Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0068-0047
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-09-22T04:00Z

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.1
Introduction
Page
103
"
The
co­
managers
will
implement
summer
chum
salmon
recovery
activities
in
the
areas
of
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
and
Part
Three
Evaluation
and
Mitigation
of
Factors
for
Decline
3.1
Introduction
Part
Two
of
this
summer
chum
salmon
conservation
plan
examined
factors
affecting
major
declines
of
summer
chum
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
within
the
last
30
years.
The
intent
was
to
identify
from
a
region­
wide
perspective
the
likely
most
important
negative
impacts
on
summer
chum.
For
Hood
Canal
stocks,
major
factors
for
decline
were
found
to
be
habitat
deterioration
and
terminal
area
fishery
harvest
while
climate
effects
on
stream
flow,
interactions
with
hatchery
salmonids,
and
pre­
terminal
harvests
were
identified
as
having
moderate
impacts.
Major
impacts
on
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks
were
cumulative
habitat
impacts
and
climate
effects
on
stream
flow,
and
pre­
terminal
harvest
had
a
moderate
impact.

Ten
to
20
years
have
passed
since
the
recent
declines
began
and
there
have
been
some
changes
in
the
factors
affecting
summer
chum
salmon
production.
For
example,
harbor
seal
predation
was
not
identified
as
a
significant
contributor
to
the
summer
chum
declines,
primarily
because
of
the
relatively
low
seal
numbers
during
the
periods
of
decline.
However,
harbor
seal
populations
have
increased
to
the
point
that
their
levels
of
predation
on
summer
chum
has
become
a
major
factor
that
may
affect
recovery.
On
the
positive
side,
recent
changes
in
harvest
management
and
salmonid
hatchery
programs
have
substantially
reduced
the
impacts
of
these
activities
on
summer
chum
stocks.

Part
Three
of
the
plan
evaluates
factors
for
decline
for
summer
chum
salmon
at
the
watershed
and
management
unit
levels,
and
provides
specific
strategies
for
recovery.
It
is
arranged
in
five
sections;
Artificial
Production,
Ecological
Interactions,
Habitat,
Harvest
Management,
and
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management.
Each
of
these
sections
provides
specific
recommendations
for
strategies
and
actions
to
aid
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
stocks.
The
co­
managers
will
implement
summer
chum
salmon
recovery
activities
in
the
areas
of
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
and
harvest
management.
The
Habitat
section,
however,
has
a
somewhat
different
approach.
Because
the
comanagers
do
not
control
land
and
water
use,
the
Habitat
discussion
identifies
the
habitat
problems
faced
by
summer
chum
salmon,
and
recommends
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.1
Introduction
Page
104
"
The
selection
and
implementation
of
specific
habitat
recovery
actions
will
ultimately
be
the
responsibility
of
landuse
management
agencies,
major
land
various
recovery
strategies.
The
selection
and
implementation
of
specific
habitat
recovery
actions
will
ultimately
be
the
responsibility
of
land­
use
management
agencies,
major
land
holders,
and
private
citizens.
The
co­
managers
will
work
with
these
local
entities
to
provide
technical
support
and
foster
an
integrated
approach
to
addressing
factors
for
decline.
The
section,
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management,
describes
how
the
components
of
the
plan
will
integrated
and
adapted
to
achieve
summer
chum
recovery.
Following
are
thumbnail
descriptions
of
the
content
of
the
five
sections
that
make
up
Part
Three.

The
Artificial
Production
section
(
3.2)
assesses
the
need
for
supplementation
on
a
stock
by
stock
basis,
provides
a
supplementation
risk
assessment
for
individual
projects,
and
identifies
appropriate
supplementation
projects
to
be
implemented
under
this
plan.

The
Ecological
Interactions
section
(
3.3)
provides
strategies
to
be
implemented
to
minimize
the
impacts
of
artificial
production
programs
for
fall
chum
and
other
salmonids,
and
recommends
that
the
impacts
of
local
marine
mammal
populations
on
summer
chum
be
assessed
and
mitigated
if
necessary.

The
Habitat
(
section
3.4)
discussion
focuses
on
the
freshwater
and
estuarine
habitats.
It
discusses
individual
watershed
assessments
of
factors
for
decline,
provides
strategies
for
protection
and
recovery
of
habitat,
and
identifies
methods
for
setting
priorities
and
performance
standards,
and
for
monitoring
and
evaluation.

The
Harvest
Management
section
(
3.5)
describes
harvest
management
issues,
relates
harvest
to
other
factors
for
decline,
identifies
monitoring
and
evaluation
needs,
and
identifies
harvest
management
strategies
and
performance
standards
for
implementation
under
this
plan.

The
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
section
(
3.6)
describes
both
a
review
process
that
evaluates
performance
criteria
for
summer
chum
populations
and
a
process
for
adaptive
management
that
integrates
the
various
components
of
the
larger
plan.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
105
"
Restore
naturally­
producing,
self­
sustaining
populations
to
their
historic
localities
and
levels
of
production,
and
minimize
the
risk
of
further
declines,
while
conserving
the
genetic
and
ecological
characteristics
of
the
supplemented
and
3.2
Artificial
Production
3.2.1
Introduction
Artificial
production
techniques
may
be
used
to
supplement
currently
depressed
wild
summer
chum
populations,
or
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
into
streams
where
the
original
population
no
longer
exists.
When
properly
implemented,
supplementation
and
reintroduction
can
be
powerful
tools,
contributing
to
the
recovery
or
restoration
of
naturally­
producing
populations
(
Cuenco
et
al.
1993;
Fuss
1997).
The
parties
to
this
recovery
plan
initiated
supplementation
programs
for
natural
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
populations
during
the
1992
brood
year.
More
recently,
efforts
have
also
been
directed
toward
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
into
streams
where
populations
have
been
extirpated.

This
section
of
the
recovery
plan
describes
the
basis
for
decisions
to
supplement
or
reintroduce
summer
chum,
including
projects
already
being
implemented
and
those
that
are
planned.
The
approach
to,
and
implementation
planning
for,
specific
projects
or
actions
are
also
described.
Following
are
goals
for
artificial
production,
which
are
directed
at
only
those
populations
identified
as
at
risk
of
extinction
in
this
plan,
and
also
are
directed
at
selected,
extirpated
populations
within
the
region:

3.2.1.1
Rationale
Supplementation
is
viewed
as
an
effective
tool,
in
combination
with
other
management
actions,
for
restoring
natural
production
of
summer
chum
to
healthy
levels
within
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region.
By
the
early
1990s,
summer
chum
populations
had
declined
to
such
low
levels
that
the
risk
of
extinction
to
portions
of
the
region
on
the
short
term
was
high.
Furthermore,
with
the
recent
extirpation
of
four
populations,
the
need
for
hatchery­
based
actions
was
identified
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
into
vacant
habitat
that,
based
on
stock
assessment
data,
appeared
unlikely
to
be
colonized
naturally
within
a
reasonable
time
frame.
The
need
to
quickly
boost
the
population
sizes
above
critically
low
levels,
and
the
fact
that
some
factors
limiting
production,
such
as
harvest
and
habitat
degradation,
were
in
the
process
of
being
addressed
also
contributed
to
the
decision
to
use
supplementation.

3.2.1.2
Intent
The
intent
of
supplementation
efforts
within
this
region
is
to
reduce
the
short
term
extinction
risk
to
existing
wild
populations
and
to
increase
the
likelihood
of
their
recovery
to
a
healthy
status.
These
objectives
can
be
accomplished
through
the
establishment
of
supplemented
populations
using
indigenous
broodstock,
and
through
reintroductions
of
appropriate
populations
into
streams
now
lacking
summer
chum.
In
keeping
with
the
intended
ephemeral
nature
of
this
form
of
artificial
production,
the
proposed
supplementation
strategy
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
106
Artificial
Production
Definitions
Supplementation:
"
The
use
of
artificial
propagation
to
maintain
or
increase
natural
production
while
maintaining
the
long
term
fitness
of
the
target
population,
and
keeping
the
ecological
and
genetic
impacts
to
nontarget
populations
within
specified
biological
limits."
Reintroduction:
"
The
transfer
and
release
of
progeny
from
an
appropriate
broodstock
into
a
watershed
where
the
target
species
or
race
has
been
extirpated,
for
the
purpose
of
reintroducing
the
species
or
race
and
creating
a
self­
sustaining
return."
Enhancement:
"
The
use
of
artificial
propagation
to
produce
fish
that
are
primarily
intended
to
be
caught
in
fisheries."
will
be
limited
in
duration
and
designed
to
help
maintain
the
populations
while
potential
factors
for
decline
are
identified
and
being
addressed.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
activities
proposed
for
the
programs
will
provide
important
new
scientific
information
regarding
the
effectiveness
of
supplementation
as
it
relates
to
chum
salmon.
Contribution
to
the
re­
establishment
of
naturally
functioning
ecosystems
through
the
recovery
or
restoration
of
summer
chum
populations,
is
also
an
intent.

The
supplementation
focus
at
this
time
is
on
recovery
of
"
at
risk"
stocks
and
reintroduction
of
extirpated
populations.
This
current
emphasis
is
in
response
to
the
generally
poor
condition
of
the
stocks
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
In
the
future,
as
the
stocks
recover,
consideration
may
also
be
given
to
enhancement
of
summer
chum
for
fisheries
benefit.
However,
specific
conditions,
criteria,
and
guidelines
will
need
to
be
defined
before
artificial
production
would
be
pursued
for
that
purpose.
This
plan
currently
addresses
artificial
production
only
as
it
applies
to
population
recovery
and
reintroduction.

The
co­
managers
intend
to
integrate
supplementation
actions
with
other
recovery
measures
to
provide
optimum
benefit
to
the
summer
chum
populations.
A
system­
wide
approach
to
recovery
will
be
pursued,
in
recognition
that
supplementation
applied
alone
likely
will
not
improve
the
status
of
summer
chum.
In
many
cases,
summer
chum
declines
can
be
partially
attributed
to
habitat
degradation
and
over
harvest
in
fisheries.
Concurrent
improvements
in
habitat
conditions,
including
riparian
conditions,
channel
complexity
and
watershed
flow
characteristics,
and
in
fisheries
management,
are
needed
to
effect
recovery
of
summer
chum
salmon.

3.2.1.3
Anticipated
Benefits
of
Supplementation
Approach
The
above
described
recovery
objectives
will
be
achieved
through
the
propagation
and
release
of
fed
chum
salmon
fry
originating
from
indigenous
regional
broodstocks.
For
"
at
risk"
populations
chosen
through
this
program
for
supplementation,
hatchery
production
of
fed
fry
of
large
size
relative
to
natural
fry,
released
at
the
proper
migration
time,
will
provide
a
survival
advantage
that
will
improve
the
status
of
the
populations
more
rapidly
than
is
possible
through
natural
production
alone.
The
immediate
objective
for
these
populations
will
be
to
boost
the
population
abundance
as
quickly
as
possible,
increasing
natural
spawner
densities
to
sustainable
levels
that
will
alleviate
the
risk
of
extinction
to
the
populations.
For
selected,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
107
extirpated
populations,
seeding
of
usable
habitats
will
be
accomplished
through
reintroduction
strategies
developed
specifically
for
each
recipient
watershed.
Reintroduction
planning
strategies
will
include
selection
of
the
most
appropriate
donor
stock,
acclimation
to
the
recipient
location,
and
release
of
fed
chum
fry
to
maximize
the
likelihood
for
the
establishment
of
a
population.

3.2.1.4
Potential
Hazards
and
Limitations
The
parties
recognize
that
uncertainty
exists
regarding
the
risks
and
benefits
of
supplementation.
Specifically,
it
is
acknowledged
that
supplementation
actions
may
pose
significant
ecological
and
genetic
hazards
to
the
remaining
wild
summer
chum
populations.
Ecological
hazards
may
include
disease
transfer,
facility
failure
leading
to
fish
loss,
and
increased
resource
competition
(
Steward
and
Bjornn
1990).
Genetic
hazards
may
include
loss
of
genetic
variability
within
and
among
populations,
domestication,
and
extinction
(
Busack
and
Currens
1995).
These
hazards
are
discussed
within
this
plan.
Strategies
are
proposed
to
minimize
the
risk
of
these
hazards
on
supplemented
and
non­
supplemented
summer
chum
populations.
Risk
aversion
strategies
will
include
the
preservation
of
a
substantial
fraction
of
the
natural
summer
chum
populations
in
the
region
in
a
state
that
is
unaffected
directly
by
supplementation.
The
benefits
of
supplementation
are
weighed
against
potential
risks
in
determining
the
appropriateness
of
intervention
measures.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
programs
are
also
proposed
to
help
resolve
uncertainties
regarding
supplementation,
and
to
allow
for
adaptive
management
of
programs
proposed
within
this
plan.

The
co­
managers
also
recognize
that
there
are
major
ecological
factors
that
are
outside
of
human
control
within
the
summer
chum
biome
that
will
affect
summer
chum
survival
and
the
success
of
supplementation
efforts.
The
factors
include
inter­
annual
variability
and
long
term
trends
in
estuarine
and
marine
productivity,
flood
events,
and
droughts.
These
factors
may
limit
the
effectiveness
of
attempts
to
increase
the
abundance
of
both
supplemented
and
unsupplemented
populations
through
proposed
regional
stock
recovery
actions.
In
addition,
it
is
acknowledged
that
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
are
among
the
southernmost
representatives
of
summer­
time
spawning
chum
in
the
Northeast
Pacific
region,
and
they
may
be
especially
sensitive
to
disturbances,
including
habitat
degradation.
There
is
a
heightened
likelihood
that
natural
environmental
regime
shifts,
including
El
Niños
and
decadal
scale
changes
in
environmental
conditions,
may
therefore
periodically
lessen
the
suitability
of
freshwater
and
marine
habitat
for
the
successful
production
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
this
portion
of
their
range.

3.2.1.5
Overview
of
Contents
Included
within
the
Artificial
Production
section
are
detailed
descriptions
of
when,
how,
and
where
supplementation
will
be
used
to
assist
in
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
populations
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions.
Elements
will
be
presented
as
follows:
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
108
"
Supplementation
should
only
be
done
to
rebuild
a
population
when
that
population
is
at
risk
of
extinction,
or
to
develop
a
brood
stock
for
reintroduction."
Supplementation
Approach:
°
When
to
supplement
or
reintroduce,
including
an
initial
project
selection
process
and
a
discussion
of
benefits
and
risks.
°
When
to
modify
or
stop
a
supplementation
program.
°
General
criteria
regarding
how
to
supplement
under
this
plan.
°
Identification
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
objectives,
and
needed
research
associated
with
the
supplementation
programs.
Project
Selection
and
Implementation:
°
Summary
of
on­
going
supplementation
activities
within
the
regions
(
Appendix
Report
3.2).
°
Project
selection
process,
including
methods
to
assess
potential
hazards.
°
Project
implementation
plans,
based
on
and
consistent
with
the
preceding
supplementation
and
reintroduction
guidelines.
Regional
actions
by
watershed,
including
population
status
information
and
prioritized
objectives
for
recovering
or
restoring
populations
within
each
present
and
historically
documented
summer
chum
stream
or
river.
°
Specific
criteria
regarding
how
supplementation
will
be
conducted
(
Appendix
Report
3.1).
Funding
Priorities:
°
Criteria
for
prioritizing
funding
needs
and
projected
funding
needs
by
watershed
affect.

3.2.2
Supplementation/
Reintroduction
Approach
This
section
describes
the
general
approach
to
supplementation
and
reintroduction
of
summer
chum.
Details
of
application
are
described
below
in
section
3.2.3:
Project
Selection
and
Implementation.

3.2.2.1
When
to
Supplement
and
When
to
Reintroduce
Deciding
when
to
reintroduce
or
supplement
a
summer
chum
population
requires
careful
consideration
of
the
need
and
consequences
of
such
an
action.
Supplementation
should
only
be
done
to
rebuild
a
population
when
that
population
is
at
risk
of
extinction,
or
to
develop
a
brood
stock
for
reintroduction.
Also,
supplementation
and
reintroduction
should
occur
as
part
of
a
comprehensive
effort
to
understand
and
effectively
address
factors
for
decline
or
extirpation
of
a
population.

A
structure
or
process
is
needed
to
assess
supplementation
and
reintroduction
options
relative
to
program
objectives,
provide
a
strategy
for
prioritizing
potential
actions,
and
clearly
show
the
basis
for
decisions.
Following
is
a
description
of
the
objectives
and
decision
process
for
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction.
Factors
included
in
assessing
the
options
and
in
evaluating
risks
and
benefits
as
part
of
the
decision
process
are
also
discussed.

Objectives
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
109
Our
objectives
in
developing
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
are:
1)
to
rebuild
summer
chum
populations
at
risk
of
extinction,
2)
to
restore
summer
chum
to
streams
where
a
viable
spawning
population
no
longer
exists,
3)
to
maintain
or
increase
summer
chum
populations
of
selected
streams
to
a
level
that
will
allow
their
use
as
broodstock
donors
for
streams
where
the
summer
chum
population
has
been
lost,
and
4)
to
avoid
and
reduce
the
risk
of
deleterious
genetic
and
ecological
effects.
The
following
process
is
used
to
address
these
objectives.

Decision
Process
By
the
early
1990s,
local
summer
chum
populations
were
at
high
risk
of
extinction
and
at
least
four
populations
had
been
extirpated
(
see
Part
One).
Spawner
escapements
in
the
region
had
declined
to
totals
under
1,000,
and
several
populations
escaped
under
25
fish
in
consecutive
years.
It
was
determined
that
immediate
action
was
required
and,
therefore,
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
were
initiated
to
address
the
immediate
problems.
These
projects
were
begun
based
on
the
resource
need
and
also
opportunity,
given
available
funding,
facilities
and
participants.
At
about
the
same
time,
measures
were
started
to
control
negative
effects
on
summer
chum
caused
by
fisheries
harvest
and
habitat
degradation.

The
process
for
selecting
projects
is
summarized
as
follows.
First,
existing
summer
chum
stocks
and
recently
extinct
stocks
(
identified
in
Part
One,
sections
1.7.2.1
and
1.7.2.2
and
shown
here
in
Table
3.1)
are
generally
evaluated
as
candidates
for
supplementation
and
reintroduction,
considering
several
factors
affecting
benefits
and
risks
(
Part
One
also
presents
a
discussion
of
existing
information
regarding
possible
past
distribution
of
summer
chum
spawners
in
other
areas
within
the
region).
The
candidate
stocks
are
then
subject
to
more
focused
assessments
of
potential
risk
from
hatchery
failure,
ecological
hazards,
and
genetic
hazards.
Based
on
this
general
evaluation,
and
the
subsequent
assessments
of
risk,
a
list
of
selected
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
is
generated.
Stocks
with
existing
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
are
included
in
this
selection
process
(
assuming
wild
population
statuses
that
existed
prior
to
adult
returns
from
the
projects)
to
show
how
they
would
fare
in
comparison
to
the
other
streams.
Detailed
descriptions
of
the
general
evaluation,
assessments
of
risks,
and
selection
of
projects,
are
provided
in
section
3.2.3.
More
general
discussions
of
the
general
assessment,
and
determination
of
risks
and
benefits,
follow.

General
Assessment
of
Supplementation
and
Reintroduction
Alternatives
The
general
assessment
of
alternatives
considers
a
number
of
factors
bearing
on
the
need,
urgency
and
practicality
of
supplementation/
reintroduction
in
each
stream.
The
assessment
also
serves
to
rank
the
streams
by
numerical
scoring
of
each
factor.
The
factors
to
be
assessed
include:
1)
the
extinction
risk
rating
for
the
stock
assigned
from
consideration
of
the
mean
escapement
level
and
the
recent
population
trend
(
applies
to
supplementation
candidates
only);
2)
potential
population
size,
reflecting
on
the
magnitude
of
the
stream's
historical
production
relative
to
the
historical
overall
production
of
the
region;
3)
knowledge
of
habitat
effects
on
the
population
and
what,
if
any,
habitat
recovery
actions
are
ongoing
or
planned;
4)
availability
of
brood
stock
for
the
supplementation
or
reintroduction
action;
and
5)
available
resources
to
implement
such
an
action.
Details
of
this
assessment
and
ranking
process,
and
the
results,
are
described
in
section
3.2.3.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
110
Table
3.1.
Summary
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
stocks
and
their
current
status,
including
existing
and
recently
extinct
stocks.
1
Existing
Stocks
Known
Recently
Extinct
Stocks
Stock
Extinction
Risk
Rating
Union
Moderate
Finch
Lilliwaup
High
Skokomish
Hamma
Hamma
Moderate
Tahuya
Duckabush
Low
Dewatto
Dosewallips
Low
Anderson
Big
&
Little
Quilcene
High
Big
Beef
2
Snow/
Salmon
High
Chimacum
2
Jimmycomelately
High
Dungeness
Special
Concern
The
list
of
existing
and
known,
recently
extirpated
stocks
and
extinction
risk
ratings
are
carried
over
from
the
Stock
1
Definition
and
Status
section
1.7.2
in
Part
One
­
Life
History
and
Stock
Assessment.
"
Extinction
Risk
Ratings"
indicated
are
based
on
pre­
supplementation
project
summer
chum
escapement
levels.
2
Assessing
Benefits
and
Risks
Summer
chum
populations
identified
as
candidates
for
supplementation
or
reintroduction
are
subject
to
risk
and
benefit
assessments
to
help
determine
whether
the
potential
benefits
of
a
proposed
program
outweigh
potential
deleterious
effects.
A
product
of
such
assessments
is
the
indication
of
whether
the
risk
to
the
target
population
of
using
supplementation
(
including
potentially
adverse
genetic
and
ecological
effects)
outweighs
the
risk
of
foregoing
supplementation
(
potentially
leading
to
extinction,
limited
stock
distribution,
or
unacceptably
slow
recovery).
The
assessment
procedures
and
results
for
each
candidate
stock
are
presented
in
section
3.2.3
of
this
plan.

Potential
Benefits
and
Hazards
of
Supplementation
Waples
(
1996)
and
Cuenco
et
al.
(
1993)
developed
outlines
and
characterizations
of
potential
benefits
and
hazards
of
supplementation
that
should
be
considered
within
the
context
of
a
rebuilding
program.
The
benefits
and
hazards
identified
within
these
documents
will
be
included
herein
as
factors
that,
when
objectively
weighed
and
considered,
will
help
indicate
the
appropriateness
of
a
proposed
supplementation
program.
The
list
of
potential
benefits
is
augmented
by
specific
benefits
anticipated
for
the
summer
chum
populations
in
the
region,
and
positive
results
of
supplementation
observed
thus
far.
Hazards
outlined
below
are
characterized
in
detail
within
the
two
referenced
documents,
and
those
details
are
therefore
not
repeated
here.
Methods
that
will
be
employed
to
help
address
risks
of
those
supplementation
programs
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
111
determined
through
this
framework
to
be
appropriate
will
be
presented
in
following
sections,
which
describe
general
and
specific
information
regarding
how
to
supplement.

i.
Potential
Benefits
The
following
descriptions
use
Quilcene
and
Salmon
Creek
summer
chum
supplementation
programs
to
illustrate
how
potential
benefits
may
be
realized.

