.
As
a
result,
sediment
is
not
retained
in
John
Creek
but
routed
downstream
to
accumulate
near
the
mouth
(
see
above).
Forty­
eight
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
below
RM
3.3
is
composed
of
small
(<
12
in
dbh)
trees,
and
45%
is
dominated
by
medium­
sized
(
12­
20
in
dbh)
trees.
Conifer­
(
48%)
and
deciduous­
dominated
(
26%)
buffers
prevail
along
the
lower
river,
and
while
58%
of
the
forested
buffer
is
>
132
ft
wide,
the
remaining
42%
is
sparse
and/
or
<
66
ft.
In
combination,
these
conditions
represent
moderate
impact.

Factors
for
Recovery
Like
other
west
Hood
Canal
watersheds,
the
Hamma
Hamma
is
remote
from
the
development
pressures
such
as
exist
on
the
Kitsap
peninsula,
and
much
of
its
headwaters
are
managed
by
public
agencies
with
mandates
for
the
conservation
of
indigenous
species.
One
family
owns
most
of
the
land
in
the
lower
reaches
of
the
river
where
summer
chum
spawn,
simplifying
potential
public­
private
conservation
efforts.
Although
summer
chum
habitat
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
is
presently
degraded,
conditions
are
not
beyond
recovery
and
past
escapement
estimates
indicate
the
watershed
has
strong
summer
chum
production
potential.
A
general
discussion
of
protection
and
restoration
strategies
by
habitat
factor
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

Recovery
of
summer
chum
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
watershed
requires:

°
Protection
and
restoration
of
riparian
forests
to
guarantee
long­
term
LWD
recruitment
sources.
Illegal
logging
and
timber
salvage
from
riparian
forests
should
be
stopped
and
sites
evaluated
for
the
placement
of
engineered
log
jams
to
enhance
channel
complexity.
In
particular,
logging
of
steep
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.179
erosive
areas
in
John
Creek
and
the
mainstem
along
the
gorge
(
beneath
the
powerlines)
should
be
curtailed
as
both
these
areas
have
high
landslide
risk.

°
Reconnection
of
the
river
with
the
north
bank
estuarine
marsh
and
reclamation
of
floodplain
habitats
for
fish.
Elimination
of
both
inhibitors
to
migration
and
restoration
of
rearing
habitat
will
be
essential
to
provide
significantly
greater
access
to
natural
delta
habitats.
This
would
require
removal
of
training
dikes
and
cessation
of
dredging
in
the
lower
tidal
distributary
channel.
Ultimately,
however,
rerouting
or
refitting
the
Highway
101
road
causeway
across
the
delta
may
be
required
to
completely
restore
tidal
circulation,
and
juvenile
salmon
rearing
habitat
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
delta.

°
Reduction
of
upstream
impacts
of
sedimentation
(
particularly
in
John
Creek)
by
preventing
logging
on
potentially
unstable
slopes
and
removing
and
repairing
roads
with
surface
erosion
or
landslide
hazard
problems.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Confidence
in
this
assessment
of
habitat
factors
is
moderate
to
high.
To
date,
a
U.
S.
Forest
Service
watershed
analysis
and
a
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team
report
have
been
completed.
The
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
surveyed
the
anadromous
extent
of
both
the
Hamma
Hamma
and
John
Creek
in
1996.
Information
needs
include:
1)
an
assessment
of
the
north
bank
estuarine
marsh
and
its
potential
for
reconnection
with
the
main
river,
2)
an
analysis
of
the
sediment
budget
in
John
Creek,
3)
an
assessment
of
channel
stability
as
it
relates
to
spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
and
4)
a
study
of
impacts
to
estuarine
rearing
potential
from
road
causeway
constrictions
(
necessarily
involving
multiple
estuaries
under
various
degrees
of
impact).
References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

Cook­
Tabor,
C.
1996.
Hamma
Hamma
watershed
habitat
surveys
(
unpublished).
USFWS
Lacey
Field
Office,
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Int.,
Fish
and
Wild.
Serv.,
Lacey,
WA.

Heller,
J.,
J.
Smith,
M.
Floover,
A.
Trombley,
T.
Granger,
B.
McIntosh,
and
M.
Hepp.
1995.
West
shore
Hood
Canal
watersheds.
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team
(
PSCRBT)
for
Mason
County,
Shelton,
WA.

Rushton,
C.
D.
1985.
Skokomish­
Dosewallips
WRIA
16
technical
document
supplement,
office
report
74­
B,
background
data
and
Information.
Water
resources
planning
and
management
section,
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service).
1998.
Hamma
Hamma
R.
and
Hood
Canal
Tributaries
Watershed
Analysis.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.

Williams,
R.
W.,
R.
M.
Laramie,
and
J.
J.
Ames.
1975.
A
catalog
of
Washington
streams
and
salmon
utilization,
Volume
1,
Puget
Sound
Region.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
974
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.180
Lilliwaup
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
16.0230
Watershed
Description
The
Lilliwaup
Creek
watershed
is
located
in
northern
Mason
county
on
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal.
It
is
bounded
on
the
north
by
Eagle,
Jorsted,
and
Hamma
Hamma
watersheds,
on
the
west
by
the
Skokomish,
and
on
the
south
by
the
Sund
Creek
watershed.
The
Lilliwaup
watershed
is
underlain
by
the
basalt­
rich
Crescent
formation,
is
17.9
square
miles
in
area,
and
contains
6.9
miles
of
mainstem
and
10.8
miles
of
tributary
habitat
(
WDF
1975).
Lilliwaup
Creek
is
fed
by
extensive
wetlands
associated
with
Price
Lake
and
upper
Lilliwaup
valley,
totaling
over
910
acres
(
Heller
et
al.
1995).
The
remaining
upper
and
middle
watershed
stream
habitats
are
generally
high
gradient.
Below
a
large
falls
at
RM
0.7
the
stream
flows
through
a
large
well­
developed
floodplain
before
draining
to
Hood
Canal
at
the
town
of
Lilliwaup.

Managed
public
forestland
accounts
for
89%
of
the
watershed
area.
Private
managed
forestland
(
7%)
and
residential
lands
(
2%)
are
concentrated
to
the
east,
along
Hood
Canal
(
Heller
et
al.
1995).
Little
historical
information
on
the
watershed
exists,
but
it
is
known
that
by
the
early
1930s,
the
entire
Lilliwaup
watershed
had
been
logged
(
Amato
1996).
Much
of
the
lower
floodplain/
estuarine
area
has
been
developed
for
transportation
and
residential
use.
At
some
point
during
the
1960s
or
1970s,
a
section
of
stream
immediately
above
Highway
101
was
straightened
and
dredged
to
route
floodwaters
away
from
homes
on
the
east
side
of
Lilliwaup
Creek
(
R.
Endicott,
personal
communication).
A
hatchery
operates
on
lower
Lilliwaup
Creek
and
rears
summer
chum
for
release
into
the
creek
(
summer
chum
salmon
are
the
only
species
released
into
the
stream).
There
are
7.75
cfs
of
issued
surface
water
rights
in
the
watershed
(
Heller
et
al.
1995).
A
private
landowner
operates
a
small
hydroelectric
power
facility
immediately
below
Lilliwaup
Falls
(
RM
0.7).
Road
density
in
the
Lilliwaup
Creek
watershed
is
2.9
mi/
mi
,
significantly
above
the
level
where
channel
2
degradation
can
be
expected
to
occur
(
USFS
1997).
Forty­
eight
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
(
by
area)
below
RM
0.7
is
developed
(
28%
roads,
20%
agriculture).

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Lilliwaup
Falls
at
RM
0.7
blocks
anadromous
passage
upstream.
Spawning
surveys
indicate
summer
chum
utilize
the
full
extent
of
the
anadromous
zone
in
Lilliwaup
Creek.

Population
Status
Annual
escapement
from
1971­
1978
ranged
from
several
hundred
to
over
one
thousand
spawners.
Since
that
time
escapement
has
never
exceeded
300,
and
generally
is
below
100
spawners
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).

Factors
for
Decline
Riparian
degradation,
estuarine
habitat
loss,
and
low
channel
complexity
appear
to
be
the
principal
habitat
factors
associated
with
the
decline
of
summer
chum
in
the
Lilliwaup
Creek
watershed.
All
of
the
factors
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.181
discussed
below
cover
immediate
impacts
to
the
area
accessible
to
summer
chum
but
upstream
cumulative
impacts
such
as
altered
stream
flow
characteristics
or
sediment/
LWD
delivery
rates
may
also
be
important.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Riparian
degradation
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Agricultural
and
residential
development
along
the
lower
reaches
of
Lilliwaup
Creek
has
reduced
the
extent
and
altered
the
age
and
species
composition
of
the
riparian
forest.
Elimination
of
riparian
forests
has
decreased
LWD
recruitment
sources
for
both
the
creek
and
estuary.
Seventy­
nine
percent
of
the
forested
buffer
below
RM
0.7
is
dominated
by
medium­
sized
(
12­
20
in
dbh)
trees
of
mixed
conifer
and
deciduous
composition,
and
21%
lacks
a
buffer
altogether.
Fifty­
two
percent
of
the
buffer
is
>
132
ft
in
width,
while
48%
is
<
66
ft
wide
and/
or
sparse.

°
Subestuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
­
Juvenile
rearing/
migration
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
Of
the
estimated
48.2
acres
of
historic
delta,
one
diked
area
associated
with
a
fish
hatchery
accounts
for
a
loss
of
1.5
acres
(
3.1%
of
historic
delta
area).
Fill
for
residential
development
on
the
south
side
of
Lilliwaup
estuary
accounts
for
a
loss
of
1.2
acres
(
2.6%),
and
a
human­
excavated
pond
at
a
fish
hatchery
represents
a
loss
of
0.5
acres
(
1%).
In
addition,
the
0.12
mi
long
Highway
101
causeway
that
bisects
the
delta
has
constrained
the
estuarine
distributary
channels
of
Lilliwaup
Creek,
eliminated
habitat
area,
and
likely
altered
overall
estuarine
function
by
altering
tidal
circulation.
Although
a
relatively
small
percentage
of
the
historic
delta
area
has
been
impacted,
the
location
of
these
habitat
alterations
has
likely
contributed
to
their
disproportionately
large
effect
on
the
overall
functional
value
of
Lilliwaup
estuary
as
juvenile
rearing
and
transition
habitat
for
summer
chum.

°
Low
channel
complexity
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
No
habitat
survey
data
exist
for
Lilliwaup
Creek.
Based
on
aerial
photo
interpretation
and
communication
with
local
residents,
approximately
600
feet
of
Lilliwaup
Creek
at
RM
0.2
was
straightened
and
dredged.
The
lack
of
LWD
in
both
the
creek
and
estuary
also
contributes
to
reduced
channel
complexity,
and
raises
the
potential
for
channel
instability
and
redd
scour
during
peak
flow
events.

Factors
for
Recovery
Limited
spawning
habitat
likely
restricted
the
summer
chum
population
in
Lilliwaup
Creek
under
natural
conditions.
Human
occupation
and
use
of
the
Lilliwaup
Creek
floodplain
and
estuary
has
probably
further
diminished
summer
chum
production
potential.
On
a
positive
note,
the
large
wetlands
of
upper
Lilliwaup
valley
that
appear
to
guarantee
sufficient
stream
flow
for
returning
summer
chum
remain
intact
and
functional
(
Heller
et
al.
1995).

Recovery
of
summer
chum
in
the
Lilliwaup
Creek
watershed
requires:

°
Restriction
of
human
activity
in
the
lower
floodplain
to
allow
for
the
reestablishment
of
riparian
forests
and
natural
recruitment
of
LWD
to
the
main
channel.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.182
°
Restoration
of
a
natural
tidal
distributary
channel
system
across
the
waist
of
the
estuarine
delta
through
reduction
of
the
impact
from
the
Highway
101
road
causeway.
°
Protection
of
the
Washington
DNR­
owned
wetlands
in
upper
Lilliwaup
valley,
which
sustain
summer
flows
in
Lilliwaup
Creek.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Confidence
in
this
assessment
of
habitat
factors
is
moderate.
To
date,
a
U.
S.
Forest
Service
watershed
analysis
and
a
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team
report
have
been
completed
but
little
additional
information
exists.
Information
needs
include:

1.
An
assessment
of
the
condition
and
role
of
upstream
wetlands
in
sustaining
summer
low
flows
suspected
to
be
critical
to
summer
chum.
2.
A
survey
of
lower
Lilliwaup
Creek
to
collect
baseline
habitat
information.
3.
An
assessment
of
channel
stability
as
it
relates
to
spawning
and
incubation
life
stages.
4.
A
study
of
impacts
to
subestuarine
rearing
potential
from
road
causeway
constrictions
(
necessarily
involving
multiple
subestuaries
under
various
degrees
of
impact).

References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

Heller,
J.,
J.
Smith,
M.
Floover,
A.
Trombley,
T.
Granger,
B.
McIntosh,
and
M.
Hepp.
1995.
West
shore
Hood
Canal
watersheds.
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team
(
PSCRBT)
for
Mason
County,
Shelton,
WA.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service).
1998.
Hamma
Hamma
R.
and
Hood
Canal
Tributaries
Watershed
Analysis.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.

Williams,
R.
W.,
R.
M.
Laramie,
and
J.
J.
Ames.
1975.
A
catalog
of
Washington
streams
and
salmon
utilization,
Volume
1,
Puget
Sound
Region.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
974
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.183
Skokomish
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
16
Skokomish
and
North
Fork
Skokomish
River
16.0001,
Purdy
Creek
16.0005,
Weaver
Creek
16.0006,
Hunter
Creek
16.0007,
South
Fork
Skokomish
River
16.0011,
Richert
Springs
16.0010,
Vance
Creek
16.0013
Watershed
Description
The
Skokomish
River
is
the
largest
river
system
in
the
Hood
Canal
Basin
of
Puget
Sound
with
a
watershed
area
of
approximately
240
square
miles
comprised
of
80
miles
of
mainstem
and
over
260
miles
of
tributaries.
The
Skokomish
watershed
drains
the
southeast
corner
of
the
Olympic
Mountains
and
enters
the
southwest
end
of
Hood
Canal
known
as
the
Great
Bend
between
the
towns
of
Union
and
Potlatch
creating
the
largest
subestuary
and
intertidal
delta
in
the
Hood
Canal
Basin.
Historically
the
Skokomish
River
system
produced
the
Hood
Canal
region's
largest
runs
of
salmon
and
steelhead,
most
of
which
were
produced
in
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River.

The
Skokomish
watershed
consists
of
three
major
drainages,
the
North
Fork
(
33.3
miles)
and
South
Fork
Skokomish
rivers
(
27.5
miles)
and
Vance
Creek
(
11
miles).
The
North
Fork
Skokomish
River
originates
in
high
mountainous
areas
of
the
Olympic
National
Park.
Beginning
in
1930,
the
construction
of
two
dams
as
part
of
the
Cushman
hydroelectric
project
blocked
all
fish
passage
to
the
upper
North
Fork.
The
reservoirs
behind
the
dams
inundated
a
naturally
formed
lake
and
about
11.5
miles
of
the
North
Fork
River
channel
and
associated
floodplain.

The
Cushman
project's
lower
dam
diverts
flow
out
of
the
watershed
to
a
power
plant
on
the
west
shore
of
Hood
Canal.
The
project
has
reduced
average
annual
North
Fork
flows
below
the
lower
dam
by
over
96%
(
Stetson
Engineers
1996).
This
out­
of­
basin
diversion
substantially
dewaters
eight
miles
of
the
lower
North
Fork
and
reduces
by
about
40
percent,
the
flow
of
the
mainstem
Skokomish
River.
An
interim
instream
flow
of
30
cfs
has
been
set
for
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River
to
be
released
at
the
lower
dam
(
WDOE,
Vicki
Cline,
pers.
comm.).

The
South
Fork
Skokomish
River
originates
in
the
Olympic
National
Park
and
flows
through
U.
S.
Forest
Service
(
USFS)
timberland
and
land
owned
by
the
Simpson
Timber
Company,
before
joining
the
North
Fork
to
form
the
mainstem
Skokomish
River.
The
Skokomish
mainstem
then
flows
for
about
9
miles
through
a
wide
valley
to
its
mouth
and
intertidal
delta
on
Hood
Canal.
Upper
Vance
Creek
flows
through
USFS
lands
and
in
its
middle
portions
through
timberland
owned
by
Simpson
Timber
Company.
The
lower
3
miles
of
Vance
Creek
is
bordered
by
several
small
farms
and
single
family
homes
and
enters
the
South
Fork
Skokomish
River
at
river
mile
0.8.
Richert
Springs
is
a
spring
fed
system
of
channels
coalescing
into
a
single
channel,
which
enters
the
mainstem
Skokomish
at
river
mile
7.9.
Hunter
and
Weaver
creeks
are
predominately
spring
fed
tributaries
that
flow
through
agricultural
lands
in
the
southern
portion
of
the
Skokomish
floodplain
and
join
the
mainstem
Skokomish
River
at
river
mile
6.2
and
4.1
respectively.
Purdy
Creek
begins
in
wetlands
located
above
the
alluvial
floodplain
and
is
fed
by
numerous
springs
before
joining
the
mainstem
Skokomish
River
just
below
Weaver
Creek
at
river
mile
3.6.
Fish
hatcheries
operated
by
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.184
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
are
located
on
Hunter,
Weaver,
and
Purdy
creeks
where
there
is
access
to
high
quality
spring
water.

The
upper
portions
of
the
South
Fork
and
North
Fork
Skokomish
rivers
and
Vance
Creek
are
located
in
the
Crescent
Uplands,
which
consist
of
submarine
basalt
flows,
and
tuffs.
Continental
glaciation
from
British
Columbia
overran
the
lower
basin
and
deposited
hundreds
of
feet
of
sediment
in
the
southern
portion
of
the
watershed.
Soil
depths
are
variable
and
generally
less
than
3
feet
except
in
valley
bottoms
where
soils
are
deep
due
to
glacial
deposition.
River
downcutting
has
formed
steep
gorges
and
valley
walls
and
a
broad
flat
alluvial
valley
in
the
lower
basin,
and
has
formed
smaller
gorges
in
the
upper
basin.
The
lower
11
miles
of
the
watershed
flow
through
an
alluvial
valley
about
3/
4
to
1
½
miles
wide
consisting
of
large
and
small
farms
and
numerous
single
family
homes.
The
lower
5.9
miles
of
the
river
including
a
substantial
portion
of
the
subestuary
are
located
on
the
Skokomish
Indian
Reservation.

The
Skokomish
watershed
is
designated
as
a
Tier
1
Key
Watershed
under
the
President's
Forest
Plan
(
FEMAT,
1993).
Industrial
forestry
is
the
dominant
land
use
above
the
valley
floodplain.
Agriculture
and
residential
development
dominate
the
alluvial
valley.
Portions
of
the
lower
river
are
diked
and
remnants
of
a
system
of
dikes
and
tidegates
remain
in
the
subestuary
and
intertidal
area.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Summer
chum
are
considered
extinct
in
the
Skokomish
River
system
and
there
is
little
population
data
upon
which
to
assess
potential
historical
distribution.
However,
based
on
observations
made
in
a
1954­
1955
study
(
WDF
1957)
and
similarities
in
habitat
attributes
between
streams,
it
is
assumed
that
summer
chum
are
likely
to
have
been
distributed
in
the
mainstem,
North
Fork,
Vance
Creek,
Richert
Springs,
and
in
Hunter,
Weaver,
and
Purdy
creeks.
Several
thousand
summer
chum
spawners
were
observed
in
the
mainstem
on
October
1,
1954
(
WDF
1957).
Because
there
was
no
appreciable
flow
in
the
North
Fork
that
year,
owing
to
the
Cushman
hydroelectric
flow
diversion,
no
summer
chum
access
was
assumed
to
occur
and
there
were
no
North
Fork
spawner
surveys.
Nevertheless,
the
habitat
attributes
of
the
North
Fork
suggest
that
summer
chum
may
have
historically
ascended
to
the
lower
falls
at
river
mile
15.6.
Summer
chum
were
observed
in
Purdy
Creek
in
1954,
and
while
no
surveys
were
performed
in
Richert
Springs,
Weaver
Creek,
or
Hunter
Creek,
the
latter
streams
possess
habitat
attributes
similar
to
Purdy
Creek
and
it
is
assumed
summer
chum
salmon
existed
in
them
as
well.
Vance
Creek
is
also
assumed
to
have
supported
summer
chum
salmon
production,
due
to
its
location,
habitat
characteristics
and
the
observed
early
run
timing
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
emigrants
(
consistent
with
expected
summer
chum
emigration
timing)
observed
in
1955
(
WDF
1957).

Population
Status
Few
to
no
summer
chum
salmon
have
been
observed
in
spawner
surveys
of
the
Skokomish
River
in
recent
years.
The
stock
is
thought
to
be
extirpated.
A
spawning
ground
survey
in
Purdy
Creek
conducted
on
September
23,
1954
documented
9
adults
and
8
redds
200
yards
above
U.
S.
101
(
site
of
George
Adams
Salmon
Hatchery).
On
October
1
of
the
same
year
an
aerial
survey
of
the
Skokomish
River
documented
over
3,000
live
and
dead
chum
from
the
mouth
to
the
Hwy
101
bridge
and
1,000
live
and
dead
chum
from
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.185
the
bridge
to
the
forks
(
WDF
1957).
Observations
of
early
returning
chum
have
been
encountered
during
in­
river
fisheries
for
chinook
and
coho
and
incidentally
during
spawning
ground
surveys
targeting
chinook
since
that
time
period,
although
the
numbers
are
extremely
small.
In
addition,
a
document
discussing
the
Skokomish
Indian
fishery
in
the
river
presented
data
from
1936
through
the
early
1950s
on
catches
of
salmon.
September
counts
of
chum
salmon
were
as
high
as
986
in
1940.
Smaller
catches
were
made
during
October
throughout
that
period
which
may
represent
summer
chums
and
early
fall
chums
(
Smoker
1952).

Factors
for
Decline
The
Skokomish
watershed
has
been
managed
primarily
for
timber,
power
production
and
agriculture.
The
habitat
conditions
overall
are
poor
due
primarily
to
water
withdrawal,
estuarine
modifications,
low
channel
complexity,
extensive
diking,
sediment
accumulation,
peak
flows,
poor
riparian
conditions
and
water
quality
degradation.
Impacts
on
summer
chum
habitat
are
not
universal
throughout
the
basin
(
different
streams
and
stream
segments
are
affected
by
varied
factors
for
decline).
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Low
flow
­
Adult
migration,
spawning,
incubation
and
juvenile
rearing
life
stages,
rated
high
impact.
From
1930
through
1988,
the
Cushman
Project
diverted
all
flows
out
of
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River
at
the
lowermost
dam,
causing
much
of
the
North
Fork
between
the
lower
dam
and
the
confluence
to
be
dry
or
nearly
so
during
dry
periods.
This
eliminated
summer
chum
from
the
North
Fork
and
severely
degrading
fish
habitat
conditions
in
the
North
Fork,
mainstem
Skokomish
River,
subestuary
and
intertidal
delta.
Since
1988,
the
Department
of
Ecology
has
required
a
minimum
flow
of
30
cfs
[
4%
of
average
annual
flow]
to
be
released
to
the
North
Fork
from
the
lowermost
Cushman
dam,
pending
federal
licensing
(
WDOE
1987)
.
Presently
with
the
30cfs
release,
the
North
Fork
does
not
meet
state
water
quality
standards
due
to
insufficient
flows
for
habitat
and
high
temperatures
(
WDOE
1994).
According
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
North
Fork
flow
releases
of
about
228
cfs
[
28%
of
average
annual
flow]
proposed
by
the
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission
would
be
inadequate
for
recovery
of
fish
resources
and
inadequate
to
prevent
continued
impairment
of
fish
habitat
and
degradation
of
the
subestuary
(
EPA,
1998).
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce's
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
and
U.
S.
Department
of
Interior
agree
that
substantial
restoration
of
North
Fork
flow
(
target
of
84%
natural)
is
the
minimum
protection
required
for
aquatic
resources
of
the
North
Fork
and
mainstem
Skokomish
River
and
subestuary/
delta
(
USDI,
1997;
EPA,
1998;
NMFS,
1998).

°
Subestuarine
delta
impacts
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Probably
the
largest
long­
term
impact
to
this
delta
for
juvenile
salmon
rearing,
in
addition
to
many
other
ecological
functions,
has
been
the
steepening
of
the
delta
and
loss
of
approximately
17%
of
the
delta's
eelgrass
habitat
along
the
face
of
the
delta
(
Jay
and
Simenstad,
1996).
This
dramatic
change
is
primarily
attributed
to
the
loss
of
sediment
transport
through
the
delta
due
to
water
withdrawals
by
the
Cushman
project.
Diversion
of
the
North
Fork
has
severely
degraded
estuarine
habitat
conditions
for
summer
chum
by
disrupting
sediment
transport
abilities
and
natural
salinity
and
nutrient
regimes
in
the
subestuary
and
intertidal
delta,
and
by
reducing
extent
of
tidal
influence
in
the
Skokomish
River.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.186
°
Subestuarine
alterations
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Of
the
original
2,175
acre
delta
(
11.2
miles
perimeter),
14.4%
(
313
acres)
was
diked
for
agriculture.
A
recent
dike
breach
in
the
largest
contiguous
diked
farm
area
in
the
delta
(
Nalley
Farm,
~
215
acres),
has
allowed
tidal
inundation
of
this
area.
Nine
diked
areas
persist,
totaling
99
acres
(
4.6%
of
original
delta).
Restoration
of
the
Nalley
Farm
will
contribute
to
increased
juvenile
summer
chum
rearing
habitat
although
access
is
limited
with
the
only
dike
breach
located
on
the
northern
perimeter
of
the
dike.
Chum
fry
will
have
to
migrate
along
existing
dikes
to
the
central
portion
of
the
delta
before
accessing
the
restoring
wetland,
and
then
predominantly
at
high
tide.
Dikes
and
several
tidegates
continue
to
keep
wetlands
isolated
from
the
subestuary
thereby
cutting
off
the
primary
production
in
these
once
saltwater
marshes.
Two
identifiable
fill
areas
occupy
approximately
5
acres
(
0.2%
of
historical
delta
area)
of
the
delta
and
are
thought
to
have
a
low
impact.