1.
Reduce
short­
term
extinction
risk.
Supplementation
may
be
used
to
reduce
the
risk
that
a
population
on
the
verge
of
extirpation
will
be
lost
by
expeditiously
boosting
the
number
of
emigrating
juveniles
in
a
given
brood
year.
The
supplementation
program
implemented
at
Quilcene
NFH
in
1992
has
reduced
the
risk
of
extinction
of
the
Big
Quilcene
summer
chum
salmon,
increasing
average
natural
spawning
escapements
from
164
(
range:
6­
349)
for
the
five
years
prior
to
program
returns
(
1990­
94),
to
5,523
fish
for
the
recent
four
years
(
1995­
98
range:
2,244­
8,479).
2.
Preserve
population
while
factors
for
decline
are
being
addressed.
Supplementation
may
be
used
to
preserve
or
increase
summer
chum
populations
while
other
factors
causing
decreased
abundances
are
addressed.
The
Quilcene
NFH
supplementation
program
has
increased
summer
chum
abundance,
while
using
strategies
to
minimize
genetic
divergence
between
the
hatchery
fish
and
the
wild
fish
by
using
representative
samples
of
the
indigenous
Quilcene
wild
population
as
hatchery
broodstock,
by
avoiding
artificial
selection,
and
by
minimizing
differences
between
the
natural
and
hatchery
environments.
The
program
has
achieved
these
objectives
while
impacting
fisheries
were
adjusted
and
degraded
habitat
was
being
remedied.
3.
Speed
recovery.
Supplementation
may
be
used
to
accelerate
recovery
of
populations
by
increasing
abundances
in
a
shorter
time
frame
than
may
be
achievable
through
natural
production.
The
Quilcene
NFH
supplementation
program
accelerated
recovery
of
the
Big
Quilcene
River
spawning
population
from
the
rate
that
would
have
occurred
as
a
result
of
the
natural
spawning
of
49
fish
in
1991,
320
fish
in
1992,
and
97
fish
in
1993.
The
supplementation
programs
may
produce
up
to
36
adults
per
spawning
pair,
compared
to
approximately
2.5
adults
per
spawning
pair
for
wild
spawning
fish
(
assuming
fecundity
and
survival
parameters
presented
in
Appendix
Report
3.1,
Table
3.1.1).
4.
Establish
a
reserve
population
for
use
if
the
natural
population
suffers
a
catastrophic
loss.
Supplementation
programs
may
be
used
to
create
an
additional
reservoir
for
a
particular
summer
chum
genome.
Natural
spawning
areas
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
have
been
illegally
bull­
dozed
during
channelization
work
twice
within
the
past
five
years
(
1993
and
1996)
during
the
incubation
period
for
summer
chum
eggs.
The
establishment
of
a
reserve
hatchery
population
in
Quilcene
NFH
reduced
the
effects
of
these
catastrophic
actions
on
the
population.
The
Quilcene
and
Salmon
Creek
summer
chum
stocks
are
also
being
spread
to
Big
Beef
Creek
and
Chimacum
Creek
respectively,
creating
additional
reserve
populations
where
native
genomes
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
can
be
preserved
and
future
risks
lessened.
5.
Reseed
vacant
habitat
capable
of
supporting
salmon.
Summer
chum
populations
may
be
reintroduced
to
streams
where
populations
have
been
extirpated
and
the
causes
of
extirpation
are
being
addressed.
Eyed
eggs
from
Quilcene
NFH
and
from
Salmon
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
112
Creek
have
been
transferred
to
incubation
and
rearing
locations
at
Big
Beef
Creek
and
Chimacum
Creek
respectively,
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
to
two
streams
where
populations
have
been
extirpated
and
where
harvest
management
and
habitat
restoration
actions
are
either
being
implemented
or
are
expected
to
occur.
6.
Provide
scientific
information
regarding
the
use
of
supplementation
in
conserving
natural
populations.
Valuable
information
indicating
the
effectiveness
and
effects
of
supplementation
in
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
can
be
collected.
The
Salmon
Creek,
Big
Beef
Creek
and
Quilcene
NFH
programs
are
being
used
to
develop
valuable
information
regarding
hatchery
and
wild­
origin
summer
chum
productivity,
hatchery­
origin
chum
contribution
rates,
and
hatchery­
origin
chum
straying
rates.

b)
Hazards
to
Natural
Populations.
Following
is
a
list
of
potential
hazards
to
targeted
and
non­
supplemented
natural
populations
that
may
result
from
a
supplementation
or
reintroduction
program.
Within
subsequent
sections
(
e.
g.
section
3.2.3.3.),
each
hazard
is
described
in
detail
and
weighed
in
terms
of
its
consequence
to
the
natural
population,
considering
steps
presented
within
this
plan
to
mitigate
and/
or
minimize
the
effects
of
each
hazard.

Potential
Hazards
Attached
with
Supplementation
Programs
1.
Partial/
total
hatchery
failure
(
potential
for
catastrophic
loss)
2.
Ecological
effects
a.
Predation
b.
Competition
c.
Disease
transfer
3.
Genetic
effects
a.
Loss
of
genetic
variability
between
populations
1.
Out­
breeding
depression
b.
Loss
of
genetic
variability
within
populations
1.
Inbreeding
depression
2.
Genetic
drift
3.
Selection
4.
Risks
to
donor
stock
(
e.
g.
numerical
reduction
or
selection
effects)
5.
Risks
to
other
salmonid
populations
and
species
(
e.
g.,
redd
superimposition
impacts
on
wild
pink
salmon).

Waples
(
1996)
suggests
guiding
principles
for
the
analysis
of
the
above
risks
and
potential
benefits
after
they
are
enumerated
and
individually
evaluated.
Evaluation
of
potential
benefits
and
risks
should
not
focus
solely
on
their
likelihood
of
occurrence,
but
also
on
the
consequences
of
the
particular
effect
(
positive
or
negative)
on
the
population.
A
region­
wide
risk/
benefit
assessment
rather
than
only
an
assessment
of
each
individual
project,
is
also
suggested,
as
inclusion
of
all
affected
populations
may
lead
to
different
conclusions
regarding
risks
and
benefits
than
what
might
be
derived
from
analyzing
each
situation
individually.
Lastly,
evaluation
of
supplementation
risks/
benefits
should
be
conducted
within
the
context
of
the
potential
benefits
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
113
and
risks
of
alternative
conservation
and
recovery
measures,
including
consideration
of
comparative
response
time
frames
and
relative
flexibility
to
adopt
adaptive
management
approaches.

The
approach
assumed
in
this
plan
is
directed
at
preservation
and
rebuilding
of
summer
chum
stocks,
which
are
the
individual
components
of
the
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
ESU
constructed
by
NMFS
for
ESA
consideration.
The
stock
by
stock
supplementation
and
risk/
benefit
assessment
approaches
pursued
in
this
plan
are
viewed
by
the
co­
managers
as
the
most
effective
means
to
assess
and
recover
"
at
risk"
stocks,
which
are
the
primary
focus.
However,
the
immediate
need
to
preserve
and
recover
these
individual
"
at
risk"
summer
chum
stocks
is
viewed
as
more
important
than
a
prolonged
consideration
of
the
likelihood
for
the
occurrence
of
risks
or
benefits.
The
view
carried
in
the
plan
is
the
need
to
act,
accepting
potential
risks
of
negative
consequences
associated
with
artificial
propagation
practices
(
the
likelihood
of
which
are
minimized
through
measures
proposed
here),
rather
than
allowing
further
extirpations.

The
co­
managers
have
endeavored
to
meet
recommendations
contained
in
Waples
(
1996)
that
are
aimed
at
region­
wide
risk
considerations
through
a
focus
on
only
"
at
risk"
stocks
for
supplementation,
and
application
of
risk
aversion
measures
that
are
responsive
to
among
population
genetic
diversity
concerns
(
e.
g.,
use
of
broodstocks
only
once
for
reintroductions,
maintaining
key
populations
without
supplementation,
and
monitoring
aimed
at
assessment
of
straying).
Section
3.2.3
describes
anticipated
risks
to
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
(
considered
in
aggregate)
that
may
result
from
the
supplementation
approach,
and
how
those
risks
may
be
minimized.
Again,
the
stock
by
stock
approach
assumed
in
the
plan
is
viewed
as
the
most
appropriate
means
to
assess
risks,
and
to
preserve
and
recover
the
individual
populations
that
comprise
the
ESA­
listed
summer
chum.

Finally,
the
co­
managers
believe
the
status
of
several
summer
chum
stocks
warrants
immediate
intervention
using
supplementation
to
prevent
further
extirpations.
Although
other
actions
directed
at
harvest
and
habitat
management
are
proposed
through
the
overall
plan
to
act
on
recovery,
the
extremely
poor
status
of
some
stocks
calls
for
an
immediate
significant
increase
in
abundances;
a
response
only
available
through
the
use
of
artificial
production.
The
supplementation
approach
suggested
is
flexible,
incorporating
monitoring
and
evaluation
to
allow
for
any
changes
needed
under
the
context
of
adaptive
management.

3.2.2.2
When
to
Modify
or
Stop
a
Supplementation
or
Reintroduction
Program
Of
critical
importance
in
the
development
of
a
stock
supplementation
or
reintroduction
plan
is
agreement
on
criteria
that
will
be
used
to
determine
when
programs
will
be
modified
or
terminated.
By
definition,
supplementation
and
reintroduction
are
to
be
used
as
much
as
possible
as
short
term
means
to
preserve,
rebuild,
or
restore
a
naturally
producing
population
through
the
use
of
artificial
propagation.
The
design
is
to
limit
the
duration
of
the
programs
to
minimize
the
risk
that
adverse
effects
on
the
wild
population
result
from
the
use
of
artificial
propagation.
On
the
other
hand,
the
program
must
be
allowed
to
progress
for
a
sufficient
duration
of
time
to
allow
the
population
targeted
for
rebuilding
or
reintroduction
to
be
sufficiently
recovered
or
established.
Also,
as
the
program
progresses
there
should
be
an
allowance
for
adequate
evaluation
of
whether
the
program
is
effective
and
for
adaptive
management
of
the
program
as
a
result
of
evaluation
findings.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
114
The
duration
of
a
supplementation
or
reintroduction
program
may
be
based
on
genetic
impact
reduction
objectives,
established
abundance
criteria,
or
an
adaptive
framework
that
will
allow
adjustment
of
the
duration
of
the
program
based
upon
performance.
The
preferred
method
for
defining
when
a
supplementation
or
reintroduction
program
should
be
modified
or
terminated
will
be
an
adaptive
approach,
combining
genetic
impact
reduction
and
numerical
return
goal
approaches
with
the
tenets
of
adaptive
management.

Adaptive
Management
Approach
The
selected
approach
includes
decision
factors
that
may
be
applied
as
the
program
progresses,
and
as
data
from
the
program
are
collected,
to
allow
adjustment
of
a
program
(
e.
g.,
scaling
back
of
hatchery
release
numbers
as
natural
origin
recruits
(
NORs)
increase),
or
termination
sooner
than
defined
through
genetic
or
numerically­
based
elements.
This
approach
is
generally
consistent
with
factors
presented
within
Hard
et
al.
(
1992)
that
indicate
parameters
to
be
considered
in
assessing
the
utility
of
a
supplementation
program.
The
following
standards
("
a"
through
"
f")
will
be
applied
to
determine
when
a
supplementation
or
reintroduction
program
will
be
terminated
or
modified:

f)
The
maximum
duration
of
regional
supplementation
programs
will
be
based
on
criteria
that
minimize
the
likelihood
that
potentially
deleterious
genetic
changes
occur
in
the
wild
population.

This
objective
will
be
met
by
applying
a
three
generation
maximum
duration
(
12
years)
for
summer
chum
supplementation
programs
for
all
projects.
It
is
believed
that
a
three
generation
maximum
duration
will
limit
the
risk
of
adverse
within
and
among
population
genetic
effects
that
could
harm
the
target
or
conspecific
wild
populations
(
S.
Phelps,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.,
April,
1998).
This
limit
will
also
provide
two
generations
(
eight
years)
of
adult
returns
to
assess
the
program,
prior
to
stopping
egg
takes.

An
exception
to
this
three
generation
maximum,
leading
to
an
increase
in
the
duration
of
a
program,
may
be
acceptable
if
there
have
been
catastrophic
declines
in
habitat
condition,
or
if
other
uncontrollable
factors
affecting
summer
chum
survival
emerge
during
the
course
of
a
supplementation
effort,
making
sustainable
natural
production
unlikely.
In
such
a
situation,
the
risk
of
the
project
would
be
re­
evaluated
and
measured
against
jeopardy
to
the
status
of
the
targeted
stock
that
is
likely
if
the
program
were
terminated.
A
consideration
of
whether
the
supplementation
program
should
be
shifted
to
a
gene
pool
conservation
or
captive
brood
program
would
be
made.

If,
for
any
reason,
a
project
is
proposed
to
extend
longer
than
the
three
generation
maximum,
the
standards
for
conducting
the
project
will
default
to
the
more
rigorous
criteria
provided
in
Appendix
Report
3.3,
Genetic
Hazards
Discussion.
These
standards
(
the
"
or"
criteria
required
when
the
three
generation
rule
is
exceeded
and
it
therefore
no
longer
applies)
are
designed
to
further
minimize
the
risk
of
adverse
effects
of
the
project
to
the
target
and
neighboring
summer
chum
populations.
With
deferral
from
the
three
generation
maximum
project
duration,
application
of
more
rigorous
standards
becomes
necessary
to
avoid
substantial
domestication
pressure
on
target
populations,
and
to
minimize
the
risk
of
masking
of
wild
fish
population
status.
Compliance
with
these
standards
will
require
changes
in
summer
chum
mating,
rearing
and
release
methods
used
in
the
operation
to
closely
mimic
spawning,
rearing,
and
migrational
traits
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
115
observed
in
the
wild.
Limits
on
the
numbers
of
hatchery­
origin
fish
allowed
to
spawn
naturally,
and
on
the
areas
within
a
watershed
where
they
are
allowed
to
spawn,
will
also
need
to
be
applied.
This
plan
defines
supplementation
methods
that
allow
projects
to
be
integrated
with
a
low
risk
of
perturbing
the
target
and
non­
target
summer
chum
populations.
Artificial
production
methods
necessary
to
effect
operational
changes
required
for
a
project
proposed
to
extend
beyond
the
three
generation
maximum
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
plan.

g)
If
adult
return
targets
are
met
before
the
three
maximum
generation
limit
is
reached,
then
the
program
may
be
reconsidered,
and
may
be
reduced
or
terminated.

Adult
return
targets,
defined
specifically
for
each
project,
will
be
based
on
the
magnitude
of
total
adult
escapements
to
consider
program
reductions,
and
on
escapement
of
only
natural
origin
recruits
(
NORs)
resulting
from
the
supplementation
program
and
wild­
origin
fish
to
consider
program
termination.
Program
reduction
or
cessation
determinations
may
therefore
be
made
as
follows:

1.
When
the
total
summer
chum
adult
escapement
meets
or
exceeds
1974­
78
average
escapement
for
the
stock
(
see
Appendix
Table
1.1)
for
four
consecutive
years,
the
desired
number
of
juvenile
hatchery­
origin
fish
produced
for
the
program
will
be
reduced,
after
considering
circumstances
bearing
on
the
sustainability
of
the
population
(
such
as
habitat
condition).
The
1974
through
1978
reference
period
was
chosen
because
relatively
reliable
escapement
estimates
(
that
serve
as
the
basis
for
run
size
reconstruction
­
see
Part
One)
were
not
generally
available
before
1974
and
because
substantial
declines
in
escapement
and
run
size
occurred
in
Hood
Canal
following
1978
(
see
Part
Two,
Region­
wide
Factors
for
Decline);

2.
When
the
total
number
of
NORs
resulting
from
the
supplementation
program
escaping
to
the
production
stream
and
wild­
origin
fish
meets
or
exceeds
1974­
78
average
escapement
for
the
stock
(
see
Appendix
Table
1.1)
for
four
consecutive
brood
years,
the
supplementation
program
will
be
terminated,
after
considering
circumstances
bearing
on
the
sustainability
of
the
population;

3.
When
the
adult
return
target
used
to
indicate
when
a
supplementation
program
should
be
reduced
or
terminated
is
based
on
another
number
that
will
assume
precedence
over
the
goals
defined
in
"
1."
above.
This
adult
return
target
may
be
derived
from
additional
assessments,
including
productivity
relative
to
available
habitat
or
further
consideration
of
what
constitutes
recovery
in
future
years.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
116
h)
Supplementation
and
reintroduction
programs
may
be
terminated
if
they
are
no
longer
believed
to
be
necessary
for
timely
recovery,
for
reasons
other
than
the
success
of
supplementation
or
reintroduction,
including
improvements
in
ocean
survival
or
habitat
condition.

i)
The
supplementation
program
will
be
modified
or
terminated
if
appreciable
genetic
or
ecological
differences
between
hatchery
and
wild
fish
have
emerged
during
the
recovery
program.

j)
The
supplementation
program
will
be
modified
or
terminated
if
there
is
evidence
that
the
program
is
impeding
recovery.

k)
The
supplementation
and
reintroduction
programs
will
be
modified
or
terminated
if
there
is
evidence
that
the
program
is
negatively
impacting
a
non­
target
ESA­
listed
population.

3.2.2.3
How
to
Supplement
­
General
Guiding
Principles
Included
within
this
section
are
general
criteria
describing
how
supplementation
and
reintroduction
programs
will
be
conducted.
A
presentation
of
specific
criteria,
expanding
on
the
general
guidelines
provided
below
is
included
in
Appendix
Report
3.1.
The
appendix
describes
in
detail
the
criteria
and
methods
to
be
used
in
structuring
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction
programs
proposed
within
this
plan.

General
Approach
The
desired
strategy
will
be
to
phase
implementation
of
individual
and
regional
programs,
rather
than
commence
programs
at
maximum
levels.
Phased
implementation,
including
step­
wise
initiation
of
supplementation
programs
within
the
region
or
the
initial
release
of
lower
than
goal
numbers
of
supplemented
fish
into
a
specific
watershed,
will
allow
assessment
of
the
initial
effects
of
each
program
in
achieving
goals,
while
minimizing
risk
to
wild
populations.
Programs
can
be
adaptively
managed
in
this
manner,
allowing
for
adjustments
to
be
made
through
evaluation
of
different
levels
of
production.
The
parties
will
assemble
a
regional
program
initiation
schedule
and
annual
fish
release
schedules
for
each
program
to
implement
this
desired
adaptive
approach.

Populations
Not
Subject
to
Supplementation
In
developing
this
plan,
the
importance
of
maintaining
non­
supplemented
wild
populations
that
comprise
a
representative
spectrum
of
existing
diversity
will
be
recognized.
As
a
result
of
the
proposed
risk
assessment
process,
certain
wild
summer
chum
populations
will
be
maintained
in
a
natural
state
without
the
assistance
of
supplementation.
Consistent
with
the
desire
to
avoid
further
loss
of
populations
within
the
region,
all
stocks
are
subject
to
the
above
described
assessment
process
that
prioritizes
stocks
as
candidates
for
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects.
Populations
at
risk
will
rank
high
as
candidates.
The
more
stable
and
larger
populations
will
rank
lower,
and
these
populations
will
not
be
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
117
subject
to
supplementation.
The
status
of
all
populations
will
be
monitored,
and
following
the
principle
of
adaptive
management,
any
observed
changes
in
status
will
elicit
a
review
of
the
situation
and
appropriate
management
action
consistent
with
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
plan.

Stocks
not
selected
for
supplementation
will
be
identified
in
section
3.2.3.4,
which
sets
forth
specific
supplementation
program
implementation
plans
for
each
summer
chum
population.
Relatively
strong
wild
populations
maintained
through
the
above
approach
may
still
be
used
as
donor
stocks
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
into
watersheds
where
the
original
population
has
been
extirpated
to
help
maintain
among
population
diversity
in
the
region.
Procedures
applied
to
collect
broodstock
for
this
purpose
will
be
consistent
with
restrictions
developed
to
protect
founding
populations
under
this
plan.

Strategies
For
Minimizing
Potential
Deleterious
Effects
This
section
describes
measures
that
will
be
taken
to
minimize
potentially
adverse
effects
on
wild
populations
that
may
result
from
the
supplementation
programs.
Strategies
described
in
Busack
and
Currens
(
1995),
Cuenco
et
al.
(
1993),
Kapuscinski
and
Miller
(
1993),
Waples
(
1996)
and
Hard
et
al.
(
1992)
were
used
as
guidance
for
defining
risk
aversion
methods.

a)
Partial/
total
hatchery
failure
Catastrophic
loss
of
summer
chum
under
propagation
in
a
hatchery
may
occur
as
a
result
of
de­
watering
due
to
power
failure
or
screen
fouling,
flooding,
or
poor
fish
cultural
practices.
One
method
that
may
be
used
to
minimize
the
risk
of
catastrophic
loss
to
the
supplemented
population
is
propagation
of
the
population
at
more
than
one
location.
Spreading
the
risk
by
culturing
the
stock
at
another
location,
including
for
the
purposes
of
reintroduction,
will
increase
the
likelihood
that
the
genome
will
be
retained
in
the
event
of
a
catastrophic
loss
at
one
facility.

Additional
methods
may
be
employed
to
minimize
the
likelihood
of
hatchery
failure.
Examples
may
include
propagation
of
summer
chum
at
facilities
having
the
following
characteristics:

C
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
response
to
power
or
facility
failures.
C
Low
pressure/
low
water
level
alarms
are
functioning
for
water
supplies
serving
summer
chum
rearing
areas.
C
Back­
up
generators
are
available
on­
site
in
the
event
of
power
loss.
C
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
summer
chum
are
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
health
methods.
C
The
requirement
that
new
hatchery
facilities
propagating
summer
chum
be
sited
in
areas
with
a
low
risk
of
flooding.

Summer
chum
hatcheries
relying
on
gravity­
fed
water
supplies
will
be
mainly
concerned
with
flooding,
low
water
events,
or
plugged
intake
screening.
Although
these
facilities
lack
power
loss
risks,
the
sites
should
be
monitored
on
a
twice
daily
basis
(
and
continuously
during
flood
events)
to
guard
against
fish
loss.
Remote
site
incubators
at
either
gravity­
fed
or
well
water
sites
may
be
stocked
with
eyed
eggs
only,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
118
allowing
rearing
from
fertilized
egg
to
eye­
up
to
occur
at
larger
hatchery
facilities
where
flow
conditions
and
water
quality
may
be
better
controlled.

b)
Predation
Chum
salmon
are
opportunistic
feeders,
and
may
prey
on
fish
as
sub­
adults
when
in
the
ocean
(
Salo
1991).
However,
predation
on
wild­
origin
chum
fry
by
juvenile,
supplemented
summer
chum
released
at
the
life
stage
and
time
proposed
in
the
regional
supplementation
program
is
an
unlikely
event
during
their
fresh
or
marine
water
migration
period
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Juvenile
chum
salmon
migrating
out
of
Hood
Canal
at
a
size
characteristic
for
hatchery­
origin
fish
(>
45
mm)
generally
feed
upon
neritic
zooplankton
in
open
water
areas,
and
fish
of
any
life
stage
have
not
been
shown
to
be
an
important
prey
item
(
Simenstad
et
al.
1980).
In
addition,
salmonid
predators
prey
on
food
items
less
than
or
equal
to
one­
third
of
their
length
(
Witty
et
al.
1995).
The
average
size
range
for
supplemented
fed
chum
fry
liberated
at
390­
450
fpp
(
fish
per
pound)
is
50­
53
mm
(
Fuss
1997),
compared
to
a
size
of
37­
41
mm
for
newly
emerged
and
migrating
wild
summer
chum
fry
(
Tynan
1997).
Supplementation
programs
will
continue
to
release
summer
chum
at
a
target
average
size
of
53
mm
as
a
strategy
to
ensure
that
predation
on
wild
fry
is
not
likely.

Large
concentrations
of
migrating
juvenile
or
adult
hatchery­
origin
summer
chum
originating
from
the
proposed
programs
may
attract
predators
(
birds,
fish,
and
seals)
and
consequently
contribute
indirectly
to
predation
of
wild
fish
(
Steward
and
Bjornn
1990).
The
presence
of
large
numbers
of
hatchery
fish
may
also
alter
wild
summer
chum
behavioral
patterns,
potentially
influencing
their
vulnerability
and
susceptibility
to
predation.
Alternatively,
a
mass
of
hatchery­
origin
summer
chum
migrating
through
an
area
may
overwhelm
established
predator
populations,
providing
a
beneficial,
protective
effect
to
co­
occurring
wildorigin
fish.
Proposed
juvenile
release
levels
from
each
summer
chum
program
are
of
a
small
magnitude
(<
500,000
fed
fry
per
year)
relative
to
the
area
into
which
the
fish
are
being
released
(
the
marine
waters
of
Hood
Canal
or
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca).
Also,
the
hatchery­
origin
fish
leave
freshwater
areas
where
they
might
intermingle
at
relatively
high
densities
with
wild
fish
within
hours
post­
release,
and,
due
to
their
larger
size,
hatchery­
origin
fed
fry
will
not
likely
migrate
in
the
same
estuarine
areas
as
wild
fry.
It
is
unlikely
that
the
release
of
hatchery
summer
chum
will
lead
to
an
increased
attraction
of
predators
to
wild
fish.
(
See
also
section
3.3;
Ecological
Interactions.)

c)
Competition
The
risk
that
supplemented
chum
will
compete
with
wild
summer
chum
fry
for
food
will
be
minimized
through
the
release
of
hatchery
fish
at
a
larger
size
than
the
wild
fry.
Larger
(>
50
mm)
chum
fry
have
been
shown
to
prey
predominately
on
pelagic
organisms
in
Hood
Canal,
whereas
newly
emerged,
smaller
chum
fry
feed
on
epibenthic
organisms
in
the
estuary.
Larger
hatchery­
origin
chum
have
also
been
shown
to
migrate
and
forage
within
a
different
estuarine
realm
(
offshore)
than
wild
fry,
which
initially
migrate
in
very
shallow
nearshore
areas
(
as
summarized
in
Tynan
1997).
These
differential
migration
behavior
patterns
have
been
reported
in
beach
seine
and
tow
net
studies
conducted
in
Hood
Canal
throughout
the
February
through
June
summer
and
fall
chum
emigration
periods
(
Schreiner
1977;
Bax
et
al.
1978;
Bax
et
al.
1979;
Bax
et
al.
1980).
Spatial
separation
between
the
larger
hatchery
chum
and
smaller
wild
fry
minimizes
the
likelihood
for
competition
for
food
between
hatchery­
origin
and
wild
chum
fry
during
emigration.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
119
Hatchery­
origin
adults
may
compete
with
wild­
origin
chum
for
spawning
sites
or
access
to
mates.
This
interaction
is
not
viewed
as
negative
in
the
context
of
this
plan,
as
intermixing
between
supplemented
and
wild
broodstock
of
the
same
stock
on
the
spawning
grounds
is
an
anticipated
and
desirable
consequence
of
the
supplementation
program.
This
inter­
mixing
on
the
spawning
grounds
meets
the
objective
of
the
supplementation
program
of
increasing
natural
production
in
the
region.
Straying
of
non­
indigenous,
supplemented
adult
summer
chum
between
watersheds
is
not
expected
to
be
a
significant
concern
regarding
competition.
Naturally­
produced
chum
may
exhibit
straying
levels
ranging
from
2­
46%
(
Tallman
and
Healey
1994).
However,
hatchery­
origin
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
have
demonstrated
a
high
fidelity
for
their
stream
of
origin
(
Fuss
and
Hopley
1991;
WDFW
data
for
QNFH­
origin
marked
summer
chum
1997).
In
addition,
selective
breeding
that
may
occur
in
hatcheries
using
gametes
from
returned
migrants
has
been
shown
to
result
in
a
decrease
in
straying
with
time
(
Tallman
and
Healey
1994).

d)
Disease
Under
certain
conditions,
hatchery
effluent
has
the
potential
to
transport
fish
pathogens
out
of
the
hatchery,
where
natural
fish
may
be
exposed
to
infection.
Interactions
between
hatchery
fish
and
natural
fish
in
the
environment
may
also
result
in
the
transmission
of
pathogens,
if
either
the
hatchery
or
natural
fish
are
harboring
a
fish
disease.
This
latter
impact
may
occur
in
watersheds
where
hatchery
fish
are
planted
and
throughout
the
freshwater
and
marine
migration
corridor
where
hatchery
and
wild
fish
may
interact.

As
the
pathogens
responsible
for
fish
diseases
are
present
in
both
hatchery
and
natural
populations,
there
is
some
uncertainty
associated
with
determining
the
source
of
the
pathogen
(
Williams
and
Amend
1976,
Hastein
and
Lindstad
1991).
Hatchery­
origin
fish
may
have
an
increased
risk
of
carrying
fish
disease
pathogens
because
of
relatively
high
rearing
densities
that
the
fish
are
subjected
to
in
the
hatcheries
and
resultant
stresses
to
the
fish.
Under
natural,
low
density
conditions,
most
pathogens
do
not
lead
to
a
disease
outbreak.
When
fish
disease
outbreaks
do
occur,
they
are
often
triggered
by
stressful
hatchery
rearing
conditions,
or
by
a
deleterious
change
in
the
environment
(
Saunders
1991).
Consequently,
it
is
possible
that
the
release
of
hatchery
fish
may
lead
to
the
loss
of
natural
fish,
if
the
hatchery
fish
are
carrying
a
pathogen,
if
that
pathogen
is
transferred
to
the
natural
fish,
and
if
the
transfer
of
the
pathogen
leads
to
a
disease
outbreak.
Although
hatchery­
origin
populations
may
be
considered
to
be
reservoirs
for
disease
pathogens
because
of
their
elevated
exposure
to
high
rearing
densities
and
stress,
there
is
little
evidence
to
suggest
that
diseases
are
routinely
transmitted
from
hatchery
to
wild
fish
(
Steward
and
Bjornn
1990).

Supplementation
projects
implemented
under
this
conservation
plan
will
be
conducted
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
Pacific
Northwest
Fish
Health
Protection
Committee
(
PNFHPC
1989)
and
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
of
the
Fisheries
Co­
Managers
of
Washington
State
(
NWIFC
and
WDFW
1998)
guidelines.
These
guidelines
define
rearing,
sanitation,
and
fish
health
practices
that
minimize
the
incidence
of
disease
outbreaks
in
propagated
populations,
thereby
decreasing
the
risk
of
fish
pathogen
transmission
to
co­
occurring
wild
populations.
All
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
be
inspected
by
WDFW
or
USFWS
fish
pathologists
to
certify
their
disease
status
and
health
condition
prior
to
liberation.
The
release
of
viable
healthy
summer
chum
smolts
is
promoted
through
compliance
with
these
fish
health
maintenance
guidelines.

e)
Loss
of
genetic
variability
between
populations
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
120
There
is
a
concern
that
remaining
locally
adapted
wild
summer
chum
populations
in
the
region
may
be
replaced
by
a
smaller
number
of
relatively
homogenous
populations
as
a
result
of
supplementation.
This
replacement
may
occur
when
hatchery­
origin
fish
mate
with
wild
fish
that
are
unrelated
or
distantly
related.
This
consolidation
and
possible
homogenization
of
the
populations
may
lead
to
decreased
fitness,
limiting
the
potential
of
the
species
to
adapt
to
new
environmental
conditions,
thereby
reducing
its
capacity
to
buffer
the
total
productivity
of
the
resource
against
periodic
or
unpredictable
changes
(
Cuenco
et
al.
1993
quoting
Riggs
1990).

An
objective
of
this
supplementation
plan
is
to
maintain
existing
diversity
among
the
region's
summer
chum
populations.
Diversity­
based
management
measures
will
be
implemented
to
meet
this
objective
for
each
supplementation
program
that
is
proposed.
These
measures
will
minimize
the
likelihood
for
outbreeding
depression
and
potential
negative
effects
on
wild
fish
fitness.

Loss
of
genetic
variability
between
populations,
and
the
potential
for
and
consequences
of
outbreeding
depression,
will
be
minimized
through
application
of
the
following
measures:

1.
Supplementation
program
for
streams
selected
under
this
plan
will
propagate
and
release
only
the
indigenous
population.
2.
The
transfers
of
each
donor
stock
for
reintroduction
will
be
limited
to
only
one
target
watershed
outside
of
the
range
of
the
donor
stock
to
avoid
the
situation
that
one
or
few
stocks
within
the
region
predominate.
3.
Supplemented
and
reintroduced
populations
will
be
acclimated
to
the
watershed
desired
for
out­
planting
to
ensure
that
the
summer
chum
retain
a
high
fidelity
to
the
targeted
stream;
4.
For
reintroduced
populations,
where
logistically
and
technically
feasible
and
in
accordance
with
the
tenets
of
this
plan,
local
adaptation
should
be
fostered
by
using
returning
spawners
rather
than
the
original
donor
population
as
broodstock
if
the
reintroduction
program
is
still
in
progress.
5.
Unsupplemented
populations
will
be
recognized,
representing
significant
proportions
of
the
existing
total
abundance
and
diversity.
6.
All
summer
chum
produced
in
hatchery
programs
will
be
marked
to
allow
for
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
adult
returns.

f)
Loss
of
genetic
variability
within
populations
An
additional
concern
regarding
the
effects
of
supplementation
on
wild
populations
is
the
loss
of
genetic
variability
within
a
population
as
a
result
of
inbreeding
depression,
genetic
drift,
or
domestication
selection.
Within
population
diversity
loss
may
occur
when
mating
of
related
individuals
leads
to
an
increase
in
the
number
of
homozygotes
at
the
expense
of
heterozygotes.
Pairing
of
deleterious
recessive
alleles
may
result,
potentially
leading
to
a
loss
in
fitness
of
the
supplemented
or
natural
population
(
inbreeding
depression).
Diversity
within
a
population
may
be
altered
or
lost
through
non­
random
selection
or
inadequate
collection
of
broodstock
for
use
in
a
supplementation
program,
potentially
leading
to
changes
in
gene
frequencies
(
genetic
drift).
Diversity
may
also
be
altered
or
lost
through
artificial
selection
that
may
occur
when
the
population
is
in
the
hatchery,
causing
selection
for
hatchery
production
traits
that
reduce
the
fitness
of
the
population
for
the
natural
environment
(
domestication)
(
Berejikian
1995;
Reisenbichler
and
Brown
1995).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
121
The
following
diversity­
based
management
methods
will
be
implemented
to
reduce
the
potential
for
alteration
or
loss
of
genetic
diversity
within
the
supplemented
population:

1.
The
duration
of
each
supplementation
program
will
be
limited
to
a
maximum
of
three
chum
salmon
generations
(~
12
years)
to
minimize
the
likelihood
for
divergence
between
hatchery
broodstocks
and
target
natural
stocks.
2.
Adults
for
broodstock
will
be
collected
so
that
they
represent
an
unbiased
sample
of
the
naturally
spawning
donor
population
with
respect
to
run
timing,
size,
age,
sex
ratio,
and
any
other
traits
identified
as
important
for
long
term
fitness.
Special
emphasis
will
be
placed
on
ensuring
that
the
age
group
structure
and
sex
ratio
of
collections
are
as
similar
as
possible
to
those
of
adult
returns
of
the
founding
population
for
the
given
week
of
the
run.
3.
Returning
adults
produced
by
a
supplementation
program
will
be
used,
with
natural
chum,
as
broodstock
over
the
duration
of
the
program
(
9
years
post
initial
return
of
three
year
olds).
The
three
generation
limit
for
the
duration
of
a
program
is
intended
to
address
the
concern
that
repeated
enhancement
of
the
same
population
segment
will
result
in
a
decrease
in
effective
population
size.
It
also
limits
to
a
few
generations,
the
exposure
of
natural
fish
to
the
potentially
deleterious
selective
effects
of
hatchery
conditions
(
i.
e.
domestication
effects).
4.
Spawning
protocols,
including
collection
of
broodstock
proportionally
across
the
breadth
of
the
natural
return,
randomizing
matings
with
respect
to
size
and
phenotypic
traits,
application
of
at
least
1:
1
male­
female
mating
schemes
(
Kapuscinski
and
Miller
1993
­
"
Spawning
Guidelines"),
and
avoidance
of
intentional
selection
for
any
life
history
or
morphological
trait
(
Appendix
3.1),
will
be
applied
that
ensure
that
hatchery
broodstocks
are
representative
of
wild
stock
diversity.
Spawning
protocols
will
equalize
as
much
as
possible
the
contributions
of
parents
to
the
next
breeding
generation.
5.
Table
3.2
presents
broodstock
collection
objectives,
based
on
donor
population
size,
that
will
be
applied
to
help
retain
genetic
diversity.
Minimum
broodstock
collection
objectives
are
set
to
allow
for
the
spawning
of
the
number
of
adults
needed
to
minimize
loss
of
some
alleles
and
the
fixation
of
others
(
see
"
Table
2"
in
Kapuscinski
and
Miller
1993).
Maximum
collection
levels
are
set
to
allow
for
at
least
50%
of
escaping
fish
to
spawn
naturally
each
year
(
populations
>
200).
For
small
populations,
no
maximum
is
set
as
an
emergency
measure.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
122
Table
3.2
Allowable
broodstock
collection
levels
as
determined
by
donor
stock
population
size.

Donor
Population
Size
Allowable
Broodstock
Collection
Levels
(
Number
of
individual
fish)
Minimum
Maximum
<
100
25
pairs
none
100
­
200
25
pairs
50
pairs
>
200
50
pairs
50
%
of
total
return
6.
Hatchery
methods
will
mimic
the
natural
environment
to
the
extent
feasible
(
e.
g.
use
of
substrate
during
incubation
and
exposure
to
ambient
river
water
temperature
regimes
during
rearing).
Hatchery
rearing
will
be
limited
to
a
maximum
of
75
days
post
swim­
up,
to
minimize
the
level
of
intervention
into
the
natural
chum
life
cycle,
ensuring
that
the
potential
for
domestication
selection
is
minimized.
7.
All
summer
chum
produced
in
hatchery
programs
will
be
marked
to
allow
for
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
adult
returns.

Allowable
Release
Levels
The
scale
of
juvenile
chum
release
levels
from
each
supplementation
program
will
be
guided
by
the
broodstock
collection
principles
outlined
above
and
the
condition
of
the
natural
summer
chum
population.
Chum
release
levels
may
be
determined
by
juvenile
production
needed
to
achieve
adult
returns
judged
adequate,
based
on
productivity
assessments
of
habitat
critical
for
summer
chum
in
the
target
watersheds.
The
number
of
chum
fry
to
be
stocked
must
match
the
biological
productivity
of
the
habitat
to
ensure
an
adequate,
but
not
excessive
level
of
seeding
with
respect
to
the
capacity
of
the
natural
environments
of
the
fish
(
Cuenco
et
al.
1993).
For
juvenile
summer
chum,
this
latter
objective
would
also
apply
to
the
nearshore,
estuarine
habitat,
which
is
an
important,
limiting
factor
determining
chum
fry
to
adult
survival
(
Bakkala
1970;
Salo
1991).
In
the
absence
of
habitat
productivity
assessments
for
critical
summer
chum
habitat
in
the
region,
a
target
production
level
for
each
watershed
based
on
achieving
historical
adult
run
sizes
is
used
to
set
the
upper
limit
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
program
release
levels.

a)
Basis
for
determining
target
planting
levels.

Target
planting
levels
will
be
set
for
each
program
based
on
specific
considerations
of
broodstock
collection
and
the
desirability
of
a
phased
development
over
time.
In
certain
cases,
addressing
the
risk
of
extirpation
for
a
supplementation
program
that
is
scaled
too
small
for
an
extremely
depressed
founding
population
may
take
precedence
over
the
desire
to
preserve
genetic
diversity
of
the
founding
naturalspawning
population
in
setting
target
levels.
The
target
numbers
of
chum
fry
for
release
into
individual
watersheds
would
be
defined
as
follows:

1.
The
number
of
fry
estimated
to
produce
historical
run
size
levels
upon
return
as
adults;
that
is,
the
number
of
fry
needed
to
produce
the
number
of
returning
adults
that
will
equate
to
the
1974­
78
average
run
size
for
the
watershed
(
from
Appendix
Report
3.1,
Appendix
Table
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
123
3.1.1).
It
is
recognized
that
actual
release
levels
may
be
less,
commensurate
with
staging
of
production
that
may
be
necessary
before
the
target
release
level
can
be
met.
2.
For
small
populations
(<
700
escapement),
the
number
of
fry
needed
to
assure
a
minimum
population
size
equaling
or
exceeding
700,
which
is
43,000
­
86,000,
depending
on
assumed
fry
to
adult
return
survival
rates
(
see
"
Footnote
1",
Appendix
Report
3.1,
Appendix
Table
3.1.1
for
an
explanation
of
how
700
fish
population
size
break­
point
was
derived).
3.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
results
for
each
supplementation
program
will
be
used
to
adaptively
manage
production
strategies,
potentially
leading
to
changes
in
annual
production
levels.

b)
Year­
to­
year
consistency
of
the
supplementation
programs.

Consistent
with
the
objective
of
applying
supplementation
as
a
temporary
measure,
the
parties
shall
endeavor
to
produce
fish
for
supplementation
programs
at
consistent
levels,
at
or
near
goals
between
years,
leaving
no
"
holes"
in
production
for
the
term
of
the
program.
This
strategy
will
help
ensure
the
effectiveness
of
the
program
in
quickly
boosting
abundances,
and
should
assist
in
maintaining
the
genetic
character
of
the
population
between
brood
years.

Disposition
of
Excess
Individuals
Annual
adult
broodstock
collection
and
juvenile
fish
release
levels
associated
with
each
supplementation
or
reintroduction
program
shall
be
targeted
within
+/­
10%
of
levels
derived
through
application
of
adult
collection
and
fry
release
criteria
in
this
plan
(
Table
3.2
and
Appendix
Report
3.1,
Appendix
Table
3.1.1).
In
the
event
that
circumstances
such
as
unanticipated
high
adult
returns
or
high
egg
to
fry
survival
rates
lead
to
the
possession
of
fish
in
excess
of
program
objectives
determined
by
genetic
and
ecological
risk
assessments,
supplementation
program
operators
will
adhere
to
the
following
procedures:

a)
Adult
fish
1.
Fish
collected
at
weirs,
or
captured
through
other
broodstock
collection
procedures,
in
excess
of
10%
of
daily,
weekly,
or
total
program
goals
shall
be
returned
to
the
natural
environment
at
the
point
of
capture.
The
sex
ratio
of
fish
returned
must
be
equivalent
to
the
ratio
observed
at
the
time
of
escapement,
collection,
or
capture.
2.
If
enabled
by
identification
of
hatchery
fish
through
mass
marking,
measures
may
be
applied
to
cull
surplus
hatchery­
origin
fish
returning
to
a
watershed
in
excess
of
program
needs.

b)
Juvenile
fish
1.
In
the
event
that
the
total
number
of
eyed
eggs
or
juvenile
fish
are
projected
to
result
in
a
release
in
excess
of
the
fish
release
goal
(>
110%
of
the
target
production
number),
surplus
eggs
or
fish
shall
be
removed
from
the
population
in
a
random
manner
and
destroyed.
2.
Surplus
fish
will
be
randomly
removed
in
a
manner
that
accounts
for
the
need
to
retain
a
population
that
is
representative
and
proportionate
with
the
timing
and
spawning
dates
of
adult
returns
contributing
to
egg
takes.
The
potential
for
inadvertent
selection
for
specific
traits
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
124
during
collection
of
fish
for
transfer
or
culling
will
be
minimized
by
following
surplus
fish
removal
procedures
presented
in
Kapuscinski
and
Miller
(
1993).

Maintenance
of
Ecological
and
Genetic
Characteristics
of
the
Natural
Population
For
summer
chum,
the
technologies
used
to
propagate
fish
will
be
designed
to
ensure
that
rearing
units
and
procedures
are
as
non­
invasive
into
the
natural
life
cycle
of
the
fish
as
possible.
The
duration
of
rearing
within
the
hatchery
environment
will
be
short,
extending
from
incubation
through
early
fry
rearing.
Incubation
and
rearing
structures
and
procedures
will
mimic
natural
processes,
while
maintaining
the
survival
advantage
anticipated
for
fish
produced
in
a
controlled
environment.
Following
are
general
principles
that
will
be
applied
to
meet
objectives
calling
for
maintenance
of
natural
population
characteristics
for
fish
taken
into
the
hatchery
environment
(
generally
from
Kapuscinski
and
Miller
1993).
Specific
guidelines,
describing
actions
that
will
be
applied
to
meet
genetic
and
ecological
hazard
reduction
and
population
rebuilding
strategies,
are
presented
in
Appendix
Report
3.1.

a)
Broodstock
collection
and
spawning
procedures:

Collect
and
spawn
broodstock
that
are
fully
representative
of
the
genetic
and
ecological
characteristics
of
the
target
population
(
supplementation)
or
that
show
the
greatest
possible
similarity
in
genetic
lineage,
life
history
patterns,
and
ecology
of
the
originating
environment
(
reintroductions).
Numbers
to
collect
and
procedures
for
spawning
will
be
consistent
with
risk
aversion
measures
to
be
implemented
to
minimize
potentially
deleterious
genetic
effects
to
the
target
population
(
see
Loss
of
genetic
variability
within
populations,
page
120).