°
Subestuarine
road
causeways
­.
Thirteen
roads
or
causeways
cross
or
encompass
the
delta,
the
total
length
of
which
is
4.7
miles.
Almost
all
of
these
roads
are
associated
with
dikes
surrounding
the
original
agricultural
lands
or
service
roads
to
electric
line
transmission
towers.
Even
in
the
restoring
Nalley
Farm
site,
the
dike
roadways
inhibit
cross­
delta
movement
of
juvenile
summer
chum.
Transmission
tower
service
roads
impact
a
long
segment
of
the
upper
intertidal
habitat,
affecting
tidal
movement
and
fish
foraging
activity
in
the
western
portion
of
the
delta.

°
Miscellaneous
subestuarine
impacts
­
A
debris
dam
and
dilapidated
concrete
abutments
are
located
at
the
junction
of
a
major
distributary
channel
in
the
delta
that
divides
the
Nalley
Farm
properties.
The
distributary
once
was
a
more
prominent
channel
that
provided
access
of
migrating
juvenile
salmon
to
the
central
delta.
Flow
was
intentionally
reduced
to
this
channel
to
reduce
flooding
potential,
although
some
tidal
flow
persists
(
B.
Martino,
Skokomish
Tribe
Nat.
Res.
Dept.,
Potlatch,
WA,
pers.
comm.
1998).

°
Channel
complexity
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Historically,
the
Skokomish
valley
floodplain
contained
numerous
sloughs,
side
channels
and
forested
cedar
wetlands.
In
the
late
1800s
and
early
1900s
woody
debris
and
logjams
were
removed
from
the
South
Fork
and
mainstem
Skokomish
rivers
in
an
attempt
to
prevent
flooding
and
to
facilitate
log
transport
to
saltwater
via
river
drives.
One
report
documented
a
jam
3
miles
thick
formed
over
50
years
that
took
18
months
to
remove
using
dynamite,
horse
teams
and
steam
donkeys
(
Richert,
1964).
Continual
channel
manipulations
for
flood
control
and
wood
salvage
have
continued
to
the
present.
During
the
1960s
and
1970s,
the
WDF
Stream
Improvement
Division
removed
log
jams
and
beaver
dams
in
Vance
Creek,
Purdy
Creek
and
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River.
Despite
the
intense
history
of
studies
in
the
Skokomish
basin,
there
is
scarce
instream
habitat
data
available
for
the
suspected
summer
chum
reaches,
although
current
wood
loading
has
been
characterized
as
poor
in
most
channel
segments
(
USFS
1995;
Simpson
Timber
Co.
and
WDNR
1997,
Skokomish
DNR
and
PNPTC
1994).
Habitat
surveys
conducted
in
1994
in
the
lower
3
miles
of
Vance
Creek
found
39%
pools
and
a
range
of
1.5
to
2.6
channel
widths
between
each
pool.
LWD
counts
ranged
from
0.02
to
0.15
pieces
of
LWD/
m
with
much
of
the
wood
perched
above
the
wetted
perimeter,
stranded
on
exposed
gravel
terraces
(
Skokomish
DNR
and
PNPTC
1994).
The
pool
data
is
also
misleading
because
much
of
the
reach
was
dry
during
the
survey,
skewing
the
number
of
pool
habitat
units
due
to
numerous
small
isolated
pools
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.187
(
K.
Dublanica,
Skokomish
Tribe
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
pers.
comm.
1998).
Observations
made
during
a
July
1998
float
trip
from
the
lower
end
of
the
South
Fork
Skokomish
River
canyon
(
approximately
R.
M.
3.0)
downstream
to
river
mile
4
on
the
mainstem
Skokomish
River
(
total
distance
of
nine
miles)
revealed
a
lack
of
pools,
long
glides
and
riffles
and
a
scarcity
of
wood,
particularly
large
wood
and
jams
.
Ambient
Monitoring
has
not
been
conducted
in
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River,
but
observations
by
local
biologists
suggests
wood
loading
is
poor
with
much
of
it
being
alder
and
small
conifer
(
K.
Dublanica,
Skokomish
Tribe,
personal
communication
1998)
The
majority
of
the
mainstem
Skokomish
and
portions
of
the
South
Fork
Skokomish
River
and
Vance
Creek
have
been
diked
and
/
or
channelized,
reducing
channel
complexity
and
sinuosity,
eliminating
important
side
channels,
simplifying
the
remaining
habitat
and
creating
a
disconnect
between
these
streams
and
existing
floodplain
sloughs
and
side
channels.
The
Highway
101
and
106
bridges
over
the
mainstem
Skokomish
restrict
channel
migration,
as
do
two
Mason
County
bridges
across
Vance
Creek.
Riparian
corridors
in
all
summer
chum
habitat
zones
including
the
floodplain
tributaries
are
sparse
and
do
not
provide
the
large
woody
debris
necessary
to
maintain
structurally
diverse
channels.
Woody
debris
continues
to
be
removed
from
the
channel
and
riparian
areas
to
prevent
flooding
and
as
a
source
of
firewood
and
lumber.
The
summer
chum
zone
is
highly
modified
with
dikes,
roads
and
armored
banks
prevalent
throughout
the
valley.
Highly
modified
channels
promote
channel
instability
which
impact
summer
chum
by
inhibiting
redd
construction
and
increasing
redd
scour.

°
Sediment­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Past
timber
management
practices
in
the
basin
have
increased
sediment
aggradation
in
Vance
Creek,
the
South
Fork
and
mainstem
Skokomish
rivers
through
mass
wasting
and
road
failures
(
USFS
1995;
STC
1997).
Aggradation
increases
flooding,
scouring
of
redds
and
bed
materials,
bank
erosion
and
has
led
to
more
anthropogenic
channel
manipulations
(
e.
g.,
diking)
in
the
valley
in
response
to
greater
flooding.
Bed
aggradation
and
channel
braiding
in
the
valley
is
well
documented
and
is
attributable
to
1)
increased
sediment
from
road
and
slope
failures
due
to
logging,
2)
reductions
in
sediment
transport
abilities
with
loss
of
flows
from
the
North
Fork
Skokomish,
3)
dikes
limiting
transport
of
bed
materials
out
of
the
channel
and
onto
floodplain
areas
and
cutting
off
side
channels
and
sloughs
and
4)
loss
of
stable
bars
and
banks
throughout
the
basin
due
to
reductions
in
instream
woody
debris
and
riparian
forests.
Aggradation
has
reduced
the
conveyance
capacity
of
the
mainstem
from
the
pre­
Cushman
level
of
18,000
cfs
to
roughly
5,000
cfs
(
Stetson,
1996).
Aggradation
has
been
estimated
by
numerous
entities
to
range
from
3.0
to
4.5
feet
(
USDI
1997).
Aggraded
channels
tend
to
be
unstable
with
severe
scour
and
fill
episodes
following
storm
events
which
destroy
redds
and
hinder
redd
construction.

°
Peak
flows
­
Incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Timber
management
has
increased
fall/
winter
storm
flows
by
broadening
the
hydrograph
and
increasing
the
duration
of
high
flows
by
up
to
18%.
These
changes
could
translate
to
increases
in
sediment
transport
and
channel
disturbance
(
Simpson
Timber
Co.
and
WDNR
1997),
scouring
the
redd
environment.
Road
densities
in
some
sub­
basins
in
the
South
Fork
Skokomish
and
Vance
Creek
drainages
are
over
6
miles/
mile
sq.
and
may
contribute
to
peak
flows
by
extending
the
stream
network.
Rain
on
snow
peak
flow
events,
combined
with
an
aggrading
channel,
affects
the
incubation
environment
by
bed
scour
and
movement.
Dikes
contribute
to
bed
scour
by
retaining
water
within
the
channel
forcing
the
energy
down
onto
the
substrate
rather
than
laterally
across
the
floodplain.
Typically
depth
of
scour
is
greater
in
diked
reaches
than
undiked
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.188
reaches.
Dikes
and
removal
and
filling
of
important
side
channel
habitats
eliminated
these
areas
from
floodwater
retention.

°
Riparian
condition
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Riparian
and
floodplain
habitat
was
removed
in
the
late
1800s
and
early
1900s
as
the
thick
old
growth
stands
in
the
lower
valley
were
cleared
for
farming,
timber
extraction
and
perceived
flood
protection
(
Richert,
1964).
A
large
portion
of
the
valley
is
maintained
in
agricultural
fields.
Sixty
two
percent
of
the
mainstem
Skokomish
River,
81%
of
Hunter
Creek,
and
57%
of
Weaver
Creek
are
either
agricultural
fields,
sparsely
vegetated,
and/
or
have
a
forested
riparian
buffer
<
66
feet
in
width.
The
South
Fork
and
Vance
Creek
riparian
forests
are
in
slightly
better
condition
overall
with
20%
and
32%
respectively
as
sparsely
vegetated
or
<
66
feet
in
width.
The
North
Fork
Skokomish
and
Richert
Springs
are
the
least
disturbed
with
less
than
20%
of
the
riparian
forest
sparsely
vegetated
or
with
widths
<
66
feet
in
width
(
PNPTC,
1998).
The
majority
of
Purdy
Creek
flows
through
a
large
intact
wetland
system,
except
for
the
hatchery
area
above
Hwy
101
which
is
the
location
of
summer
chum
observations
in
1954.
Degraded
or
non­
existent
riparian
forests
affect
potential
recruitment
of
LWD
to
stream
channels.
Lack
of
instream
and
potential
sources
of
woody
debris
leads
to
reduced
pool
habitat,
increased
bank
erosion,
unstable
bars
and
stream
channels
thereby
affecting
the
spawning
and
incubation
environment.

°
Water
quality
(
temperature,
nutrients)
­
Adult
migration,
spawning
and
rearing
life
stages,
rated
low
impact.
Elevated
summer
temperatures
have
been
observed
in
the
SF
Skokomish
River
partially
attributable
to
channel
widening
and
aggradation
which
can
inhibit
upstream
movement
and
migration
of
summer
chum
and
induce
premature
emigration
of
fry
from
the
redd
environment
(
K.
Dublanica,
personal
communication,
1998).
Elevated
temperatures
may
occur
in
the
mainstem
as
well
where
water
withdrawal
along
with
aggradation
and
channel
widening
could
influence
peak
temperatures.
Nutrients
from
livestock
and
septic
systems
may
impact
water
quality
in
the
river
and
subestuary
causing
shifts
in
primary
and
secondary
production
of
marine
organisms.
Failing
septic
systems
and
livestock
are
thought
to
be
responsible
for
high
levels
of
fecal
coliform
noted
in
several
tributaries
including
Purdy,
Weaver,
Hunter
creeks
and
parts
of
the
mainstem
(
J.
Park,
Skokomish
DNR,
pers.
comm.
1998).

Factors
for
Recovery
In
general,
to
assist
in
restoring
summer
chum
habitat
in
the
Skokomish
watershed
it
is
necessary
to
restrict
development
in
critical
reaches
of
the
Skokomish
Valley.
Additionally,
the
following
actions
should
be
taken:
1)
protect
and
restore
the
existing
riparian
and
wetland
habitats
in
the
basin
to
enhance
instream
woody
debris
inputs,
moderate
temperatures
and
promote
aquatic
habitat
diversity;
2)
encourage
the
maximum
amount
of
the
watershed
to
be
maintained
as
forestland;
3)
restore
floodplain
connections
of
wetlands,
sloughs
and
side
channels
with
the
main
river
channel;
4)
reduce
sediment
inputs
by
road
stabilization
or
abandonment,
avoid
timber
harvests
on
unstable
slopes;
5)
restore
riparian
forests;
6)
return
flows
to
the
North
Fork
to
reduce
bed
aggradation
in
the
mainstem
Skokomish
and
return
sediment
transport
to
the
delta,
including
reversal
of
eelgrass
habitat
loss
in
outer
delta
(
additionally,
it
will
restore
mainstem
channel
depth
and
conveyance
capacity
as
mandated
by
the
Department
of
the
Interior
and
recommended
by
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
Skokomish
Tribe,
Pacific
Fisheries
Management
Council,
Hood
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.189
Canal
Coordinating
Council,
Mason
County
and
others
(
USDI
1997));
and
7)
restore
and
enhance
subestuary
habitat
through
modification
of
dikes
and
tidegates.
The
following
are
more
detailed
descriptions
of
factors
needed
for
recovery.

°
Water
withdrawal
­
The
Department
of
the
Interior's
mandatory
conditions
for
future
operation
of
the
Cushman
Project,
which
include
managed
restoration
of
North
Fork
flow
and
restoration
of
mainstem
channel
conveyance
capacity,
represent
the
minimum
requirements
for
protection
and
restoration
of
anadromous
fish
in
the
Skokomish
River
system
and
subestuary,
and
are
broadly
supported
by
federal,
regional
and
local
resource
agencies
and
comprehensive
watershed
planning
led
by
the
Skokomish
Tribe.
Substantial
restoration
of
North
Fork
flow
from
the
Cushman
Project
is
essential
to
reduce
or
eliminate
aggradation
of
the
mainstem
channel,
enhance
instream
habitat
conditions
and
reverse
continuing
degradation
of
critical
estuarine
habitat.
In
addition,
restored
flows
during
the
summer
low
flow
months
would
improve
upstream
migration
of
all
salmonids
including
summer
chum
and
promote
the
recovery
of
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River
channel.
The
DOI/
NMFS/
EPA
agreement
on
Interior
4(
e)
flow
restoration
conditions,
are
the
minimum
necessary
to
protect
aquatic
resources.

°
Subestuarine
alterations
­
Restore
subestuary
migration
and
rearing
habitat
by
eliminating
dikes,
tide
gates
and
roadways,
converting
agricultural
lands
back
to
estuarine
wetlands
and
natural
distributary
and
dendritic
channels.
Restoration
of
flows
from
the
Cushman
project
is
essential
for
subestuary
recovery
(
Jay
and
Simenstad
1996).
Several
reports
have
been
commissioned
by
the
Skokomish
Tribe
to
examine
the
structure
of
the
delta
and
the
potential
for
restoration,
including
environmental
impacts
and
cost
estimates
for
dike
breaching
(
USCOE
1995).

°
Channel
complexity/
aggradation
­
There
have
been
several
areas
identified
by
the
Mason
County
Department
of
Public
Works
where
the
potential
for
catastrophic
channel
avulsions
may
occur
due
to
sediment
aggradation
and
confinement
by
dikes.
These
reaches
as
well
as
others
are
extremely
dynamic.
Removal
of
dikes
and
property
buy­
outs
and/
or
purchase
of
floodplain
easements
from
willing
landowners
would
allow
the
river
to
migrate
and
interact
with
its
floodplain.
Allowing
the
channel
to
migrate
in
these
dynamic
reaches
will
over
time
decrease
stream
power
by
increasing
channel
sinuosity,
increase
available
habitat
and
reduce
bed
aggradation.
Reconnection
of
isolated
sloughs
and
side
channels
will
increase
habitat
diversity
and
promote
habitat
development.
In
addition,
in
conjunction
with
restoration
of
North
Fork
flows
from
the
Cushman
project,
there
may
be
a
need
for
mechanical
removal
of
sediments
in
selected
reaches
of
the
river.
However,
on
it's
own,
mechanical
removal
of
sediment
would
not
be
cost
effective
or
achieve
the
desired
outcome
of
restoring
channel
capacity
and
natural
stream
function.
Instream
habitat
may
be
protected
and
enhanced
by
experimenting
with
and
monitoring
the
use
of
engineered
logjams
(
ELJ's)
to
stabilize
bars
and
reduce
erosion
potential.

°
Peak
flows
­
At
a
landscape
level
it
is
necessary
to
restore
ecosystem
processes
and
lessen
peak
flow
impacts
by
reducing
road
densities
through
obliteration
and
decommissioning,
and
improving
the
remaining
road
drainage
network
by
installing
larger
and
more
frequent
cross
drains
and
water
bars.
The
forest
must
be
allowed
to
mature
to
improve
hydrologic
maturity
and
to
reduce
rain
on
snow
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.190
impacts.
The
forest
stand
age
can
be
increased
throughout
the
watershed
by
staggering
harvest
units
and
reducing
even
age
(
clear­
cut)
harvests.

°
Riparian
condition
­
The
riparian
corridors
in
all
summer
chum
habitats
in
the
Skokomish
Valley
need
to
be
enhanced
through
revegetation
efforts.
Dike
decommissioning
and
subsequent
revegetation
efforts
along
the
mainstem
streams
will
allow
the
river
to
migrate,
connecting
the
river
with
its
floodplain
and
incorporate
riparian
vegetation
into
the
stream
channels.
Much
of
the
adjacent
agricultural
lands
(
especially
Hunter
and
Weaver
creeks)
need
to
be
enhanced
by
revegetation
and
fencing
with
livestock
exclusion
fencing.
Riparian
corridors
need
to
be
significantly
wider
and
allow
for
the
natural
movement
of
the
alluvial
river
segments
in
their
floodplain.
Water
quality
will
be
enhanced
as
well
with
the
addition
of
wider
riparian
areas
and
fencing
which
will
assist
in
moderating
temperature
impacts
and
preventing
livestock
access
to
the
streams.
A
riparian
forest
protection/
restoration
plan
may
assist
in
developing
these
riparian
corridors
and
would
be
greatly
enhanced
by
support
from
local
citizens.
Riparian
corridors
above
the
summer
chum
zone
in
Vance
Creek,
South
and
North
Fork
Skokomish
rivers
provide
LWD
to
downstream
reaches
and
need
protection
as
well.
Simpson
Timber
Company
has
proposed
a
50
year
timber
management
plan
for
their
lands
in
the
Skokomish
basin
(
Simpson
Timber
Company
1998),
but
the
adequacy
of
protections
have
not
been
evaluated
completely.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Numerous
studies,
reports
and
documents
have
been
drafted
discussing
various
issues
in
the
Skokomish
watershed.
The
major
plans
include
a
DNR/
Simpson
Timber
Co.
watershed
analysis
on
the
South
Fork
Skokomish
River
(
Simpson
Timber
Co.
and
WDNR
1997)
to
direct
watershed
protection
and
identify
sensitive
habitats,
a
Draft
Habitat
Conservation
Plan/
Landscape
Plan
proposed
by
Simpson
Timber
Company,
the
Presidents
Forest
Plan
(
1994)
and
a
federal
watershed
analysis
of
the
South
Fork
Skokomish
River
(
USFS
1995)
to
guide
USFS
land
management
and
restoration
efforts,
a
KCM
Consultants
(
1997)
to
reduce
the
impact
of
flooding
on
people
and
property
and
finally
the
Skokomish
Tribe's
Watershed/
Ecosystem
Improvement
Action
Plan
(
in
press).
Numerous
other
documents
are
available
as
well
including
historical
information
on
Skokomish
valley
settlement
and
activities
(
Richert,
1964).
Impacts
to
the
aquatic
system
are
well
documented
and
the
confidence
in
the
habitat
factors
for
decline
is
high
but
the
confidence
in
the
escapement
and
distribution
of
summer
chum
in
the
watershed
is
low
to
moderate.

More
information
is
needed
to
determine
current
summer
chum
use
and
to
assess
the
relative
impacts
of
land
use
on
summer
chum
habitat.
Information
needs
include:

1.
Monitoring
of
bed
scour
in
selected
channel
reaches
correlated
to
flows
from
existing
USGS
gauges
or
other
means
of
measuring
flows.
2.
Monitoring
habitat
components
in
the
subestuary
as
agricultural
lands
are
converted
back
to
subestuary
habitats.
3.
Dike
reconnaissance
throughout
the
basin
to
identify
dikes
structural
integrity
and
dikes
that
have
major
negative
influences
on
channel
geometry.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.191
4.
Increase
survey
effort
throughout
the
Skokomish
and
tributaries
to
document
any
current
summer
chum
utilization
in
the
basin.
5.
Investigate
modification
of
the
log
jam
at
the
top
of
Nalley
slough
to
facilitate
the
movement
of
juvenile
and
adult
salmon
as
well
as
sediment
and
flow.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.192
References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

Chinook
Northwest
Consultants.
In
press.
Skokomish
Water/
Ecosystem
Improvement
Action
Plan.
Chinook
Northwest
Consultants
for
Skokomish
Tribe
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Potlatch,
WA.

EPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
1998.
Letter
from
Chuck
Clarke,
regional
EPA
administrator
to
Lois
D.
Cashell,
FERC
(
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission),
January
30,
1998
(
subject
EPA's
request
for
rehearing,
Cushman
Hydroelectric
Project).
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
Washington,
D.
C.

FEMAT
(
Forest
Ecosystem
Management
Team).
1993.
Forest
Ecosystem
Management:
an
ecological,
economic,
and
social
assessment.
Report
of
the
Forest
Ecosystem
Management
Team,
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office
1993­
783­
071.
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office
for
the
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.;
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Inter.,
Fish
and
Wild.
Serv.,
Bureau
of
Land
Mgt.,
and
Nat.
Park
Serv.;
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Comm.,
Nat.
Ocean.
and
Atmospheric
Admin.
and
Nat.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.;
and
U.
S.
Envir.
Prot.
Ag.

Jay,
D.
A.,
and
J.
C.
Simenstad.
1996.
Downstream
effects
of
water
withdraw
in
a
small,
West
Coast
river
basin.
Estuaries
19:
501­
517.

KCM
Consultants.
1997.
Skokomish
R.
CFHMP.
KCM
Consultants
Project
#
2540037
for
Mason
County
Dept.
of
Comm.
Dev.,
Shelton,
WA
under
DOE
grant
#
G9400224
(
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA).

NMFS
(
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service).
1998.
Letters
from
Susan
B.
Fruchter,
Dept.
of
Commerce
Office
of
Under
Secretary
for
Oceans
and
Atmosphere.
Feb.
18,
1998;
William
Stelle
Jr.,
Regional
Administrator
NMFS,
July
28,
1998
to
David
P.
Boergers,
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Comm.
(
subject
NMFS
request
for
rehearing
on
Cushman
Hydroelectric
Project,
FERC
No.
460,
August
29,
1998).

PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
treaty
Council).
1998.
Riparian
area
assessment
data
(
unpublished).
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

Richert,
E.
1964.
A
Long
Time
Ago
in
the
Skokomish
Valley.
Publisher
unknown.
84
p.

R2
Resource
Consultants.
1996.
Fisheries
resources
and
sediment
aggradation
in
the
Skokomish
River
Valley,
Washington.
R2
Resource
consultants
for
Northwest
Economic
Associates
for
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Inter.,
Bureau
of
Indian
Affairs.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.193
Simpson
Timber
Co.
and
WDNR
(
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources).
1997.
South
Fork
Skokomish
Watershed
Analysis.
Simpson
Timber
Co.,
Northwest
Operations,
Shelton,
WA.,
and
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Olympia,
WA.

Simpson
Timber
Co.
1998.
Draft
Habitat
Operation
Plan
(
July
1998).
Northwest
operations,
Simpson
Timber
Company,
Shelton,
WA.

Skokomish
DNR
(
Skokomish
Tribe
Department
of
Natural
Resources)
and
PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council).
1994.
Ambient
Monitoring
Project
data
(
unpublished).
Skokomish
Tribe
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Potlach,
WA.

Skokomish
DNR
(
Skokomish
Tribe
Department
of
Natural
Resources).
1998.
Water
quality
assessments
(
Unpublished).
Skokomish
Tribe
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Potlach,
WA.

Smoker,
W.
1952.
The
Skokomish
R.
Indian
Fishery.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish.
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

Stetson
Engineers.
1996.
Technical
report
support
recommended
Section
4(
e)
conditions
pertaining
to
hydrologic
impacts
on
the
Skokomish
Indian
Reservation,
Washington.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service).
1995.
South
Fork
Skokomish
Watershed
Analysis.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Service,
Olympic
National
Forest,
Olympia,
WA.

USCOE
(
United
States
Corps
of
Engineers).
1996.
Restoration
of
tidal
inundation
to
the
Skokomish
R.
estuary.
Dept.
of
the
Army,
U.
S.
Geo.
Surv.,
Seattle
District,
Seattle,
WA.
15
p.

USFS
(
United
States
Forest
Service)
and
BLM
(
Bureau
of
Land
Management).
1994.
Record
of
decision
for
amendments
to
Forest
Service
and
Bureau
of
Land
Management
planning
documents
within
the
range
of
the
northern
spotted
owl.
74
p.
+
attachments.

USDI
(
United
States
Department
of
the
Interior).
1997.
Section
4(
e)
conditions
for
adequate
protection
and
utilization
of
Skokomish
Indian
Reservation.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Interior,
Washington
D.
C.

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries).
1957.
Research
relating
to
fisheries
problems
that
will
arise
in
conjunction
with
current
and
projected
hydroelectric
developments
in
the
Skokomish
R.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish.
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

WDOE
(
Washington
Department
of
Ecology).
1987.
Letter
from
Clark
Haberman,
WDOE
to
E.
E.
Coates,
Tacoma
Dept.
Pub.
Util.,
Dec.
30,
1987.
Wash,
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

WDOE
(
Washington
Department
of
Ecology).
1994.
Letter
from
Gary
E.
Hanson,
WDOE
to
Lois
Cashell,
FERC,
Oct.
27,
1994.
Wash,
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.194
Union
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
15.0503
Watershed
Description
The
Union
River
enters
Lynch
Cove
in
the
eastern
arm
of
Hood
Canal.
The
watershed
area
is
approximately
24
square
miles
with
10
miles
of
mainstem
and
30
miles
of
tributary
streams.
The
headwaters
are
in
the
Blue
Hills
near
1,500
ft.
elevation
and
flow
through
an
undeveloped
watershed
before
entering
the
Union
River
Reservoir
constructed
in
1955­
57
as
a
municipal
and
industrial
water
supply.
It
provides
up
to
5
million
gallons/
day
for
the
City
of
Bremerton
and
the
Puget
Sound
Naval
Shipyard
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
The
upper
watershed
contains
moderate
to
steep
side­
slopes
with
a
relatively
low
gradient
stream
channel
downstream
to
McKenna
Falls
located
at
river
mile
(
RM)
6.7
immediately
below
the
water
supply
dam
(
Cascade
Dam)
and
reservoir.
Below
the
falls,
the
gradient
is
also
low
with
the
lower
5
miles
being
quite
flat
and
flowing
through
a
broad
shrub­
scrub
floodplain.
The
Union
River
enters
a
subestuarine
delta
that
has
been
heavily
constrained
by
diking
and
filling,
mainly
for
agriculture,
flood
control,
and
to
protect
residences
located
in
the
subestuary.
The
Washington
Department
of
Ecology
has
closed
the
Union
River
and
its
tributaries
from
the
mouth
upstream
to
McKenna
Falls
to
surface
water
appropriations
(
WDOE,
1998).