1.
Collect
an
appropriate
number
of
fish
in
a
manner
that
minimizes
creating
genetic
differences
between
the
hatchery
and
wild
spawning
portions
of
the
population
and
potential
future
genetic
alterations
of
the
overall
population.
a.
Determine
the
minimum
sample
size
required
to
measure
if
allele
frequencies
will
only
vary
by
a
given
proportion,
or;
b.
Where
applicable,
collect
the
number
of
spawners
for
use
as
broodstock
defined
in
Table
3.2,
gauged
by
donor
population
size.
2.
Use
fish
collection
methods
that
will
help
ensure
that
broodstock
are
collected
in
an
unbiased
manner.
This
objective
will
be
best
met
through
the
use
of
a
fish
weir
that
enhances
the
potential
for
encountering
and
handling
the
extent
of
the
annual
run.
An
acceptable
alternative
is
the
capture
of
broodstock
through
season­
wide
selective
fisheries
at
the
mouth
of
the
donor
river.
3.
Limit
the
number
of
fish
removed
for
use
as
broodstock
from
a
drainage
to
ensure
that
the
number
remaining
to
spawn
in
the
natural
environment
will
meet
minimum
population
size
estimates
(
see
Table
3.2).

b)
Incubation
procedures:

Incubate
eggs
and
alevins
under
density,
substrate,
light,
temperature,
and
oxygen
conditions
that
simulate,
or
improve
upon
natural
intergravel
survival.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
125
1.
Maintain
green
eggs,
eyed
eggs,
and
alevins
at
densities
and
flow
levels
that
produce
the
highest
survivals
and
quality
to
the
fry
stage.
2.
Provide
artificial
substrate
in
all
incubation
trays
or
containers.
3.
Incubate
embryos
under
dark
or
low­
light
conditions.
4.
Maintain
temperature
levels
and
regimes
(
daily
and
monthly,
seasonally),
and
oxygen
concentrations,
to
mimic
conditions
in
the
natural
rearing
environment
as
closely
as
possible.
5.
Immediately
transfer
fry
to
rearing
areas
upon
volitional
swim­
up
or
yolk
absorption.

c)
Juvenile
rearing
procedures:

Although
freshwater
rearing
upon
swim­
up
has
not
been
shown
to
be
a
natural
characteristic
for
summer
chum
in
the
region,
rearing
environments
and
procedures
applied
should
attempt
to
simulate
attributes
of
natural
conditions
that
may
promote
the
development
of
fitness­
related
behaviors.
Attributes
addressed
in
this
regard
should
include
rearing
water
quality,
hydraulic
characteristics
of
rearing
areas,
feeding
conditions,
feeding
behavior,
and
health
and
nutritional
status
at
release.
Desirable
production
strategies
for
maintaining
similarity
to
the
wild
population
may
include
rearing
all
fish
of
a
population
under
the
same
conditions
and
mixing
families
randomly
so
that
unintentional
differences
in
rearing
conditions
will
affect
all
families
equally.
Guidelines
directed
at
meeting
the
above
objectives
are
as
follows:
1.
Rear
fish
at
densities
that
will
lead
to
the
production
of
high
quality,
healthy
fed
fry;
2.
Rear
fish
under
semi­
natural
habitat
and
feeding
conditions
to
the
extent
feasible,
especially
with
regard
to
flow
velocities
(
exercise)
and
feed
application
and
distribution
practices.
3.
Rear
fish
in
a
sufficient
depth
of
water
to
enable
chum
fry
to
sound
when
startled,
allowing
for
the
retention
of
standard
predator
avoidance
behavior
exhibited
by
the
fish
during
migration/
rearing
in
the
estuary.
4.
Introduce
feed
frequently,
and
during
daylight
hours
only,
to
mimic
the
natural
environment
(
constant
food
availability)
and
chum
fry
behavior
within
it
(
continuous
feeding
during
migration,
predominantly
during
daylight
hours).
5.
Minimize
direct
human
contact
with
fish
during
feeding
and
pond
maintenance
in
order
to
minimize
adverse
effects
on
the
population
regarding
association
of
humans
with
food
and
increased
vulnerability
to
predation.
6.
Maintain
temperature
levels
and
regimes
(
daily
and
monthly,
seasonally),
and
oxygen
concentrations,
to
mimic
conditions
in
the
natural
rearing
environment
as
closely
as
possible.
7.
Monitor
fish
health
during
rearing,
and
apply
approved
therapeutics
if
necessary
to
suppress
pathogens.

d)
Smolt
release
procedures:

Release
procedures
should
mimic
natural
migrational
characteristics
for
the
life
stage
at
release,
including
release
location,
nocturnal
timing,
and
seasonal
timing.
1.
Assess
the
fish
health
status
of
all
groups
prior
to
release
to
ensure
that
their
quality,
and
likelihood
for
survival,
is
high.
2.
Fish
should
be
released
as
fed
fry
at
a
size
that
promotes
the
highest
smolt
to
adult
survival
rates,
that
reduces
ecological
interactions
with
co­
occurring
wild
summer
chum,
and
that
fosters
rapid
seaward
migration.
The
targeted
release
size
should
be
achieved
quickly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
126
(
although
in
deference
to
natural
out­
migration
timing
parameters)
to
decrease
the
likelihood
for
deleterious
genetic
effects
that
may
be
incurred
by
extended
hatchery
residence.
3.
Match
fish
release
dates
with
the
time
period
when
naturally­
produced
fish
are
known
to
be
present
as
migrants
in
the
estuary.
4.
From
data
provided
by
existing
WDFW,
tribal,
or
private
industry
monitoring
programs,
assess
estuarine
productivity
conditions
to
match
releases
with
the
onset
of
spring­
time
plankton
blooms
in
the
estuary
occurring
during
the
summer
chum
migration
period.
5.
Releases
should
be
made
as
close
to
the
estuary
as
is
feasible
to
mimic
lower
river
migrational
distances
experienced
by
natural
fish.
This
objective
should
be
balanced
against
the
need
to
spread
spawners
homing
to
the
stream
of
release
across
all
available
habitat.
6.
Releases
should
be
timed
to
occur
after
dusk,
but
before
mid­
night
to
mimic
the
natural
stream
emigration
period
exhibited
by
natural
chum
fry.
7.
Fish
reintroduced
into
stream
where
the
indigenous
population
has
been
extinguished
should
be
reared
in,
and
acclimated
to,
the
recipient
location
prior
to
liberation.
8.
Chum
fry
populations
produced
under
this
plan
will
be
mass­
released,
leading
to
the
arrival
of
large,
instantaneous
volumes
of
fish
in
the
estuary,
"
swamping"
standing
freshwater
and
nearshore
predator
populations.
This
strategy
also
promotes
schooling
of
fish
in
the
estuary
for
migration,
adhering
to
a
"
safety
in
numbers"
fodder
fish
survival
strategy.

3.2.2.4
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
Monitoring
and
evaluating
the
effects
of
supplementation
on
the
natural
summer
chum
population,
and
the
performance
of
the
overall
program
in
effecting
the
recovery
of
summer
chum,
shall
be
critical
objectives
of
this
conservation
plan.
The
basic
approach
to
monitoring
and
evaluation
will
be
to
collect
information
that
will
help
determine
1)
the
degree
of
success
of
each
project;
2)
if
a
project
is
unsuccessful,
why
it
was
unsuccessful,
3)
what
measures
can
be
implemented
to
adjust
a
program
that
is
not
meeting
objectives
set
forth
for
the
project
(
Cuenco
et
al.
1993);
and,
4)
when
to
stop
a
supplementation
project
(
addressed
in
section
3.2.2.2).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
127
Elements
of
the
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
Program
a)
Implementation
of
a
monitoring
and
evaluation
program
will
involve
responding
to
concerns
regarding
the
uncertainty
of
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction
effects.
To
respond
to
this
uncertainty,
the
above
described
basic
approach
for
monitoring
and
evaluation
activities
under
this
plan
is
refined
to
specifically
address
the
following
four
elements
(
generally
from
Hard
et
al.
1992):
1.
The
estimated
contribution
of
supplementation/
reintroduction
program­
origin
chum
to
the
natural
population
during
the
recovery
process;
2.
Changes
in
the
genetic,
phenotypic,
or
ecological
characteristics
of
populations
(
target
and
non­
target)
affected
by
the
supplementation/
reintroduction
program;
3.
The
need
and
methods
for
improvement
of
supplementation/
reintroduction
activities
in
order
to
meet
program
objectives,
or
the
need
to
discontinue
a
program
because
of
failure
to
meet
objectives;
and
4.
Determination
of
when
supplementation
has
succeeded
and
is
no
longer
necessary
for
recovery.

b)
The
following
framework
is
the
basis
for
development
and
application
of
a
monitoring
and
evaluation
program
for
the
above
elements:
1.
Restate
supplementation/
reintroduction
goal
in
context
of
application.
For
example,
survival
monitoring
is
initially
to
provide
basis
for
assessing
success
of
hatchery
returns
and
ultimately
for
assessing
success
of
natural
origin
returns.
2.
Identify
performance
measures.
3.
Develop
experimental
and
sampling
design.
4.
Uniquely
mark
all
hatchery
production.
5.
Collect
and
analyze
data.
6.
Interpret
results.
7.
Adjust/
correct
ineffective
or
inefficient
parts
of
plan.
8.
Determine
how
(
by
what
mechanism)
revisions
will
be
applied.

Monitoring
and
Evaluation
­
Response
to
Elements
Monitoring
and
evaluation
of
summer
chum
supplementation
actions
in
the
region
have
been
underway
since
1992.
Studies
have
included
juvenile
marking
(
ad
clip/
CWT,
adipose
clip
only,
or
otolith
banding)
for
fisheries
contribution
and
survival
evaluations,
stream
surveys
to
enumerate
spawners
and
evaluate
straying,
genetic
stock
identification
work,
and
fishery
interception
monitoring.
Broodstock
collection
and
fish
cultural
practices
have
also
been
monitored
and
evaluated,
including
fish
health
monitoring
and
diseasestatus
certification;
monitoring
of
spawner
age,
sex
ratio,
fecundity,
and
length
data;
and
egg,
alevin,
and
fry
mortality,
size
and
growth
monitoring.
These
studies
and
monitoring
activities
are
expected
to
continue.

The
basis
for
the
monitoring
and
evaluation
program
proposed
here
is
to
address
elements
a)
1­
4
set
forth
above.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
responses
for
some
of
these
elements
will
provide
programmatic
information
regarding
the
effectiveness
of
supplementation
within
the
region.
In
consideration
of
implementability
and
funding
concerns,
certain
monitoring
and
evaluation
activities
providing
program­
wide
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
128
benefit
will
occur
only
for
selected
programs.
Other
elements
provide
program­
specific
information,
and
should
be
accomplished
for
each
supplementation
and
reintroduction
effort.
Methods
proposed
to
address
each
element
are
therefore
listed
below,
presented
as
applicable
to
either
Selected
Programs
or
All
Programs.

Selected
Programs
a)
Element
1:
Estimate
the
contribution
of
supplementation/
reintroduction
program­
origin
chum
to
the
natural
population
during
the
recovery
process.
Affected
programs:
Quilcene
and
Big
Beef
Creek.
1.
Differentially
mark
all
hatchery­
origin
summer
chum
fry
to
allow
for
distinction
from
naturalorigin
fish
upon
return
as
adults
in
fisheries,
at
hatchery
racks,
and
on
the
spawning
grounds.
This
should
be
accomplished
by
fin­
clipping,
otolith
(
thermal)
marking,
or
another
permanent,
effective
method.
2.
Conduct
spawning
ground
surveys
throughout
the
summer
chum
return
to
enumerate
spawners,
and
to
collect
information
regarding
fish
origin
(
via
ad­
clip
fish
observation
or
random
sampling
of
fish
heads
for
otoliths),
and
age
class
composition
through
scale
sampling.
3.
Estimate
the
number
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
summer
chum
contributing
to
each
supplemented
population's
annual
escapement.
4.
Monitor
escapements
of
non­
supplemented
populations
to
determine
the
level
of
straying
of
supplementation
program­
origin
fish
to
other
drainages.
5.
Conduct
focused
studies
to
help
identify
productivity
levels
(
swim­
up
fry
per
adult
spawner)
that
can
be
expected
for
hatchery­
origin
fish
spawning
in
the
wild
(
Big
Beef
Creek
research
only).
Compare
these
estimates
with
fry
per
spawner
levels
reported
for
wild
summer
chum
salmon
spawners
in
the
region,
or
in
other
regions.
a.
Enumerate
natural
escapement
of
F
generation
reintroduced
fish.
1
b.
Use
F
chum
collected
as
broodstock
to
obtain
age
structure,
fecundity,
and
sex
ratio
1
data.
Then
determine
egg
retention
of
spawned
out
fish
that
have
been
allowed
to
spawn
naturally.
From
this
information,
estimate
natural
deposition
of
eggs
in
stream.
c.
Enumerate
progeny
(
out­
migrating
fry)
of
F
adults
to
estimate
egg
to
fry
survival
and
to
1
establish
the
baseline
number
of
fry
contributing
to
subsequent
brood
year
returns.
d.
Capture,
sample
and
pass
upstream
resultant
F
generation
spawners
(
three,
four,
and
five
2
years
later)
to
assess
survival
and
reproductive
success
of
naturally­
spawning
hatcheryorigin
fish.
6.
Estimate
the
total
recruitment
(
fisheries
contribution
and
escapement)
of
supplementation
program
origin
chum.
Compare
hatchery
fish
fry
to
adult
survival
rates
with
estimates
for
wild
fish
to
measure
the
effectiveness
of
each
program
(
Big
Beef
research
program).

b)
Element
2:
Monitor
and
evaluate
any
changes
in
the
genetic,
phenotypic,
or
ecological
characteristics
of
the
populations
presently
affected
by
the
supplementation
program.
Variably
affected
programs
and
populations.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
129
1.
Collect
additional
GSI
data
(
allozyme
or
DNA­
based)
from
regional
summer
chum
adult
populations
to
determine
the
degree
to
which
discrete
populations
exist
in
the
individual
watersheds.
2.
Continue
GSI
allozyme
collections
of
summer
chum
spawners
throughout
the
region
for
comparison
with
past
collections
to
monitor
changes
in
allelic
characteristics,
and
with
the
intent
to
assess
whether
the
supplementation
program
has
negatively
affected
the
genetic
diversity
of
natural
populations
(
after
Phelps
et
al.
1997
with
steelhead).
3.
To
assess
the
effect
of
past
or
on­
going
supplementation
activities
on
the
heterozygosity
of
target
populations,
collect
tissue
samples
from
representative
juveniles
for
GSI
analysis,
allowing
for
a
comparison
of
the
genetic
diversity
of
progeny
samples
to
the
existing
baseline
population
profile.
4.
Continue
collecting
and
archiving
DNA
samples
for
future
analysis.
5.
Monitor
natural
spawner
abundance
and
distribution
of
wild
and
hatchery­
origin
fish.
Determine
spawner
densities
and
identify
locations
of
preferred
areas.
Define
annual
and
longterm
changes
in
spawning
distribution
of
the
populations.
6.
Determine
if
spawning
ground
distribution,
timing,
and
use
by
hatchery­
origin
fish
is
consistent
with
traits
exhibited
by
wild­
origin
spawners.
7.
If
possible,
monitor
fry
emigration
behavior
upon
release
to
assess
whether
natural
migratory
patterns
(
timing,
migration
rates,
areas
used)
change.

All
Programs
c)
Element
3:
Determine
the
need,
and
methods,
for
improvement
of
supplementation
or
reintroduction
operations
or,
if
warranted,
the
need
to
discontinue
the
program.

1.
Mark
all
hatchery
summer
chum
juveniles
produced
through
the
supplementation
or
reintroduction
programs
to
allow
for
assessments
of
contribution
and
NOR
rates.
2.
Determine
the
pre­
spawning
and
green
egg
to
released
fry
survivals
for
each
program
at
various
life
stages.
a)
Monitor
growth
and
feed
conversion
for
summer
chum
fry.
b)
Determine
green
egg
to
eyed
egg,
eyed
egg
to
swim­
up
fry,
and
swim­
up
fry
to
released
fry
survival
rates
for
summer
chum.
c)
Maintain
and
compile
records
of
cultural
techniques
used
for
each
life
stage,
such
as:
collection
and
handling
procedures,
and
trap
holding
durations,
for
chum
broodstock;
fish
and
egg
condition
at
time
of
spawning;
fertilization
procedures,
incubation
methods/
densities,
temperature
unit
records
by
developmental
stage,
shocking
methods,
and
fungus
treatment
methods
for
eggs;
ponding
methods,
start
feeding
methods,
rearing/
pond
loading
densities,
feeding
schedules
and
rates
for
juveniles;
and
release
methods
for
one
gram
fry.
d)
Summarize
results
of
tasks
for
presentation
in
annual
reports.
e)
Identify
where
the
supplementation
program
is
falling
short
of
objectives,
and
make
recommendations
for
improved
fry
production
as
needed.
3.
Determine
if
broodstock
procurement
methods
are
collecting
the
required
number
of
adults
that
represent
the
demographics
of
the
donor
population
with
minimal
injuries
and
stress
to
the
fish.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
130
a)
Monitor
operation
of
adult
trapping
operations,
ensuring
compliance
with
established
broodstock
collection
protocols
(
Appendix
Report
3.1)
for
each
station.
b)
Monitor
timing,
duration,
composition,
and
magnitude
of
each
run
at
each
adult
collection
site.
c)
Maintain
daily
records
of
trap
operation
and
maintenance
(
e.
g.,
time
of
collection),
number
and
condition
of
fish
trapped,
and
environmental
conditions
(
e.
g.,
river
stage,
tide,
water
temperature).
d)
Collect
biological
information
on
collection­
related
mortalities.
Determine
causes
of
mortality,
and
use
carcasses
for
stock
profile
sampling,
if
possible.
e)
Summarize
results
for
presentation
in
annual
reports.
Provide
recommendations
on
means
to
improve
broodstock
collection,
and
refine
protocols
if
needed
for
application
in
subsequent
seasons.
4.
Monitor
fish
health,
specifically
as
related
to
cultural
practices
that
can
be
adapted
to
prevent
fish
health
problems.
Professional
fish
health
specialists
supplied
by
WDFW
(
or
USFWS
for
federal
agency
operations)
will
monitor
fish
health.
a)
Fish
health
monitoring
will
be
conducted
by
a
fish
health
specialist.
Significant
fish
mortality
to
unknown
causes
will
be
sampled
for
histopathological
study.
b)
The
incidence
of
viral
pathogens
in
summer
chum
broodstock
will
be
determined
by
sampling
fish
at
spawning
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
the
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
of
the
Fisheries
Co­
Managers
of
Washington
State
(
NWIFC
and
WDFW
1998).
c)
Recommendations
on
fish
cultural
practices
will
be
provided
on
a
monthly
basis,
based
upon
the
fish
health
condition
of
chum
fry.
d)
Fish
health
monitoring
results
will
be
summarized
in
an
annual
report.

d)
Element
4:
Collect
and
evaluate
information
on
adult
returns.

This
element
will
be
addressed
through
consideration
of
the
results
of
previous
"
Elements
1,
2,
and
3,"
and
through
the
collection
of
information
required
under
adaptive
criteria
presented
in
section
3.2.2.2
that
will
be
used
as
the
basis
for
determining
when
to
stop
a
supplementation
or
reintroduction
program.
1.
Collect
age,
sex,
length,
average
egg
size,
and
fecundity
data
from
a
representative
sample
of
broodstock
used
in
each
supplementation
program
for
use
as
baseline
data
to
document
any
phenotypic
changes
in
the
populations.
2.
Commencing
with
the
first
year
of
returns
of
progeny
from
naturally­
spawned,
hatchery­
origin
summer
chum,
evaluate
results
of
spawning
ground
surveys
and
age
class
data
collections
to:
a)
Estimate
the
abundance
and
trends
in
abundance
of
spawners;
b)
Estimate
the
proportion
of
the
escapement
comprised
by
chum
of
hatchery
lineage,
and
of
wild
lineage;
c)
Through
mark
sampling,
estimate
brood
year
contribution
for
hatchery
lineage
and
wildorigin
fish.
3.
Using
the
above
information,
determine
whether
the
population
has
declined,
remained
stable,
or
has
been
recovered
to
sustainable
levels.
The
ability
to
estimate
hatchery
and
wild
proportions
will
be
determined
by
implementation
plans,
budgets,
and
assessment
priorities.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
131
4.
Compare
newly
acquired
electrophoretic
analysis
data
reporting
allele
frequency
variation
of
returning
hatchery
and
wild
fish
with
baseline
genetic
data.
Determine
if
there
is
evidence
of
a
loss
in
genetic
variation
(
not
expected
from
random
drift)
that
may
have
resulted
from
the
supplementation
program.
5.
Collect
GSI
and
run
timing
information
in
summer
chum
streams
where
Finch
Creek­
lineage
fall
chum
have
been
introduced
to
evaluate
the
risks
of
genetic
introgression
and
spawning
ground
interaction
between
the
two
races.

Annual
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
Report
Annual
reports
describing
monitoring
and
evaluation
actions,
findings
and
recommendations
will
be
assembled
for
each
supplementation
or
reintroduction
program.
The
report
will
summarize
data
collected
through
monitoring
and
evaluation
activities,
provide
an
analysis
of
the
data
and
an
interpretation
of
results,
and
suggest
mechanisms
for
applying
revisions
necessary
to
adjust
ineffective
or
inefficient
portions
of
the
program.
The
annual
report
will
be
consistent
in
content,
structure,
and
detail
with
annual
reports
currently
required
by
NMFS
for
hatchery
projects
authorized
for
the
incidental
or
direct
take
of
ESA­
listed
species
under
Section
10
of
the
Act.

Each
year,
annual
monitoring
and
evaluation
reports
will
be
reviewed
and
evaluated
by
the
co­
managers
and
USFWS
to
assess
the
effectiveness
and
effects
of
the
supplementation
and
reintroduction
programs.
Adjustments
that
are
needed,
if
any,
will
be
discussed
and
implemented
as
determined
to
be
necessary
to
meet
the
objectives
of
this
plan.