The
dominant
landuse
in
the
upper
portions
of
the
Union
River
and
its
tributaries
is
industrial
forestry
and
water
storage/
diversion.
The
middle
and
lower
reaches
have
moderately
heavy
residential
development
as
well
as
numerous
small
hobby
farms
and
minor
forestry
operations
(
Williams
et
al.
1975;
PSCRBT,
1991).
The
City
of
Belfair
is
located
directly
east
of
the
river
mouth
and
subestuary.
Three
county
owned
bridge
crossings
and
several
privately
owned
bridges
(
some
of
poor
design)
(
J.
Lenzi,
WDFW,
Olympia,
WA
pers.
comm.)
exist
which
prevent
the
river
from
migrating
throughout
its
floodplain.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Current
summer
chum
distribution
is
primarily
limited
to
the
lower
2.5
miles,
but
extends
upstream
as
well.
Historical
distribution
is
assumed
to
have
extended
to
the
base
of
McKenna
Falls
(
RM
6.7)
under
historical
flow
conditions.
Several
small
tributaries
exist
within
this
reach,
including
Courtney,
Bear
and
Hazel
creeks
and
the
East
Fork
Union
River,
however
historical
use
by
summer
chum
salmon
is
unknown.

Population
Status
Escapement
estimates
show
100
or
less
spawners
during
the
1970s.
Since
then,
escapement
has
risen
to
several
hundred
most
years
with
a
high
of
almost
1,900
spawners
in
1986.
This
population
contrasts
with
the
rest
of
the
Hood
Canal/
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations
in
that
the
abundance
of
the
stock
has
increased
since
1978
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).
Although
the
stock
has
experienced
a
general
increase
over
the
last
15
years,
it
is
still
thought
to
be
less
than
the
historical
run
size.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.195
Factors
for
Decline
The
Union
River
watershed
is
dominated
by
residential
development,
small
farms,
and
industrial
forestry.
The
freshwater
habitat
overall
is
in
fair
condition
with
the
majority
of
the
impacts
occurring
from
encroachment
by
homes
and
farms
in
the
floodplain
and
dikes
and
agricultural
activities
and
modifications
in
the
subestuary
and
intertidal
areas.
The
Union
River
is
the
only
basin
on
the
Kitsap
Peninsula
to
possess
a
viable
population
of
summer
chum
salmon.
The
potential
for
further
habitat
degradation
remains
high
due
to
the
trends
in
growth,
urban
landuse
designations
and
inadequate
stream,
riparian
and
shoreline
protections.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Subestuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
For
it's
comparatively
small
size
of
344.6
acres
(
6.1
miles
perimeter),
the
estuarine
delta
of
the
Union
River
has
been
extensively
diked
and
the
tidal
floodplain
constrained
as
a
result.
Seven
diked
areas
occupy
78.6
acres
or
22.8%
of
the
original
summer
chum
rearing
and
migration
habitat
area.
Some
of
these
diked
areas
may
be
breached
and
now
inundated
by
the
tide
but
the
extent
of
restoration
to
tidal
circulation
and
the
state
of
recovery
cannot
be
verified
without
ground
truthing.
Several
tidegates
have
been
identified
but
their
condition
and
impact
on
summer
chum
estuarine
habitat
is
unknown
(
M.
Schirato,
WDFW,
Olympia,
WA
pers.
comm.,
Oct.
1995).
Juvenile
summer
chum
rearing
opportunities
are
presently
limited
compared
to
the
historic
state
of
the
subestuary.
In
particular,
habitat
extent
and
quality
in
the
mesohaline
reaches
of
the
subestuary,
which
chum
fry
may
volitionally
occupy
for
up
to
1­
2
weeks,
are
very
limited
due
to
the
diking.
Much
of
the
breaching
of
marshes
appears
to
be
in
an
early
state
of
restoration.
Fills
for
commercial
or
residential
use
include
two
areas
totaling
3.6
acres,
approximately
8.9%
of
the
historical
delta
area.
At
least
one
of
these
fills
is
located
on
the
outer
edge
of
the
historic
subestuary,
thus
imposing
an
intertidal
barrier
to
migrating
summer
chum
fry.
One
small
(
0.9
acres)
pond
or
other
excavation
is
evident
within
the
delta
but
its
impact
is
thought
to
be
minor.

°
Subestuarine
ditches
and
remnant
dikes
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Although
much
of
the
historically
diked
delta
habitat
in
the
Union
River
subestuary
is
now
exposed
to
renewed
tidal
inundation,
the
associated
ditching
that
accompanied
diking
and
agricultural
activities
have
heavily
modified
emergent
marsh
and
other
intertidal
habitats.
While
these
ditches
and
remnant
dikes
may
not
impose
a
direct
impact,
they
likely
inhibit
restoration
of
natural
drainage
channel
systems
and
delay
long­
term
recovery
of
estuarine
rearing
habitat
for
summer
chum.
At
least
19
ditch
and
remnant
dikes
are
present,
and
extend
over
approximately
2
miles
of
delta
habitat.
Many
of
these
are
concentrated
in
a
large
dike­
breach
marsh
in
the
lower
extent
of
the
delta,
where
chum
fry
would
be
expected
to
"
stage"
for
migration
into
the
Canal.
Such
ditching
typically
prevents
or
delays
the
formation
of
natural
dendritic
tidal
channel
systems,
which
in
turn
impacts
foraging
opportunities
for
juvenile
salmon
in
the
marshes.
In
addition,
prey
resources
of
the
emergent
marshes,
which
can
be
important
to
chum
fry
early
in
the
estuarine
migration,
are
likely
progressing
at
a
slower
recovery
rate
than
natural
because
of
the
ditching.

°
Riparian
condition
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
high
impact.
Most
of
the
basin
was
completely
logged
of
the
original
forests
by
the
1930s
(
Amato
1996).
Numerous
farms,
residential
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.196
developments
and
associated
bank
armoring
exist
in
the
riparian
corridor
affecting
the
functional
status
of
the
riparian
forest.
Currently
fifty
two
percent
of
the
riparian
area
is
forested
of
which
96%
is
dominated
by
deciduous
trees.
Sixty
two
percent
of
the
total
riparian
length
is
sparsely
vegetated
or
less
than
66
feet
wide
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
Rural
residential
development,
agriculture,
and
roads
cover
46%
of
the
riparian
area.
A
more
mature
and
diverse
riparian
forest
is
likely
to
provide
stable
LWD
to
create
structurally
diverse
channel
conditions
and
improve
stream
habitat
overall.

°
Channel
complexity
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
The
Union
River
still
possesses
a
structurally
diverse
channel
network
with
63%
pools.
However
pool
frequency
is
poor
at
5.9
channel
widths
between
each
pool.
The
stream
contains
low
levels
of
large
size
LWD
due
to
past
stream
clean­
outs,
riparian
forest
harvesting
and
natural
transport
downstream.
Habitat
surveys
in
1993
found
the
Union
River
averaged
0.22
pieces
of
LWD/
m
from
the
mouth
to
McKenna
Falls
with
nearly
42%
of
the
wood
being
in
the
small
size
class
[
10­
20
cm
diameter]
(
PNPTC,
1995,
Appendix
Report
3.8).
The
low
levels
of
large
size
instream
LWD
may
result
in
redd
scour
and
channel
instability.
Much
of
the
current
instream
LWD
is
western
red
cedar,
which
has
long
instream
residency
times
due
to
its
slow
rate
of
decay.
Stream
clean­
outs
of
LWD,
particularly
log
jams
and
channelizations
have
been
recorded
back
to
the
late
1800s
but
were
more
extensive
during
the
late
1960s.
For
instance
in
1967
the
WDF
stream
improvement
division
noted
that
five
log
jams
were
removed
from
the
Union
River
and
it
was
channelized
for
5
miles.
In
a
three
year
period
in
the
late
1960s,
numerous
log
jams
were
removed
from
the
Union
River
and
2
of
the
larger
tributaries,
Courtney
Creek
and
Bear
Creek.
In
addition,
rip
rap
was
placed
along
2
miles
of
Courtney
Creek
in
2
consecutive
years
in
1967
and
1968
and
the
lower
two
miles
of
Courtney
Creek
appears
to
have
been
moved
sometime
in
the
distant
past
(
Amato,
1996).
The
previous
channel
alignment
still
exists
on
maps
in
existence
today
including
the
7.5
minute
U.
S.
G.
S.
Belfair
Quadrangle
map
printed
in
1994.

°
Low
flow
­
Adult
migration
and
spawning
life
stage,
rated
low
impact.
The
impact
of
water
withdrawal
by
the
City
of
Bremerton
is
thought
to
have
a
low
impact
on
Union
River
summer
chum
salmon,
but
the
actual
impacts
are
unknown.
Based
on
1998
flow
data,
outflow
from
the
Union
Reservoir
exceeded
inflow
to
the
reservoir
during
the
critical
migration
and
spawning
period
of
mid­
August
to
mid­
October
73%
of
the
time
(
43
of
59
days)
(
City
of
Bremerton
1998).
Preceding
years
have
not
been
assessed
at
this
time.
Out
of
basin
diversion
may
reduce
the
amount
of
water
available
for
summer
chum
migration
and
spawning
from
historical
conditions
and
may
reduce
the
amount
of
spawning
area
available
to
adults
at
the
site
and
reach
scale,
including
adequate
access
to
upstream
reaches
and
tributary
streams.
Mean
annual
flow
for
the
Union
River
for
the
period
of
1947
­
1959
was
54.7
cfs
with
a
mean
annual
minimum
flow
of
42.7
and
a
1
day
low
flow
of
14
cfs.
The
Bremerton
Water
Utility
maintains
a
continuous
flow
gaging
station
downstream
of
the
dam
which
has
operated
from
1958
to
the
present,
however
no
summary
of
flow
data
was
available
for
this
station
(
PSCRBT
1991).
An
administrative
low
flow
has
been
set
at
3
cfs
for
the
Union
River
below
McKenna
Falls
and
10
cfs
at
the
river
mouth
(
Cline
1998).

°
Water
quality
(
toxics,
nutrients,
temperature)
­
Adult
migration,
spawning
and
rearing
life
stages,
rated
low
impact.
Toxic
chemicals
(
mercury,
selenium,
cadmium,
arsenic,
boron)
have
been
found
in
sediment
and
water
samples
near
the
vicinity
of
the
Olympic
View
Sanitary
Landfill
located
near
the
East
Fork
Union
River
confluence.
Although
the
impact
on
summer
chum
is
thought
to
be
low,
there
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.197
has
not
been
any
analysis
of
the
impacts.
Additionally,
the
Lynch
Cove
subestuary
at
the
mouth
of
the
Union
River
had
the
highest
levels
of
cadmium
and
arsenic
found
in
Puget
Sound
and
the
third
highest
levels
of
chromium
and
copper
(
documented
by
the
Puget
Sound
Ambient
Monitoring
Program
in
a
letter
to
DOE
from
the
Mason
County
Commissioners
1994).
Sediment
laden,
petroleum
smelling
effluent
at
approximately
RM
6
has
been
noted
near
a
commercial
paving
company,
but
like
the
toxics
mentioned
above,
the
impacts
are
unknown.
Livestock
have
direct
access
to
the
stream
in
several
locations
and
may
inhibit
redd
formation
by
creating
unstable
conditions
in
the
immediate
area.
Nutrients
from
livestock
and
septic
systems
may
impact
water
quality
in
the
river
and
subestuary,
causing
shifts
in
primary
and
secondary
production.
Past
water
sampling
has
revealed
high
bacterial
counts
in
the
lower
section
of
the
river
apparently
attributable
to
septic
systems
and
stormwater
(
PSCRBT
1991).
Summer
temperatures
may
be
elevated
due
to
water
withdrawals
and
the
lack
of
riparian
shading
which
can
inhibit
the
upstream
movement
and
migration
of
summer
chum
and
induce
premature
immigration
of
fry
from
the
redd
environment
increasing
mortality
Factors
for
Recovery
A
general
discussion
of
restoration
and
protection
options
for
these
habitat
factors
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

°
Subestuarine
habitat
­
Currently,
Belfair
and
much
of
the
watershed
is
designated
as
an
urban
growth
area
in
the
Mason
County
Comprehensive
Plan
and
the
Union
River
and
most
of
the
nearshore
marine
areas
in
Hood
Canal
adjacent
to
the
Union
River
have
an
urban
designation
under
the
Mason
County
Shoreline
Master
Program.
There
is
a
need
to
strengthen
the
protection
strategies
for
buffers,
building
setbacks
and
bulkhead
constructions.
The
county
and
other
entities
should
consider
acquiring
undeveloped
estuarine
and
marine
shorelines
for
permanent
protection
or
acquiring
conservation
easements
from
willing
landowners.
Both
existing
diked
and
breached­
dike
estuarine
wetlands
are
likely
limiting
the
potential
for
maximal
rearing
of
summer
chum
within
the
estuarine
delta.
Restoration
action
in
the
form
of
dike
breaching,
with
setback
dikes
to
protect
public
and
private
property
from
flood
damage
if
necessary,
and
ditch
in­
filling
should
be
considered
as
the
most
proactive
approaches
to
recovering
critical
summer
chum
habitat
in
this
subestuary.
There
is
a
need
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
dikes
and
the
relative
impacts
on
the
tidal/
freshwater
environments
and,
if
appropriate,
negotiate
restoration
opportunities
with
the
landowners.

°
Riparian
condition
and
LWD
­
Enhance
existing
riparian
forests
through
underplanting
of
shade
tolerant
conifer
and
encourage
riparian
planting
throughout
the
riparian
corridor.
Consider
acquisition
of
sensitive
properties
or
conservation
easements
from
willing
property
owners.
Modify
local
government
(
county
and
state)
riparian
protection
strategies
to
protect
stream
and
riparian
areas
from
further
residential
development.

°
Channel
complexity
­
Allow
natural
LWD
input
processes
to
occur
and
LWD
to
remain
in
the
channel,
and
consider
developing
restoration
projects
to
deliver
additional
wood
to
the
channel.
Enhance
and
restore
degraded
riparian
areas
through
local
partnerships.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.198
°
Water
quality
­
Elevate
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
utilized
by
industrial
landowners,
small
farms
and
residential
homeowners
to
reduce
impacts
on
instream
habitat
and
water
quality.
Increase
riparian
protections
through
local
and
state
ordinances
and
laws.
Enact
effective
stormwater
protections
to
reduce
the
impact
of
future
projected
growth
on
basin
hydrology
and
water
quality.

°
Increase
awareness
and
education
­
Work
with
local
groups
(
Union
River
Basin
Protection
Association,
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group,
Theler
Wetland
Project
Center)
and
stakeholders
to
increase
environmental
awareness
and
educate
the
public
about
the
importance
of
functional
habitats
to
preserve
and
protect
all
salmon
stocks.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Confidence
in
this
assessment
is
rated
as
moderate
due
to
the
amount
of
information
available
for
analysis,
including
TFW
instream
ambient
monitoring
data,
escapement/
survey
data,
historical
research
conducted
by
PNPTC
and
knowledge
of
experienced
habitat
biologists
in
the
area.

More
information
is
needed
to
assess
the
relative
impacts
in
the
summer
chum
habitat
zone.
Information
needs
include:

1.
Assess
and
quantify
the
impacts
from
dikes
located
in
the
subestuary
on
summer
chum
salmon
populations
and
potential
for
restoration.
2.
Evaluate
the
recovery
of
vegetation
communities
and
critical
prey
resources
in
the
subestuary
and
intertidal
areas.
3.
Identify
impacts
from
current
water
withdrawals
by
the
City
of
Bremerton
and
possible
measures
to
improve
conditions
if
warranted.
4.
Water
quality
monitoring
(
toxics,
nutrients,
temperature)
at
industrial
sites
and
throughout
the
summer
chum
habitat
zone.
5.
Continued
stream
channel
habitat
monitoring
to
determine
habitat
trends.
6.
Monitoring
of
bed
scour
in
selected
reaches
associated
with
instream
flow
measurements.
7.
Increased
survey
effort
to
document
summer
chum
utilization
above
the
current
index
area
at
river
mile
2.1
and
in
the
various
lower
tributaries.

References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

City
of
Bremerton.
1998.
Unpublished
water
flow
and
withdraw
data.
Water
Resources
Division
of
the
Public
Works
Utility,
Bremerton,
WA.

Cline,
V.
1998.
Facsimile
from
Vicki
Cline,
WDOE
to
Carol
Bernthal,
PNPTC
dated
Dec.
28,
1998.
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.199
Mason
County.
1994.
Letter
from
Mason
County
Commissioners
to
WDOE
regarding
Puget
Sound
Ambient
Monitoring
Program
sampling
results
for
Lynch
Cove.
Mason
County,
Shelton,
WA.

PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council).
1995.
1993­
95
Ambient
Monitoring
data
(
unpublished).
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

PSCRBT
(
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team).
1991.
Lower
Hood
Canal
Watershed,
Mason
and
Kitsap
Counties
report.
Skokomish
Tribe
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Potlatch,
WA.

WDFW.
1998.
Summer
chum
spawning
ground
utilization
data
(
Unpublished).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

WDOE
(
Washington
Department
of
Ecology).
1998.
In­
stream
Resources
Protection
program
 
Kitsap
Water
Resources
Inventory
Area
(
WRIA)
16.
Wash,
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

Williams,
R.
W.,
R.
M.
Laramie,
and
J.
J.
Ames.
1975.
A
catalog
of
Washington
streams
and
salmon
utilization,
Volume
1,
Puget
Sound
Region.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
974
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.200
Big
Mission
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
15.0495
Watershed
Description
The
Big
Mission
Creek
watershed
enters
the
eastern
arm
of
Hood
Canal
and
Lynch
Cove
at
Plum
Point
approximately
2
miles
west
of
the
Union
River
and
3
miles
west
of
the
city
of
Belfair.
It
contains
nearly
10
miles
of
mainstem
and
10
miles
of
tributary
streams.
The
mean
annual
flow
for
Big
Mission
Creek
measured
at
river
mile
4.8
from
1946
to
1953
was
12.4
cfs,
with
a
mean
annual
minimum
flow
of
8.5
cfs
and
a
peak
flow
of
403
cfs
(
PSCRBT,
1991).
The
Washington
Department
of
Ecology
has
closed
Big
Mission
Creek,
Mission
Lake
and
their
tributaries
to
further
surface
water
appropriations
(
WDOE,
1998).

The
headwaters
begin
in
a
forested
area
above
Mission
Lake
and
in
wetlands
northwest
of
Mission
Lake,
which
coalesce
into
a
single
stream
immediately
downstream
of
Mission
Lake
outlet.
Channel
gradients
are
typically
less
than
five
percent
the
entire
length
of
the
creek
and
flow
through
glacial
advance
and
recessional
outwash
sediments
consisting
of
unconsolidated
silt,
and
gravel,
which
is
highly
erodible
(
PSCRBT,
1991).
The
upper
and
middle
portions
of
the
watershed
are
forested
and
dominated
by
industrial
forests
managed
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources
and
other
industrial
forestland
owners.
The
lower
2
miles
has
several
county
road
crossings
and
a
nearly
continuous
corridor
of
single
family
residences
located
in
the
riparian
zone.
The
lower
1/
10th
mile
flows
through
Belfair
State
Park
and
into
Hood
Canal
via
a
heavily
modified
and
constricted
estuarine
delta.
Analysis
of
a
1944
aerial
photo
indicates
the
subestuarine
delta
(
which
is
now
part
of
Belfair
State
Park)
was
diked
and
used
as
a
farm
at
that
time.
Diking
and
other
modifications
have
caused
a
significant
loss
in
estuarine
rearing
and
physiological
transition
habitat
for
chum
salmon.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Spawning
ground
surveys
since
1974
show
only
a
fall
chum
population
in
this
watershed.
This
watershed
is
included
in
this
plan
based
on
the
historical
potential
for
summer
chum
utilization
given
available
suitable
habitat,
stable
late
summer
flows,
and
proximity
to
the
Union
River,
which
supports
summer
chum.
Based
on
the
presence
of
suitable
habitat,
summer
chum
could
range
up
to
RM
1.5.

Population
Status
Spawning
survey
data
indicate
that
a
summer
chum
population
does
not
exist
at
this
time
(
WDFW
1998).
However
habitat
and
flow
conditions
appear
conducive
to
summer
chum
and
it
is
possible
that
prior
to
spawning
surveys
(
1974),
summer
chum
did
exist
in
this
watershed.

Factors
for
Decline
The
potential
summer
chum
habitat
zone
in
the
lower
2
miles
of
the
watershed
is
in
poor
condition
when
compared
with
the
upstream
forested
areas,
primarily
due
to
residential
development,
road
crossings,
stream
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.201
modifications
and
timber
harvesting.
For
summary
results
of
the
limiting
factor
analysis,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Subestuarine
habitat
loss­
Juvenile
rearing
and
adult
migration/
spawning
stages,
rated
high
impact.
The
historical
area
of
this
small
delta
is
estimated
to
be
30.3
acres.
Two
diked
areas
comprise
10.3
acres
or
34%
of
the
original
intertidal
habitat
potentially
available
for
chum
salmon.
One
large
diked
area
also
contains
a
man­
made
pond.
This
extensive
diking
has
likely
caused
the
expansion
of
the
delta
into
the
Canal,
although
the
extent
of
this
has
not
been
estimated
to
our
knowledge.
The
mesohaline
reach
of
the
subestuary
is
heavily
constrained
by
dikes
with
minimal
emergent
or
other
wetland
vegetation.
The
dikes
have
resulted
in
a
significant
direct
loss
of
habitat
and
have
altered
the
natural
process
of
tidal
mixing
in
the
tidal/
freshwater
zone
which
is
an
important
zone
for
feeding
success
and
transition
area
from
freshwater
to
saltwater
life
stages.
Two
remnant
ditches
and
dikes
extend
0.14
miles
within
the
delta,
but
their
impact
is
unknown
and
thought
to
be
relatively
small.

°
Riparian
landuse­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
high
impact.
Seventy
percent
of
the
riparian
area
in
the
potential
summer
chum
reach
is
forested
with
36%
being
<
12
inches
dbh
(
diameter
breast
height)
and
98%
dominated
by
deciduous
trees.
Forty
five
percent
of
the
linear
buffer
length
is
sparsely
vegetated
or
is
less
than
66
feet
wide.
Residential/
commercial
development
and
roads
cover
30%
of
the
total
buffer
area,
which
has
reduced
the
extent
of
a
functional
riparian
forest
(
PNPTC
1998,
Appendix
Report
3.7).
The
current
riparian
forest
is
unable
to
provide
LWD
(
large
woody
debris)
needed
for
the
creation
of
stable
instream
habitat,
which
impacts
the
spawning
success
of
chum
salmon.

°
Channel
complexity­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
high
impact.
Habitat
surveys
conducted
in
Big
Mission
Creek
revealed
33%
pools,
0.07
pieces
of
LWD/
m.,
and
an
average
of
6.5
channel
widths
between
each
pool
within
the
potential
summer
chum
reach
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
This
compares
to
43%
pools
and
slightly
higher
wood
frequencies
and
lower
pool
spacing
in
the
forested
area
upstream
(
PNPTC
1995).
Bank
armoring,
removal
of
standing
trees
recruitable
as
LWD
and
removal
of
instream
large
woody
debris
all
continue
in
association
with
existing
residential
development
adjacent
to
the
stream
channel.
A
stream
channel
lacking
diverse
structure
leads
to
increased
redd
scour
and
poorly
sorted
spawning
gravels,
which
may
inhibit
redd
formation.
In
the
mid
to
late
1960s
WDF
stream
cleaning
crews
removed
log
jams
from
12
miles
of
the
watershed
and
channelized
the
stream
for
4
miles
over
a
four
year
period
in
an
attempt
to
improve
upstream
migration
of
fish
(
Amato,
1996).
This
work
presumably
included
portions
of
the
summer
chum
zone.
In
addition,
the
channel
entering
the
delta
may
have
been
channelized
to
some
extent
as
well.
The
impacts
of
low
channel
complexity
are
believed
to
exert
a
high
impact.

Factors
for
Recovery
A
full
discussion
of
protection
options
and
restoration
stategies
by
habitat
factor
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

°
Subestuarine
habitat
­
Summer
chum
essentially
have
little
or
no
brackish
to
mesohaline
rearing
habitat
in
the
Big
Mission
subestuary
due
to
diking
and
other
development
of
the
historic
delta.
Removal
and
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.202
setback
of
dikes
could
contribute
significantly
to
the
recovery
of
a
natural
distributary
tidal
channel
system
and
estuarine
wetland
communities
that
would
significantly
enhance
rearing
prior
to
migration
into
the
adjacent
Canal.
Removal
of
unnecessary
fills
and
bulkheads
will
allow
natural
shoreline
processes
to
occur.
Property
buy
outs
or
conservation
easements
may
be
appropriate
for
some
critical
areas.
Consider
negotiating
with
Belfair
State
Park
and
the
Washington
Parks
Department
to
reconfigure
lower
stream
channel
if
it
is
thought
that
the
results
would
be
favorable
to
summer
chum
salmon.
Strengthen
local
governments'
protection
strategies
for
riparian
protections,
building
setbacks,
stormwater
runoff
and
shoreline
armoring.

°
Riparian
condition
and
LWD
­
Enhance
existing
riparian
corridors
through
underplanting
of
shade
tolerant
conifer.
Consider
acquisition
of
sensitive
properties
or
conservation
easements
of
developed
properties
that
can
be
enhanced.
Modify
local
governments'
riparian
protection
strategies
to
protect
the
stream
and
riparian
areas
from
further
residential
development
by
requiring
functional
riparian
buffers.
In
the
middle
portion
of
the
watershed
the
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources
has
developed
a
long
term
Habitat
Conservation
Plan
for
industrial
forest
activities
on
state
land
which
will
provide
increased
riparian
protections
during
timber
harvesting,
but
the
adequacy
of
protections
have
not
been
evaluated
completely.
Nevertheless,
it
will
be
desirable
to
link
the
DNR
riparian
forests
with
the
riparian
corridors
in
the
lower
summer
chum
zone.

°
Channel
complexity
­
Allow
natural
woody
debris
input
processes
to
occur
and
consider
developing
restoration
projects
to
deliver
additional
wood
to
the
channel.
Remove
unnecessary
rip
rap
and
restore
sites
with
appropriate
bioengineered
techniques.
Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
culverts/
bridges
to
allow
the
free
movement
of
wood,
water
and
sediment
to
downstream
reaches.

°
Increase
awareness
and
education
­
Work
with
local
groups
and
stakeholders
to
increase
environmental
awareness
and
importance
of
functional
habitat
to
preserve
all
salmon
stocks.
Develop
local
watershed
groups
to
assist
in
monitoring
environmental
conditions.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
needs
Confidence
for
fish
distribution
is
rated
low,
and
based
upon
professional
judgement
of
where
summer
chum
would
likely
spawn.
Confidence
in
the
habitat
assessment
is
high
due
to
the
TFW
ambient
monitoring
data,
historical
overview,
PNPTC
riparian
assessment
and
the
field
knowledge
of
several
local
biologists.

More
information
is
needed
to
assess
the
relative
impacts
of
land
use
on
summer
chum
habitat.
Information
needs
include:

1.
Water
quality
monitoring
throughout
the
summer
chum
habitat
zone.
2.
Monitoring
of
bed
scour
in
selected
reaches
associated
with
stream
flow
data
and
channel
cross
sections.
3.
Increase
in
survey
effort
during
the
summer
chum
entry
period
in
an
attempt
to
document
any
current
use
by
summer
chum
salmon
beyond
the
current
survey
reach.
4.
Analysis
of
the
impact
on
freshwater
and
estuarine
habitat
created
by
the
Belfair
State
Park
and
potential
for
restoration
of
this
critical
zone.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.203
References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council).
1993.
1993­
95
Ambient
Monitoring
data
(
Unpublished).
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council).
1998.
Riparian
area
assessment
data
(
Unpublished).
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

PSCRBT
(
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team).
1991.
Lower
Hood
Canal
Watershed,
Mason
and
Kitsap
Counties
report.
Skokomish
Tribe
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Potlatch,
WA.

WDFW.
1998.
Summer
chum
spawning
ground
utilization
data
(
Unpublished).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

WDOE
(
Washington
Department
of
Ecology).
1998.
In­
stream
Resources
Protection
program
 
Kitsap
Water
Resources
Inventory
Area
(
WRIA)
16.
Wash,
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.204
Tahuya
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
15.0446
Watershed
Description
The
Tahuya
River
is
the
largest
stream
draining
Kitsap
Peninsula
at
45.1
sq.
miles,
and
is
located
east
of
Rendsland
Creek
and
the
Dewatto
River,
south
of
Big
Beef
Creek,
and
west
of
Big
Mission
Creek
and
the
Union
River.
It
headwaters
in
the
Green
Mountain
on
the
plateau
of
the
Kitsap
peninsula
and
flows
southwesterly
entering
the
east
side
of
Hood
Canal
at
the
community
of
Tahuya.
The
Tahuya
River
has
a
total
mainstem
length
of
21
miles
and
a
combined
tributary
length
of
approximately
64.9
miles.

Below
Lake
Tahuya,
the
Tahuya
River
flows
through
gently
rolling
hills
with
a
low
to
moderate
stream
gradient.
Below
RM
14,
the
river
flows
through
a
broad
alluvial
valley.
A
distinctive
feature
of
the
Tahuya
River
and
most
of
the
streams
draining
southwest
Kitsap
Peninsula
is
the
large
wetland
sections
directly
associated
with
the
mainstem
and
numerous
tributary
wetlands
within
the
drainage.
The
geology
of
this
watershed
is
dominated
by
glacial
till.
The
moderate
terrain
and
low
elevation
of
the
Tahuya
River
watershed
results
in
a
rain
dominated
hydrologic
pattern
where
many
of
the
smaller
tributaries
go
dry
early
in
the
summer
season,
or
during
winter
dry
periods.
The
numerous
wetlands
within
the
watershed
are
critical
in
moderating
peak
winter
flow
and
augmenting
summer
low
flow.
To
provide
instream
flows
during
the
summer
low
flow
period,
the
Department
of
Ecology
has
closed
the
Tahuya
River
to
additional
consumptive
appropriations
during
the
time
period
June
15
to
October
15,
per
WAC
173­
515­
040(
2).

The
primary
historical
land
use
in
this
watershed
was
timber
harvest.
A
large
portion
of
the
watershed
is
still
managed
for
timber
in
the
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Tahuya
State
Forest,
and
on
the
lands
of
private
timber
companies.
Seventy
one
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
is
fully
forested,
with
another
6%
clearcut.
Agricultural
accounts
for
8%
of
the
riparian
zone,
mainly
in
the
form
of
Christmas
tree
and
small
farms.
Residential
neighborhoods
within
the
100­
year
floodplain
account
for
another
12%
of
the
riparian
zone.
The
immediate
shoreline
of
Hood
Canal
is
intensely
developed.
Many
of
the
natural
lakes,
reservoirs,
and
wetlands
in
the
Tahuya
drainage
are
also
intensely
developed.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Past
spawning
surveys
found
summer
chum
below
RM
(
river
mile)
3.0.
However,
given
present
flow
and
gradient
patterns,
summer
chum
could
extend
up
to
RM
8.0.

Population
Status
During
the
early
1970s
estimated
escapement
ranged
from
the
high
hundreds
to
thousands.
By
the
1980s,
it
was
reduced
to
less
than
200.
Summer
chum
have
been
detected
at
very
low
numbers
since
the
early
1990s
(
Appendix
Table
1.1),
and
a
viable
population
no
longer
exists.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.205
Factors
for
Decline
Aerial
photo
analysis
shows
that
the
lower
river
channel
from
RM
0.0
to
3.0,
where
historically
most
of
the
summer
chum
spawned,
has
approximately
50
percent
of
the
channel
length
impacted
(
on
at
least
one
riverbank)
by
roads,
agriculture,
and
residential
development.
The
adjacent
nearshore
and
estuary
habitat
has
been
intensely
developed.
The
habitat
is
degraded
due
to
(
in
order
of
importance):
nearshore
habitat
loss,
loss
of
LWD,
the
loss
of
species
diversity
within
the
riparian
forest,
elevated
water
temperatures
late
in
the
summer
season,
and
channel
instability.
As
pressure
to
develop
shoreline
and
floodplain
increases,
there
is
increasing
conflict
between
natural
shoreline
and
channel
processes
that
maintain
habitat
and
bank
armoring,
flood
protection,
and
LWD
removal.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Nearshore
habitat
loss­
Early
rearing
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Nearshore
development
including,
bulkheads,
filling
of
near
shore
areas,
erosion
onto
beaches,
installation
of
docks,
and
loss
of
shoreline
vegetation,
has
reduced
and
eliminated
nearshore
habitat.
Bulkheads
increase
the
rate
of
beach
erosion,
modifying
and
eliminating
suitable
habitat.
Bulkheads
and
docks
force
fish
into
deeper
water
where
they
are
subjected
to
increased
predation
by
birds
and
other
fish
species.
Installation
of
bulkheads
reduces
available
habitat
for
chum
prey.
Bulkheads
and
filling
of
nearshore
habitat
eliminates
eelgrass
beds
and
salt
marsh,
important
rearing
and
feeding
habitats.
Removal
of
shoreline
vegetation
reduces
shade,
shoreline
LWD,
and
increases
erosion
onto
beaches,
all
important
factors
in
the
survival
of
summer
chum
and
their
prey.
Shoreline
vegetation
is
also
an
important
source
of
terrestrial
chum
prey.
Dock
installation
through
filling,
shading,
and
physical
disturbance
of
the
beach
eliminates
eelgrass
beds,
micro
and
macro
algae,
disrupts
salmon
migration,
increases
predation
by
forcing
salmon
into
deep
water,
displaces
prey
species,
and
disrupts
beach
spawning
of
prey
species.

°
Water
quality,
temperature­
Adult
spawning
life
history
stage,
rated
high
impact.
High
water
temperatures
into
late
September
can
negatively
affect
summer
chum
by
preventing
the
entry
of
adults
into
the
river,
exposing
them
to
predation.
Temperature
data
shows
that
on
some
years
water
temperatures
are
12
degrees
Celsius
or
higher
through
the
first
half
of
September
(
PNPTC
1994,
1995,
1996,
1997).
Reductions
in
the
extent
of
riparian
forests,
and
the
size
of
trees
within
the
riparian
forest
increase
stream
temperatures
through
a
loss
of
shade
and
transpiration.
Within
the
lower
9
miles
of
the
Tahuya
River
29%
of
the
riparian
forest
is
less
than
66
feet
in
width
or
sparsely
vegetated
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).

°
Riparian
forest
condition­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
history
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
By
1930
most
of
the
old
growth
in
the
Tahuya
River
watershed
had
been
harvested
(
Amato
1996).
Historical
riparian
forests
were
dominated
by
a
mixture
of
old
growth
western
red
cedar,
Douglas­
fir,
western
hemlock,
and
areas
of
younger
alder.
Stumps
remaining
in
the
riparian
forest
adjacent
to
the
stream
channel
network
show
that
in
most
areas
all
the
large
conifer
trees
available
for
recruitment
into
the
stream
channel
were
removed
with
timber
harvest.
Presently,
7%
of
the
riparian
zone
(
by
stream
length)
has
no
buffer,
24%
averages
<
12
in.
dbh
and,
69%
is
12
to
20
inches
dbh
(
12­
20
in
dbh).
Species
composition
of
riparian
forest
is
52%
deciduous
dominated,
and
37%
mixed
conifer
and
deciduous.
Forty
four
percent
of
the
riparian
forest
is
greater
than
132
feet
in
width,
27%
66
to
132
feet
in
width,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.206
and
29%
less
than
66
feet
in
width
and/
or
sparsely
vegetated.
Riparian
land
use
within
the
riparian
buffer
is
71%
forested,
12%
rural
residential
and
8%
agriculture
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
Although
44%
of
the
riparian
forest
greater
than
132
feet
in
width
and
71%
of
the
riparian
buffer
forested,
the
small
size
of
most
of
the
trees
and
lack
of
conifer
in
the
riparian
forest
combine
for
a
moderate
impact.
The
habitat
is
in
recovery,
however
development
of
this
watershed
is
expected
to
rapidly
increase
over
the
coming
decades.
Habitat
surveys
(
between
RM
4.0
and
9.0)
of
the
Tahuya
mainstem
shows
low
numbers
of
LWD
at
0.15
pcs/
m
of
channel
length
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).
Levels
of
LWD
will
continue
to
decline
for
the
next
25
to
50
years
until
the
existing
riparian
forest
to
matures
and
contributes
large
diameter
LWD
to
the
stream
channel.

°
Channel
complexity­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
history
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Road
building,
diking,
channelization,
floodplain
agriculture
and
residences,
and
bank
armoring
have
constricted
the
floodplain
and
limited
channel
movement
and
the
creation
of
new
habitat.
Agriculture
landuse
found
on
the
floodplain
at
RM
0.5
to
0.8
and
RM
1.1
to
1.3
has
eliminated
or
limited
riparian
forest
development.
From
RM
1.6
to
2.0,
a
farm
is
located
on
a
floodplain
island
bounded
by
the
mainstem
and
a
side­
channel
of
the
river.
A
roughly
800
foot
long
dike
protects
this
site.
Residential
development
at
RM
2.5
to
2.7
is
located
in
the
floodplain
on
the
west
side
of
the
river.
Residential
development
at
RM
4.5
to
6.0
is
located
in
the
floodplain
on
the
north
side
of
the
river.
Agriculture
and
residential
developments
also
occur
from
RM
6.0
to
6.2.
From
RM
6.3
to
6.9
homes
are
placed
directly
on
the
river
bank,
and
agricultural
developments
is
cutting
off
old
river
meanders.
Fill
is
used
to
protect
residential
development
at
RM
7.3
to
7.6.
The
residential
and
agricultural
development
in
the
floodplain
and
riparian
forest
of
the
river
has
resulted
in
the
removal
of
riparian
vegetation
and
bank
armoring
from
river
mile
7.5
downstream.

From
1955
to
1970,
the
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
Stream
Improvement
Division
removed
what
was
considered
at
that
time
as
blockages
to
upstream
salmon
migration.
Logjams,
debris,
and
beaver
dams
were
removed
and
many
miles
of
mainstem
and
tributaries
were
channelized
(
Amato
1996).
The
result
was
a
loss
of
channel
complexity
and
bed
stability.
From
habitat
survey
data,
the
Tahuya
River
has
72%
pools,
0.15
pieces
of
LWD/
meter,
and
an
average
of
2.4
channel
widths
between
each
pool
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).
This
is
a
low
impact
for
percent
pool,
a
high
impact
for
LWD
and
a
moderate
impact
for
pool
spacing.
The
low
density
of
LWD
has
not
translated
into
a
low
percent
pools,
since
LWD
is
not
the
only
pool
forming
factor
in
low
gradient,
wetland
dominated,
channels
such
as
the
Tahuya.
The
combined
ratings
for
channel
complexity
are
rated
as
moderate,
however
conditions
may
decline
for
the
next
50
to
100
years
until
the
existing
riparian
forest
matures
and
contributes
increased
LWD
to
the
stream
channel.

°
High
flow­
Incubation
life
history
stage,
rated
unknown
impact.
Continuous
Tahuya
River
discharge
data
exists
from
1945­
1956
(
PSCRBT
1991).
The
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
SASSI)
(
WDF
et
al.
1993)
identified
past
logging
and
road
building
as
contributing
to
increased
peak
winter
flow
events.
It
is
impossible
to
quantify
the
extent
of
this
problem
without
new
stream
gauge
data.
However,
we
know
from
studies
of
other
watersheds
that
an
increase
of
impervious
surfaces
translates
into
higher
peak
flows.
Since
winter
flows
are
rain
dominated,
the
numerous
wetlands
within
the
watershed
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.207
moderate
peak
winter
flow.
Development
adjacent
to
lakes
and
wetlands
increases
the
level
of
impervious
surface
translating
into
a
reduction
in
available
storage
capacity
at
peak
flow.

°
Subestuary
habitat
loss
and
degradation
 
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
low
to
moderate
impact.
Two
areas
of
the
delta,
totaling
>
0.01
km
(~
1
ac;
1.4%
of
historical
delta
area),
appear
2
to
have
been
filled,
primarily
for
residential
development.
Three
areas
of
roads
or
causeways
have
impacted
the
delta
over
0.27
km
(
0.17
mi)
and,
in
addition
to
the
habitat
directly
lost
in
the
footprint
of
the
causeways,
the
effect
of
this
has
been
to
constrict
estuarine
exchange
in
the
middle
of
the
delta.
For
example,
a
bridge
at
RM
0.0
with
a
fill
causeway,
constricts
the
migration,
development,
and
flushing
of
estuarine
sloughs.
The
extent
of
change
in
tidal
flooding
circulation
and
the
effect
on
migrating
and
rearing
salmon
is
unknown.

Factors
for
Recovery
A
full
discussion
of
protection
options
and
restoration
strategies
by
habitat
factor
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

°
Nearshore
habitat
loss­
Limit
near
shore
development
including,
bulkheads,
filling
of
near
shore
areas,
erosion
onto
beaches,
installation
of
docks,
and
loss
of
shoreline
vegetation.
Prohibit
development
that
impacts
or
eliminates
eelgrass
beds,
salt
marsh
and
shoreline
vegetation.

°
Riparian
condition,
species
composition­
With
adequate
regulation
and
protection,
the
recruitment
of
LWD
to
the
stream
channels
within
the
watershed
should
be
expected
to
improve
over
the
next
50
to
100
years
as
riparian
forests
mature.
Only
riparian
forests
of
adequate
width,
age,
and
species
composition
will
be
capable
of
providing
a
full
range
of
riparian
functions.
All
forests
within
the
channel
migration
zone
(
or
100
year
floodplain)
plus
a
riparian
buffer
of
250
feet
should
be
protected.

°
Water
quality,
temperature­
Development
of
fully
functional
riparian
forest
will
buffer
stream
temperatures.

°
Channel
complexity­
The
stream
channel
should
be
allowed
to
migrate
naturally
within
the
100­
year
floodplain.
This
requires
the
elimination
of
bank
hardening,
stream
channelization
or
other
interruptions
of
channel
and
floodplain
processes.

°
Peak
flow­
Manage
all
activities
within
the
watershed
(
logging
and
road
construction,
development,
clearing,
pavement,
home
construction,
road
building,
placement
of
fill
in
and
adjacent
to
lakes
and
wetlands)
to
eliminate
increases
in
peak
flow
(
see
Peak
Flow
toolkit,
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2).
Implement
storm
water
planning
for
existing
and
future
development,
including
forest
practice
road
construction.
Size
all
drainage
structures
within
the
basin
to
allow
for
100­
year
or
larger
storm
events.

°
Subestuary
habitat
restoration
 
The
long­
term
refitting
of
the
highway
bridge
across
the
subestuary
would
likely
contribute
to
restoration
of
more
natural
tidal
circulation
and
distributary
channel
structure
in
the
middle
of
the
delta.
Education
of
the
problems
with
dense
hardening
of
the
shoreline
may
be
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.208
necessary.
Shoreline
landowners
can
be
offered
incentives
to
retrofit
bulkheads
and
rip­
rap
with
"
softer"
technologies
that
are
more
habitat
friendly.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Our
understanding
of
the
habitat
conditions
and
sources
of
impact
within
the
Tahuya
River
are
based
on
instream
habitat
surveys,
assessment
of
the
riparian
zone,
and
on
the
field
knowledge
of
habitat
by
fisheries
resource
biologists.
We
are
moderately
confident
that
the
above
evaluation
depicts
the
sources
of
impact
and
the
likely
effects
on
summer
chum.

1.
Presently
the
Tahuya
River
is
not
gauged.
There
is
no
available
information
for
the
extent
that
peak
winter
flows
may
be
affecting
chum
survival
on
the
Tahuya
River.
2.
The
present
data
for
stream
temperature
does
not
extend
late
enough
into
September
to
determine
how
long
into
fall
elevated
stream
temperature
effect
adult
migration
and
spawning.
3.
A
gravel
scour
monitoring
program
is
needed.
No
information
specific
to
the
Tahuya
River
exists
for
bed
stability
and
depth
of
gravel
scour.
In
conjunction
with
gravel
stability
and
scour,
information
on
the
level
of
fine
sediment
<
0.85mm
should
be
collected.
The
1994
(
Point
No
Point
1994)
level
of
10.5%
is
at
the
threshold
where
negative
impacts
to
egg
survival
are
expected.
4.
Public
education
of
the
problems
with
bank
hardening
(
bulkheads,
riprap)
of
shorelines
and
the
floodplain
are
needed,
along
with
the
importance
of
maintaining
these
edge
habitats
in
forest.

References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council).
1994,
95,
96,
97.
1994­
97
Ambient
monitoring
data
(
Unpublished).
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

PSCRBT
(
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team).
1991.
Lower
Hood
Canal
Watershed,
Mason
and
Kitsap
Counties
report.
Skokomish
Tribe
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Potlatch,
WA.

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries),
Washington
Department
of
Wildlife,
and
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes.
1993.
1992
Washington
State
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
212
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.209
Dewatto
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
15.0420
Watershed
Description
The
Dewatto
River
is
located
in
the
southwestern
portion
of
Kitsap
Peninsula,
approximately
5.5
miles
north
of
the
Great
Bend
of
Hood
Canal,
west
of
the
Tahuya
River,
and
south
of
Stavis
and
Big
Beef
creeks.
Originating
on
the
plateau
of
the
Kitsap
peninsula,
the
Dewatto
follows
a
glacial
outwash
channel
as
it
flows
southwesterly
and
parallel
to
Hood
Canal
for
approximately
8
miles
to
saltwater.
The
headwaters
originate
in
till
and
outwash
sands
and
gravels.
The
till
is
moderately
erodible
and
the
outwash
is
highly
erodible.
The
narrowest
portion
of
the
valley
is
near
the
river
mouth,
but
the
confinement
is
not
extreme.
The
watershed
area
is
approximately
23
square
miles
and
there
are
approximately
30
miles
of
tributary
streams.

The
Dewatto
River
gradient
is
low
to
moderate
throughout
its
length
flowing
between
gently
rolling
hills.
The
Dewatto
enters
Hood
Canal
through
a
mostly
undisturbed
estuary.
Several
large
wetlands
are
directly
associated
with
the
mainstem,
with
numerous
other
tributary
wetlands
to
the
mainstem.
The
moderate
terrain
and
low
elevation
of
the
watershed
results
in
a
rain
dominated
system
where
many
small
tributaries
go
dry
early
in
the
summer,
or
during
winter
dry
periods.
The
numerous
wetlands
within
the
watershed
are
critical
in
moderating
peak
winter
flow,
and
augmenting
summer
low
flow.
To
provide
instream
flows
during
the
summer
low
flow
period,
the
Department
of
Ecology
has
closed
the
Dewatto
River
to
additional
consumptive
appropriations
during
the
time
period
June
15
to
October
15,
per
WAC
173­
515­
040(
2).

Historically,
the
prevailing
land
use
in
this
sparsely
developed
watershed
has
been
timber
harvest,
with
a
large
portion
of
the
watershed
still
managed
for
timber.
Several
Christmas
tree
farms
are
the
only
agricultural
developments.
Rural
residences
are
scattered
throughout
the
drainage.
The
riparian
zone
is
87%
forested,
the
highest
percentage
of
all
20
watersheds
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
Rural
homes
account
for
4%
and
agriculture
2%
of
riparian
landuse
Summer
Chum
Distribution
The
majority
of
summer
chum
spawn
in
the
lower
2
miles
of
the
Dewatto
River.
Stream
flow
and
gradient
characteristics
would
allow
access
to
summer
chum
to
approximately
river
mile
(
RM)
4.0.

Population
Status
The
summer
chum
population
in
the
Dewatto
River
has
been
detected
only
in
very
low
numbers
since
1988,
and
is
assumed
to
no
longer
be
a
self­
sustaining
population.
A
severe
decline
in
the
number
of
spawners
has
been
recorded
since
the
1970s.
In
the
1970s
escapement
ranged
between
the
hundreds
and
thousands,
in
the
1980s
it
was
generally
well
below
100,
and
in
the
1990s
was
zero
or
very
few
fish
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.210
Factors
for
Decline
Overall
habitat
quality
in
the
Dewatto
River
was
rated
fairly
high
and
in
a
state
of
recovery
from
historic
logging
practices,
especially
in
comparison
with
adjoining
watersheds.
The
estuary
is
an
example
of
a
high
quality
system
that
provides
abundant
transitional
areas
for
adults
and
rearing
habitat
for
juveniles.
The
lower
river
channel,
where
historically
most
of
the
summer
chum
spawned,
remains
today
relatively
undeveloped.
Two
factors
of
concern
within
the
lower
river
are
the
elevated
levels
of
fine
sediment,
and
stream
temperatures.
Between
1915
and
1930
all
the
old
growth
timber
in
the
Dewatto
River
watershed
was
harvested.
Logging
and
road
building
has
had
direct
and
indirect
impacts
on
the
stream
channel
by
decreasing
volumes
of
in­
channel
large
woody
debris
(
LWD),
and
species
diversity
within
the
riparian
forest.
In
the
1960s,
the
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
Stream
Improvement
Division
removed
what
was
considered
at
that
time
as
blockages
to
upstream
salmon
migration
(
Amato
1996).
In
the
lower
Dewatto
River
the
summer
chum
habitat
is
degraded
due
to
(
in
order
of
importance):
elevated
stream
temperature,
fine
sediment
within
the
spawning
gravel,
reduced
channel
complexity,
loss
of
LWD,
and
the
loss
of
species
diversity
within
the
riparian
forest.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Water
quality,
temperature­
Adult
spawning
life
history
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Elevated
water
temperatures
into
late
September
can
negatively
affect
summer
chum
by
preventing
the
entry
of
adults
into
the
river
exposing
them
to
predation.
Water
temperatures
at
or
above
12
degrees
Celsius
extend
through
the
first
half
of
September
for
several
years
(
PNPTC
1994,
1995,
1996,
1997).
Reductions
in
the
size
of
trees
within
the
riparian
forest
will
increase
stream
temperatures
through
a
loss
of
shade
and
transpiration
°
Fine
sediment
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
history
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Spawning
gravel
composition
sampling
below
RM
4.0
shows
the
percent
of
fines
<
0.85mm
to
be
above
the
level
where
there
are
impacts
to
survival
of
incubating
eggs.
Levels
were
15.1%
in
1994
and
20.5%
in
1995
(
PNPTC
1995).
Logging
and
road
building
may
be
the
major
factors
contributing
to
elevated
levels
of
fine
sediment,
however
in­
channel
wetlands
may
also
contribute.
Elevated
levels
of
fine
sediment
result
in
a
loss
of
inter
gravel
flow
and
entombment
of
alevins
and
fry.

°
Channel
complexity,
large
woody
debris­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
history
stages,
rated
low
to
moderate
impact.
From
RM
3.0­
3.5,
there
are
37%
pools
(
high
impact),
4.1
pool
frequency
(
high
impact)
and
0.28
pcs/
m
of
LWD
(
moderate
impact).
The
survey
is
limited,
and
sandwiched
between
two
large
in­
channel
wetlands,
which
would
increase
percent
pools
and
pool
frequency.
In
the
late
1960s,
the
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
Stream
Improvement
Division
removed
logjams,
debris,
beaver
dams
and
the
channelized
several
miles
of
the
Dewatto
River.
This
effort
degraded
channel
complexity
and
stability
(
Amato
1996).

°
Riparian
condition,
species
composition­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
history
stages,
rated
low
to
moderate
impact
By
1930
most
of
the
old
growth
in
the
watershed
had
been
harvested
(
Amato
1996).
Historical
riparian
forests
were
dominated
by
a
mixture
of
old
growth
cedar,
western
hemlock,
Douglasfir
and
areas
of
younger
red
alder,
which
now
contain
mixed
stands
of
deciduous
and
coniferous
species.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.211
Stumps
remaining
in
the
riparian
forest
adjacent
to
the
stream
channel
network
show
that
in
most
areas
all
the
large
conifer
trees
available
for
recruitment
into
the
stream
channel
were
removed
with
timber
harvest.
Presently
32%
of
the
riparian
forest
is
less
than
12
inches
diameter
breast
height
(<
12
in
dbh)
and
68%
is
12
to
20
inches
dbh.
Species
composition
of
riparian
forest
is
96%
mixed
conifer
and
deciduous.
Sixty
nine
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
is
greater
than
132
feet
in
width,
16%
66
to
132
feet
in
width,
and
15%
less
than
66
feet
in
width
and/
or
sparsely
vegetated.
The
riparian
forest
is
in
a
state
of
recovery,
and
will
continue
to
recover
if
not
harvested
in
the
future.
Levels
of
LWD
may
decline
for
the
next
25­
50
years
until
the
existing
riparian
forest
matures
and
contributes
increased
LWD
to
the
stream
channel.

Factors
for
Recovery
A
full
discussion
of
protection
options
and
restoration
strategies
by
habitat
factor
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

°
Sediment
fines­
Upgrade
roads
to
route
drainage
away
from
stream
channels.
Re­
vegetate
or
stabilize
road
sidecast,
re­
vegetate
or
armor
ditch
lines,
and
harden
road
surfaces
to
reduce
the
creation
of
fine
sediment.
Upgrade
all
stream
crossing
to
pass
100
year
events.
Decommission
roads,
remove
culverts,
de­
compact
roads,
outslope
and
waterbar
road
surfaces,
and
remove
unstable
fill
and
sidecast.