3.2.2.5
Additional
Research
Needs
Further
research,
beyond
studies
included
in
the
plan,
are
needed
to
further
scientific
understanding
regarding
the
effects
of
summer
chum
supplementation,
the
characteristics
of
the
wild
population
(
including
its
productivity),
and
how
supplementation
efforts
can
be
improved
to
minimize
any
adverse
effects.
Cuenco
et
al.
(
1993)
identify
eleven
research
topics
that
should
be
pursued
to
answer
concerns
regarding
the
effectiveness,
and
ecological
and
genetic
impacts,
of
supplementation
in
general.
These
topics
were
used
to
prepare
the
following
list
of
questions
to
address
critical
concerns
regarding
the
use
of
supplementation
or
reintroduction
for
recovering
summer
chum
populations.

a)
Are
there
significant
differences
between
the
hatchery­
reared
and
natural
summer
chum
populations
of
the
same
stock
post
out­
migration,
regarding
performance
traits
such
as
survival,
growth,
reproduction,
and
migration?
b)
Is
the
level
of
intervention
into
the
natural
life
cycle
comprised
by
summer
chum
supplementation
sufficient
to
alter,
and
negatively
affect,
the
fitness
of
the
hatchery­
produced
fry
to
survive
and
reproduce
in
the
wild?
Is
that
level
of
intervention
sufficient
to
incur
changes
in
the
genetic
character
of
total
population
of
fish
that
survive
to
adulthood
and
return
to
spawn?
c)
In
a
natural
summer
chum
population,
which
genotypes
and
gene
frequencies
comprise
the
percent
of
deposited
eggs
that
survive
to
swim­
up
in
the
natural
environment?
Do
the
survivors
represent
a
random
sample
of
the
total
eggs
deposited
or
are
they
the
result
of
natural
selection
in
the
wild?
Is
the
occurrence
of
survivors
happenstance?
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
132
d)
To
what
degree
do
juvenile
wild
and
hatchery­
origin
summer
chum
overlap
with
wild
and
hatcheryorigin
fall
chum
during
estuarine
migration.
Are
there
any
negative
consequences
of
such
overlap?
e)
What
is
normal
estuarine
migration
behavior
for
summer
chum
juveniles,
including
preferred
areas,
migration
rates,
feeding
behavior,
and
preferred
food
items?
f)
When
is
the
most
advantageous
time
for
summer
chum
wild
and
hatchery­
origin
juveniles
to
be
present
in
the
estuary?
g)
What
are
straying
rates
for
natural
and
hatchery­
origin
summer
chum?

Some
data
that
may
help
answer
portions
of
the
above
research
topics
may
be
collected
through
monitoring
and
evaluation
programs
proposed
in
this
plan.
However,
at
the
present
time,
funding
is
lacking
to
adequately
answer
the
above
topics.
It
is
hoped
that
this
research
will
be
conducted
in
the
near
future
by
either
the
co­
managers
or
other
management
or
research
entities,
pending
the
availability
of
funding.

3.2.3
Project
Selection
and
Implementation
3.2.3.1
Introduction
All
existing
and
recently
extirpated
summer
chum
stocks
(
Table
3.1)
are
initially
considered
as
candidates
for
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
This
section
describes
the
history
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
already
initiated.
It
also
describes
the
procedure
for
the
review
and
selection
of
streams
for
supplementation/
reintroduction
actions.
Finally,
an
overall
strategy
for
the
region
is
described
that
provides
for
implementation
of
supplementation
or
reintroduction
projects
for
some
streams
and
designation
of
other
streams
as
not
recommended
for
supplemental
or
reintroduction.

3.2.3.2
Existing
Supplementation
and
Reintroduction
Activities
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.
By
1996,
the
regional
population
recovery
strategy
had
evolved
to
the
point
that
reintroductions
of
fish
into
streams
where
summer
chum
populations
were
extirpated
became
feasible.
Transfers
of
progeny
from
appropriate
broodstocks
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
into
Chimacum
Creek
and
Big
Beef
Creek
began
in
1996.
All
of
these
summer
chum
recovery
programs
are
on­
going.

Descriptions
of
each
existing
supplementation
and
reintroduction
program,
including
program
objectives,
broodstock
collection
numbers,
fry
production
data,
and
operating
procedures
and
objectives
are
presented
in
Appendix
Report
3.2.
It
is
important
to
note
that
these
programs
were
instituted
prior
to
the
full
development
and
completion
of
this
plan.
Existing
programs
may
therefore
have
included
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
herein.

3.2.3.3
Proposed
Supplementation/
Reintroduction
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
133
This
section
describes
how
the
stocks
are
assessed
and
selected
for
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects.
The
assessments
and
criteria
used
in
the
selection
process
are
consistent
with
the
guidelines
previously
described
in
section
3.2.2,
Supplementation/
Reintroduction
Approach.
The
selection
process
is
a
four­
step
procedure
that
provides
assessments
leading
to
project
selection.
The
four
steps
are
as
follows:

°
Selection
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
candidate
stocks:
Candidates
are
selected
based
on
Stock
Definition
and
Status
in
section
1.7.2
of
this
plan.

°
General
assessment
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
candidate
stocks:
A
general
assessment
of
the
candidates
is
made,
based
on
extinction
risk
(
supplementation
candidates
only),
potential
population
size,
watershed
habitat
conditions,
availability
of
brood
stock,
availability
of
operational
resources
and
project
siting.
The
assessment
takes
into
account
risk
associated
with
low
levels
of
escapement,
potential
benefits
and
current
prospects
for
a
successful
project.
Candidates
are
scored
by
category
and
receive
a
total
assessment
score.

°
Assessment
of
risks:
Risks
from
hatchery
failure,
ecological
hazards,
and
genetic
hazards
are
assessed
for
the
selected
candidates.

°
Selection
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects:
A
list
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
proposed
for
implementation
is
provided,
based
on
the
above
assessments.

The
selection
process
includes
those
summer
chum
stocks
for
which
projects
have
already
been
initiated.
The
application
and
results
of
each
step
in
the
process
are
described
below
in
detail.

Selection
of
Candidates
The
candidates
for
supplementation
are
all
the
stocks
determined
to
be
currently
existing
as
described
under
Stock
Definition
and
Status
in
section
1.7.2
and
listed
in
Table
3.1.
These
stocks
include
Union,
Lilliwaup,
Hamma
Hamma,
Duckabush,
Dosewallips,
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene,
Salmon/
Snow,
Jimmycomelately
and
Dungeness.
Candidates
for
reintroduction
are
the
known
recently
extinct
stocks
(
identified
in
the
section
1.7.2)
and
include
Big
Beef,
Anderson,
Dewatto,
Tahuya,
Skokomish,
Finch
and
Chimacum
(
Table
3.1).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
134
General
Assessment
Following
is
a
description
of
the
factors
used
in
the
general
assessment
and
how
they
are
rated.
The
relative
importance
of
each
factor
is
reflected
in
the
ranges
of
rating
scores.

Extinction
Risk:
As
escapements
decline,
risks
to
a
population
increase,
including
the
risks
of
losing
genetic
integrity
and
of
extinction.
This
part
of
the
assessment
is
based
on
the
assessment
of
extinction
risk
described
in
section
1.7.4
and
summarized
in
Table
3.1.
Each
stock
receives
a
score
based
on
the
current
extinction
risk
ratings.
Two
exceptions
are
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
and
Snow/
Salmon
where
supplementation
projects
were
initiated
in
1992.
For
these
two
stocks,
pre­
project
risk
ratings
are
used
(
Table
3.1).

°
If
the
risk
rating
is
"
very
high",
the
score
is
12.
(
Note
that
none
of
the
stocks
were
rated
"
very
high"
in
the
current
assessment
of
extinction
risk.)
°
If
the
risk
rating
is
"
high",
the
score
is
6.
°
If
the
risk
rating
is
"
moderate",
the
score
is
3.
°
If
the
risk
rating
is
"
low"
or
"
special
concern",
the
score
is
1.

Potential
Population
Size:
Currently
no
assessments
exist
of
potential
summer
chum
production
within
watersheds.
However,
estimates
of
run
sizes
before
the
major
recent
declines
of
summer
chum
may
serve
as
indices
of
at
least
recent
potential
production.
This
component
therefore
compares
average
estimated
total
run
sizes
among
candidate
stocks
within
the
region
during
the
1974
through
1978
reference
period.
This
period
is
chosen
because
relatively
reliable
escapement
estimates
(
that
serve
as
the
basis
for
run
size
reconstruction
­
see
section
1.4)
were
not
generally
available
before
1974
and
because
substantial
declines
in
escapement
and
run
size
occurred
in
Hood
Canal
following
1978
(
see
Part
Two,
Region­
wide
Factors
for
Decline).
For
each
stock,
the
average
run
size
for
1974­
78
is
compared
to
the
average
run
size
for
all
stocks
in
the
region
(
2,863
salmon).
The
following
procedure
is
used
(
see
also
Table
3.3).

°
If
the
specific
stream's
average
run
size
is
greater
than
2,863,
it
is
judged
to
have
a
relatively
high
potential
production
and
receives
a
rating
of
3.
°
If
the
stream's
average
is
greater
than
50%
(
1,416)
but
less
than
or
equal
to
100%
of
2,863
salmon,
it
is
judged
to
have
a
relatively
moderate
potential
production
and
receives
a
rating
of
2.
°
If
the
stream's
average
is
less
than
or
equal
to
50%
(
1,416)
of
2,863
salmon,
it
is
judged
to
have
a
low
potential
production
and
receives
a
rating
of
1.
°
If
there
is
insufficient
information
to
assess
the
population,
the
rating
is
1.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
Existing
stream
habitat
impacts
on
summer
chum
are
rated
"
relatively
low,"
"
relatively
high,"
and
"
relatively
moderate"
(
that
is,
between
low
and
high).
This
determination
of
habitat
impacts
is
based
on
the
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
described
in
the
Habitat
section
of
this
plan
(
section
3.4)
and
reflects
the
habitat's
potential
to
support
a
self­
sustaining
natural
population
of
summer
chum
once
it
is
restored
by
a
supplementation
or
reintroduction
effort.
Generally,
if
habitat
impacts
are
relatively
low,
it
is
assumed
that
the
currently
existing
habitat
will
support
a
population
that
is
restored
and
the
stream
is
given
a
rating
of
3.
If
the
habitat
impacts
are
high,
then
it
is
assumed
that
there
is
a
risk
that
the
habitat
will
not
support
a
restored
population
and
the
rating
is
1.
Finally,
if
the
habitat
impacts
are
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
135
moderate,
then
a
lesser
risk
to
the
restored
population
exists
and
the
rating
is
2.
If
habitat
impacts
are
currently
high,
but
a
habitat
recovery
program
has
been
initiated
and
there
is
reasonable
certainty
that
the
habitat
will
be
restored
to
the
point
where
impacts
are
low
or
moderate
within
ten
years,
then
the
low
or
moderate
score
should
be
applied.

Brood
Stock
Availability:
This
component
is
addressed
here
primarily
as
a
practical
consideration;
that
is,
how
difficult
it
may
be
to
develop
or,
in
the
case
of
reintroduction,
procure
a
broodstock
for
the
stream
in
question.
For
supplementation
candidates,
only
instream
broodstocking
opportunities
using
the
indigenous
stock
are
considered.
If
the
broodstocking
opportunities
are
well
defined
and
appear
to
have
good
prospects
for
success,
a
project
will
be
given
a
rating
of
2.
If
the
potential
for
success
of
the
opportunities
are
uncertain
or
unknown,
a
rating
of
1
is
assigned.
Genetic
implications
of
broodstocking
are
addressed
in
Step
3
of
the
selection
process,
below
under
Supplementation
Risks.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
This
is
also
a
practical
consideration
of
operational
infrastructure,
based
on
current
knowledge
of
what
sites,
facilities
and
operational
resources
are
known
to
be
available
for
a
project.
If
sites,
facilities
and
operational
resources
are
identified
and
appear
adequate,
the
rating
is
2;
if
not,
the
rating
is
1.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
136
Table
3.3.
Estimates
of
relative
production
potential
for
summer
chum
streams
based
on
estimates
of
total
run
size
for
the
1974­
1978
reference
period.

Stream
Run
size
Estimates
(
August
2,
1999
run
reconstruction)
1
Percent
Comparison2
Relative
Potential3
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Ave.
'
74
­'
78
Lilliwaup
693
1,737
8,999
1,344
2,886
3,132
109%
High
Dewatto
203
1,508
4,136
720
1,179
1,549
54%
Moderate
Tahuya
991
3,542
21,206
2,345
577
5,732
200%
High
Union
76
215
663
242
139
267
9%
Low
B.
Quil./
L.
Quil.
944
3,235
11,206
1,918
5,554
4,571
160%
High
Anderson
0
239
284
31
19
115
4%
Low
Big
Beef
84
1,409
1,555
358
788
839
29%
Low
Dosewallips
4,044
2,752
3,968
3,811
2,202
3,355
117%
High
Duckabush
4,030
2,745
7,394
2,908
2,199
3,855
135%
High
Hamma
Hamma
2,755
8,979
9,279
1,985
9,518
6,503
227%
High
Snow/
Salmon
1,494
1,360
1,264
1,364
2,413
1,579
55%
Moderate
Total
15,314
27,721
69,954
17,026
27,474
31,498
Average
1,392
2,520
6,359
1,548
2,498
2,863
Solely
for
use
in
this
section
of
the
plan,
the
total
run
size
has
been
approximated
for
each
stream
by
extrapolating
that
stream's
reconstructed
terminal
run
1
size
based
on
assumed
average
interception
rates
outside
the
terminal
area.
See
Part
One
for
description
of
run
reconstruction.

Percent
comparison
among
streams
is
derived
by
dividing
average
annual
run
size
of
the
specific
stream
by
the
average
annual
run
size
of
all
streams
and
2
multiplying
by
100.
For
example,
with
Lilliwaup:
(
3,132/
2,863)
x
100
=
109%.

Relative
production
potential
is
based
on
percent
comparisons
within
the
1974­
1978
reference
period.
A
stream's
relative
potential
is
low
if
its
1974­
78
average
3
run
size
is
equal
to
or
less
than
50%
of
the
overall
1974­
78
average,
moderate
if
greater
than
50%
but
equal
to
or
less
than
100%,
or
high
if
greater
than
100%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
137
As
a
result
of
this
general
assessment,
a
total
rating
score
is
obtained
for
each
stock
that
may
be
useful
in
prioritizing
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects.
The
following
narrative
descriptions
provide
details
of
the
assessment
for
each
of
the
supplementation
and
reintroduction
candidates.

a)
Supplementation
Candidates
Union
Extinction
Risk:
Union
has
a
risk
rating
of
"
moderate"
and
the
category
rating
is
3.

Potential
Population
Size:
Estimated
run
size
annually
averaged
267
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
9%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
Union
has
a
relatively
low
potential
production
and
a
category
rating
of
1.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
Union
River
may
be
vulnerable
to
habitat
impacts
from
rapid
urbanization
around
the
City
of
Belfair
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
But
for
the
present,
impacts
appear
relatively
moderate
for
summer
chum.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Broodstock
Availability:
Prospects
for
broodstocking
are
uncertain
owing
to
lack
of
knowledge
about
how
in­
river
conditions
may
affect
broodstock
collection.
The
rating
for
this
category
is
1.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Undetermined
at
this
time.
Category
rating
is
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
The
total
rating
score
is
8.

Lilliwaup
Extinction
Risk:
Lilliwaup's
risk
rating
is
"
high"
and
the
category
rating
is
6.

Potential
Population
Size:
Estimated
run
size
annually
averaged
3,132
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
which
is
109
%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
individual
stocks
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
Lilliwaup
Creek
has
a
relatively
high
potential
production.
The
rating
for
this
category
is
3.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
the
habitat
of
Lilliwaup
Creek
is
somewhat
degraded
with
areas
of
good
habitat
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
For
the
purpose
of
this
assessment,
habitat
impacts
appear
relatively
low.
This
category
rating
is
3.

Broodstock
Availability:
Currently,
the
population
is
relatively
small
but
an
impassable
barrier
at
approximately
RM
0.7
limits
distribution
of
the
spawners
and
would
seem
to
enhance
broodstocking
prospects.
A
supplementation
project
begun
on
this
stream
in
1992
had
limited
success
in
collecting
spawners
until
the
1998
season.
A
new
weir
placed
in
the
stream
in
1998
was
effective
in
capturing
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
138
available
fish,
and
resources
are
available
to
continue
use
of
a
weir
in
1999
and
beyond.
The
rating
for
this
category
is
2.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
A
privately­
owned
hatchery
built
in
1994
and
operated
by
Long
Live
the
Kings
is
located
on
a
tributary
near
the
mouth
of
Lilliwaup
Creek.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
available
at
the
hatchery.
Long
Live
the
Kings
hatchery
staff
provide
primary
operational
support
for
the
summer
chum
supplementation
project,
in
cooperation
with
the
Hood
Canal
Regional
Enhancement
Group.
Thus,
good
project
siting
and
operational
support
exist
for
this
stream.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Total
Rating
Score:
The
total
rating
score
is
16.

Hamma
Hamma
Extinction
Risk:
Hamma
Hamma
has
a
risk
rating
of
"
moderate"
and
the
category
rating
is
3.

Potential
Population
Size:
Estimated
run
size
annually
averaged
6,503
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
227%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
Hamma
Hamma
has
a
relatively
high
potential
production
and
a
category
rating
of
3.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
Hamma
Hamma
River
habitat
impacts
are
relatively
moderate
for
summer
chum
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
The
category
rating
is
2.

Broodstock
Availability:
The
prospects
for
broodstock
collection
are
uncertain.
A
supplementation
project
begun
in
1997
was
able
to
collect
only
a
few
adults
for
broodstocking.
The
co­
occurrence
of
pink
salmon
in
the
river
severely
hampered
collection
efforts
that
year.
A
larger
number
of
spawners
were
collected
as
broodstock
in
the
non­
pink
year,
1998;
however,
the
collection
was
not
effective
in
systematically
sampling
broodstock
throughout
the
run.
The
means
for
effective
future
collection
of
broodstock
has
not
been
determined.
The
category
rating
is
1.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
A
proven
site
for
incubation
and
rearing,
established
for
other
species,
exists
on
John
Creek.
Local
support
from
Long
Live
the
Kings
staff
and
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group
exists.
Thus
good
project
siting
and
operational
support
exist
for
this
stream.
The
rating
for
this
category
is
2.

Total
Rating
Score:
The
total
rating
score
is
11.

Duckabush
Extinction
Risk:
Duckabush
has
a
risk
rating
of
"
low"
and
the
category
rating
is
1.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
139
Potential
Population
Size:
Estimated
run
size
annually
averaged
3,855
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
135%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
Duckabush
has
a
relatively
high
potential
production
and
a
category
rating
of
3.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
habitat
is
somewhat
degraded
with
areas
of
good
habitat
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
For
this
assessment,
Duckabush
River
habitat
impacts
appear
to
be
relatively
moderate.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Broodstock
Availability:
Prospects
for
broodstocking
are
uncertain
owing
to
lack
of
knowledge
about
how
in­
river
conditions
may
affect
broodstock
collection.
The
rating
for
this
category
is
1.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Undetermined
at
this
time.
Category
rating
is
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
The
total
rating
score
is
8.

Dosewallips
Current
Stock
Status:
Dosewallips
has
a
risk
rating
of
"
low"
and
the
category
rating
is
1.

Potential
Population
Size:
Estimated
run
size
annually
averaged
3,355
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
117%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
Dosewallips
has
a
relatively
high
potential
production
and
a
category
rating
of
3.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
habitat
is
somewhat
degraded
with
areas
of
good
habitat
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
For
this
assessment,
Dosewallips
River
habitat
impacts
appear
to
be
relatively
moderate.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Broodstock
Availability:
Prospects
for
broodstocking
are
uncertain
owing
to
lack
of
knowledge
about
how
in­
river
conditions
may
affect
broodstock
collection.
The
rating
for
this
category
is
1.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Undetermined
at
this
time.
Category
rating
is
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
The
total
rating
score
is
8.

Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
Extinction
Risk:
Big/
Little
Quilcene
has
a
pre­
project
risk
rating
of
"
high."
The
category
rating
is
6.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
140
Potential
Population
Size:
Estimated
escapement
annually
averaged
approximately
4,571
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
160%
of
the
average
run
size
for
the
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
stock
has
a
relatively
high
potential
production
and
a
category
rating
of
3.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watersheds
suggests
the
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
habitat
impacts
are
relatively
high
and,
though
mitigation
efforts
have
begun
in
Big
Quilcene
watershed
within
the
last
five
years,
the
conditions
have
not
yet
improved
or
stabilized
for
summer
chum
and
the
prospects
for
successful
habitat
recovery
within
the
next
10
years
is
uncertain
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
The
category
rating
is
1.

Broodstock
Availability:
The
availability
of
broodstock
is
very
good.
Broodstock
collection
goals
have
been
met
each
year
of
the
supplementation
project's
operation.
Sources
have
been
the
tribal
coho
fishery
in
the
bay,
in­
river
collection
and
returns
to
the
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery.
The
criterion
of
allowing
at
least
50%
of
the
run
into
the
bay
to
escape
to
the
rivers
has
been
met
every
year.
The
in­
river
natural
escapement
to
the
Big
Quilcene
River
has
been
very
high
in
recent
years
and
escapement
to
the
Little
Quilcene
River
has
improved.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
The
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
operates
the
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
located
on
the
Big
Quilcene
River.
Dedication
of
these
facilities
and
hatchery
staff
to
the
summer
chum
supplementation
project,
along
with
support
provided
by
the
Tribes
and
Washington
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
has
resulted
in
strong
operational
support
and
effective
project
siting.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Total
Rating
Score:
The
total
rating
score
is
14.

Snow/
Salmon
Extinction
Risk:
Snow/
Salmon
has
a
pre­
project
risk
rating
of
"
high".
The
category
rating
is
6.

Potential
Population
Size:
Terminal
run
size
annually
averaged
1,579
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
55%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
the
Snow
/
Salmon
stock
has
relatively
moderate
potential
production
and
a
category
rating
of
2.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watersheds
suggest
habitat
impacts
in
Snow
and
Salmon
creeks
are
relatively
high
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
Within
the
last
five
years,
cooperative
efforts
have
begun
with
local
landowners
to
improve
habitat
conditions
near
the
mouth
of
Snow
Creek
and
Salmon
Creek.
Some
improvements
have
been
made
but
overall,
impacts
remain
high.
The
rating
is
1
for
this
category.

Broodstock
Availability:
Broodstock
availability
is
good
in
Salmon
Creek.
A
permanent
weir
exists
at
RM
0.2
and
has
been
successfully
used
to
collect
broodstock
for
the
existing
supplementation
project
and
serves
as
a
broodstock
source
for
the
existing
Chimacum
reintroduction
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
141
project.
A
permanent
weir
also
exists
at
RM
0.8
on
Snow
Creek
and
would
facilitate
collecting
instream
broodstock
should
that
be
advisable
in
the
future.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Good
local
support
and
project
siting
exist
for
the
Salmon
Creek
supplementation
project.
The
project
is
operated
by
two
local
volunteer
groups
(
Wild
Olympic
Salmon
and
the
North
Olympic
Salmon
Coalition)
that
are
supported
and
guided
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
Category
rating
is
2.

Total
Rating
Score:
Total
rating
score
is
13.

Jimmycomelately
Extinction
Risk:
Jimmycomelately
has
a
risk
rating
of
"
high"
and
the
category
rating
is
6.