°
Channel
complexity­
The
stream
channel
should
be
allowed
to
function
naturally
within
the
100­
year
floodplain.
Natural
function
of
the
stream
channel
requires
the
elimination
of
bank
hardening,
stream
channelization
or
other
interruptions
of
channel
and
floodplain
processes.

°
Riparian
condition,
species
composition­
With
adequate
regulation
and
protection,
the
recruitment
of
LWD
to
the
stream
channels
within
the
watershed
should
be
expected
to
start
to
improve
over
the
next
25­
50
years
as
the
present
riparian
forests
mature
.
Only
riparian
forests
of
adequate
width,
age,
and
species
composition
will
be
capable
of
providing
a
full
range
of
riparian
functions.
Stream
segments
with
poor
riparian
condition
and
the
inability
of
the
channel
to
transport
LWD
of
the
size
required
from
upstream
areas,
will
require
the
riparian
forest
to
be
improved.
The
extent
of
the
riparian
forest
must
include
the
channel
migration
zone
of
the
river
to
be
capable
of
providing
a
full
range
of
riparian
functions.

°
Water
quality,
temperature
­
As
the
riparian
forests
matures,
stream
temperatures
will
moderate.

°
Subestuary
protection
 
The
subestuary
is
one
of
the
remaining
relatively
undisturbed
systems
in
Hood
Canal
and
should
be
specifically
sought
for
dedicated
preservation
or
regulatory
protection.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Our
understanding
of
the
habitat
conditions
and
sources
of
impact
within
the
Dewatto
River
are
based
on
instream
habitat
surveys
(
channel,
temperature,
and
fine
sediment),
analysis
of
riparian
condition,
and
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.212
field
knowledge
of
habitat
by
fisheries
resource
biologists.
We
are
moderately
confident
that
the
above
evaluation
depicts
the
sources
of
impact
and
the
likely
effects
on
summer
chum.

1.
Presently
the
Dewatto
River
is
not
gauged.
There
is
no
available
information
on
the
relative
magnitude
and
duration
of
peak
flows.
2.
The
stream
temperature
data
does
not
extend
late
enough
into
September
to
determine
how
long
elevated
stream
temperature
impacts
adult
migration.
3.
A
gravel
scour
monitoring
program
is
needed.
No
information
specific
to
the
Dewatto
River
exists
for
bed
stability
and
depth
of
gravel
scour.
In
conjunction
with
gravel
stability
and
scour,
information
on
the
level
of
fine
sediment
<
0.85mm
should
be
collected.
Previous
monitoring
has
shown
fine
sediment
to
be
above
levels
considered
safe
for
incubating
eggs.
This
factor
should
be
closely
monitored.

References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council).
1993,
94,
95,
96,
97.
1993­
97
Ambient
monitoring
data
(
Unpublished).
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.213
Big
Anderson
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
15.0412
Watershed
Description
Big
Anderson
Creek
is
located
in
southwestern
Kitsap
County.
The
stream
enters
Hood
Canal
approximately
one­
half
mile
north
of
the
small
community
of
Holly.
The
Big
Anderson
Creek
watershed
is
approximately
5
square
miles
in
area,
with
4
miles
of
mainstem
and
13
miles
of
tributaries
(
verified
stream
types
1­
4).
Similar
to
other
streams
in
the
West
Kitsap
WAU,
Big
Anderson
Creek
originates
in
headwater
wetlands
and
flows
through
a
confined
ravine
before
opening
into
a
broad
floodplain
in
the
lower
one­
half
mile.
The
small
estuary
includes
a
large
intertidal
delta.

Land­
use
in
the
watershed
is
primarily
industrial
forestry
operations
conducted
by
several
large
landowners
and
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
Logging
in
the
Big
Anderson
most
likely
began
in
1920s,
with
the
establishment
of
Camp
Union
logging
camp.
Between
the
1920s
and
1944,
the
headwaters
were
entirely
denuded
with
erosion
observed
in
steep
tributaries;
and
most
of
the
remaining
basin
logged
(
MacLeod
1995).
As
the
habitat
recovered
in
the
following
decades,
logging
was
again
observed
in
1984
aerial
photos
and
continues
to
the
present.
Three
private
residences
and
a
small
farm
are
located
in
the
lower
mile
of
stream.
A
road
bisects
the
floodplain
near
the
mouth,
and
another
road
is
adjacent
to
the
river,
and
within
the
100­
year
floodplain,
from
RM
0.5
to
the
mouth.
Forty­
five
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
is
occupied
by
landuse,
with
36%
as
roads
and
9%
agriculture
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Summer
chum
were
recorded
to
spawn
between
river
mile
0.0
and
1.1.
Potential
habitat
is
estimated
to
extend
to
at
least
river
mile
1.8,
which
includes
the
lowest
gradient
reaches
of
the
system.

Population
Status
No
summer
chum
salmon
have
been
observed
in
standard
surveys
conducted
by
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
since
1982
(
one
was
observed
in
1984).
The
population
is
assumed
to
be
extinct.
WDFW
escapement
estimates
show
the
population
ranging
up
to
234
in
1976
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).

Factors
for
Decline
Spawning
and
incubation
habitat
is
moderately
to
highly
degraded
in
the
lower
river
from
past
logging
and
associated
road
building
throughout
the
watershed.
The
habitat
factors
for
decline,
in
order
of
priority,
are:
1)
increased
sediment
deposition
in
the
lower
mile
from
roads
and
landslides
in
the
upper
watershed,
2)
increased
magnitude
and
frequency
of
peak
flows
from
road
runoff,
3)
loss
of
large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
due
to
past
logging
of
riparian
zones
and
channel
clearing
activities,
and
4)
a
county
road
built
across
the
estuary
and
mouth
of
the
stream
that
constrains
the
floodplain
and
may
reduce
sediment
removal
by
tidal
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.214
action.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

°
Sediment
­
spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Summer
chum
habitat
is
highly
aggraded
from
logging
roads,
bank
erosion
and
landslides.
Effects
are
redd
burial
and
suffocation,
and
channel
instability.
The
spawning
gravel
includes
a
high
percentage
of
fine
sediment
that
can
reduce
survival
during
the
incubation
stage.
Some
of
the
high
levels
of
fine
sediment
are
attributed
to
extensive
beaver
pond
construction
in
the
lower
half
mile.

°
Riparian
condition
­
spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
high
impact.
Seventy
seven
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
is
deciduous
dominated
and
44%
of
it
contains
small
diameter
trees.
Fifty
nine
percent
of
the
riparian
zone
contains
forested
buffers
<
66
ft
in
width
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
Future
LWD
recruitment
potential
is
limited
due
to
narrow
forested
buffers
with
low
levels
of
conifer.

°
Channel
complexity
­
spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
Below
RM
1.8,
the
channel
contains
0.3
LWD
pieces/
m
(
moderate
impact),
51%
of
the
habitat
area
is
in
pools
(
moderate
impact),
and
a
pool
frequency
of
1.7
per
channel
width
(
low
impact­
Tabor
1994)
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).
Beaver
activity
has
increased
the
percentage
of
pools.
Eighty
seven
percent
of
LWD
pieces
are
smaller
than
20
in.
diameter
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
Minimum
"
key
piece"
diameter
for
LWD
is
22
in
for
a
channel
of
this
size
(
Washington
Forest
Practices
Board
1995).
Compared
to
historical
levels,
the
channel
is
degraded,
but
is
in
comparatively
better
condition
than
many
other
watersheds
we
examined.
However,
the
channel
is
also
unstable
and
braided,
with
high
sediment
loading
and
peak
flow
problems.
It
is
expected
that
channel
condition
will
deteriorate
for
at
least
the
next
several
decades
due
to
the
poor
riparian
condition
and
mass
wasting
in
the
upper
watershed.

°
Peak
flow
­
incubation
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
Increased
frequency,
magnitude
and
duration
of
peak
winter
flows
caused
by
extensive
road
building
is
thought
to
contribute
to
the
bank
erosion,
channel
aggradation
and
channel
instability
observed
in
the
lower
reaches
of
the
stream.
High
flows
coupled
with
an
unstable
channel
will
increase
the
depth
of
scour
and
redd
mortality.

°
Sub­
estuary
habitat
loss
and
degradation
 
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
One
road
crosses
the
delta,
and
another
road
follows
the
northern
subestuary
margin,
totaling
0.24
km
(
0.15
mi)
in
length.
The
roads
were
identified
as
one
of
two
primary
factors
for
degradation
of
the
sub­
estuary,
however
the
amount
of
change
in
tidal
flooding
circulation
due
to
the
roads
is
unknown.
The
second
factor
is
old
railroad
fill,
which
is
downstream
of
the
two
roads
described
above
and
located
directly
within
the
subestuary.
While
all
of
the
estimated
historic
delta
area
of
approximately
0.12
km
(
28.9
ac;
1.78
km
[
1.1
mi]
perimeter)
appears
to
be
inundated
by
tidal
flow,
the
2
old
roadbed
in
the
subestuary
constricts
tidal
circulation
to
the
main
channel.
An
oyster
farm
covers
about
0.01
km
(
0.8
ac;
2.74%
of
original
delta
area)
in
the
outer
edge
of
the
delta.
This
feature
does
not
2
appear
to
impact
summer
chum
rearing
or
migration.
Dredging,
excavation,
docks,
and
log
storage
are
not
evident
in
the
subestuary.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.215
Factors
for
Recovery
The
following
recommendations
are
provided
to
allow
recovery
of
Summer
Chum
habitat
in
the
lower
river.
A
full
discussion
of
protection
options
and
restoration
strategies
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

°
Riparian
forests/
channel
complexity
 
Protect
and
restore
the
riparian
floodplain
forests
along
the
entire
1.8
river
miles
of
documented
summer
chum
habitat.
Below
RM
1.0,
plant
conifers
throughout
the
floodplain.
Recruitable
LWD
of
sufficient
diameter
will
be
available
from
newly
planted
seedlings
in
50
to
100
years.
In
the
interim,
the
amount
and
size
of
LWD
will
decline.
Increase
riparian
buffer
protection
throughout
the
watershed.
The
WDNR
(
1995)
prescriptions
may
not
provide
for
adequate
long­
term
recruitment
of
LWD
to
the
stream
system.

°
Floodplain­
Relocate
roads
outside
of
the
floodplain,
or
replace
road
fill
with
causeways
that
allow
channel
movement
and
passage
of
floodwater
(
includes
two
roads
described
in
the
sub­
estuary
section
plus
another
road
located
on
the
south
side
of
the
floodplain).
Modification
(
e.
g.,
setback,
rerouting)
of
roadways
would
enhance
summer
chum
migration,
spawning,
and
incubation
habitat.
The
floodplain
is
mostly
owned
by
one
timber
company.
The
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Sanctuary
continues
to
work
with
the
landowner
on
obtaining
riparian
easements
or
purchase
of
this
property.

°
Sedimentation­
Prevent
logging
on
potentially
unstable
slopes,
and
remove
or
repair
roads
with
surface
erosion
or
landslide
hazard
problems.
The
WDNR
(
1995)
prescriptions
provide
some
protection
from
unstable
slopes
problems,
but
this
level
of
protection
may
need
to
be
re­
evaluated.

°
Peak
flow­
Decommission
roads,
increase
the
number
of
water
bars
and
cross
drains
on
forest
roads,
identify
and
re­
direct
road
ditches
that
contribute
rainwater
directly
to
stream
channels,
and
limit
new
road
construction
in
the
watershed.

°
Sub­
estuary­
Remove
the
abandoned
railroad
fill
to
improve
tidal
circulation.
This
will
enhance
summer
chum
rearing
and
migration
habitat.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
The
Department
of
Natural
Resources
sponsored
the
WDNR
(
1995)
that
provides
an
in­
depth
assessment
of
habitat
conditions
in
Big
Anderson
Creek
and
other
streams.
This
coupled
with
the
riparian
and
landuse
assessment
provides
sufficient
data
to
assess
the
factors
for
decline.
However,
the
relative
importance
of
LWD,
sediment,
or
peak
flows
in
causing
channel
degradation
is
not
well
understood.
Further
research
in
these
areas
is
needed.
Confidence
in
the
assessment
is
high.

1.
Gauge
the
stream.
It
is
impossible
to
monitor
the
effects
of
peak
flow
on
incubating
eggs
without
gauge
information.
2.
Scour
chain
surveys
to
monitor
bed
instability
throughout
the
summer
chum
reach.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.216
3.
McNeil
sediment
surveys
to
determine
the
level
of
fine
sediments
throughout
the
summer
chum
reach.
References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

MacLeod,
A.
1995.
Land
use
history:
West
Kitsap
County
watershed,
from
1850.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

Tabor,
R.
1994.
Ambient
monitoring
data.
Unpublished.
USFWS
Lacey
Field
Office,
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Inter.,
Lacey,
WA.

Washington
Forest
Practices
Board.
1995.
Standard
methodology
for
conducting
watershed
analysis
(
Version
3).
Wash.
Forest
Pract.
Bd.,
Olympia,
WA.

WDNR
(
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources).
1995.
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis.
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
South
Puget
Sound
region
office,
Enumclaw,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.217
Stavis
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
15.0404
Watershed
Description
The
Stavis
Creek
watershed
is
located
in
the
northeastern
portion
of
the
Hood
Canal
on
the
Kitsap
Peninsula,
3
miles
southwest
of
the
town
of
Seabeck.
The
watershed
area
is
about
7
square
miles,
with
5
miles
of
mainstem,
and
11
miles
of
tributary
habitat.

The
Stavis
Creek
watershed
is
typical
of
stream
systems
on
the
Kitsap
Peninsula
(
see
description
under
Seabeck
Creek).
Stavis
Creek
originates
in
a
series
of
beaver
ponds,
forested
and
emergent
wetlands
located
on
a
flat
glacial
till
plain.
Several
watershed
reports
have
listed
Morgan
Marsh
as
the
headwaters
of
Stavis,
Big
Beef,
and
Tahuya
River.
Field
investigations
have
shown
Stavis
Creek
is
not
directly
connected
with
Morgan
Marsh
although
groundwater
interchange
is
likely.
The
mainstem
then
flows
in
a
northeasterly
direction
in
steep,
tightly
confined
ravines
for
approximately
3.5
miles.
Below
the
junction
with
tributary
15­
0405
the
channel
gradient
moderates
and
is
unconfined,
eventually
emerging
into
a
relatively
broad
floodplain,
high
quality
estuary
and
Stavis
Bay.
The
estuary
and
delta
are
not
impacted
to
any
substantial
degree,
and
represents
one
of
the
better
undisturbed
examples
of
estuarine
lagoon
and
spit
features
in
Hood
Canal.

The
majority
of
base
flow
to
area
streams
is
provided
through
hydrologic
continuity
with
a
shallow
perched
aquifer
with
a
smaller
contribution
via
indirect
hydrologic
continuity
with
a
deeper
aquifer
known
as
the
Seabeck
Aquifer
(
Becker,
1998).
The
Seabeck
Aquifer
contributes
baseflow
near
the
mouth
of
several
streams
including
Little
Anderson,
Seabeck,
and
Big
Beef
creeks.
The
western
boundary
of
the
Seabeck
Aquifer
is
indistinct,
but
given
similarities
in
landform
and
geology,
is
assumed
to
include
Stavis
Creek.
Stream
flow
data
specific
to
Stavis
Creek
is
not
consistently
available,
although
instaneous
readings
include
minimum
flows
of
1
cfs
(
May
et
al.
1995).

Historically,
land
use
in
this
area
was
dominated
by
timber
extraction
activities
with
two
major
cycles
of
timber
harvest
(
see
history
under
Seabeck
Creek).
The
area
of
Stavis
Creek
headwaters,
similar
to
Seabeck
Creek,
was
connected
to
a
network
of
timber
railroads
by
1927,
but
appeared
to
be
spared
the
heavy
logging
seen
in
other
watersheds.
Aerial
photographs
in
1944
show
large
areas
of
large
trees,
and
intact
marshland
in
the
lower
basin
(
MacLeod,
1995).

Current
land
use
in
the
watershed
is
a
mixture
of
rural
residential
scattered
along
the
shorelines,
lower
half
mile
of
the
stream
and
upper
basin.
Forestry
is
a
major
land
use,
with
Department
of
Natural
Resources
managing
a
large
block
of
land
for
timber
production,
the
Kitsap
Forest
Natural
Area
Preserve,
and
limited
private
forest
lands.
Conservation
easements
to
protect
the
primary
summer
chum
range
are
currently
being
negotiated
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
through
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Sanctuary.
The
watershed
has
undergone
less
development
that
adjoining
Seabeck
Creek,
but
has
been
actively
managed
for
timber
production
in
the
last
30
years.
Shoreline
development
and
associated
impacts
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.218
(
bankhardening,
bulkhead
construction,
and
loss
of
shoreline
vegetation)
is
focused
primarily
on
the
shoreline
to
the
east
of
Stavis
Creek,
but
at
lower
concentration
than
the
shoreline
near
Seabeck.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Stavis
Creek
is
included
in
this
plan
based
on
the
potential
for
historical
summer
chum
utilization
given
available
suitable
habitat,
stable
late
summer
flows,
and
similarities
to
nearby
Big
Beef
Creek
that
is
known
to
support
summer
chum.
Based
on
habitat
features,
distribution
is
assumed
to
have
occurred
from
RM
0.0
to
RM
0.6.

Population
Status
Summer
chum
salmon
have
not
consistently
been
surveyed
or
reported
in
spawning
surveys
conducted
by
WDFW
or
the
Tribes.
The
tribes
reported
6
live
and
3
dead
summer
chum
in
three
September
surveys
conducted
in
1983,
and
one
summer
chum
was
found
in
a
1981
survey.
A
survey
by
a
University
of
Washington
scientist
found
no
chum
in
one
survey
in
1968,
and
75
chum
in
an
October
survey
in
1972.

Factors
for
Decline
Overall,
habitat
quality
within
Stavis
Creek
was
rated
fairly
high
and
in
a
state
of
recovery
from
historic
logging
practices,
especially
in
comparison
with
adjoining
watersheds
in
the
Hood
Canal
sub­
region.
This
can
be
attributed
to
the
relatively
low
density
of
residences,
roads
and
other
intrusive
landuses.
The
total
impervious
surface
area
for
the
basin
is
1.5%,
with
the
majority
of
those
surface
not
connected
to
the
stream
network
(
May
et
al
1997).
The
estuary
is
an
example
of
a
high
quality
system
that
provides
abundant
transitional
areas
for
adults
and
rearing
habitat
for
juveniles.
The
lower
0.6
miles
provides
high
quality
spawning
and
rearing
habitats,
with
only
minor
impacts
from
several
residences
and
one
bridge
crossing
of
the
stream
near
the
mouth
of
the
creek.
No
fish
passage
problems
were
noted.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.

Habitat
factors
rated
as
contributing
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
(
in
order
of
importance)
include:

°
Sediment
(
aggradation
and
degradation)­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Limited
scour
chain
monitoring
in
the
lower
reaches
indicate
areas
of
moderate
scour
and
fill
associated
with
peak
winter
flows
with
potential
impacts
to
egg
incubation
(
May
et
al,
1997).
Sources
include
logging
that
has
contributed
to
mass
wasting
events
and
historic
removal
of
LWD.

°
Riparian
forest
(
species
composition)­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
moderate
impact.
Riparian
zones
which
were
historically
dominated
by
a
mixture
of
old
growth
cedar,
douglas
fir,
and
areas
of
younger
alder
are
now
more
dominated
by
mixed
stands
of
deciduous
and
coniferous
species
(
58%)
and
deciduous
dominated
(
42%),
generally
50
to
70
years
old
(
WDNR,
1995,
Appendix
Report
3.7).
While
these
stands
are
on
a
trajectory
of
recovery,
it
will
take
approximately
50
to
100
years
more
to
achieve
old
growth
conditions
that
provided
the
most
stable
and
complex
habitat.
Riparian
forest
composition
has
an
impact
on
the
quality
of
wood
recruited
to
the
channel,
which
in
turn
effects
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.219
stability
of
the
channel
during
the
egg
incubation
stage.
Eighty­
three
percent
of
the
total
riparian
area
evaluated
in
Stavis
Creek
is
forested,
indicating
a
fairly
sizable
and
intact
riparian
forest
within
the
presumed
distribution
of
summer
chum.

°
Flow
(
winter
peak
flow)­
Incubation
life
stage,
rated
potential
but
unknown
impact.
Historic
and
current
logging
practices
and
associated
roads
are
responsible
for
altering
hydrologic
patterns
and
increasing
the
rate
of
mass
wasting
events,
although
the
relative
magnitude
of
changes
in
the
hydrologic
regime
is
unknown.

Factors
for
Recovery
Protect
existing
high
quality
habitat
°
Continue
and
expand
the
acquisitions
efforts
underway
by
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Sanctuary.
Priority
areas
should
include
estuary,
adjoining
shoreline
areas,
lower
mainstem
and
floodplain,
and
upstream
wetland
hydrologic
source
areas.
The
estuary
and
associated
bordering
uplands
should
be
explicitly
protected
or
regulated
to
prevent
any
further
development.

Protect
and
restore
riparian
forest
quality
°
For
properties
acquired
in
lower
watershed
that
are
lacking
riparian
forest,
reforest
riparian
areas
with
appropriate
native
species
and
abandon
any
associated
roads.
°
Provide
upstream
recruitment
sources
by
reforesting
narrow
riparian
zones
on
upstream
DNR
lands.
°
Consider
limited
silvilcultural
treatments
on
alder
dominated
zones
to
encourage
conifer
regeneration
within
summer
chum
range
on
WDFW
properties.
°
Work
with
Kitsap
County
to
establish
appropriate
riparian
zone
widths
for
upstream
areas
to
provide
long
term
LWD
recruitment
sources.
°
Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis
prescriptions
for
logging
operations
to
reduce
mass
wasting
events
and
modify
prescriptions
if
necessary.

Establish
hydrologic
maturity
targets
for
basin
°
Establish
rate
of
harvest
targets
for
forestry
activities
to
ensure
hydrologic
maturity.
°
Work
with
Kitsap
County
to
maintain
low
densities
within
basin.
°
Develop
mitigation
standards
for
development
activities
that
create
impervious
surface
greater
than
10%
of
lot
size.

Monitoring/
reference
site
°
Utilize
the
Stavis
Creek
estuary
as
a
critical
habitat
template
for
eastern
Hood
Canal,
establish
long­
term
monitoring
programs
to
track
estuarine
quality
including
macroinvertebrate
populations,
water
quality,
channel
structure
and
complexity.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Confidence
for
fish
distribution
is
rated
low
based
on
the
extremely
limited
spawning
data
for
Stavis
Creek.
Considerably
more
data
is
available
on
habitat
conditions,
including
temperature,
limited
instream
flow,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.220
scour
chain,
TFW
ambient
monitoring
and
an
assessment
of
channel,
riparian,
and
instream
habitat
conditions
conducted
through
the
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis.
Confidence
for
habitat
data
is
rated
as
high.
Overall
confidence
for
the
assessment
is
moderate.

Additional
information
needed
to
better
quantify
the
relationship
between
current
conditions
and
summer
chum
distribution
includes:
1.
Instream
flow
monitoring
of
both
summer
flow
periods
and
peak
winter
flows;
2.
Channel
assessments
to
determine
the
relationship
between
peak
flows
and
channel
forming
events.

References
Becker,
J.
1998.
Aquifer
modeling
and
mitigation
options
for
the
Seabeck
aquifer
system.
Pub.
Util.
Dist.
1,
Kitsap
County,
Bremerton,
WA.

MacLeod,
A.
1995.
Land
use
history:
West
Kitsap
County
watershed,
from
1850.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

May,
C.
W.,
E.
B.
Welch,
R.
R.
Horner,
J.
R.
Karr,
and
B.
W.
Mar.
1997.
Quality
indices
for
urbanization
effects
in
Puget
Sound
lowland
streams.
WDOE
water
resources
tech.
rep.
154.
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

WDNR
(
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources).
1995.
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis.
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
South
Puget
Sound
region
office,
Enumclaw,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.221
Seabeck
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
15.0400
Watershed
Description
The
Seabeck
Creek
watershed
is
located
in
the
northeastern
portion
of
the
Hood
Canal
on
the
Kitsap
Peninsula
near
the
town
of
Seabeck.
The
watershed
area
is
about
6
square
miles,
with
5
miles
of
mainstem,
and
16
miles
of
tributary
habitat.

The
Seabeck
Creek
watershed
is
typical
of
streams
on
the
Kitsap
Peninsula.
These
systems
are
raindominated
watersheds
with
low
elevation
flat
and
rolling
terrain
dissected
by
deeply
incised
stream
ravines,
small
to
moderate
sized
estuaries,
and
extensive
nearshore
habitat.
The
geology
of
the
area
is
dominated
by
glacial
materials,
which
are
prone
to
erosion
and
moderate
to
high
sediment
production
rates
within
the
confined
stream
ravine
reaches.

The
majority
of
base
flow
to
area
streams
is
provided
through
hydrologic
continuity
with
a
shallow
perched
aquifer
with
a
smaller
contribution
via
indirect
hydrologic
continuity
with
a
deeper
aquifer
known
as
the
Seabeck
Aquifer
(
Becker
1998).
The
Seabeck
Aquifer
contributes
baseflow
near
the
mouth
of
several
streams
including
Little
Anderson,
Seabeck,
and
Big
Beef
creeks.
The
western
boundary
of
the
Seabeck
Aquifer
is
indistinct,
but
given
similarities
in
landform
and
geology,
is
assumed
to
include
Seabeck
Creek.
The
stream
is
currently
closed
to
further
surface
water
appropriations.

Seabeck
Creek
originates
in
headwater
wetlands
located
on
a
flat
glacial
till
plain.
The
mainstem
then
flows
in
a
northerly
direction
in
steep
tightly
confined
ravines
for
approximately
two
miles.
Below
the
junction
with
tributary
15­
0401
the
channel
gradient
moderates
and
is
unconfined,
eventually
emerging
into
a
relatively
broad
floodplain,
small
estuary
and
Seabeck
Bay.
A
small
tributary
to
the
east
of
the
mainstem
also
feeds
into
the
estuary.
The
estuary
has
a
comparatively
narrow
delta
that
is
heavily
encroached
upon
by
residential
development
on
the
east
side.