Potential
Population
Size:
Because
there
are
no
reliable
escapement
estimates
for
Jimmycomelately
during
the
reference
period
of
1974
­
1978,
a
direct
comparison
of
run
sizes
between
Jimmycomelately
and
other
regional
stocks
within
this
period
is
not
appropriate.
However,
the
average
run
size
for
Jimmycomelately,
for
the
period
of
1982
­
1988
(
equal
to
441
salmon),
when
compared
to
the
average
individual
run
sizes
of
other
stocks,
for
the
reference
period
of
1974­
1978
(
equal
to
2,863
salmon,
Table
3.3),
shows
the
Jimmycomelately
average
to
be
only
15%
of
the
average.
On
this
basis,
Jimmycomelately
would
appear
to
have
a
relatively
low
potential
production
and
a
category
rating
of
1.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
Jimmycomelately
habitat
impacts
are
relatively
high
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
The
category
rating
is
1.

Broodstock
Availability:
Prospects
for
broodstocking
are
uncertain
because
of
the
low
spawner
numbers
and
lack
of
knowledge
about
how
in­
river
conditions
may
affect
broodstock
collection.
The
rating
for
this
category
is
1.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Undetermined
at
this
time.
Category
rating
is
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
The
total
rating
score
is
10.

Dungeness
Extinction
Risk:
The
Dungeness
risk
rating
is
"
special
concern"
and
the
category
rating
is
1.

Potential
Population
Size:
No
assessment
was
made
for
lack
of
information.
The
category
rating
score
is
1.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
142
Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
Dungeness
river
habitat
impacts
are
relatively
high
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
Category
rating
is
1.

Broodstock
Availability:
Broodstocking
prospects
are
uncertain
for
lack
of
information
on
the
Dungeness
River
summer
chum
population.
Experience
gained
by
agencies
and
the
tribe
in
trapping
adults
of
other
species
in
the
Dungeness
River
could
facilitate
developing
a
broodstocking
plan
for
summer
chum
in
the
river
if
such
a
plan
were
merited.
Also,
the
existing
pink
salmon
trapping
operation
in
the
lower
river
(
in
support
of
a
fall
pink
salmon
recovery
effort)
could
possibly
be
expanded
to
capture
summer
chum
as
well.
The
rating
is
1
for
this
category.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Undetermined
at
this
time.
Category
rating
is
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
Total
rating
score
is
5.

b)
Reintroduction
Candidates
Big
Beef
Potential
Population
Size:
Estimated
run
size
annually
averaged
839
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
29%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
the
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
Big
Beef
has
relatively
low
potential
production.
The
category
rating
is
1.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
Big
Beef
Creek
habitat
impacts
are
relatively
moderate
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
The
category
rating
is
2.

Broodstock
Availability:
The
apparent
success
of
the
Big
Quilcene
River
supplementation
project
has
resulted
in
broodstock
being
available
from
that
source.
A
Big
Beef
experimental
reintroduction
project
began
with
brood
year
1996
using
broodstock
from
the
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
stock
(
see
description
of
existing
projects
in
Appendix
Report
3.2).
The
category
rating
is
2.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
have
been
made
available
at
the
University
of
Washington
research
station
near
the
mouth
of
the
creek.
Project
operation
is
accomplished
though
the
cooperative
effort
of
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group.
Good
operational
resources
and
siting
exist
for
this
project.
Additional
factors
to
consider
are
the
research
weir
and
new
spawning
channel,
near
the
mouth
of
the
stream,
that
provide
an
effective
means
to
monitor
returning
adults
and
support
studying
the
success
of
a
reintroduction
program.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Total
Rating
Score:
Total
rating
score
is
7.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
143
Anderson
Potential
Population
Size:
Estimated
run
sizes
annually
averaged
115
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
4%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
the
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
Anderson
has
a
relatively
low
potential
production
and
a
category
rating
of
1.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
indicates
that
degradation
of
habitat
conditions
with
impacts
on
summer
chum
exists
but,
in
comparison
to
the
other
streams,
impacts
are
relatively
moderate
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
The
category
rating
is
2.

Broodstock
Availability:
Unknown.
The
category
rating
is
1.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Undetermined.
The
category
rating
is
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
The
total
rating
score
is
5.

Dewatto
Potential
Population
Size:
Run
size
annually
averaged
1,549
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
54%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
the
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
the
Dewatto
stock
has
relatively
moderate
potential
production.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
Dewatto
habitat
impacts
are
relatively
low
for
summer
chum
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
The
category
rating
is
3.

Broodstock
Availability:
Unknown.
The
category
rating
is
1.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Undetermined.
Category
rating
is
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
The
total
rating
score
is
7.

Tahuya
Potential
Population
Size:
Run
size
annually
averaged
5,732
salmon
from
1974
through
1978,
equal
to
200%
of
the
average
annual
run
size
for
the
individual
streams
of
the
region
(
Table
3.3).
This
comparison
suggests
the
Tahuya
stock
has
relatively
high
potential
production.
Category
rating
is
3.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
144
Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
Tahuya
River
habitat
impacts
are
relatively
low
for
summer
chum
(
see
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
The
category
rating
is
3.

Broodstock
Availability:
Unknown.
Category
rating
is
1.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Undetermined.
Category
rating
is
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
Total
rating
score
is
8.

Skokomish
Potential
Population
Size:
Since
there
are
no
1974­
78
Skokomish
stock
escapement
estimates,
a
comparison
with
the
average
run
size
of
all
streams
is
not
possible.
However,
information
from
historical
run
reconstruction
(
Appendix
Report
1.3)
suggests
that
the
Skokomish
stock
falls
into
the
category
of
high
relative
production
potential
for
the
reference
period
of
1974
­
1978
(
projected
average
annual
total
catch
of
1,994
salmon
for
Skokomish
stock
compared
to
projected
average
annual
total
catch
for
an
individual
stream
of
1,051
salmon).
These
catch
projections
together
with
the
large
size
of
the
Skokomish
River
would
indicate
it
has
had
a
relatively
high
production
potential
and
should
be
rated
3
in
this
category.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
Skokomish
River
habitat
impacts
are
relatively
high
for
summer
chum.
The
rating
is
1
for
this
category.

Broodstock
availability:
Broodstock
source
is
unknown
at
this
time.
The
rating
is
1
for
this
category.

Operational
resources
and
project
siting:
The
potential
exists
for
use
of
existing
WDFW
facilities
and
personnel
in
support
of
a
supplementation
project;
however,
the
operational
resources
and
project
siting
remain
undetermined
at
this
time,
indicating
a
category
rating
of
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
Total
rating
score
is
6.

Finch
Potential
Population
Size:
Unknown.
Category
rating
is
1.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
There
is
no
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
for
this
watershed.
Habitat
impacts
are
unknown.
Category
rating
is
1.

Broodstock
Availability:
Unknown.
Category
rating
is
1.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
145
Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
The
potential
exists
for
use
of
existing
WDFW
facilities
and
personnel
in
support
of
a
supplementation
project;
however,
the
operational
resources
and
project
siting
remain
undetermined
at
this
time,
indicating
a
category
rating
of
1.

Total
Rating
Score:
Total
rating
score
is
4.

Chimacum
Potential
Population
Size:
Unknown.
Category
rating
is
1.

Stream
Habitat
Impacts:
The
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
within
the
watershed
suggest
habitat
is
somewhat
degraded
with
areas
of
good
habitat
(
see
section
3.4
Habitat
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).
For
this
assessment,
Chimacum
Creek
habitat
impacts
appear
to
be
relatively
moderate.
The
category
rating
is
2.

Broodstock
Availability:
The
apparent
success
of
the
Salmon
Creek
supplementation
project
has
resulted
in
broodstock
being
available
from
that
source.
A
Chimacum
Creek
reintroduction
project
began
with
brood
year
1996
and
has
been
successful
in
obtaining
broodstock
from
Salmon
Creek
(
see
description
of
existing
projects,
Appendix
Report
3.2).
Category
rating
is
2.

Operational
Resources
and
Project
Siting:
Incubation
and
early
rearing
facilities
have
been
developed
on
the
stream
by
the
Wild
Olympic
Salmon
and
North
Olympic
Salmon
Coalition
groups,
under
the
supervision
of
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
Good
operational
resources
and
siting
exist
for
this
project.
Category
rating
is
2.

Total
Rating
Score:
Total
rating
score
is
7.

c)
Summary
of
General
Assessment
Rating
scores
of
the
supplementation
and
reintroduction
candidates
are
summarized
in
Table
3.4.
The
candidate
streams
are
shown
in
order
of
decreasing
total
scores
within
each
of
the
supplementation
and
reintroduction
categories.

Total
scoring
for
the
supplementation
candidate
stocks
ranges
from
16
to
5.
Lilliwaup
has
the
highest
score
at
16,
followed
by
Big/
Little
Quilcene
and
Snow/
Salmon
with
scores
of
14
and
13
respectively.
Dungeness
is
the
lowest
scoring
supplementation
stock
at
5.
Separation
by
total
scoring
among
the
reintroduction
candidate
stocks
is
much
less
than
with
the
supplementation
candidates,
largely
because
of
the
absence
of
the
current
stock
status
category;
scores
range
from
7
to
4.

Although
total
scoring
may
be
similar
among
either
supplementation
or
reintroduction
candidate
stocks,
component
scoring
differences
exist.
For
example,
the
total
score
for
Dewatto
is
7
and
is
supported
primarily
by
moderate
production
potential
(
2)
and
low
habitat
impacts
(
3).
Whereas
the
total
score
for
Chimacum
is
also
7,
and
is
supported
by
moderate
habitat
impacts
(
2),
good
availability
of
broodstock
(
2)
and
good
resources
and
siting
(
2).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
146
Table
3.4.
Summary
of
rating
scores
from
the
general
assessment
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
candidate
stocks.
Range
of
scores
available
within
each
category
is
shown
in
parentheses.

Stocks
Extinction
Potent.
Habitat
Broodstock
Resources
Total
Risk
Pop.
Impacts
Availability
and
Siting
Score
(
1,3,6)
Size
(
1­
3)
(
1­
2)
(
1­
2)
(
5­
16)
(
1­
3)

(
1)
Supplementation
Candidates
Lilliwaup
6
3
3
2
2
16
Big
/
Little
Quilcene
6
3
1
2
2
14
Snow
/
Salmon
6
2
1
2
2
13
Hamma
Hamma
3
3
2
1
2
11
Jimmycomelately
6
1
1
1
1
10
Duckabush
1
3
2
1
1
8
Dosewallips
1
3
2
1
1
8
Union
3
1
2
1
1
8
Dungeness
1
1
1
1
1
5
(
2)
Reintroduction
Candidates
Tahuya
N.
A.
3
3
1
1
8
Big
Beef
N.
A.
1
2
2
2
7
Dewatto
N.
A.
2
3
1
1
7
Chimacum
N.
A.
1
2
2
2
7
Skokomish
N.
A.
3
1
1
1
6
Anderson
N.
A.
1
2
1
1
5
Finch
N.
A.
1
1
1
1
4
Supplementation
Risks
Potential
hazards
to
natural
salmon
populations
that
may
result
from
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
are
described
in
section
3.2.2.1.
Guidelines
and
criteria
that
will
be
applied
to
help
address
these
hazards
are
presented
and
discussed
in
sections
3.2.2.3.
and
Appendix
Report
3.1.
The
risks
generally
fall
into
three
categories:
risk
of
hatchery
failure,
risk
of
ecological
effects,
and
genetic
risks.
Projects
proposed
through
this
plan
will
minimize
the
effects
of
these
hazards
by
following
the
indicated
risk
aversion
guidelines
and
criteria
when
designing
and
operating
projects,
by
monitoring
(
see
section
3.2.2.4)
to
ensure
the
guidelines
and
criteria
are
being
met,
and
by
modifying
or
terminating
projects
as
appropriate
in
response
to
the
monitoring
results.

The
risk
of
hatchery
failure
can
be
effectively
minimized
through
application
of
the
recommended
hatchery
design
and
operation
measures
presented
in
this
plan.
Recommended
hatchery
design
measures
include
siting
of
projects
in
areas
that
are
not
flood­
prone,
the
use
of
reliable,
clean
water
sources,
and
the
use
of
effective
incubation
and
rearing
apparatuses.
Operational
measures
that
can
be
applied
to
minimize
the
risk
of
hatchery
failure
include
full­
time,
on­
site
staffing,
and
employment
of
appropriate
egg
incubation
and
pond
rearing
densities.
These
safeguards,
when
incorporated
into
projects,
will
lessen
the
risk
of
catastrophic
loss
to
propagated
fish.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
147
Ecological
hazards
to
wild
summer
chum
populations,
and
to
other
salmonid
species,
are
assumed
not
to
be
a
major
concern.
Currently,
summer
chum
populations
in
the
region
are
substantially
reduced
from
their
historical
population
levels.
Therefore,
the
potential
for
negative
impacts
from
release
of
relatively
small
numbers
of
hatchery­
origin
fish,
in
attempting
to
build
populations
back
up
to
historical
levels,
appears
negligible.
The
small
size
at
release
for
summer
chum
salmon
produced
under
this
plan
makes
the
likelihood
for
predation
on
wild
fish
remote.
Summer
chum
released
through
the
proposed
programs
are
more
likely
to
be
a
prey
species
for
other
salmonids,
rather
than
a
predator
species.
Competition
with
natural
populations
for
food
or
for
spawning
areas
are
potential
concerns.
The
risk
of
food
resource
competition
with
wild
chum
will
be
minimized
by
releasing
hatchery
fish
at
a
larger
size
than
co­
occurring
wild
fish.
The
hatchery
fish
will
migrate
quickly
into
offshore
areas,
focusing
largely
on
pelagic,
rather
than
epibenthic
prey
preferred
by
emigrating
wild
fry.
Spatial
and
temporal
overlap
between
the
two
groups
for
preferred
food
items
will
be
minimal.
Competition
between
hatchery
and
wild
fish
of
the
same
stock
for
spawning
sites
and
access
to
mates
is
not
viewed
as
an
undesirable
consequence
of
the
supplementation
programs
because
the
objective
of
supplementation
is
to
increase
the
number
of
spawners
producing
in
the
wild.
Competition
between
wild
summer
chum
and
stray
hatchery
fish
from
another
watershed
is
not
likely
a
major
concern
due
to
the
high
fidelity
of
hatchery­
origin
chum
to
their
home
stream
(
Fuss
and
Hopley
1991).
The
practice
of
rearing
fish
to
release
size
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
reintroduction
will
act
to
minimize
straying,
further
reducing
the
risk
of
spawning
ground
competition
posed
by
non­
natal
hatchery
fish.
Effective
monitoring
of
the
progress
and
results
of
each
project
will
allow
for
the
detection
of
potential
ecological
effects
and
application
of
the
appropriate
management
response.

Genetic
hazards
associated
with
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction
are
a
potential
concern.
Depressed,
wild
summer
chum
populations
may
be
vulnerable
to
adverse
genetic
effects
that
could
result
from
hatchery­
related
measures.
Also,
genetic
effects
may
not
be
apparent,
at
least
initially,
but
may
affect
the
long­
term
fitness
and
survival
of
summer
chum
populations.
Consideration
of
genetic
hazards,
and
suggested
guidelines
to
address
them,
are
included
in
sections
3.2.2.3
of
this
plan.
One
hazard
is
the
loss
of
variability
among
populations.
The
risk
of
this
hazard
would
largely
depend
on
the
broodstock
source
for
each
program,
the
amount
of
straying,
and
outplanting
practices
for
cultured
fish.
Outplanting
of
progeny
from
one
stream
to
another
is
to
be
limited
to
reintroduction
projects
only,
and
then
donor
stocks
should
not
be
used
for
more
than
one
stream.
Again,
straying
does
not
appear
to
be
a
major
risk
with
hatchery­
origin
chum
salmon
because
of
their
strong
fidelity
to
the
stream
of
origin.
Marking
of
project
fish
releases
and
monitoring
returns
will
provide
specific
information
on
summer
chum
straying.
Projects
may
be
modified
or
terminated
in
response
to
indications
of
deleterious
genetic
effects.
Section
3.2.2.3.
provides
additional
criteria/
guidelines
that
will
be
applied
to
minimize
loss
of
among
population
diversity.

Another
hazard
is
loss
of
diversity
within
populations,
which
may
lead
to
a
reduction
in
the
fitness
of
the
supplemented
populations.
Adverse
project
effects
may
potentially
develop
if
broodstock
collection
is
biased
and
not
representative
of
the
characteristics
of
the
native
population,
including
timing,
fish
size,
age
class
structure,
and
sex
ratio.
Culture
practices
including
incubation,
rearing,
and
release
methods
may
also
select
for
traits
divergent
from
those
selected
under
natural
conditions,
potentially
diminishing
the
fitness
of
the
hatchery
fish
for
survival
in
the
wild.
Again,
these
concerns
are
addressed
through
risk
aversion
measures
included
in
the
criteria/
guidelines
of
sections
3.2.2.3
and
Appendix
Report
3.1.
Definitions
of
terms
applicable
to
genetics
risk
assessment
are
provided
in
the
glossary
of
the
overall
plan.
A
discussion
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
148
of
the
background
on
the
genetics
hazards
and
criteria
used
to
evaluate
risks
is
contained
in
Appendix
Report
3.3.

The
above
indicated
risks
of
implementing
a
supplementation
project
must
be
weighed
against
the
risk
of
the
population's
extinction
without
intercession
of
a
project.
Alternative
means
of
recovery
are
a
part
of
considering
the
extinction
risk.
The
previous
initial
assessment
and
ranking
of
candidate
stocks
includes
factors
bearing
on
the
risks
faced
by
each
stock.

a)
Assessing
the
Likelihood
of
Hazards
Compliance
with
guidelines,
operational
criteria,
and
monitoring
measures
in
this
plan
will
be
assumed
for
all
proposed
projects.
The
likelihood
for
hazards
resulting
from
supplementation
or
reintroduction
efforts
under
this
plan
will
therefore
be
assessed
by
gauging
the
risk
of
a
particular
hazard
for
a
project
that
will
be
operated
as
defined
herein.
Following
is
a
list
of
the
hazards
that
will
be
assessed
in
this
section.

1.
Hatchery
failure
hazards
to
be
assessed
are:
a.
Loss
of
eggs
or
fish
as
a
result
of
water
(
power)
system
failure.
b.
Loss
of
fish
as
a
result
of
inappropriate
incubator
or
pond
loading
densities.
c.
Catastrophic
loss
resulting
from
fish
disease
outbreaks.
d.
Siting
of
hatchery
incubation
and
rearing
facilities
in
flood­
prone
areas.

1.
Ecological
hazards
to
be
assessed
include:
a.
Predation
on
wild
summer
chum
populations.
b.
Competition
with
wild
summer
chum
for
food
and
spawning
sites.
c.
Transfer
of
fish
diseases
to
wild
summer
chum.

2.
Genetic
hazards
to
be
assessed
are:
a.
Reduction
in
effective
population
size;
is
a
consequence
of
a
supplementation
action,
that
decreases
the
abundance
of
the
natural
summer
chum
population
that
successfully
reproduces.
Judgements
regarding
the
acceptability
of
this
risk
may
be
based
on
whether
the
target
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
36
years.
This
duration
is
derived
from
an
average
summer
chum
life
span
of
3.6
years
applied
to
a
10
generation
risk
standard
set
forth
by
the
Federal
Court
in
judging
extinction
risk
(
Oregon
Natural
Resources
Council
v.
NMFS
and
the
State
of
Oregon
1998).
b.
Loss
of
within
population
diversity;
is
the
result
of
the
selective
pressures
of
hatchery
practices
and
the
hatchery
environment
on
the
genetic
make­
up
of
a
population.
c.
Loss
of
among
population
diversity;
is
caused
by
actions
that
break
down
the
naturally
occurring
isolating
mechanisms
which
foster
local
adaptation
and
diversity
among
populations.
d.
Masking
of
population
status;
is
where,
through
lack
of
proper
assessment
procedure,
the
monitoring
of
effects
or
measurement
criteria
of
natural
populations
is
inadequate
and
wild
summer
chum
population
status
is
therefore
masked.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
149
For
projects
proposed
under
this
plan,
and
consistent
with
guidelines
and
criteria
set
forth
herein,
determining
the
likelihood
of
each
hazard
is
accomplished
by
considering
specific
criteria.
A
judgement
is
made
as
to
the
probability
that
each
criterion
will
be
met,
given
this
plan's
risk
aversion
guidelines.
The
criteria
associated
with
each
hazard
are
shown
in
Table
3.5.

The
assessment
procedure
is
facilitated
by
a
set
of
worksheets
that
must
be
filled
out
for
each
project.
In
the
assessment,
probability
of
success
in
meeting
each
criterion
is
defined
as
a
value
selected
from
the
following
range:
low,
moderate,
high.
The
worksheets
include
the
provision
for
commentary
explaining
how
the
probability
of
successfully
meeting
the
criterion
is
determined.

Results
of
the
risk
assessments
including
existing
and
potential
projects
are
presented
in
worksheets
that
have
been
filled
out
and
included
in
Appendix
Report
3.4.
Table
3.6
summarizes
the
results
from
the
completed
worksheets.

Table
3.5.
Criteria
for
the
assessment
of
hazards.
(
Additional
discussion
in
Appendix
Report
3.3).

Hazard
I.
Hatchery
failure.
a.
Hatchery
personnel
live
on­
site
to
allow
rapid
response
to
water
source
or
power
failures.
b.
Low
pressure/
low
water
alarms
functioning
for
water
supplies
serving
summer
chum
rearing
areas.
c.
All
hatchery
personnel
responsible
for
rearing
fish
trained
in
standard
fish
propagation
and
fish
health
methods.
d.
Incubation
and
rearing
facilities
are
sited
in
areas
that
are
not
prone
to
flooding.

Hazard
II.
Ecological
effects.
a.
Propagated
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
life
stage
(
1
gram
fed
fry)
and
time
(
March­
April)
that
will
reduce
the
risk
of
predation
and
competition
effects
on
wild
fish.
b.
Summer
chum
are
reared
to
release
size
on
ground
or
surface
water
within
the
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
c.
Fish
health
practices
developed
by
the
co­
managers
are
applied
in
all
hatchery
activities
to
minimize
the
risk
of
fish
disease
occurrence,
transmittal,
and
catastrophic
loss.

Hazard
III.
Reduction
of
effective
population
size.
a.
Hatchery
fish
are
marked
to
accurately
estimate
the
proportion
of
hatchery
fish
spawning
naturally
in
target
population.
b.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
sampled
to
accurately
estimate
proportion
of
hatchery­
origin
fish
spawning
in
target
population.
c.
In
the
target
population,
the
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
be
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
equal
at
least
to
the
proportion
of
naturally
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fish
OR
The
target
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
stock
OR
The
project
is
to
reintroduce
fish
to
a
location
removed
from
the
target
population
with
likelihood
of
less
than
5­
15
%
return
to
the
target
population.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
150
Table
3.5.
Criteria
for
the
assessment
of
hazards
(
continued).

Hazard
IV.
Loss
of
within
population
diversity
a.
Broodstock
selection:
Broodstock
source
is
not
already
substantially
domesticated.
b.
Broodstock
collection:
S
Distribution
of
morphological,
behavioral
or
life­
history
traits
will
be
recorded
for
target
population.
S
Multi­
trait
distribution
of
broodstock
closely
matches
that
of
target
population,
in
terms
of
migration
timing,
age
class,
sex
ratio,
and
morphology.
S
Broodstock
collection
is
technically
and
logistically
feasible.
S
The
effective
population
size
will
be
maintained
through
broodstock
size
of
at
least
50
pairs
for
all
but
those
populations
where
the
total
population
size
is
less
than
200
fish.
c.
Mating,
rearing
and
release
methods:
S
At
a
minimum,
one
male
to
one
female
matings
will
be
standard.
S
Mating
and
rearing
methods
are
similar
enough
to
those
observed
in
the
wild
to
avoid
substantial
domestication
selection
pressure
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
no
longer
than
approximately
three
generations
or
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
S
Hatchery
progeny
will
be
released
at
essentially
the
same
sizes
and
life­
history
stages
as
observed
in
the
out­
migrating
target
population
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
no
longer
than
12
years)
OR
The
proportion
of
natural
spawners
that
are
hatchery­
origin
fish
in
the
target
population
is
less
than
5­
15%.
d.
Genetic
Swamping
(
Ryman­
Laikre
Effect
(
Ryman
and
Laikre
1991)):
S
Hatchery
induced
genetic
swamping
will
be
avoided.

Hazard
V.
Loss
of
among
population
diversity
a.
Broodstock
Selection:
S
All
discrete
populations
within
watershed
have
been
identified.
S
Selected
broodstock
source
is
substantially
genetically
similar
to
target
population.
S
Each
broodstock
will
only
be
used
to
reintroduce
one
stock.
b.
Broodstock
Collection:
S
It
will
be
possible
to
collect
at
a
location
and
time
such
that
only
the
target
population
will
be
subject
to
collection.
c.
Straying:
S
Hatchery
fish
will
be
reared
to
release
size
in
the
watershed
targeted
for
supplementation
or
reintroduction.
S
Hatchery
fish
will
be
marked
to
provide
effective
estimation
of
straying.
S
Adjacent
spawning
populations
will
be
effectively
monitored
to
detect
straying.

Hazard
VI.
Masking
a.
A
sufficient
proportion
of
hatchery­
origin
fish
are
marked
to
estimate
hatchery/
wild
ratios
on
the
spawning
grounds.
b.
Natural
spawning
is
regularly
monitored
to
accurately
estimate
proportion
of
hatchery­
origin
fish
spawning
in
target
population.
c.
Proportion
of
hatchery­
origin
fish
on
spawning
grounds
will
be
less
than
5­
15%
OR
Hatchery
program
will
be
of
short
duration
(
no
longer
than
12
years)
OR
Returning
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
spawn
primarily
in
habitat
currently
not
utilized
by
natural
spawners
of
the
same
species.

In
Tables
3.5
and
3.6,
although
the
criteria
for
fish
marking
and
monitoring
tagged
spawners
may
be
repeated
within
different
hazards,
the
context
of
the
criterion
changes
with
the
hazard.
Also,
in
Table
3.6,
a
specific
criterion
is
assigned
a
"
high"
probability
estimate
where
the
project,
or
the
procedure
required
by
the
criterion,
is
well
understood
and
there
is
certainty
that
the
resources
and
knowledge
are
available
to
meet
the
criterion.
A
"
moderate"
probability
is
assigned
where
there
is
less
certainty
that
the
resources
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
151
or
knowledge
is,
or
will
be,
available.
Finally,
when
there
is
a
high
level
of
uncertainty,
a
"
low"
probability
ranking
is
assigned.

As
indicated
in
Table
3.6,
most
criteria
are
judged
to
have
a
moderate
or
high
probability
of
being
met.
The
majority
of
the
moderate
assessments
are
owing
to
lack
of
knowledge
and
thus
uncertainty
about
whether
the
criterion
can
be
met;
though
in
each
case,
should
the
project
proceed,
the
intent
would
be
to
meet
the
criterion.
For
existing
projects,
a
moderate
probability
assessment
is
made
in
cases
where
there
has
not
yet
been
experience
with
the
criterion
or
where
that
experience
is
incomplete.
Low
probability
assessments
are
given
in
several
instances
but
most
notably
regarding
the
likelihood
of
detecting
straying;
the
probability
is
assigned
as
"
low"
because
the
funding
and
resources
to
adequately
sample
for
straying
is
currently
inadequate
(
Appendix
Report
3.4).
The
results
shown
in
Table
3.6
are
incorporated
into
the
final
consideration
of
each
project,
leading
to
the
final
selection
of
projects,
shown
below.

b)
Detection
of
Hazards
and
Actions
to
Take
Should
They
Occur
Table
3.7
describes
in
general
for
each
hazard,
how
failure
to
meet
the
hazard's
criteria
is
to
be
detected
and
what
adaptive
management
actions
shall
be
taken
in
the
event
of
such
failure.
For
example,
in
the
first
entry
of
the
table,
it
is
shown
that
under
the
hazard
of
reduction
in
effective
population
size
(
and/
or
the
hazard
of
masking),
if
the
criterion
of
marking
adequate
hatchery
releases
(
to
determine
proportion
of
hatchery­
produced
adults
on
spawning
grounds)
is
not
met,
the
trigger
to
action
(
second
column)
will
be
the
record
showing
that
the
number
of
tagged
fish
did
not
meet
the
specified
objective.
The
resulting
management
action
(
third
column)
will
be
to
determine
why
the
objective
was
not
met
and
then,
implement
changes
in
procedure
or
protocol
to
ensure
the
objective
is
met
in
the
future.
Also,
if
the
prospects
are
not
good
for
correcting
the
problem,
or
if
the
objective
is
not
met
a
second
time,
then
the
project
shall
be
reconsidered
based
on
the
increased
risk
associated
with
this
failure.
Table
3.7
is
a
reflection
of
the
intended
adaptive
management
procedure
to
be
used
for
all
components
of
the
summer
chum
plan;
that
is,
monitoring
of
the
management
action,
assessment
of
its
success,
review
of
objective(
s),
and
corrective
action.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
152
Table
3.6.
Likelihood
of
meeting
criteria
to
minimize
or
avoid
hazards
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.4
for
rating
details
in
watershed
worksheets).

Watershed
I.
Hatchery
Failure
II.
Ecological
Effects
III.
Reduction
in
Effective
Population
Size
IV.
Loss
of
Within
Population
Diversity
V.
Loss
of
Among
Population
Diversity
VI.
Masking
of
Population
Status
Water
Supply
Response
Trained
Site
Personnel
Flood­

safe
Site
Limit
Predat.

/

Competit.
Rear
within
Watershed
Avoid
Disease
Transfer
Fish
Monitoring
Tagged
Proportion
of
Natural
Spawners
Broodstock
not
Monitoring
Broodstock
Broodstock
Matches
Nat.

Spawners
Broodstock
Collection
Minimum
broodstock
Mating
&

Rearing
Hatchery
Release
Avoid
genetic
swamping
Populations
Broodstock
Source
is
Target
Pop.
Only
Target
Population
Broodstocked
Fish
Marking
Detection
of
Straying
Fish
Monitoring
tagged
Spawner
Proport.

Or
Project
Supplementation
Union
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
L
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Lilliwaup1
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Hamma
Hamma1
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
L
M
L
L
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
L
H
Duckabush
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
L
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Dosewallips
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
L
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Big
Quilcene1
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Salmon1
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
Jimmycomelately
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Dungeness
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
L
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
L
M
M
H
L
H
M
H
Reintroduction
Big
Beef1
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
Chimacum1
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Tahuya
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Dewatto
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Skokomish
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Anderson
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Finch
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
L
H
M
H
Existing
project.

1
Note:
Low
probability
=
L,
moderate
probability
=
M,
high
probability
=
H
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
153
Table
3.7.
Process
that
will
be
applied
to
reduce
losses
if
a
hazard
occurs.

Hazard
and
associated
criteria
Monitoring
or
other
trigger
Resulting
management
action
Reduction
in
effective
population
size
and/
or
Masking
a.
Inadequate
marking
of
hatchery
releases
b.
Inadequate
monitoring
of
natural
spawning
c.
Proportion
of
hatchery
natural
spawners
exceeds
criterion
or
alternative
related
criterion
not
met.
a.
Marking
record
does
not
meet
marking
objective.

b.
Sampling
record
shows
objective
not
reached.

c.
Monitoring
of
spawners
shows
criterion
not
met.
a.
b.
&
c.
Assess
reason
for
failure.
Implement
corrective
measures.
If
prospects
for
correction
are
poor
or
if
second
failure
occurs,
reconsider
whether
to
continue
the
project.

Loss
of
within
population
diversity
d.
Broodstock:
Traits
of
hatchery
fish
differ
from
natural
fish.

e.
Broodstock:
Collection
is
either
technically
or
logistically
not
successful.

f.
Mating,
rearing
or
release
methods
do
not
meet
criteria.

g.
Criteria
not
met
to
avoid
hatchery­
induced
genetic
swamping.
a.
Traits
are
measured
at
broodstocking.

Monitoring
from
year
to
year
shows
any
differences.

b.
Failure
to
meet
broodstocking
objectives
for
technical
or
logistic
reasons.

c.
Records
of
mating,
rearing
and
release
are
kept
and
checked
for
consistency
with
guidelines
and
criteria.

d.
Failure
to
meet
broodstocking
objectives
and
successful
culture
and
release
of
fish
in
one
or
more
years.
a.
b.
c
&
d.
Assess
reason
for
failure.
Implement
corrective
measures.
If
prospects
for
correction
are
poor
or
if
second
failure
occurs,
reconsider
whether
to
continue
the
project.

Loss
of
among
population
diversity
e.
Straying
of
hatchery
releases
exceeds
criterion.

f.
Suitable
broodstock
can
not
be
found
or
collection
is
not
feasible.
g.
Sample
adjacent
spawner
populations
for
hatchery
marks
and
check
to
see
if
straying
criteria
is
exceeded.

h.
Assumptions
about
selection
or
collection
are
found
to
be
false.
i.
If
criterion
is
not
met,
reconsider
whether
to
continue
the
project.

j.
Review
broodstocking
alternatives.
Reconsider
whether
to
continue
the
project.

Project
Selection
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
154
An
effective
project
selection
process
requires
that
all
the
factors
bearing
on
the
stock
and
associated
with
project
implementation
be
considered.
That
attempt
has
been
made
with
the
above
assessments.
Following
is
a
review
by
project
of
the
above
assessments.
For
each
project,
a
conclusion
as
to
its
selection
is
provided.

a)
Supplementation
Candidates
Union
The
Union
extinction
risk
is
estimated
to
be
moderate
based
on
the
risk
criterion
of
population
size;
that
is
the
average
effective
population
size
(
measured
as
escapement)
over
the
last
four
years
is
333
which
is
less
than
the
minimum
of
500
specified
by
the
risk
criterion
(
see
section
1.7.4
Stock
Extinction
Risk).
Despite
the
small
population
size,
Union
River
spawner
escapements
have
been
more
stable
than
for
any
other
stock
and
have
increased
since
the
1970s
(
see
Appendix
Table
1.1).
This
stability
was
the
major
factor
in
the
determination
of
stock
status
as
healthy
(
see
Stock
Status
in
Part
One).
Habitat
impacts
appear
relatively
moderate
and
potential
production
is
relatively
low.
Our
assessment
of
hazards
for
supplementation
(
Table
3.6)
shows
Union
River
to
have
moderate
to
high
probability
of
avoiding
most
hazards.
The
exceptions
are
for
proportion
of
hatchery­
origin
fish
on
the
spawning
grounds
(
difficult
to
control)
and
for
detection
of
straying
(
currently
inadequate
surveying
capability).

Conclusion:
The
relative
stability
of
the
Union
River
population
leads
to
a
recommendation
of
no
supplementation
at
this
time,
notwithstanding
the
rating
of
a
moderate
risk
of
extinction
based
on
population
size.
The
population
should
be
closely
monitored
and
supplementation
be
reconsidered
should
a
decreasing
trend
or
pattern
of
instability
develop.
Another
reason
to
reconsider
supplementation
would
be
to
develop
the
Union
stock
as
a
donor
for
reintroduction.

Lilliwaup
The
Lilliwaup
stock
is
judged
to
be
at
high
risk
of
extinction.
Habitat
impacts
are
relatively
low
and
thus
improvement
of
habitat,
while
merited,
would
not
appear
to
be
a
major
alternative
means
of
effecting
recovery.
Potential
production
appears
relatively
high,
good
project
facilities
exist
and
there
is
strong
operational
support.
The
assessment
of
supplementation
hazards
indicates
high
to
moderate
probability
of
meeting
most
criteria
to
avoid
genetic
hazards
(
Table
3.6).
The
exception
is
the
low
probability
of
success
determined
for
the
detection
of
straying
fish,
owing
primarily
to
lack
of
current
resources
for
adequate
sampling
to
detect
straying.
A
supplementation
project
has
been
in
operation
in
Lilliwaup
Creek
since
1992,
but
because
of
difficulties
encountered
in
collecting
broodstock,
production
levels
have
been
relatively
low,
not
exceeding
20,000
fry
in
any
one
year
(
for
detailed
description
see
Appendix
Report
3.2).
Beginning
in
1998,
WDFW
led
an
effort
to
build
a
weir
for
more
effective
broodstock
collection
and
sampling
of
summer
chum
returning
to
Lilliwaup
Creek.
This
effort
was
successful
and
the
majority
of
the
small
returning
run
was
collected
for
broodstock
as
intended.

Conclusion:
The
high
extinction
risk,
together
with
good
project
facilities
and
operational
support
recommends
for
continuation
of
the
supplementation
project.
Since
WDFW
has
begun
working
with
Long
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
155
Live
the
Kings
and
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group
in
deploying
and
operating
a
weir,
prospects
for
successful
broodstocking
and
mark
sampling
of
the
summer
chum
returns
appear
to
be
good.

Hamma
Hamma
The
stock
is
at
moderate
risk
of
extinction
and
has
a
history
of
questionable
escapement
stability.
Habitat
impacts
appear
to
be
relatively
low,
suggesting
improvements
to
habitat
alone
will
not
ensure
recovery.
Potential
production
based
on
historical
escapement
records
is
high,
and
adequate
project
facilities
and
strong
operational
support
exist
for
this
project
(
for
detailed
description
see
Appendix
Report
3.2).
However,
there
are
significant
problems
with
collecting
broodstock
and
potentially
with
sampling
spawners
for
marks.
The
broodstocking
goals
were
not
met
for
brood
years
1997
and
1998,
the
first
two
years
of
the
project,
and
prospects
for
future
collection
are
uncertain.
This
situation
poses
a
high
risk
for:
1)
project
failure
in
general
(
not
able
to
effectively
collect
broodstock);
2)
the
genetic
hazard
of
reduction
in
effective
sample
size
(
where
a
small,
non­
representative
component
of
the
population
is
enhanced
because
broodstocking
objectives
are
not
met);
and
3)
the
genetic
hazard
of
domestication
(
where
monitoring
traits
to
assess
project
effects
is
affected).

Conclusion:
The
project
is
merited
based
on
the
moderate
risk
of
extinction,
potential
production
and
operational
support.
However,
the
existing
project
should
not
continue
unless
and
until
an
effective
means
of
broodstocking
and
mark
sampling
of
spawners
is
found.

Duckabush
The
stock
is
at
low
risk
of
extinction.
However,
its
current
escapement
estimates
are
chronically
low
and
substantially
less
than
the
historical
estimates.
Habitat
impacts
are
relatively
low
and
potential
production
is
high.
Prospects
for
project
support,
facility
siting
and
broodstock
collection
have
not
been
determined.

Conclusion:
Because
Duckabush
does
not
currently
appear
to
be
at
risk
of
extinction,
no
supplementation
project
is
recommended.
The
stock
should
be
monitored
to
assess
recovery
and
change
in
status.

Dosewallips
Dosewallips
is
at
low
risk
of
extinction.
Its
current
escapement
estimates
are
chronically
low
and
substantially
less
than
the
historical
estimates.
Habitat
impacts
are
relatively
low
and
potential
production
is
high.
No
determination
has
been
made
of
prospects
for
project
support,
facility
siting
or
brood
stock
collection.
Current
escapement
estimates
average
2,537
over
five
years
(
1995­
1998);
however,
in
1997
escapement
was
estimated
to
be
only
47
spawners.
This
low
estimate
suggests
the
stream
should
be
monitored
for
a
downward
trend
or
increased
instability
in
future
years.

Conclusion:
Because
Dosewallips
does
not
appear
to
be
at
risk
of
extinction,
no
supplementation
project
is
recommended.
The
stock
should
be
monitored
to
assess
change
in
status
and
risk.

Big
and
Little
Quilcene
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
156
In
1992,
the
stock
was
in
critical
condition
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Escapement
had
fallen
to
extremely
low
levels
and
habitat
conditions
had
become
very
poor
in
the
lower
river
where
summer
chum
spawned
(
see
section
1.7.2
Stock
Definition
and
Status).
The
combination
of
the
critical
population
and
habitat
impacts
appeared
to
present
a
high
risk
of
extinction.
(
Our
current
assessment
shows
a
high
pre­
project
extinction
risk
­
see
section
1.7.4
Stock
Extinction
Risk)
Because
there
was
strong
support
from
the
agencies
and
tribes,
and
since
parallel
efforts
were
also
begun
to
manage
the
terminal
fisheries
for
the
protection
of
summer
chum
and
to
begin
planning
habitat
recovery,
a
supplementation
project
was
begun
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
and
has
for
the
most
part
been
successful
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.2
for
detailed
description
of
project).
Though
escapements
to
the
Big
Quilcene
River
have
increased
substantially
in
recent
years,
the
status
of
the
stock
is
currently
judged
to
be
"
depressed"
because
the
higher
escapements
are
likely
due
to
the
supplementation
effort,
Little
Quilcene
River
escapements
­
though
beginning
to
increase
­
are
still
relatively
low,
and
habitat
impacts
are
still
relatively
high.

Since
inception
of
the
supplementation
project,
there
has
been
only
limited
marking
of
hatchery
releases
with
the
result
that
differentiation
between
hatchery­
origin
and
natural­
origin
fish
on
the
spawning
grounds
has
not
been
feasible.
However,
all
brood
year
1997
and
1998
hatchery
releases
were
marked
with
adipose
fin
clips
and
it
is
expected
that
such
marking
will
continue
for
the
duration
of
the
project.
A
moderate
probability
of
successfully
monitoring
marks
and
thus
identifying
origin
of
returning
spawners
has
been
identified
because
effective
sampling
has
not
yet
been
demonstrated.
This
indicates
a
moderate
risk
for
the
potential
genetic
hazards
of
reduction
in
effective
population
size
and
masking
of
population
status.
The
genetic
risk
assessment
indicates
a
high
probability
of
meeting
all
other
criteria
to
avoid
genetic
hazards
(
Table
3.6).
The
Little
Quilcene
River
is
not
being
supplemented
as
the
population
has
been
deemed
to
be
the
same
as
the
Big
Quilcene
population,
and
recent
natural
escapements
have
begun
to
improve.

Conclusion:
High
risk
to
the
summer
chum
population
led
to
the
initiation
of
a
supplementation
project.
The
project
is
recommended
to
continue
because
1)
the
project
has
been
successful
in
all
areas
except
identifying
origin
of
returning
spawners,
2)
an
effective
marking
program
has
been
implemented
to
address
this
issue,
3)
sampling
for
marked
spawners
is
expected
to
be
adequate,
and
4)
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
is
the
donor
stock
for
the
Big
Beef
reintroduction.
Habitat
conditions
must
still
be
stabilized
and
improved,
and
harvest
management
measures
to
protect
summer
chum
should
also
continue.

Salmon/
Snow
The
Salmon/
Snow
stock
does
not
currently
appear
at
risk
of
extinction
based
on
recent
fairly
stable
escapement
estimates,
at
least
in
Salmon
Creek.
However,
the
stock
status
is
judged
to
be
depressed
because
total
escapements
are
still
substantially
less
than
historical
estimates
(
see
section
1.7.2
Stock
Definition
and
Status).
A
supplementation
project
was
begun
on
Salmon
Creek
in
1992
with
the
primary
objectives
to
recover
the
stock
from
its
then
"
critical"
status
(
WDF
et
al.
1993),
and
to
develop
a
broodstock
source
for
Chimacum
Creek
where
summer
chum
had
been
extirpated
(
see
Chimacum
project
under
"
Reintroduction
Candidates"
below).
(
Our
current
assessment
shows
a
high
pre­
project
extinction
risk
­
see
section
1.7.4
Stock
Extinction
Risk)
Strong
local
support
for
the
Salmon
Creek
project
exists,
there
is
good
broodstocking
and
rearing
capability,
and
the
project
has
been
relatively
successful
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.2).
Probabilities
for
meeting
genetic
risk
criteria
are
all
high.
The
exceptions
are
for
proportion
of
hatchery­
origin
fish
on
the
spawning
grounds
(
difficult
to
control)
and
for
detection
of
straying.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
157
All
fish
have
been
otolith
marked
successfully
since
1993.
Snow
Creek
is
not
proposed
for
supplementation
at
this
time
as
the
population
has
been
deemed
to
be
the
same
as
the
Salmon
Creek
population.
Natural
repopulation
of
Snow
Creek
through
straying
from
Salmon
Creek
will
be
given
priority
over
supplementation
using
Snow
Creek
broodstock
on
the
short
term.

Conclusion:
The
Salmon
Creek
project
should
be
continued
with
the
purpose
of
providing
broodstock
for
the
Chimacum
Creek
reintroduction
project.

Jimmycomelately
The
Jimmycomelately
stock
is
at
a
high
risk
of
extinction.
Habitat
impacts
are
high
and
may
be
contributing
to
the
risk.
Jimmycomelately
Creek
is
the
only
stream
known
to
presently
support
a
summer
chum
population
in
Sequim
Bay.
High
and
moderate
probabilities
of
success
are
generally
indicated
for
genetic
risk
criteria.
The
moderate
ratings
indicated
in
Table
3.6
were
assigned
because
project
design
and
planning
have
not
yet
been
done,
and
therefore
uncertainty
exists
regarding
some
criteria.
The
single
low
probability
rating
applies
to
detection
of
straying
owing
to
currently
inadequate
sampling
capability.

Conclusion:
Because
the
population
is
at
risk,
a
supplementation
project
is
recommended
for
Jimmycomelately
Creek.
Genetic
risks
should
be
considered
in
the
course
of
designing
and
planning
the
project.
Measures
for
protection
and
recovery
of
habitat
should
be
addressed
concurrent
with
project
development.

Dungeness
The
status
of
the
Dungeness
stock
is
unknown.
Little
knowledge
about
the
population
exists,
making
it
difficult
to
assess
the
prospects
and
risks
of
a
supplementation
project.