Historically,
land
use
in
this
area
was
dominated
by
timber
extraction
activities.
Seabeck
was
the
site
of
a
major
timber
mill
that
began
operations
in
1857
and
continued
until
the
mill
burned
in
1886.
The
Seabeck
mill
concentrated
on
harvesting
old
growth
timber
along
easily
assessable
waterways
such
as
shorelines
and
streams.
Another
major
period
of
timber
extraction
continued
from
1920
to
1936
with
the
establishment
of
Camp
Union
in
the
upper
Big
Beef
watershed.
At
the
peak
of
operations,
over
1.5
million
board
feet
of
timber
per
day
was
cut
in
the
watersheds
surrounding
Camp
Union,
and
railroad
spurs
were
constructed
in
the
valley
bottom
of
Seabeck
Creek
to
facilitate
transport
of
timber.
By
1944,
most
of
the
Seabeck
Creek
watershed
(
except
for
the
headwaters
near
Hite
Center)
had
been
completely
harvested
(
MacLeod
1995)

Current
land
use
in
the
watershed
is
a
mixture
of
rural
residential,
forest
lands,
small
scale
hobby
farms,
limited
aquaculture,
the
nearby
town
of
Seabeck,
and
a
marina.
The
watershed
has
undergone
a
dramatic
increase
in
rural
development
over
the
last
ten
years
as
evidenced
by
increases
in
application
for
land
use
and
hydraulic
permits.
In
particular,
applications
to
convert
forest
land
to
rural
development
have
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.222
accelerated
since
the
late
1970s.
Shoreline
development
and
associated
impacts
(
bank
hardening,
bulkhead
construction,
and
loss
of
shoreline
vegetation)
is
especially
heavy
on
the
shoreline
to
the
east
of
Seabeck
Creek.

Summer
Chum
Distribution
Summer
chum
salmon
have
not
been
reported
in
spawning
surveys
conducted
by
WDFW
or
the
Tribes.
Surveys
conducted
in
late
September
and
October
for
1981
and
1983
found
no
summer
chum
in
the
watershed.
Seabeck
Creek
is
included
in
this
plan
based
on
the
historical
potential
for
summer
chum
utilization
given
available
suitable
habitat,
stable
late
summer
flows,
and
proximity
to
adjacent
watersheds
(
Big
Beef
Creek)
which
have
supported
summer
chum.
Based
on
the
presence
of
suitable
habitat,
we
expect
summer
chum
could
have
occurred
up
to
RM
0.9
on
the
mainstem,
RM
0.5
on
Tributary
15­
0401,
and
to
RM
0.3
on
an
unnamed
tributary
flowing
from
the
east
to
the
mainstem.

Population
Status
Limited
survey
data
for
summer
chum
indicate
that
a
summer
chum
population
does
not
exist
at
this
time.
However,
habitat
and
flow
conditions
appear
conducive
to
summer
chum
and
it
is
possible
that
prior
to
spawning
surveys
summer
chum
did
historically
occupy
the
watershed.

Factors
for
Decline
Impacts
to
habitat
quality
include:
1)
Coarse
sediment
aggradation
and
high
levels
of
fine
sediment
in
spawning
gravel;
2)
loss
of
channel
complexity;
3)
altered
hydrologic
patterns;
4)
degraded
riparian
conditions
and
5)
floodplain
connectivity.
Sources
of
impacts
are
historic
and
current
logging
and
rural
development
patterns
in
the
Seabeck
Creek
watershed.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.
More
details
are
provided
below:

°
Sediment
(
aggradation,
degradation,
and
fine
sediments)­
Spawning,
incubation,
migration
life
stages,
rated
high
and
moderate
impact.
The
lower
two
miles
of
Seabeck
Creek
show
evidence
of
increased
sediment
bedload,
to
the
extent
that
the
some
sections
of
the
stream
go
subsurface
in
early
summer
in
many
years
(
WDNR
1995).
Sediment
aggradation
has
also
caused
a
decrease
in
channel
complexity
with
the
end
result
of
increased
flooding
frequency
with
relatively
minor
precipitation
events.
While
the
glacial
geology
of
the
area
is
prone
to
high
sediment
production
rates,
the
effects
of
historic
logging
practices
coupled
with
minimal
protection
of
riparian
areas
in
rural
development
and
current
logging
has
accelerated
the
rate
and
magnitude
of
slope
failures
and
overwhelmed
the
capacity
of
stream
channels
to
process
these
sediments.
Areas
of
localized
scour
were
also
noted
during
the
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis,
especially
in
the
reach
just
above
the
lower
bridge
crossing
on
Stavis
Creek
Road.
The
end
result
of
channel
aggradation
and
instability
on
summer
chum
includes:
1)
upstream
passage
of
adults
is
hindered
due
to
insufficient
stream
flow
and
lack
of
deep
holding
pools;
2)
reduction
in
egg
survival
due
to
scour
of
egg
pockets
during
increased
winter
peak
flows;
3)
downstream
migrating
juveniles
are
subjected
to
increased
predation
due
to
loss
of
stream
depth
and
cover.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.223
TFW
Ambient
Monitoring
data
(
1989)
indicates
high
rates
of
embeddedness
in
spawning
gravels
related
to
increased
levels
of
fine
sediment.
Increased
fines
are
primarily
linked
to
surface
water
runoff
from
roads
in
the
watershed,
many
of
which
are
private
and
have
minimal
maintenance
and
inadequate
surfacing.
Fine
sediment
is
also
linked
to
improper
logging,
and
runoff
from
impervious
surfaces
associated
with
rural
development.
Inadequate
treatment
of
runoff
from
recent
rural
development
such
as
Seabeck
Heights,
especially
when
construction
occurs
during
wet
weather
conditions,
have
contributed
significant
amounts
of
fine
sediment
episodically
to
the
channel.
Seabeck
is
located
within
a
rapidly
growing
rural
area,
with
a
total
effective
impervious
rate
of
2.7%
(
May
et
al
1997)
which
is
expected
to
increase
over
time.
Diminished
chum
populations
in
the
watersheds
of
the
eastern
Hood
Canal
may
also
impact
gravel
quality.
The
effectiveness
of
chum
salmon
in
cleaning
gravels
associated
with
redd
building
activities
has
been
noted
by
several
researchers
(
Montgomery
et
al.
1996;
Peterson
and
Quinn
1994b).

°
Channel
complexity
(
LWD,
channel
condition,
loss
of
side
channel
habitat,
and
channel
instability)­
Spawning,
incubation,
and
migration
life
history
stages,
moderate
and
high
impact.
The
amount
of
LWD
in
Seabeck
Creek
has
been
diminished
from
historic
levels
through
actions
such
as
stream
cleanout,
logging
without
leaving
streamside
buffers,
and
rural
development.
Channel
complexity
is
closely
linked
with
large
woody
debris
as
log
jams
form
hard
points,
deflecting
flow
and
causing
the
formation
of
side
channel
habitat,
a
limited
habitat
type
within
the
Seabeck
Creek
watershed.
Reduced
channel
capacity
has
also
altered
the
hydrologic
regime
of
the
channel,
causing
lower
summer
flows
and
increased
winter
peak
flows.

°
Flow
(
winter
peak
and
summer
low
flows)­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Related
to
increased
sediment
load
and
modifications
in
channel
capacity,
winter
peak
flows
have
increased
and
summer
flows
frequently
are
substantially
diminished
within
the
upper
portion
of
the
historic
summer
chum
range,
although
the
relative
magnitude
of
the
problem
is
unknown
due
to
a
lack
of
stream
flow
data
specific
to
Seabeck
Creek.
The
end
result
has
been
displacement
of
incubating
eggs
and
suboptimal
conditions
for
spawning
adults.

°
Floodplain
connectivity­
Rearing
and
migration
life
history
stages,
rated
high
impact.
Rural
development,
channel
alteration,
and
altered
flow
patterns
due
to
the
bridge
crossing
have
affected
the
quality
of
the
Seabeck
floodplain.
Illegal
clearing
of
streamside
areas
and
attempts
to
fix
the
channel
in
place
are
common
problems
within
the
lower
0.5
miles
of
the
stream.

°
Riparian
condition
(
species
composition,
age,
and
width)
­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stage,
rated
moderate
to
high
impact.
Riparian
zones
which
were
historically
dominated
by
a
mixture
of
old
growth
cedar,
douglas
fir,
and
areas
of
younger
alder
are
now
more
dominated
by
mixed
stands
of
small­
(<
12
inch
dbh)
to
medium­
sized
(
12­
20
inch
dbh)
trees
within
the
distribution
of
summer
chum.
Mixed
deciduous
and
coniferous
stands
comprise
(
59%)
and
deciduous
dominated
stands
(
41%)
of
the
riparian
forest.
Below
RM
0.9,
the
riparian
forest
is
significantly
impaired,
100%
of
the
area
having
a
sparse
buffer
less
than
66
feet,
due
to
residential
development,
roads
and
dikes
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
The
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.224
generally
degraded
condition
of
riparian
forest
suggests
that
critical
functions
such
as
LWD
recruitment,
will
remain
limited
for
the
foreseeable
future,
unless
active
restoration
steps
are
taken.

°
Estuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
 
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stage,
rated
moderate
to
high
impact.
Fills
for
recreational,
and
some
commercial
use
including
shoreline­
dependent
marina
activities,
include
two
areas
totaling
0.01
km
(
3.6
ac;
~
8.9%
of
historical
delta
area).
The
residential
2
development
appears
to
have
extracted
a
significant
portion
of
the
mid­
to
lower
delta
summer
chum
rearing
area.
Associated
bulkheads
and
armoring
have
also
impacted
shoreline
migration.
Although
the
Seabeck
marina
is
located
on
the
outer
margins
of
the
delta,
the
associated
docks
do
not
appear
to
directly
impact
the
delta
because
of
their
position
over
deeper
water,
receiving
a
low
impact
rating.

Factors
for
Recovery
A
discussion
of
protection
options
and
restoration
strategies
in
terms
of
these
habitat
factors
is
found
in
Part
Three
­
section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit.

Control
coarse
and
fine
sediment
sources
°
Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
existing
slope
stability
standards
(
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis,
Kitsap
County
Critical
Areas
Ordinance)
and
modify
if
necessary.
°
Improve
road
maintenance
and
surfacing
on
existing
private
roads,
paying
particular
attention
to
the
routing
of
stormwater
runoff
onto
vegetative
surfaces
prior
to
entering
the
stream
system.
°
Enact
timing
restrictions
for
clearing
and
grading
activities
in
areas
adjacent
to
Seabeck
Creek.

Restore
channel
complexity
°
Evaluate
the
feasibility
of
restoring
large
woody
debris
jams
in
the
lower
river.

Protect
low
flow
conditions
and
prevent
increases
in
peak
discharge
°
Prohibit
additional
withdrawals
of
surface
water
or
ground
water
in
hydraulic
continuity
with
Seabeck
Creek
until
an
instream
flow
has
been
established.
°
Establish
impervious
surface
target
rates
for
basin
and
condition
landuse
permit
consistent
with
this
standard.
°
Retrofit
existing
developments
to
control
stormwater
runoff.
°
Maintain
60%
of
the
watershed
in
forest
cover
through
low
densities
and
site
design
to
maximize
retention
of
native
plant
cover.

Protect
and
restore
riparian
forests
°
Acquire
remaining
high
quality
riparian
forest
habitat
and
replant
riparian
buffers
using
native
species.
°
Review
and
adjust
the
Kitsap
Critical
Area
Ordinance
standards
consistent
with
the
recommendations
given
for
functional
riparian
buffers.

Protect
remaining
estuarine
features
°
Given
the
extent
of
development
already
imposed
on
the
delta,
further
modifications
to
the
estuary
should
be
prevented
by
land
acquisition
or
regulation.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.225
Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Confidence
for
fish
distribution
is
rated
low,
and
based
upon
professional
judgement
of
where
summer
chum
would
likely
spawn.
A
considerable
amount
of
data
is
available
on
habitat
conditions,
including
temperature
data,
limited
instream
flow,
and
an
assessment
of
channel,
riparian,
and
instream
habitat
conditions
conducted
through
the
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis
and
confidence
is
rated
as
moderate.

Information
needs
for
Seabeck
Creek
include
continuous
monitoring
of
instream
flows,
sediment
source
surveys,
and
an
assessment
of
channel
capacity.

References
Becker,
J.
1998.
Aquifer
modeling
and
mitigation
options
for
the
Seabeck
aquifer
system.
Pub.
Util.
Dist.
1,
Kitsap
County,
Bremerton,
WA.

MacLeod,
A.
1995.
Land
use
history:
West
Kitsap
County
watershed,
from
1850.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

May,
C.
W.,
E.
B.
Welch,
R.
R.
Horner,
J.
R.
Karr,
and
B.
W.
Mar.
1997.
Quality
indices
for
urbanization
effects
in
Puget
Sound
lowland
streams.
WDOE
water
resources
tech.
rep.
154.
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

Montgomery,
D.
R.,
J.
M.
Buffington,
N.
P.
Peterson,
D.
Schuett­
Hames,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1996.
Stream­
bed
scour,
egg
burial
depths,
and
the
influence
of
salmonid
spawning
on
bed
surface
mobility
and
embryo
survival.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
53:
1061­
1070.

Peterson,
N.
P.,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1994.
Persistence
of
egg
pocket
architecture
in
chum
salmon
redds.
Pp.
9­
25
in
Quinn,
T.
P.,
and
N.
P.
Peterson
(
eds.)
The
effects
of
forest
practices
on
fish
populations.
WDNR
report
no.
TFW­
F4­
94­
001.
Forest
Pract.
Div.,
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Olympia,
WA.

WDNR
(
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources).
1995.
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis.
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
South
Puget
Sound
region
office,
Enumclaw,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.226
Big
Beef
Watershed
Narrative
WRIA
15.0389
Watershed
Description
Big
Beef
Creek
is
located
in
the
northeast
portion
of
Hood
Canal
on
the
Kitsap
Peninsula,
2
miles
northeast
of
the
town
of
Seabeck.
The
watershed
area
is
about
14
square
miles,
with
11
miles
of
mainstem,
and
24
miles
of
tributary
habitat
(
source:
SSHIAP
database,
PNPTC
1988).

The
geomorphology
of
Big
Beef
Creek
watershed
is
typical
of
stream
systems
on
the
Kitsap
Peninsula
where
glacial
action
deposited
loose,
unsorted
coarse
gravel
and
sand
(
see
more
detailed
description
under
Seabeck
Creek).
Big
Beef
Creek
has
the
largest
drainage
area
and
most
extensive
stream
network
for
watersheds
supporting
summer
chum
in
northeastern
Hood
Canal.
Upper
Big
Beef
Creek
consists
of
low
gradient
reaches
originating
from
a
series
of
wetlands,
including
Morgan
Marsh
on
tributary
15.0398.
An
artificial
lake
(
Lake
Symington)
at
RM
5.3
was
constructed
in
the
1964
to
accommodate
lakeshore
residential
development.
Lower
Big
Beef
Creek
(
RM
2.0
to
5.3)
is
contained
within
a
steep,
moderately
confined
ravine.
The
valley
walls
widen
below
RM
2.0
and
channel
gradient
moderates
to
less
than
1%.
In
this
area
the
river
includes
a
fairly
well
developed
floodplain
and
complex
side
channel
habitat.
The
Big
Beef
estuary
is
47.7
acres
in
a
semi­
enclosed
lagoon.

The
majority
of
base
flow
in
Big
Beef
Creek
is
provided
through
hydrologic
continuity
with
a
shallow
perched
aquifer
with
indirect
hydrologic
continuity
from
a
deeper
aquifer
known
as
the
Seabeck
Aquifer
(
Becker
1998).
The
Seabeck
Aquifer
contributes
baseflow
predominantly
at
the
mouth
of
Big
Beef
Creek.
Minimum
streamflow
averages
3.1
cfs
and
maximum
flows
average
around
200
cfs,
with
a
maximum
discharge
of
1,500
cfs
recorded
in
1967
(
Lestelle
et
al.
1992,
Cederholm
1972).

In
the
past,
the
prevailing
land
use
in
the
upper
watershed
has
been
timber
harvest;
some
lands
are
still
managed
for
harvest
of
timber
resources
including
several
large
blocks
of
land
managed
by
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
Historic
logging
activities
began
in
earnest
with
the
establishment
of
Camp
Union
in
1920,
with
the
entire
watershed
above
RM
5.0
to
the
headwaters
logged
by
1950
(
Amato
1996).
Agricultural
developments
exist
at
several
locations
along
the
upper
stream
reaches.
Since
1970,
residential
development
has
proliferated,
especially
concentrated
around
and
just
downstream
of
Lake
Symington.
Lake
Symington
has
had
a
primary
impact
on
the
lower
system;
lake
levels
and
downstream
flows
were
for
many
years
managed
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
lakeshore
residents,
with
little
regard
for
effects
on
downstream
flows.
WDFW
has
recently
incorporated
provisions
in
the
lake's
rules
of
operation
to
protect
downstream
flow
requirements
of
fisheries
resources.
Below
Lake
Symington,
there
is
limited
residential
development
along
the
stream
with
the
majority
occurring
on
the
flat
till
plain
above
the
river.
The
University
of
Washington's
320­
acre
fisheries
research
facility
is
located
between
RM
0.0
to
0.8.
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
operates
a
weir
at
RM
0.1
to
count
upstream
and
downstream
coho
salmon
migrants.
The
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Sanctuary
program
has
actively
been
purchasing
key
riparian
habitat
upstream
of
the
U.
W.
research
facility.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.227
Summer
Chum
Distribution
Before
the
disappearance
of
summer
chum
from
Big
Beef
Creek,
the
majority
of
the
spawning
population
is
believed
to
have
occurred
in
the
lower
reaches
of
Big
Beef
Creek
up
to
RM
2.0.
However,
summer
chum
may
have
historically
occurred
as
far
upstream
as
RM
6.0
(
inlet
of
Lake
Symington)
or
perhaps
even
further
upstream.
A
significant
portion
of
summer
chum
spawning
may
have
also
occurred
intertidally
in
the
protected
subestuary.

Population
Status
Escapement
estimates
for
1975
and
1976
exceed
1,000
spawners,
although
most
surrounding
years
are
in
the
low
hundreds.
No
summer
chum
have
been
reported
since
1982,
with
the
exception
of
22
in
1984.
The
population
is
assumed
to
be
extinct.
In
1996,
an
experimental
program
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
to
Big
Beef
Creek
was
begun
by
the
co­
managers
at
the
U.
W.
research
facility.

Factors
for
Decline
A
general
discussion
of
protection
and
restoration
strategies
for
each
habitat
factor
is
found
in
Section
IV,
toolkit.
Impacts
to
habitat
quality
(
in
order
of
priority)
include:
1)
Coarse
sediment
aggradation
and
high
levels
of
fine
sediment
in
spawning
gravels;
2)
loss
of
channel
complexity;
3)
alteration
of
estuarine
habitats;
4)
altered
hydrologic
patterns;
5)
degraded
riparian
conditions;
and
6)
potential
elevated
temperatures.
Sources
of
impacts
are
historic
and
current
logging,
rural
development
patterns,
and
construction
and
operation
of
scientific
research
facilities
in
the
Big
Beef
watershed.
For
a
comparison
of
the
limiting
factors
in
this
watershed
to
other
watersheds,
refer
to
Part
Three
­
section
3.4,
Tables
3.17
and
3.18.
More
details
are
provided
below:

°
Sediment
(
aggradation,
fines)­
Spawning,
egg
incubation,
and
migration
life
history
stages,
rated
high
impact.
The
lower
river
channel,
where
historically
most
of
the
summer
chum
production
occurred,
has
been
severely
impacted
by
upstream
landuse
practices,
with
concurrent
reductions
in
survival
in
all
life
history
stages.
Past
logging
and
road
building
on
steep
unstable
slopes
in
the
lower
Big
Beef
watershed
have
caused
mass
wasting,
channel
widening
and
bank
instability,
causing
a
800%
increase
in
sediment
bedload
over
natural,
undisturbed
conditions
(
Madej
1978,
1982).
The
majority
of
this
coarse
sediment
has
been
deposited
within
the
lower
stream
reaches,
reducing
available
pool
habitat
and
causing
the
channel
to
widen
and
become
more
shallow
(
WDNR,
1995).
Channelization,
along
with
the
construction
of
the
WDFW
fish
weir,
has
also
increased
aggradation
by
constricting
the
channel
and
forcing
the
bedload
to
be
deposited
upstream
from
the
weir.
The
bridge
causeway
on
the
Seabeck
Road
has
also
restricted
the
freshwater­
saltwater
interface
and
reduced
the
potential
flushing
action
of
sediment
associated
with
tidal
action.

During
summer
low
flow
periods,
the
aggraded
and
widened
channel
has
been
reported
to
impede
upstream
passage
and
reduce
spawning
success
for
adult
summer
chum
due
to
increased
predation
associated
with
loss
of
stream
cover
(
Cederholm,
1972).
In
1969
and
1971,
the
entire
summer
chum
run
was
moved
into
the
UW
Research
Station
spawning
channel
because
of
unstable
conditions
in
the
main
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.228
channel
and
in
anticipation
of
channelization
activities
(
see
description
below).
Cederholm
(
1972)
documented
a
58%
loss
of
summer
chum
redds
due
to
scour,
fill,
and
channel
displacement,
with
an
average
survival
to
emergence
rate
of
9.4%.
In
the
same
study,
he
noted
16.3%
fine
sediment
(
less
than
0.8
mm
in
diameter)
in
spawning
gravel,
a
rate
at
which
permeability
and
intergravel
survival
would
be
substantially
diminished.

°
Channel
complexity
(
LWD,
channel
condition,
loss
of
side
channel,
channel
instability,
floodplain
connectivity)­
Spawning,
egg
incubation,
rearing,
and
migration
life
history
stage,
rated
high
to
moderate
impact.
Channel
alterations,
in
combination
with
sediment
aggradation
described
above,
have
reduced
channel
complexity
in
lower
Big
Beef
Creek,
affecting
all
major
life
history
stages.
Monitoring
data
collected
in
1993
and
1994
indicated
0.17
pieces
of
LWD
per
meter,
rated
as
a
high
impact
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).
Pool
habitat
is
rated
as
moderate
impact
(
46%
percent
pools,
pool
spacing
of
2.4)
with
the
majority
of
pools
being
formed
by
the
roots
of
standing
trees
or
old
growth
stumps,
and
log
jams
anchored
by
remnant
old
growth
LWD
(
PNPTC
1993,1994).
In
a
recent
field
review
of
Big
Beef
Creek,
Cederholm
noted
the
loss
of
stable,
deep
pools
present
in
the
1960s
associated
with
the
loss
of
LWD
and
sediment
deposition
in
the
lower
river.

Reduced
LWD
levels
have
been
attributed
to
illegal
cedar
salvage,
stream
cleanout
of
log
jams,
channelization
activities
(
S.
Neuhaueser,
pers.
comm.;
Amato
1996).
At
least
three
separate
incidents
of
channel
dredging,
dike
construction,
wood
removal,
and
channel
relocation
by
private
landowners
have
been
documented
in
the
lower
river
from
the
1950s
(
Amato
1996).
In
response
to
extreme
channel
aggradation
and
braiding
in
the
lower
river,
and
concerns
for
stranding
and
reduced
survival
of
summer
chum,
the
University
of
Washington
channelized
1,968
feet
of
the
lower
river
in
1969
(
Cederholm
1972).
At
the
same
time,
the
U.
W.
constructed
dikes
consisting
of
excavated
gravel
on
the
southwest
side
of
the
river,
further
constricting
the
floodplain
and
creating
a
new
sediment
source
for
downstream
areas.
Channelization
attempts
were
largely
unsuccessful
in
dealing
with
sediment
aggradation
and
channel
instability
in
lower
Big
Beef
Creek.

Routine
spot
dredging
upstream
of
the
weir
has
occurred
since
the
1970s,
with
deposition
of
dredge
spoils
along
the
bridge
causeway
and
a
floodplain
service
road.
Diking,
construction
of
a
road
within
the
floodplain
to
service
an
artesian
well
for
the
Big
Beef
rearing
facility
operated
by
NMFS,
and
filling
and
alteration
of
side
channel
habitat
associated
with
the
construction
and
operation
of
the
Big
Beef
Research
Station,
have
also
contributed
to
reduced
channel
complexity
in
the
lower
2
miles
of
the
river.

°
Subestuarine
habitat
loss
and
degradation
­
Juvenile
rearing
and
migration
life
stages,
rated
high
impact.
The
research
facility,
road,
bridge
construction
and
sediment
aggradation
near
the
mouth
of
the
stream
have
decreased
the
quality
and
amount
of
the
subestuarine
habitat
that
is
most
immediately
available
to
emigrating
summer
chum
fry.
Three
areas,
totaling
0.64
ac
or
1.4%
of
historic
delta
area
have
been
filled;
this
filling,
as
with
evacuation
of
one
pond
covering
<
0.72
acres
or
1.5%
of
the
historic
delta
area,
is
associated
with
the
fish
research
and
culture
facilities
of
the
Big
Beef
Research
Station.
A
fish
counting
weir
operated
by
WDFW,
tends
to
act
as
a
channel
constriction
and
sediment
trap,
affecting
upstream
channel
conditions
and
sediment
transport
processes
into
the
estuary.
Historically,
timber
from
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.229
logging
operations
in
the
area
was
dumped
from
trucks
into
Big
Beef
Harbor
upstream
from
the
sandspit
at
the
harbor's
mouth
where
they
were
rafted
to
adjacent
mills
(
Amato
1996).

The
Seabeck
Road
bridge
and
its
associated
causeway
crosses
0.03
mile
of
the
middle
reach
of
the
delta,
essentially
narrowing
the
opening
previously
associated
with
a
sandspit
originating
on
the
east
side
of
the
estuary.
Aerial
photographs
from
1947,
1961,
and
1997
show
that
extension
and
reinforcement
of
the
bridge
causeway
has
significantly
constrained
tidal
interaction
with
the
estuary,
causing
the
estuary
to
infill
with
sediment,
and
reducing
channel
complexity.
This
observation
is
reinforced
by
historic
accounts
that
at
one
time,
small
boats
were
able
to
navigate
into
the
estuary
and
lower
channel
(
S.
Neuhaueser,
personal
communication).
Adult
intertidal
spawning
may
also
have
also
been
impacted
by
these
changes.

°
Flow
(
summer
low
flow
and
peak
winter)­
Spawning,
egg
incubation,
and
migration
life
history
stages,
rated
moderate
and
high
impact
respectively.
Summer
low
flows
that
occur
during
late
August
through
the
end
of
September,
especially
during
natural
drought
cycles,
have
impacted
adult
migration
and
spawning
success.
Reports
of
adult
stranding
were
recorded
in
the
late
1960s
and
1970s,
mostly
as
a
result
of
channel
aggradation
(
Cedarholm
1972).
Future
withdrawals
of
water
for
domestic
water
supply,
both
from
the
shallow
perched
and
deeper
aquifer,
have
the
potential
to
further
compound
the
problem.
The
contribution
from
the
Seabeck
Aquifer
to
baseflows
at
the
mouth
of
Big
Beef
Creek,
is
considered
important,
since
the
zone
of
influence
overlap
almost
perfectly
with
the
area
of
summer
chum
distribution.

Winter
flood
flows
have
increased
as
a
result
of
upstream
urbanization
effects,
logging,
road
building
and
manipulation
of
flows
at
Lake
Symington.
As
of
1993,
3.1%
of
the
watershed
was
covered
by
impervious
surfaces,
approaching
a
rate
at
which
changes
to
habitat
quality
are
first
noted
(
May
et
al.
1977).
Changes
in
the
duration
and
magnitude
of
peak
flows
with
relatively
minor
precipitation
have
been
observed
since
the
late
1980s
(
WDNR
1995).
This
causes
channel
instability,
including
greater
scouring
and
filling
of
sediments
in
the
channel.
May
et
al.
(
1997)
noted
several
incidences
of
scour
in
excess
of
22
cm,
the
typical
depth
for
egg
deposition.

°
Riparian
forest
(
species
composition,
age)­
Spawning
and
incubation
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Riparian
zones
which
were
historically
a
mixed
forest
of
old
growth
cedar
with
limited
areas
of
deciduous
species
associated
with
disturbance
regimes
(
primarily
windthrow
and
channel
migration)
are
now
predominantly
composed
of
mixed
conifer
and
deciduous
(
47%),
deciduous
species
(
48%)
and
36%
less
than
12
inches
in
diameter
(
Appendix
Report
3.7,
WDNR
1995).
In
comparison
to
adjoining
watersheds,
the
riparian
forest
of
lower
Big
Beef
Creek
is
relatively
intact
(
76%
of
the
total
riparian
length
having
a
buffer
greater
than
132
feet,
low
impact
rating),
with
only
minor
areas
of
narrow
riparian
zone
related
to
logging
and
limited
residential
developments
(
at
RM
3.5
and
below
Lake
Symington).
Other
land
use
impacts
to
the
buffer
include
roads,
dikes,
and
the
UW
Research
facility
in
the
lower
river.

°
Water
quality
(
temperature)­
Migration
and
spawning
life
stages,
rated
moderate
impact.
Temperature
monitoring
conducted
in
1996
and
1997
indicated
temperatures
above
the
optimal
target
of
7­
12
degrees
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.230
Celcius
in
the
lower
basin,
with
increasing
temperatures
at
sites
within
2
miles
of
Lake
Symington.
Lake
Symington
is
a
shallow
artificial
lake
prone
to
heating.
Other
factors
compounding
the
effects
of
Lake
Symington
include
channel
widening
and
associated
loss
of
riparian
cover,
and
potential
impacts
from
groundwater
extraction.
The
extent
of
impairment
on
migration
and
spawning
is
unknown.
Factors
for
Recovery
Reduce
sources
of
sediment
aggradation
°
Reduce
the
rate
and
magnitude
of
mass
wasting
within
the
lower
five
miles
by
prohibiting
logging
and
development
on
steep,
unstable
slopes.
°
Monitor
the
effectiveness
of
current
prescriptions
adopted
for
logging
(
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis)
and
rural
development
(
Kitsap
County
Critical
Areas
Ordinance).
°
Address
sediment
contribution
from
existing
abandoned
or
active
roads,
and
correct
known
problems.
Of
special
concern,
is
the
Kidhaven
Road
at
RM
3.2.
°
Prohibit
construction
of
new
roads
on
steep
ravine
slopes
below
Lake
Symington.

Increase
channel
complexity
°
Remove
the
service
road
located
within
the
floodplain
(
RM
0.5)
and
evaluate
the
feasibility
of
restoring
several
side
channels
and
wetlands
adjoining
the
U.
W.
research
facility.
°
Evaluate
the
role
of
the
WDFW
fish
weir
in
changing
sediment
routing
patterns
and
investigate
options
for
reducing
its
impact.
°
Evaluate
the
need
for
placing
LWD
jams
in
the
lower
river
through
a
feasibility
study.

Reduce
road
and
causeway
constriction
of
estuarine
delta
°
Long­
term
planning
for
replacement
or
retrofitting
of
roadway
should
consider
expanding
the
bridge
span
and
reducing
the
foodprint
of
the
roadway
on
the
historic
delta
in
order
to
maximize
the
opportunity
for
full
creek­
tidal
water
exchange
and
circulation.

Reduce
the
impact
of
peak
flows
and
ensure
adequate
summer
low
flows
°
To
reduce
the
deleterious
impact
of
peak
flows,
institute
impervious
surface
thresholds
for
the
basin,
retain
60%
of
the
basin
in
forest
cover,
and
encourage
the
use
of
innovative
designs
for
permitted
residential
developments.
°
Ensure
road
drainage
is
not
routed
into
the
stream
network.
°
Use
the
established
minimum
instream
flow
recommendation
to
condition
future
water
applications.
Prohibit
additional
surface
water
withdrawal
or
groundwater
withdrawals
that
will
diminish
the
recommended
flow
level.
°
Institute
water
conservation
programs,
and
investigate
opportunities
for
reducing
the
number
of
shallow
wells
within
the
watershed.
°
Require
onsite
infiltration
of
runoff
from
impervious
surfaces
where
soils
are
appropriate.

Protect
and
restore
riparian
forests
°
Continue
acquisition
efforts
underway
throughout
the
watershed
through
the
efforts
of
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Sanctuary.
°
Replant
degraded
riparian
zones
with
appropriate
native
species.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.231
°
Review
and
adjust
the
Kitsap
Critical
Area
Ordinance
consistent
with
recommendations
for
riparian
buffers.

Strength
of
Evaluation
and
Information
Needs
Confidence
in
the
evaluation
is
rated
as
high
based
on
the
extensive
amount
of
habitat
monitoring
conducted
by
PNPTC,
research
at
the
UW,
and
long
term
escapement
returns
collected
for
the
Big
Beef
watershed.

Additional
information
needed
to
better
quantify
the
relationship
between
current
conditions
and
summer
chum
distribution
includes:

1.
Instream
flow
monitoring
of
both
summer
flow
periods
and
peak
winter
flows.
2.
Channel
assessments
to
determine
the
relationship
between
peak
flows
and
channel
forming
events.
It
would
be
helpful
to
establish
permanent
channel
cross
sections
and
resurvey
Madej's
original
cross
sections.
3.
Temperature
monitoring
extended
into
mid
October
to
determine
if
elevated
temperatures
are
a
concern.
4.
Completion
of
a
sediment
budget,
including
identification
of
the
amount
of
sediment
being
actively
contributed
by
destabilized
banks
and
failing
roads.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.6
A3.232
References
Amato,
C.
1996.
Historical
changes
affecting
freshwater
habitat
of
coho
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
basin,
pre­
1850
to
the
present.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

Becker,
J.
1998.
Aquifer
modeling
and
mitigation
options
for
the
Seabeck
aquifer
system.
Pub.
Util.
Dist.
1,
Kitsap
County,
Bremerton,
WA.

Cederholm,
C.
J.
1972.
The
short
term
physical
and
biological
effects
of
stream
channelization
at
Big
Beef
Cr.,
Kitsap
County,
WA.
MS
Thesis,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Lestelle,
L.
C.,
M.
L.
Rowse,
and
C.
Weller.
1992.
Evaluation
of
natural
stock
improvement
measures
for
Hood
Canal
coho
salmon.
PNPTC
tech.
rep.
TR93­
1.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

Madej,
M.
A.
1978.
Response
of
a
stream
channel
to
an
increase
in
sediment
load.
MS
Thesis,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Madej,
M.
A.
1982.
Sediment
transport
and
channel
changes
in
an
aggrading
stream
in
the
Puget
Lowland,
Washington.
Pages?)
in
Swanson,
F.
J.,
R.
J.
Landa,
T.
Dunne,
and
D.
N.
Swanston
(
eds.)
Forest
Serv.
general
tech.
Rpt.
PNW­
141.
USFS
Pacific
Northwest
Research
Station,
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.,
Portland,
OR.

May,
C.
W.,
E.
B.
Welch,
R.
R.
Horner,
J.
R.
Karr,
and
B.
W.
Mar.
1997.
Quality
indices
for
urbanization
effects
in
Puget
Sound
lowland
streams.
WDOE
water
resources
tech.
rep.
154.
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council)
1998.
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Habitat
Inventory
and
Assessment
Project
(
SSHIAP)
database.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council)
1993,
94.
1994­
95
Ambient
monitoring
data
(
Unpublished).
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.

WDNR
(
Washington
Department
of
Natural
Resources).
1995.
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis.
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
South
Puget
Sound
region
office,
Enumclaw,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.7
A3.233
Appendix
Report
3.7
Riparian
Assessment
Methodology
and
Summary
of
Results
As
part
of
the
analysis
of
habitat
limiting
factors,
aerial
photo
interpretation
was
employed
to
evaluate
the
condition
of
riparian
forests
along
summer
chum
streams
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Using
1997
Washington
State
Department
of
Natural
Resources
1:
12,000­
scale
aerial
photos
viewed
in
stereo,
two
trained
analysts
assessed
the
impacts
to
riparian
zones
in
relation
to
adjacent
land
use.
On
the
Dungeness
River
1998,
1:
6,000­
scale
photos
were
used.
Segments
with
relatively
homogenous
riparian
conditions
and
land
use
were
delineated
on
each
side
of
all
stream
channels
within
the
current
or
known
historic
range
of
summer
chum.
For
each
segment
the
forested
riparian
buffer
width,
average
stand
diameter,
species
composition,
and
stand
density
were
noted
and
the
dominant,
stream­
adjacent
land
use
recorded.
We
modified
the
methodology
outlined
under
the
Washington
State
Watershed
Analysis
Riparian
Module
to
consider
both
riparian
conditions
and
dominant
land
use
within
200
feet
of
stream
channels.
Due
to
time
constraints,
the
data
was
not
field
verified,
and
we
did
not
assess
stream
channels
upstream
of
the
range
of
summer
chum
though
downstream
transport
of
large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
is
known
to
be
an
important
recruitment
source
for
in­
channel
LWD.

Each
riparian
segment
was
categorized
according
to
forested
buffer
width,
species
composition,
average
stand
diameter,
and
stand
density.
We
resolved
six
buffer
width
categories:
none,
<
33
ft,
33­
66
ft,
66­
99
ft,
99­
132
ft,
and
132­
200
ft.
Species
composition
categories
included:
coniferdominated
(>
70%
canopy
coverage),
deciduous­
dominated
(>
70%),
mixed
conifer/
deciduous
(
both
<
70%),
and
none.
Tree
canopy
size
and
structure
was
used
as
a
surrogate
for
average
stand
diameter:
<
12
in
diameter
at
breast
height
(
dbh),
12­
20
dbh,
and
>
20
dbh.
Stand
density
was
categorized
as
dense
(<
33%
ground
exposure),
sparse
(
33­
80%
ground
exposure),
and
extensively
cleared
(>
80%
ground
exposure).
It
is
important
to
note
that
our
assessment
of
buffer
width,
species
composition,
average
stand
diameter,
and
stand
density
applied
to
only
the
stream­
adjacent,
forested
portion
of
the
200
ft.
riparian
zone.
We
also
categorized
dominant
land
use
outside
this
forested
buffer
(
if
any)
and
within
the
200
ft.
riparian
zone.
Land
use
categories
included:
forestry,
agriculture,
rural
residential,
urban/
industrial,
road/
dike,
and
no
land
use
(
wetlands,
protected
areas).
The
road/
dike
land
use
class
was
used
where
stream­
adjacent
parallel
roads
or
dikes
were
present
because,
though
they
were
rarely
dominant
land
uses
within
a
segment
on
a
per
area
basis,
their
impact
on
riparian
forests
was
interpreted
to
supersede
in
importance
other
land
uses
within
the
segment.
The
forestry
category
included
clearcut
and
recently
replanted
areas
without
canopy
closure.
Older
managed
forest
stands
often
could
not
be
readily
distinguished
from
adjacent
forested
buffers
and
were
included
in
the
calculation
of
forested
buffer.
As
a
result,
our
estimates
of
permanent
forested
buffer
areas
are
likely
high
and
the
estimated
area
under
active
forestry
use
likely
low.

Thresholds
were
used
to
determine
generalized
summer
chum
habitat
impact
ratings
(
low=
1,
moderate=
2,
and
high=
3)
from
riparian
forest
condition
for
each
variable
(
width,
average
stand
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.7
A3.234
diameter,
species
composition,
stand
density;
Appendix
Table
3.7.1)
by
segment.
Since
no
riparian
forests
within
the
range
of
summer
chum
exhibited
old­
growth
or
undisturbed
conditions,
we
did
not
utilize
a
no
impact
rating.
These
thresholds
were
determined
after
considering
the
relative
ability
of
riparian
forests
to
provide
critical
shade
and
LWD­
supply
functions
for
stream
channels
used
by
summer
chum.
For
example,
the
ability
of
a
buffer
to
supply
LWD
over
time
is
partly
dependent
upon
buffer
width.
It
has
been
calculated
that
a
50
ft
no
cut
buffer
will
supply
32%
of
LWD
at
age
200,
a
135
ft
buffer
77%
of
LWD,
and
a
210
ft
buffer
100%
of
LWD
(
T.
Beechie,
personal
communication).
Thus,
buffers
greater
than
132
ft
in
width
were
considered
low
impact,
66­
132
ft
a
moderate
impact,
and
<
66
ft
in
width
high
impact.
The
riparian
forest
buffer
extent
rating
was
computed
as
a
composite
of
the
scores
for
stand
density
and
width;
stand
density
scores
were
added
to
the
buffer
width
scores,
and
if
either
or
both
scored
as
a
high
impact
the
riparian
extent
rating
defaulted
to
high
impact.
Average
stand
diameter
was
used
as
a
surrogate
to
rate
riparian
age
in
our
overall
matrix
of
habitat
factors
(
see
section
3.4.3.2,
Table
3.17).
Overall
watershed­
level
riparian
assessment
ratings
were
then
computed
for
riparian
species
composition,
ageaverage
stand
diameter),
and
extent
(
Appendix
Table
3.7.3)
using
all
the
riparian
segments
for
a
given
stream
weighted
by
their
total
length.

Table
3.7.1.
Summary
of
riparian
assessment
impact
categories.
Low
impact
was
rated
a
1,
moderate
impact
was
rated
2,
and
high
impact
rated
3.
The
one
exception
was
riparian
buffer
density,
rated
0
for
low
impact,
1
for
moderate
impact,
and
2
for
high
impact.
Riparian
buffer
density
was
added
to
riparian
buffer
extent
to
calculate
that
rating.
Riparian
assessment
category
Low
Impact
Moderate
Impact
High
Impact
Species
composition
Conifer
dominated
(>
70%
Mixed
conifer/
deciduous
Deciduous
dominated
of
the
canopy)
(
both
<
70%)
(>
70%
of
the
canopy)
or
no
tree
cover
Average
stand
diameter
>
20
in
dbh
12­
20
in
dbh
<
12
in
dbh
1
Density
<
33%
ground
exposure
33­
80%
ground
exposure
>
80%
ground
exposure
Width
>
132
ft
wide
forested
buffer
66­
132
ft
wide
forested
<
66
ft
wide
forested
buffer
buffer
dbh,
diameter
at
breast
height
1
An
example
serves
to
illustrate
how
these
impact
ratings
were
calculated.
In
Snow
Creek
(
Appendix
Table
3.7.2)
there
is
4,400
ft.
of
mixed
conifer
and
deciduous
stands,
no
conifer­
dominated
stands,
and
28,000
ft.
of
shrub/
grass
or
deciduous­
dominated
forest.
The
weighted
mean
calculation
for
riparian
species
composition
is
thus:
(
4,400/
32,400)*
2+(
28,000/
32,400)*
3
=
2.86.

Table
3.7.2.
Calculation
of
weighted
average
rating.
For
Snow
Creek,
the
weighted
mean
calculation
was
(
4,400/
32,400)*
2+(
28,000/
32,400)*
3
=
2.86.

Riparian
species
composition
Stream
Total
Mixed
Conifer
Decid
dom
Shrub
or
No
riparian
Weighted
Riparian
conifer
and
dom
(>
70%)
grass
vegetation
mean
rating
Length
decid
(<
70%)

Snow
32,400
4,400
0
26,000
2,000
0
2.86
While
the
analysis
of
riparian
buffer
extent,
age,
and
species
composition
was
based
on
stream
length,
the
analysis
of
riparian
land
use
sought
to
quantify
the
area
of
the
riparian
zone
occupied
by
various
land
uses.
The
"
riparian
zone"
was
defined
as
the
area
within
200
ft.
of
streams
harboring
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.7
A3.235
summer
chum,
from
the
mouth
to
the
upper
extent
of
their
spawning
distribution.
We
calculated
the
area
under
each
land
use
and
report
percentages
of
the
total
riparian
zone
under
each
land
use
(
Appendix
Table
3.7.3­
D).

Table
A3.7.3.
Summary
of
results
for
the
riparian
forest
assessment.
For
the
riparian
buffer
condition
analysis,
a
rating
of
2.5
to
3.0
was
considered
a
high
impact,
2.0­
2.49
a
moderate
impact,
<
2.0
a
low
impact.

A.
Riparian
Forest
Average
Stand
Diameter
(
Percent
by
Length)

Stream
Total
Small
Medium
Large
No
buffer
Weighted
Riparian
(<
12
in
(
12­
20
in
(>
20
in
present
mean
rating
Length
(
ft)
dbh)
dbh)
dbh)

Big
Anderson
16,000
48%
52%
0%
0%
2.5
Big
Beef
60,200
36%
64%
0%
0%
2.4
Big
Mission
20,400
36%
64%
0%
0%
2.4
Big
Quilcene
49,600
44%
48%
0%
8%
2.5
Chimacum
29,600
42%
42%
0%
16%
2.6
Dewatto
40,800
32%
68%
0%
0%
2.3
Dosewallips
45,800
51%
45%
0%
4%
2.6
Duckabush
32,200
32%
66%
0%
2%
2.4
Dungeness
104,200
44%
52%
0%
4%
2.5
Hamma
Hamma
35,000
48%
45%
3%
4%
2.5
Jimmycomelately
18,800
34%
66%
0%
0%
2.3
Lilliwaup
5,800
0%
79%
0%
21%
2.2
Little
Quilcene
29,800
70%
27%
0%
3%
2.7
Salmon
21,600
15%
63%
0%
22%
2.4
Seabeck
11,600
41%
59%
0%
0%
2.4
Skokomish
323,200
33%
48%
4%
16%
2.4
Snow
32,400
50%
44%
0%
6%
2.6
Stavis
4,800
0%
100%
0%
0%
2.0
Tahuya
96,800
24%
69%
0%
7%
2.3
Union
53,800
67%
33%
0%
0%
2.7
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.7
A3.236
B.
Riparian
Forest
Buffer
Species
Composition
(
Percent
by
Length)

Stream
Total
Mixed
Conifer
Decid
Shrub
No
Weighted
Riparian
/
grass
riparian
mean
Length
(
ft)
veg
rating
Big
Anderson
16,000
23%
0%
77%
0%
0%
2.8
Big
Beef
60,200
47%
5%
48%
0%
0%
2.4
Big
Mission
20,400
2%
0%
98%
0%
0%
3.0
Big
Quilcene
49,600
11%
40%
41%
5%
3%
2.1
Chimacum
29,600
57%
0%
27%
16%
0%
2.4
Dewatto
40,800
96%
0%
4%
0%
0%
2.0
Dosewallips
45,800
52%
3%
41%
4%
0%
2.4
Duckabush
32,200
57%
18%
23%
0%
2%
2.1
Dungeness
104,200
66%
5%
25%
4%
0%
2.2
Hamma
Hamma
35,000
22%
48%
26%
4%
0%
1.8
Jimmycomelately
18,800
15%
43%
42%
0%
0%
2.0
Lilliwaup
5,800
79%
0%
0%
21%
0%
2.2
Little
Quilcene
29,800
42%
7%
48%
0%
3%
2.5
Salmon
21,600
63%
0%
15%
22%
0%
2.4
Seabeck
11,600
59%
0%
41%
0%
0%
2.4
Skokomish
323,200
25%
26%
33%
15%
2%
2.2
Snow
32,400
14%
0%
80%
6%
0%
2.9
Stavis
4,800
58%
0%
42%
0%
0%
2.4
Tahuya
96,800
37%
4%
52%
7%
0%
2.6
Union
53,800
4%
0%
96%
0%
0%
3.0
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.7
A3.237
C.
Riparian
Forest
Buffer
Extent
(
Percent
by
Length)

Stream
Total
Low
Impact
Medium
High
Impact
Weighted
Riparian
(
buffer
Impact
(
buffer
(
buffer
sparse
Mean
Rating
Length
(
ft)
>
132
ft
wide)
66­
132
ft
wide)
and/
or
<
66
ft
wide)

Big
Anderson
16,000
41%
0%
59%
2.2
Big
Beef
60,200
76%
6%
18%
1.4
Big
Mission
20,400
31%
24%
45%
2.1
Big
Quilcene
49,600
53%
2%
45%
1.9
Chimacum
29,600
33%
26%
41%
2.1
Dewatto
40,800
69%
16%
15%
1.5
Dosewallips
45,800
58%
21%
21%
1.6
Duckabush
32,200
59%
25%
16%
1.6
Dungeness
104,200
32%
18%
50%
2.2
Hamma
Hamma
35,000
58%
0%
42%
1.8
Jimmycomelately
18,800
0%
31%
69%
2.7
Lilliwaup
5,800
52%
0%
48%
2.0
Little
Quilcene
29,800
3%
38%
60%
2.6
Salmon
21,600
8%
22%
70%
2.6
Seabeck
11,600
0%
0%
100%
3.0
Skokomish
323,200
45%
25%
35%
1.9
Snow
32,400
17%
7%
76%
2.6
Stavis
4,800
79%
0%
21%
1.4
Tahuya
96,800
44%
27%
29%
1.9
Union
53,800
27%
11%
62%
2.4
D.
Riparian
Land
Use
(
Percent
by
Area)

Stream
Total
Forested
No
Forestry
Agric
Rur
Urb/
Road
Riparian
buffer
land
resid
Com
/
Area
(
ft
)
use
2
Big
Anderson
3,200,000
55%
0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
36%
Big
Beef
12,040,000
85%
0%
0%
0%
4%
4%
7%
Big
Mission
4,080,000
70%
0%
0%
0%
17%
8%
5%
Big
Quilcene
9,920,000
62%
0%
1%
10%
3%
3%
21%
Chimacum
5,920,000
51%
0%
0%
16%
17%
16%
0%
Dewatto
8,160,000
87%
0%
5%
2%
4%
0%
2%
Dosewallips
9,160,000
79%
2%
3%
3%
7%
6%
0%
Duckabush
6,440,000
74%
2%
0%
0%
9%
12%
3%
Dungeness
20,840,000
58%
0%
0%
9%
13%
0%
20%
Hamma
Hamma
7,000,000
65%
0%
23%
10%
2%
0%
0%
Jimmycomelately
3,760,000
34%
0%
38%
12%
7%
0%
9%
Lilliwaup
1,160,000
52%
0%
0%
20%
0%
0%
28%
Little
Quilcene
5,960,000
40%
2%
6%
33%
8%
0%
11%
Salmon
4,320,000
32%
0%
25%
43%
0%
0%
0%
Seabeck
2,320,000
33%
0%
0%
23%
21%
0%
23%
Skokomish
64,640,000
64%
1%
1%
26%
2%
2%
4%
Snow
6,480,000
42%
0%
7%
35%
5%
0%
11%
Stavis
960000
83%
0%
0%
17%
0%
0%
0%
Tahuya
19360000
71%
1%
6%
8%
12%
0%
2%
Union
10760000
52%
0%
2%
13%
30%
0%
3%
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.7
A3.238
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.8
A3.239
Appendix
Report
3.8
Freshwater
Habitat
Data
Summary
and
Analysis
Criteria
Freshwater
habitat
data
can
be
found
for
a
number
of
streams
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Straits
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Below
is
a
summary
of
the
available
habitat
data
(
Appendix
Table
3.8.1),
targets
used
to
analyze
the
data
(
Appendix
Table
3.8.2),
and
the
channel
condition
data
(
Appendix
Table
3.8.3).
Temperature
data
was
only
used
if
it
was
a
continuous
thermograph
(
i.
e.
no
spot
sampling).
Temperature
graph
data
was
visually
examined
during
the
workshops
to
determine
if
it
exceeded
12
E
C.
Fine
sediment
data
was
only
considered
if
it
was
gathered
with
a
McNeil
core
sampler;
visual
estimates
of
surface
sediment
are
not
accurate
and
were
not
considered.

Appendix
Table
3.8.1.
Watersheds
with
habitat
data
used
in
the
assessment.

Watershed
data
Temperature
Fine
Sediment
Channel
condition
Jimmycomelately
X
Salmon
X
X
Snow
X
X
Little
Quilcene
X
Big
Quilcene
X
Duckabush
X
Hamma
Hamma
X
Skokomish
x
X
1
Union
X
Big
Mission
X
Tahuya
X
X
X
Dewatto
X
X
X
Big
Anderson
X
Stavis
X
X
Big
Beef
X
X
Skokomish
watershed
channel
condition
data
is
for
Vance
Creek
only.
1
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.8
A3.240
Appendix
Table
3.8.2.
Stream
habitat
targets
for
channel
condition
habitat
factors.
Large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
is
number
of
pieces/
m
of
channel
length
,
percent
pools
is
the
surface
area
occupied
by
pools
,
pool
frequency
is
the
1
2,3
number
of
channel
widths
per
pool
,
and
fine
sediment
is
the
percentage
of
fine
sediment
with
a
diameter
<
0.85mm
2
.
2
Habitat
factor
targets
and
gradient
No­
Low
impact
Mod.
impact
High
impact
Channel
width
LWD
<
15
m
>
0.4
0.2­
0.4
<
0.2
1
Percent
pools
<
15
m;
2%
>
55%
40­
55%
<
40%
2
Percent
pools
>
15
m
>
50%
35­
50%
<
35%
3
Pool
frequency
<
15
m;
2%
<
2
2­
4
>
4
2
Temperature
all
<
12
C
­­
>
12
C
4
Fine
sediment
all
<
12%
12­
17%
>
17%
2
o
o
Montgomery
et
al.
1995
1
WFPB1995
2
Pess
et
al.
1998
3
Bjorn
and
Reiser
1991
4
Appendix
Table
3.8.3.
Channel
condition
habitat
data
summary.
USFS
(
US
Forest
Service)
was
collected
using
Hankin
and
Reeves
survey
methodology.
PNPTC
(
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council)
and
USFWS
(
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service)
were
collected
using
TFW
ambient
monitoring
methodology.
Pool
frequency
is
the
number
of
channel
widths
per
pool.

Stream
Data
source
year
RM
(
rivermile)
pieces/
m
freq.
pools
Survey
LWD
Pool
Percent
1
Jimmycomelately
USFS
1990
0­
1.9
0.09
9.0
30%
Salmon
PNPTC
1992
0­
1.3
0.06,
0.15
4.8
39
Snow
PNPTC
1993
0­
3.6
0.07
5.7
47
Little
Quilcene
PNPTC
1992
0­
3.8
0.03,
0.1
5.3
32
Big
Quilcene
PNPTC
1993
0.8­
3.8
0.01,
0.16
5.1
31
Big
Quilcene
USFS
1992
0­
4.0
0.06
­
20
Duckabush
USFWS
1992
0.2­
2.3
sparse
­
31
Hamma
Hamma
USFWS
1996
0.5­
1.8
0.13
­
50
Johns
Creek
USFWS
1996
0­
1.8
0.06
­
­
Union
PNPTC
1993
0­
6.7
0.22
5.9
63
Big
Mission
PNPTC
1993
0­
1.5
0.07
6.5
33
Tahuya
PNPTC
1994
4.0­
9.0
0.04,
0.15
2.4
72
Dewatto
PNPTC
1994
3.0­
3.5
0.09,
0.28
4.1
37
Big
Anderson
USFWS
1993/
4
0­
1.8
0.30
1.7
51
Stavis
USFWS
1993/
4
0­
0.6
0.26
1.8
53
Big
Beef
PNPTC
1993/
4
0­
6.3
0.17
2.4
46
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
5
5
5
5
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.8
A3.241
This
is
the
surveyed
portion
of
the
channel
that
overlapped
the
summer
chum
range.
1
For
PNPTC
data,
LWD
volumes
are
calculated
using
only
single
piece
data
and
calculated
using
single
pieces
plus
2
pieces
in
jams.
For
LWD
jams,
only
the
overall
volume
was
measured
and
not
the
individual
piece
count.
To
convert
volume
to
pieces,
jam
volume
was
divided
by
average
single
piece
volume
for
each
survey.
Thus
the
incomplete
packing
of
wood
within
jams
was
not
accounted
for
and
total
LWD
numbers
are
likely
overestimated.
It
is
presented
as
both
single
pieces,
and
the
total
of
single
pieces
plus
those
in
LWD
jams.
This
number
does
not
include
pieces
in
LWD
jams
and
should
be
considered
a
low
estimate.
Individual
piece
3
volumes
were
not
available
to
calculate
pieces
per
jam.
However
given
field
observations,
had
total
LWD
pieces
been
counted,
the
channel
would
still
fall
within
the
highly
degraded
category.
Could
not
be
calculated
from
the
data.
Channel
width
was
measured
as
summer
low
flow
width.
4
Partial
survey,
did
not
collect
this
information.
5
References
Bjornn,
T.
C.,
and
D.
W.
Reiser.
1991.
Habitat
requirements
of
salmonids
in
streams.
American
Fisheries
Society
Special
Publication
19:
83­
138.

Montgomery,
D.
R.,
G.
E.
Grant,
and
K,
Sullivan.
1995.
Watershed
analysis
as
a
framework
for
implementing
ecosystem
management.
Water
Resources
Bulletin
31:
369­
385.

Pess,
G.
R.,
B.
D.
Collins,
M.
Pollock,
T.
J.
Beechie,
S.
Grigsby,
and
A.
Haas.
1998.
Historic
and
current
factors
that
limit
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
in
the
Stillaguamish
river
basin,
Washington
state:
implications
for
salmonid
habitat
protection
and
restoration.
A
report
prepared
for
Snohomish
County
Department
of
Public
Works
 
Surface
Water
Management
Division
and
the
Stillaguamish
Tribe,
Everett,
WA.
40
p.

WFPB
(
Washington
Forest
Practices
Board).
1995.
Standard
methodology
for
conducting
watershed
analysis
(
Version
3).
Wash.
Forest
Pract.
Bd.,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
3.8
A3.242
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.243
Appendix
Report
3.9
General
Fishing
Patterns,
and
Regulation
Summary
by
Year,
Fishery,
and
Fleet
Introduction
The
Harvest
Management
section
(
3.5)
of
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
provides
a
narrative
description
of
all
fisheries
that
potentially
can
have
some
impact
on
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
HC­
SJF)
summer
chum
(
see
Part
Three,
section
3.5.3).
This
appendix
report
provides
additional
information
specifically
on
commercial
fishing
patterns
and
regulations.

Appendix
Figure
3.9.1
is
a
simple
graphical
depiction
of
the
general
pattern
of
commercial
fishing
in
the
major
fishing
areas
impacting
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
The
solid
bars
indicate
some
consistency
in
fishing
pattern
from
year
to
year,
and
the
dotted
bars
indicate
a
fishery
that
has
been
severely
curtailed
or
eliminated
in
recent
years
or
one
that
occurs
very
sporadically
and
with
low
effort
or
impact.
For
example,
sockeye
and
pink
salmon
fisheries
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
occur
consistently
every
year
(
solid
bar)
and
it
is
only
the
extremes
of
the
timing
of
the
fishery
that
changes
much
from
year
to
year
(
dotted
bar).
The
coho
fishery
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
used
to
occur
with
significant
effort
and
catch,
but
has
been
severely
constrained
or
eliminated
in
recent
years
(
dotted
bar).
Commercial
net
fisheries
for
chinook
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
used
to
be
much
more
extensive,
involving
drift
gill
net
gear.
Now
this
fishery
is
very
constrained,
restricted
to
set
gill
net
gear
in
near
shore
areas
with
very
little
effort
and
catch
(
dotted
bar).

Detailed
summaries
of
July
through
October
net
fishery
openings
in
Hood
Canal
management
units
are
provided
in
Appendix
Tables
3.9.1
and
3.9.2
for
treaty
and
non­
treaty
fishermen,
respectively.
These
tables
summarize
regulations
for
the
period
from
1980
to
1997
and
provide
weekly
summaries
of
the
specific
areas,
gear
types
and
number
of
days
open.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.244
Appendix
Figure
3.9.1.
General
commercial
fishing
pattern
by
area,
fleet
and
gear
since
the
late
1970s
(
see
text
for
explanation
of
dotted
lines).

Species
July
August
September
October
Area
20
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
San
Juans
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.245
Appendix
Figure
3.9.1
(
continued)

Species
July
August
September
October
Admiralty
Inlet
Area
10
Hood
Canal
Main­
stem
Quilcene/
Dabob
Area
12D
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.246
Appendix
Table
3.9.1.
1980­
97
non­
treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
Types:
PS=
purse
seine,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
GN=
gillnet.

Year
Date(
s)
Days
Marine
Area
Gear
Type
1980
10/
21
­
10/
28
2
12
PS,
GN
1981
10/
19
­
10/
19
1
12
PS,
GN
1981
10/
25
­
10/
25
1
12
GN
1981
10/
26
­
10/
26
1
12
PS
1982
09/
15
­
09/
15
1
12
GN
1982
09/
16
­
09/
16
1
12
PS
1982
10/
11
­
10/
11
1
12
GN
1982
10/
12
­
10/
12
1
12
PS
1982
10/
18
­
10/
18
1
12
PS,
GN
1982
10/
25
­
10/
26
1
12
GN
1982
10/
26
­
10/
26
1
12
PS
1983
07/
26
­
07/
26
1
12
GN
1983
08/
01
­
08/
01
1
12
GN
1983
08/
09
­
08/
09
1
12
GN
1983
08/
15
­
08/
17
3
12
GN
1983
08/
22
­
08/
24
3
12,12B
GN
1983
08/
28
­
09/
01
S
12,
12B
GN
1983
09/
11
­
09/
11
1
12
GN
1983
09/
12
­
09/
12
1
12
PS
1983
09/
19
­
09/
20
2
12
PS,
GN
1983
09/
25
­
09/
29
5
12
GN
1983
09/
26
­
09/
30
5
12
PS
1983
10/
03
­
10/
06
4
12,12A,
12B
PS,
GN
1983
10/
09
­
10/
11
3
12,12A,
12B
GN
1983
10/
10
­
10/
12
3
12,12A,
12B
PS
1983
10/
17
­
10/
17
1
12
PS,
GN
1983
10/
23
­
10/
23
1
12
GN
1983
10/
24
­
10/
24
1
12
PS
1983
10/
31
­
10/
31
1
12
PS,
GN
1984
07/
30
­
07/
30
1
12,12B
GN
1984
07/
31
­
07/
31
1
12,12B
PS
1984
08/
07
­
08/
09
3
12,12B
PS,
GN
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.247
Appendix
Table
3.9.1
(
continued).
1980­
97
non­
treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
Types:
PS=
purse
seine,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
GN=
gillnet.

Year
Date(
s)
Days
Marine
Area
Gear
Type
1984
08/
13
­
08/
15
3
12,12B
PS,
GN
1984
08/
20
­
08/
22
3
12,12B
GN
1984
09/
21
­
08/
23
3
12,12B
PS
1984
08/
27
­
08/
29
3
12,12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1984
09/
10
­
09/
11
2
12,12A
GN
1984
09/
11
­
09/
12
2
12,12A
PS
1984
09/
17
­
09/
19
3
12,12A,
12B
PS,
GN
1984
09/
24
­
09/
24
1
12A
GN
1984
09/
25
­
09/
25
1
12A
PS
1984
10/
01
­
10/
01
1
12A
PS,
GN
1984
10/
08
­
10/
08
1
12A
GN
1984
10/
09
­
10/
09
1
12A
PS
1984
10/
15
­
10/
15
1
12,12A,
12B
PS,
GN
1984
10/
15
­
10/
17
3
12A
PS,
GN
1984
10/
21
­
10/
21
1
12,12B
GN
1984
10/
22
­
10/
22
1
12,12B
PS
1985
07/
30
­
07/
30
1
12C
GN
1985
07/
31
­
07/
31
1
12C
PS
1985
08/
05
­
08/
07
3
12C
PS,
GN
1985
08/
13
­
08/
16
4
12C
PS
1985
08/
18
­
08/
22
S
12B,
L2C
GN
1985
08/
19
­
08/
23
S
12C
PS
1985
08/
25
­
08/
29
S
12B,
L2C
GN
1985
08/
26
­
08/
30
S
12C
PS
1985
09/
02
­
09/
05
4
12B,
12C
GN
1985
09/
03
­
09/
06
4
12B,
12C
PS
1985
09/
09
­
09/
09
1
12,12A
GN
1985
09/
10
­
09/
10
1
12,12A
PS
1995
09/
16
­
09/
17
2
12,12A
PS,
GN
1985
09/
23
­
09/
25
3
12,12A
GN
1985
09/
24
­
09/
26
3
12,12A
PS
1985
09/
30
­
10/
03
4
12,12A
PS,
GN
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.248
Appendix
Table
3.9.1
(
continued).
1980­
97
non­
treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
Types:
PS=
purse
seine,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
GN=
gillnet.

Year
Date(
s)
Days
Marine
Area
Gear
Type
1985
10/
06
­
10/
10
5
12,12A,
12B,
12C
GN
1985
10/
07
­
10/
11
S
12,12A,
12B,
12C
PS
1985
10/
14­
10/
16
3
12,12A,
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1985
10/
21
­
10/
21
1
12
GN
1985
10/
22
­
10/
22
1
12
PS
1985
10/
21
­
10/
23
3
12C
GN
1985
10/
22
­
10/
24
3
12C
PS
1985
10/
28
­
10/
28
1
12
PS,
GN
1986
07/
28
­
07/
31
4
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1986
08/
04
­
08/
07
4
12B,
12C
GN
1986
08/
05
­
08/
08
4
12B,
12C
PS
1986
08/
11­
08/
14
4
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1986
08/
18
­
08/
19
2
12B,
12C
GN
1986
08/
19
­
08/
20
2
12B,
12C
PS
1986
08/
25
­
08/
26
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
1986
09/
01
­
09/
03
3
12,12B
GN
1986
09/
02
­
09/
04
3
12,12B
PS
1986
09/
08
­
09/
09
2
12,12A,
12B
PS,
GN
1986
09/
15
­
09/
16
2
12,12A,
12B
GN
1986
09/
16
­
09/
17
2
12,12A,
12B
PS
1986
09/
22
­
09/
24
3
12,12A,
12B
PS,
GN
1986
09/
28
­
09/
30
3
12,12A,
12B
GN
1986
09/
29
­
10/
01
3
12,12A,
12B
PS
1986
10/
20
­
10/
20
1
12
GN
1986
10/
21
­
10/
21
1
12
PS
1986
10/
27
­
10/
27
1
12
PS,
GN
1987
07/
27
­
07/
30
4
12B,
12C
GN
1987
07/
28
­
07/
31
4
12C
PS
1987
08/
03
­
08/
06
4
12B,
12C
GN
1987
08/
03
­
08/
06
4
12C
PS
1987
08/
10
­
08/
13
4
12B,
12C
GN
1987
08/
11
­
08/
14
4
12C
PS
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.249
Appendix
Table
3.9.1
(
continued).
1980­
97
non­
treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
Types:
PS=
purse
seine,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
GN=
gillnet.

Year
Date(
s)
Days
Marine
Area
Gear
Type
1987
08/
16
­
08/
19
4
12B,
12C
GN
1987
08/
17
­
08/
20
4
12C
PS
1987
09/
14
­
09/
15
2
12,12A
PS,
GN
1987
09/
20
­
09/
22
3
12C
GN
1987
09/
21
­
09/
23
3
12C
PS
1987
09/
21
­
09/
22
2
12,12A
GN
1987
09/
22
­
09/
23
2
12,12A
PS
1987
09/
28
­
09/
29
2
12,12A,
12C
PS,
GN
1987
10/
04
­
10/
04
1
12,1
2A,
12B,
12C
GN
1987
10/
06
­
10/
05
1
12,12A,
12B,
12C
PS
1987
10/
12
­
10/
13
2
12,12A,
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1987
10/
19
­
10/
19
1
12,12B
GN
1987
10/
20
­
10/
20
1
12,12B
PS
1987
10/
19
­
10/
22
4
12A
GN
1987
10/
20
­
10/
23
4
12A
PS
1987
10/
26
­
10/
26
1
12,12B
PS,
GN
1988
08/
15
­
08/
16
2
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1988
08/
22
­
08/
23
2
12B,
12C
GN
1988
08/
23
­
08/
24
2
12B,
12C
PS
1988
09/
06
­
09/
07
2
12A
PS,
GN
1988
09/
12
­
09/
14
3
12A
GN
1988
09/
13
­
09/
15
3
12A
PS
1988
09/
19
­
09/
21
3
12A
PS,
GN
1988
09/
26
­
09/
27
2
12A
GN
1988
09/
27
­
09/
28
2
12A
PS
1988
10/
24
­
10/
25
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
1988
10/
31
­
11/
01
2
12,12B
GN
1989
07/
24
­
07/
27
4
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1989
07/
31
­
08/
03
4
12B,
12C
GN
1989
08/
01
­
08/
04
4
12B,
12C
PS
1989
08/
07
­
08/
10
4
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1989
08/
14
­
08/
17
4
12B,
12C
GN
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.250
Appendix
Table
3.9.1
(
continued).
1980­
97
non­
treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
Types:
PS=
purse
seine,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
GN=
gillnet.

Year
Date(
s)
Days
Marine
Area
Gear
Type
1989
08/
15
­
08/
18
4
12B,
12C
PS
1989
08/
21
­
08/
24
4
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1989
08/
28
­
08/
31
4
12B,
12C
GN
1989
08/
29
­
09/
01
4
12B,
12C
PS
1989
09/
05
­
09/
08
4
12A,
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1989
09/
11
­
09/
11
1
12,12B
GN
1989
09/
11
­
09/
14
4
12A
GN
1989
09/
12
­
09/
12
1
12,12B
PS
1989
09/
12
­
09/
15
4
12A
PS
1989
09/
18
­
09/
18
1
12,12B
PS,
GN
1989
09/
25
­
09/
26
2
12,12B
GN
1989
09/
26
­
09/
27
2
12,12B
PS
1989
10/
02
­
10/
03
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
1989
10/
09
­
10/
10
2
12,12B
GN
1989
10/
10­
10/
11
2
12,12B
PS
1989
10/
16­
10/
16
1
12,12B
GN
1989
10/
17­
10/
17
1
12,12B
PS
1989
10/
23­
10/
23
1
12,12B
PS,
GN
1989
10/
29­
10/
30
2
12,12B
GN
1989
10/
30­
10/
31
2
12,12B
PS
1990
07/
30­
08/
02
4
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1990
08/
06­
08/
09
4
12B,
12C
GN
1990
08/
07­
08/
10
4
12B,
12C
PS
1990
08/
13­
08/
16
4
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1990
08/
20­
08/
23
4
12B,
12C
GN
1990
08/
21­
08/
24
4
12B,
12C
PS
1990
08/
27­
08/
30
4
12B,
12C
PS,
GN
1990
09/
03­
09/
06
4
12A,
12B,
12C
GN
1990
09/
04­
09/
07
4
12A,
12B,
12C
PS
1990
09/
10­
09/
10
1
12,12B
PS,
GN
1990
09/
10­
09/
13
4
12A
PS,
GN
1990
09/
16­
09/
21
5
12A
PS,
GN
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.251
Appendix
Table
3.9.1
(
continued).
1980­
97
non­
treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
Types:
PS=
purse
seine,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
GN=
gillnet.

Year
Date(
s)
Days
Marine
Area
Gear
Type
1990
09/
17­
09/
18
2
12,12B
GN
1990
09/
18­
09/
19
2
12,12B
PS
1990
09/
24­
09/
25
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
1990
10/
01­
10/
03
3
12,12B
GN
1990
10/
02­
10/
02
3
12,12B
PS
1990
10/
08­
10/
09
2
12,12A,
12B
PS,
GN
1990
10/
15­
10/
15
1
12,12A,
12B
PS,
GN
1990
10/
22­
10/
23
2
12,12B
GN
1990
10/
23­
10/
24
2
12,12B
PS
1990
10/
29­
10/
30
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
1991
09/
03­
09/
06
4
12A
PS,
GN
1991
09/
09­
09/
13
5
12A
PS,
GN
1991
09/
18­
09/
20
S
12A
PS,
GN
1991
09/
23­
09/
27
5
12A
PS,
GN
1991
09/
30­
10/
04
5
12A
PS,
GN
1991
10/
16­
10/
18
3
12A
PS,
GN
1993
09/
08­
09/
10
3
12A
GN
1993
09/
13­
09/
16
4
12A
GN
1993
10/
18­
10/
19
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
1993
10/
25­
10/
26
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
1993
10/
26­
10/
27
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
1994
10/
31­
10/
31
1
12B
GN
1995
10/
30­
10/
30
1
12,12B
PS,
GN
1995
10/
31­
10/
31
1
12,12B
PS,
GN
1998
09/
23­
09/
27
5
12A
BS
1996
09/
30­
10/
04
5
12A
BS
1996
10/
07­
10/
11
5
12A
BS
1997
09/
03­
09/
06
4
12A
BS
1997
09/
08­
09/
12
5
12A
BS
1997
09/
15­
09/
19
5
12A
BS
1997
09/
22­
09/
26
5
12A
BS
1997
09/
29­
10/
03
6
12A
BS
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.252
Appendix
Table
3.9.1
(
continued).
1980­
97
non­
treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
Types:
PS=
purse
seine,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
GN=
gillnet.

Year
Date(
s)
Days
Marine
Area
Gear
Type
1997
10/
06­
10/
10
5
12A
BS
1997
10/
13­
10/
17
5
12A
BS
1997
10/
20­
10/
21
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
1997
10/
27­
10/
28
2
12,12B
PS,
GN
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.253
Appendix
Table
3.9.2.
1980­
96
Treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
types:
GN=
gillnet,
SN=
set
net,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
HL=
hook
and
line.

Year
Date
(
s)
Days
Area
Gear
1980
08/
03
­
08/
06
3
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1980
08/
10
­
08/
13
3
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1980
08/
17
­
08/
21
4
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1980
09/
01
­
09/
03
2
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1980
09/
07
­
09/
10
3
12,12B
SN,
GN
1980
09/
14
­
09/
19
5
12,12C
SN,
GN
1980
09/
21
­
09/
24
3
12,12B
SN,
GN
1980
09/
28
­
09/
30
2
12,12C
SN,
GN
1981
08/
02
­
08/
04
2
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1981
08/
09
­
08/
12
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1981
08/
16
­
08/
19
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1981
08/
23
­
08/
25
2
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1981
09/
13
­
09/
15
2
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1981
09/
15
­
09/
17
2
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1981
09/
20
­
09/
22
2
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1981
09/
22
­
09/
24
2
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1981
09/
27
­
09/
30
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1982
08/
02
­
08/
04
2
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1982
08/
15
­
08/
17
2
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1982
08/
22
­
08/
25
3
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1982
08/
29
­
09/
03
5
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1982
09/
05
­
09/
10
5
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1982
09/
12
­
09/
17
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1982
09/
18
­
09/
23
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1982
09/
24
­
09/
30
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1983
08/
01
­
08/
03
2
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1983
08/
07
­
08/
10
3
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1983
08/
14
­
08/
18
4
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1983
08/
21
­
09/
03
13
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1983
09/
03
­
09/
08
5
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1983
09/
11
­
09/
14
3
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1983
09/
16
­
09/
18
2
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.254
Appendix
Table
3.9.2
(
continued).
1980­
96
Treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
types:
GN=
gillnet,
SN=
set
net,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
HL=
hook
and
line.

Year
Date
(
s)
Days
Area
Gear
1983
09/
18
­
09/
23
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1983
09/
25
­
09/
30
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
08/
01
­
08/
03
2
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
08/
05
­
08/
10
5
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
08/
04
­
08/
10
6
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
08/
12
­
08/
17
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
08/
19
­
08/
22
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
09/
03
­
09/
05
2
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
09/
09
­
09/
14
5
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
09/
16
­
09/
21
5
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
09/
17
­
09/
20
3
12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1984
09/
21
­
09/
26
5
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
08/
01
­
08/
02
1
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
08/
04
­
08/
09
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
08/
11
­
08/
16
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
08/
18
­
08/
21
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
08/
25
­
08/
28
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
09/
02
­
09/
04
2
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
09/
08
­
09/
11
3
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
09/
15
­
09/
28
13
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
09/
21
­
09/
24
3
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1985
09/
29
­
09/
30
1
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1986
08/
01
­
08/
01
1
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1986
08/
04
­
08/
08
4
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1986
08/
10
­
08/
15
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1986
08/
17
­
08/
20
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1986
08/
24
­
08/
26
2
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1986
09/
07
­
09/
11
4
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1986
09/
14
­
09/
19
5
12,12B
HL,
SN,
GN
1986
09/
21
­
09/
26
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1986
09/
26
­
09/
30
4
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1987
08/
02
­
08/
07
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.255
Appendix
Table
3.9.2
(
continued).
1980­
96
Treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
types:
GN=
gillnet,
SN=
set
net,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
HL=
hook
and
line.

Year
Date
(
s)
Days
Area
Gear
1987
08/
09
­
08/
14
5
12,12C
BS,
HL,
SN,
GN
1987
08/
12
­
08/
14
2
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1987
08/
16
­
08/
21
5
12,12C
BS
1987
08/
19
­
08/
21
1
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1987
08/
20
­
09/
05
16
12,12C
BS
1987
08/
21
­
08/
21
1
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1987
09/
06
­
09/
11
5
12
BS,
HL,
SN,
GN
1987
09/
13
­
09/
18
5
12,12B
BS,
HL,
SN,
GN
1987
09/
20
­
09/
25
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1987
09/
27
­
09/
30
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1988
08/
01
­
08/
05
4
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1988
08/
07
­
08/
13
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1988
08/
14
­
08/
19
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1988
09/
25
­
09/
28
3
12
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
08/
01
­
08/
04
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
08/
06
­
08/
11
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
08/
13
­
08/
18
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
08/
20
­
08/
25
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
08/
27
­
09/
01
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
09/
03
­
09/
09
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
09/
10
­
09/
13
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
09/
14
­
09/
17
3
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
09/
17
­
09/
21
4
12,12B
BS,
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
09/
17
­
09/
21
4
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1989
09/
24
­
09/
29
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1990
08/
01
­
08/
04
3
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1990
08/
05
­
08/
11
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1990
08/
12
­
08/
18
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1990
08/
19
­
08/
25
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1990
08/
26
­
09/
01
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1990
09/
02
­
09/
08
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1990
09/
10
­
09/
14
4
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
Three
A3.256
Appendix
Table
3.9.2
(
continued).
1980­
96
Treaty
openings
for
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Area
(
July
through
October).
Gear
types:
GN=
gillnet,
SN=
set
net,
BS=
beach
seine,
and
HL=
hook
and
line.

Year
Date
(
s)
Days
Area
Gear
1990
09/
16
­
09/
21
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1990
09/
23
­
09/
28
5
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1990
09/
30
­
09/
30
1
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1991
08/
01
­
08/
03
2
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1991
08/
04
­
08/
10
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1991
08/
11
­
08/
17
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1991
08/
18
­
08/
24
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1991
08/
25
­
08/
31
6
12,12D
HL,
SN,
GN
1991
09/
01
­
09/
07
6
12,12D
HL,
SN,
GN
1992
08/
01
­
08/
01
1
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1992
08/
02
­
08/
08
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1992
08/
09
­
08/
15
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1992
08/
15
­
08/
23
8
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1992
08/
23
­
08/
30
7
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1992
08/
30
­
09/
05
6
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1993
08/
01
­
08/
08
7
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1993
08/
08
­
08/
15
7
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1993
08/
15
­
08/
22
7
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1993
08/
22
­
08/
29
7
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1993
08/
29
­
09/
05
7
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1994
08/
07
­
08/
11
4
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1994
08/
14
­
08/
18
4
12,12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1994
08/
21
­
08/
25
4
12C
HL,
SN,
GN
1995
08/
01
­
08/
03
2
12C
BS,
HL