Conclusion:
No
project
is
recommended
until
sufficient
knowledge
about
the
summer
chum
population
is
collected
to
make
an
adequate
assessment
of
the
risks
and
potential
for
successful
implementation.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
158
b)
Reintroduction
Candidates
Big
Beef
Summer
chum
have
not
been
observed
in
Big
Beef
Creek
since
1984.
The
University
of
Washington
research
station
at
RM
0.25
can
provide
a
water
source
and
site
for
a
reintroduction
project.
A
fish
weir
is
maintained
at
the
same
location
by
WDFW
for
monitoring
upstream
and
downstream
coho
migrants.
The
weir
can
also
be
used
for
monitoring
reintroduced,
summer
chum
adult
returns
and
natural
production
of
fry
resulting
from
those
returns.
These
advantages
led
to
the
selection
of
Big
Beef
Creek
as
an
experimental
site
for
the
assessment
of
a
reintroduction
project
in
Hood
Canal
beginning
with
brood
year
1996
and
using
Big
Quilcene
summer
chum
as
the
broodstock
source
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.2
for
detailed
description).
Stream
habitat
impacts
are
presently
relatively
high,
but
efforts
have
begun
to
improve
general
habitat
conditions
in
the
watershed
(
see
3.4
Habitat.
Generally
high
probabilities
of
success
are
indicated
for
meeting
genetic
risk
criteria.

Conclusion:
The
Big
Beef
experimental
reintroduction
project
should
be
continued.
Measures
for
protection
and
recovery
of
habitat
should
continue
to
be
addressed
concurrent
with
project
development.

Chimacum
No
summer
chum
have
been
observed
in
Chimacum
Creek
since
1983
(
R.
Lowrie,
pers.
comm.,
1998;
WDFW
escapement
data,
1998).
Habitat
impacts
in
the
creek
are
relatively
high
and
likely
were
a
major
factor
in
the
demise
of
summer
chum
(
see
section
3.4
Habitat).
A
reintroduction
project
was
begun
in
brood
year
1996
with
the
broodstock
source
from
Salmon
Creek
(
see
detailed
description
of
Chimacum
project
in
Appendix
Report
3.2).
A
good
project
site
has
been
selected
and
there
is
strong
operational
support.
High
probabilities
for
meeting
genetic
risk
criteria
are
indicated,
except
for
a
moderate
probability
of
successfully
monitoring
marked
spawners.

Conclusion:
The
Chimacum
project
should
be
continued.
A
specific
plan
for
monitoring
marked
spawners
should
be
developed
prior
to
the
first
return
of
hatchery­
origin
summer
chum
salmon
to
the
stream.
Measures
for
protection
and
recovery
of
habitat
should
be
addressed
concurrent
with
project
development.

Tahuya
No
significant
numbers
of
summer
chum
have
returned
to
the
Tahuya
River
since
the
late
1980s.
Habitat
impacts
appear
to
be
relatively
low.
High
and
moderate
probabilities
of
success
are
indicated
for
genetic
risk
criteria.
Moderate
ratings
were
assigned
because
project
design
and
planning
have
not
yet
been
done
and
therefore
uncertainty
exists
regarding
some
criteria.

Conclusion:
Reintroduction
may
be
considered
in
the
future.
Initiation
of
a
project
is
delayed
pending
determination
of
an
available
broodstock,
and
acquisition
of
funding
and
resources
to
pursue
a
project
(
see
below).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
159
Dewatto
A
population
of
summer
chum
has
been
absent
from
the
Dewatto
River
since
1991.
Habitat
impacts
are
relatively
low.
High
and
moderate
probabilities
of
success
are
indicated
for
genetic
risk
criteria.
Moderate
ratings
were
assigned
because
project
design
and
planning
have
not
yet
been
done
and
therefore
uncertainty
exists
regarding
some
criteria.

Conclusion:
Reintroduction
may
be
considered
in
the
future.
Initiation
of
a
project
is
delayed
pending
determination
of
an
available
broodstock,
and
acquisition
of
funding
and
resources
to
pursue
a
project
(
see
below).

Skokomish
Relatively
few
summer
chum
have
been
observed
in
spawner
surveys
over
the
years
and
there
are
no
escapement
estimates.
Habitat
impacts
are
extremely
high
in
this
watershed.
Catch
records
suggest
that
at
one
time
relatively
large
numbers
of
summer
chum
returned
to
the
Skokomish
River.
However,
observations
of
recent
years
have
lead
to
the
assumption
that
currently
there
remains
no
sustainable
stock
of
summer
chum
in
the
Skokomish
River
(
see
section
1.7.2
Stock
Definition
and
Status).
High
and
moderate
probabilities
of
success
are
indicated
for
genetic
risk
criteria.
The
moderate
ratings
were
assigned
because
project
design
and
planning
have
not
yet
been
done
and
therefore
uncertainty
exists
regarding
some
criteria.

Conclusion:
The
Skokomish
River
may
be
considered
for
supplementation
in
the
future.

Anderson
Creek
No
returning
population
of
summer
chum
has
been
observed
in
Anderson
Creek
since
the
1970s.
Production
potential
appears
to
be
relatively
low
and
habitat
impacts
appear
relatively
moderate
in
comparison
to
other
streams.
There
is
little
insight
to
genetic
risks
since
there
has
been
no
project
design
or
planning
upon
which
to
base
the
assessment.

Conclusion:
Reintroduction
may
be
considered
in
the
future.
Initiation
of
a
project
is
delayed
pending
assessment
of
ongoing
reintroduction
projects,
determination
of
an
available
broodstock,
and
acquisition
of
funding
and
resources
to
pursue
a
project.
Because
of
its
smaller
production
potential
and
moderately
rated
habitat
impacts,
Anderson
Creek
would
have
lower
priority
for
reintroduction
than
the
Tahuya
or
Dewatto
rivers.

Finch
Little
is
known
about
the
summer
chum
in
Finch
Creek.
Our
knowledge
is
restricted
to
observations
made
of
returns
to
the
WDFW
Hoodsport
Hatchery
rack
following
construction
of
the
hatchery
in
1953.
Adult
returns
were
relatively
small,
averaging
approximately
470
fish
per
year
over
13
years,
from
1953
through
1965.
Occasionally,
one
or
two
adults
entered
the
rack
in
subsequent
years;
however,
these
may
have
been
spawners
destined
for
other
streams
that
wandered
into
Finch
Creek
but
were
prevented
by
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
160
hatchery
rack
from
leaving.
Until
recent
years,
no
adults
that
entered
the
hatchery
facilities
were
returned
to
the
stream.

Conclusion:
Reintroduction
may
be
considered
in
the
future.
However,
the
effects
and
limitations
of
the
hatchery
facilities
on
a
natural
summer
chum
run
should
first
be
evaluated.

c)
Project
Selection
Summary
Supplementation
is
recommended
for
five
candidate
stocks
in
the
region;
three
in
Hood
Canal
and
two
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
see
below).
The
recommendation
for
Hamma
Hamma
is
qualified;
that
is,
the
existing
supplementation
project
should
not
continue
unless
and
until
an
effective
means
of
broodstocking
is
found.
Existing
supplementation
projects
are
recommended
to
continue
for
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene,
Lilliwaup
and
Snow/
Salmon
and
a
new
supplementation
project
is
recommended
on
Jimmycomelately.
These
project
recommendations
are
based
on
judgements
of
high
to
moderate
extinction
risk
(
at
least
immediately
prior
to
the
beginning
of
projects),
and
the
assessment
of
acceptable
levels
of
risk
from
project
implementation.

Our
assessment
indicates
projects
for
all
seven
reintroduction
candidates
may
be
acceptable.
Two
of
these,
Big
Beef
and
Chimacum,
have
existing
projects.
Because
of
the
facilities
and
other
resources
available
at
Big
Beef,
an
experimental
project
designed
to
evaluate
the
success
of
a
reintroduction
effort
has
begun.
The
results
of
the
project
will
be
useful
in
planning
and
implementing
future
reintroduction
projects.
Monitoring
of
the
Chimacum
project
will
also
be
helpful
in
this
way.

Ultimately,
summer
chum
may
be
restored
to
most
if
not
all
former
summer
chum
streams
capable
of
sustaining
a
natural
population.
As
a
part
of
this
plan,
there
will
be
a
periodic
review
of
streams
to
consider
newly
available
information
bearing
on
their
candidacy
as
reintroduction
streams
(
see
section
3.2.2.4,
p.
130).
After
the
two
aforementioned
streams
with
existing
projects,
the
current
two
primary
candidates
for
reintroduction
are
Tahuya
and
Dewatto.
The
Skokomish,
Anderson
and
Finch
also
remain
candidates,
but
have
lower
priority
at
this
time.
Projects
on
the
Tahuya
and
Dewatto
are
deferred
pending
determination
and
availability
of
a
broodstock
source,
and
acquisition
of
adequate
funding
and
other
resources.
Projects
on
the
other
three
streams
are
deferred
for
at
least
four
years
to
allow
time
for
assessing
the
success
of
existing
projects,
further
review
and
evaluation
of
the
candidate
streams,
determination
of
broodstock
sources,
and
acquisition
of
adequate
funding
and
other
resources.

The
selection
of
projects
is
summarized
as
follows:

Existing
Projects:

Recommended
to
Continue:
Supplementation:
Big
Quilcene,
Lilliwaup,
Salmon
Creek
Reintroduction:
Big
Beef,
Chimacum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
161
Recommended
with
Qualification:
Supplementation:
Hamma
Hamma
(
requires
effective
broodstocking
capability)

New
Projects:

Supplementation:
Jimmycomelately
Reintroduction:
None
Potential
Future
Projects:

Supplementation:
Union
(
for
the
purpose
of
developing
as
a
donor
stock)
Reintroduction:
Tahuya,
Dewatto
Projects
Not
Recommended
at
this
time:

Supplementation:
Dungeness,
Dosewallips,
Duckabush
Reintroduction:
Skokomish,
Anderson,
Finch
3.2.3.4
Implementation
Plans
This
section
provides
agreed
goals
and
strategies
for
using
supplementation
in
the
recovery
of
Hood
Canal/
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon.
These
implementation
plans
for
each
watershed
indicate
the
general
approach
to
be
used.
Stocks
are
grouped
under
the
following
categories:
1)
selected
for
supplementation
or
reintroduction,
2)
not
recommended
at
this
time,
pending
further
assessment,
and
3)
not
recommended
for
supplementation
or
reintroduction
under
this
plan.
Background
information,
and
details
regarding
specific
supplementation
implementation
plans,
such
as
number
of
fish
to
be
collected
as
broodstock,
or
produced
as
fry,
are
included
as
appropriate.
These
plans
will
be
implemented
consistent
with
general
and
specific
criteria
presented
within
this
plan.

Hood
Canal
Region
Following
are
goals,
objectives
and
strategies
for
the
use
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
for
the
individual
stocks
within
the
Hood
Canal
region.

d)
Selected
Projects
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
A
supplementation
program
using
indigenous
spawners
was
implemented
at
QNFH
in
1992
as
a
strategy
for
preventing
extirpation
of
the
population.
The
judgement
to
supplement
was
based
on
an
observed
severe
downward
trend
in
wild
escapement
levels,
the
low
effective
population
size
resulting
from
consecutively
low
escapements,
and
the
occurrence
of
intercepting
coho­
directed
fisheries
in
the
terminal
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
162
areas.
In
addition,
complementary
fisheries
protection
actions
taken
in
terminal
areas,
and
habitat
management
actions
designed
to
protect
the
summer
chum
population,
contributed
to
the
decision
to
implement
a
supplementation
program.
Broodstock
used
for
the
supplementation
program
have
been
collected
predominately
from
the
spawning
population
returning
to
Quilcene
Bay,
and
hatchery­
origin
fish
have
been
incorporated
annually
with
natural­
origin
chum
since
the
first
returns
of
hatchery
chum
in
1995.
The
following
are
objectives
for
the
recovery
of
this
population:

Objective
1:
Stabilize
or
increase
the
number
of
summer
chum
returning
to
the
rivers
to
retain
future
options
for
the
continued
recovery
of
the
natural
population.
Maintain
the
naturally
spawning
population
in
the
rivers
and,
for
up
to
12
years
(
beginning
in
1992),
maintain
a
summer
chum
release
program
at
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
based
on
the
indigenous
stock.

Objective
2:
Boost
the
numbers
of
naturally
produced
fish
in
the
population
returning
to
the
Quilcene
Bay
area
using
hatchery
and
natural
origin
fish
as
donors.
Procure
up
to
170
spawning
pairs
to
produce
an
initial
fed
fry
release
level
of
389,000
into
the
Big
Quilcene
River
each
year.
This
initial
389,000
fish
release
level
is
the
maximum
of
the
Big
Quilcene
recommended
annual
fry
supplementation
range
presented
in
Appendix
Report
3.1,
Appendix
Table
3.1.1.

Objective
3:
Monitor
and
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
supplementation
program,
as
measured
by
consistency
with
criteria
set
forth
in
section
3.2.2.3.
Report
the
results
of
the
program
each
year.

Objective
4:
Decrease
fed
fry
release
levels
into
the
Big
Quilcene
River
when
combined
hatchery
and
wildorigin
returns
have
averaged
or
exceeded
2,607
adults
over
four
consecutive
brood
years,
as
achieved
in
1998,
when
the
recent
four
year
average
was
5,500.
Cease
production
when
combined
natural­
origin
recruit
(
NOR)
and
wild­
origin
return
levels
have
exceeded
2,607
over
four
consecutive
brood
years.

Objective
5:
Future
consideration
will
be
given
to
the
option
of
continuing
supplementation
at
a
level
that
will
support
tribal
treaty
fishing
opportunity
in
Quilcene
Bay.
In
this
instance,
the
project
would
change
from
a
supplementation
program
with
the
primary
objective
of
stock
recovery
to
a
harvest
enhancement
program
with
the
primary
objective
of
maintaining
fishing
opportunity.
Specific
conditions,
criteria,
and
guidelines
will
need
to
be
defined
before
such
a
program
will
be
pursued.

Objective
6:
Monitor
returns
to
the
Little
Quilcene
River
to
determine
if
supplementation
from
the
QNFH
is
appropriate
and
warranted
in
the
future.

Objective
7:
Manage
the
Little
Quilcene
population
as
a
wild
fish
production
area,
with
escapement
levels
affected
by
straying
fish
and
broodstocking
efforts
associated
with
the
supplementation
program
for
the
Big
Quilcene
River.
Supplementation
in
this
watershed
is
an
option
in
the
future
if
this
portion
of
the
population
is
not
able
to
recover
on
its
own.

Objective
8:
Support
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
into
Big
Beef
Creek,
where
the
species
has
been
extirpated.
Procure
an
additional
45
spawning
pairs
to
produce
100,000
eyed
eggs
each
year
for
transfer
to
Big
Beef
Creek.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
163
Objective
9:
Establish
Quilcene
stock
in
Big
Beef
Creek
to
reduce
the
risk
of
extirpation
by
spreading
that
risk
between
the
two
watersheds.
Successful
establishment
will
be
considered
to
be
a
range
extension
for
the
Big
Quilcene
stock.

Hamma
Hamma
Beginning
in
1997,
a
supplementation
program
was
initiated
using
indigenous
fish.
Although
modest
in
scale
thus
far,
this
program
may
be
used
in
future
years
to
boost
the
abundance
of
summer
chum
spawning
in
the
watershed.
Problems
in
collecting
adequate
broodstock
have
existed
due
to
the
lack
of
an
effective
trapping
mechanism.
The
future
of
this
project
will
depend
upon
the
development
of
broodstock
collection
methods
that
conform
to
the
criterion
in
this
plan.
The
following
are
objectives
for
using
supplementation
in
the
recovery
of
this
population.

Objective
1:
Determine
if
effective
broodstock
collection
methods
can
be
developed
that
will
conform
to
the
criterion
in
this
plan.

Objective
2:
Develop
and
maintain,
for
12
years
(
beginning
in
1997),
a
population
comprised
of
supplemented
and
naturally
spawning
fish
using
hatchery
and
wild­
origin
broodstock.

Objective
3:
Boost
the
numbers
of
naturally
produced
fish
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
using
the
indigenous
population
as
the
donor.

Objective
4:
Distribute
production
throughout
appropriate
areas
within
the
drainage
to
ensure
that
available
summer
chum
spawning
habitat
is
utilized
(
e.
g.,
John
Creek).

Objective
5:
Monitor
and
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
supplementation
program,
as
measured
by
consistency
with
criteria
set
forth
in
section
3.2.2.3.
Report
the
results
of
the
program
each
year.

Lilliwaup
Beginning
in
1992,
a
supplementation
program
was
initiated
using
indigenous
fish
as
a
cooperative
between
Long
Live
The
Kings,
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group
and
WDFW.
The
program
has
remained
modest
in
scale
due
mainly
to
low
total
adult
return
levels
in
recent
years
and
the
lack
of
access
to
broodstock.
Recent
placement
of
a
fish
weir
in
the
lower
creek
will
help
this
program
become
more
successful
in
capturing
broodstock
for
supplementation
in
subsequent
years.
Progeny
produced
will
be
used
to
boost
the
abundance
of
summer
chum
spawning
in
the
watershed.
The
following
are
objectives
for
using
supplementation
in
the
recovery
of
this
population,
and
other
appropriate
populations.

Objective
1:
Develop
and
maintain,
for
12
years
(
beginning
in
1992),
a
population
comprised
of
supplemented
and
naturally
spawning
fish
using
hatchery
and
wild­
origin
broodstock.

Objective
2:
Boost
the
numbers
of
naturally
produced
fish
in
the
Lilliwaup
using
the
indigenous
population
as
the
donor.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
164
Objective
3:
Monitor
and
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
supplementation
program,
as
measured
by
consistency
with
criteria
set
forth
in
section
3.2.2.3.
Report
the
results
of
the
program
each
year.

Big
Beef
A
reintroduction
program
was
initiated
in
1996
using
Big
Quilcene
River
summer
chum
to
re­
establish
a
population
in
Big
Beef
Creek.
The
reintroduction
program
was
continued
in
1997
and
1998,
and
approximately
524,000
fed
fry
have
been
released
thus
far
as
a
result
of
this
effort.
Research
projects
investigating
wild
and
hatchery­
origin
summer
chum
productivity
in
Big
Beef
Creek
will
commence
with
the
first
adult
returns
resulting
from
the
reintroduction
program.
If
successful
in
establishing
a
self­
sustaining
adult
return,
this
re­
introduction
will
represent
a
range
extension
of
the
Big
Quilcene
River
stock.
The
following
are
objectives
for
using
supplementation
in
the
re­
establishment
of
a
summer
chum
population
in
Big
Beef
Creek:

Objective
1:
Release
Quilcene
River­
origin
fry
into
the
historical
habitat
of
the
Big
Beef
Creek
population.
Monitor
adult
returns
from
the
initial
releases
and
evaluate
the
natural
spawning
success
of
these
adults,
where
success
is
measured
by
return
of
naturally
produced
adult
off­
spring.

Objective
2:
Determine
if
a
self­
sustaining,
viable
population
has
been
established
through
the
reintroduction
program
from
QNFH.

Objective
3:
Develop
and
maintain,
for
up
to
12
years
(
beginning
in
1996),
a
population
comprised
of
supplemented
and
naturally
spawning
fish
using
hatchery
and
wild­
origin
broodstock.

Objective
4:
Implement
a
study
to
identify
and
compare
wild
and
hatchery­
origin
chum
spawner
productivity,
and
survival
from
out­
migration
to
adult
return.
Monitor
and
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
supplementation
program,
as
measured
by
consistency
with
criteria
set
forth
in
section
3.2.2.3.
Report
the
results
of
the
program
each
year.

e)
Projects
Not
Recommended
at
This
Time,
Pending
Further
Assessment
Tahuya
The
current
level
of
observed
escapements
in
the
Tahuya
River
are
not
indicative
of
the
existence
of
a
selfsustaining
summer
chum
population
(
see
section1.7.2
Stock
Definition
and
Status).
Production
historically
depended
on
wild
spawners
only,
and
no
hatchery
programs
using
summer
chum
were
implemented
in
the
watershed.
The
following
are
objectives
for
using
supplementation
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
to
the
Tahuya
River
in
future
years.

Objective
1:
Transfer
southern
Hood
Canal­
origin
eyed
eggs
from
an
appropriate
stock
for
incubation,
rearing
and
release
of
fry
into
the
historical
habitat
of
the
Tahuya
River
population.
Monitor
adult
returns
resulting
from
the
initial
releases
and
assess
the
natural
spawning
success
of
these
adults,
where
success
is
measured
by
return
of
the
naturally
produced
adult
off­
spring.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
165
Objective
2:
Determine
if
a
self­
sustaining,
viable
population
has
been
established
through
the
reintroduction
program.
If
return
levels
are
below
desired
recovery
levels
after
an
indigenous
population
has
been
established,
use
it
as
broodstock
to
supplant
transfers,
fostering
local
adaptation.
If
a
self­
sustaining
population
is
successfully
established,
the
population
will
represent
a
range
extension
of
the
donor
southern
Hood
Canal
stock.

Union
In
contrast
to
other
summer
chum
production
streams
within
the
region,
the
Union
River
summer
chum
population
has
been
stable
or
has
increased
in
abundance
in
recent
years
relative
to
historic
levels.
Production
has
depended
on
wild
spawners
only,
and
no
hatchery
programs
using
summer
chum
have
been
implemented
in
the
watershed.
The
population
is
currently
considered
to
be
"
healthy"
in
status,
due
to
stable,
increased
brood
year
escapements
relative
to
historical
levels.
However,
because
of
its
relatively
low
population
size,
this
stock
was
rated
at
"
moderate"
risk
of
extinction.
Although
small
in
population
size,
this
stock
was
not
selected
for
supplementation
because
of
the
relative
stability
of
spawner
abundance
observed
over
the
last
24
years.
The
following
objective
addresses
managing
the
Union
River
population
under
this
plan.

Objective
1:
Maintain
the
Union
River
as
a
wild
fish
production
area,
retaining
the
population
in
its
natural
state.
No
supplementation
is
planned
for
this
population,
excepting
as
may
be
deemed
appropriate
to
build
the
population
for
use
as
a
donor
stock
for
a
reintroduction
program.

Dewatto
The
Dewatto
River
summer
chum
population
has
been
functionally
extirpated
since
1991.
Production
has
historically
depended
only
on
wild
spawners,
and
no
hatchery
programs
using
summer
chum
were
implemented
in
the
watershed.
The
following
are
objectives
for
using
supplementation
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
into
the
Dewatto
River
in
future
years.

Objective
1:
Transfer
southern
Hood
Canal­
origin
eyed
eggs
from
an
appropriate
stock
for
incubation,
rearing
and
release
of
fry
into
the
historical
habitat
of
the
Dewatto
River
population.
Monitor
adult
returns
from
the
initial
releases
and
assess
the
natural
spawning
success
of
these
adults,
where
success
is
measured
by
return
of
the
naturally
produced
adult
offspring.

Objective
2:
Determine
if
a
self­
sustaining,
viable
population
has
been
established
through
the
reintroduction
program.
If
return
levels
are
below
desired
recovery
levels
after
an
indigenous
population
has
been
established,
use
it
as
broodstock
to
supplant
transfers,
fostering
local
adaptation.
If
a
self­
sustaining
population
is
successfully
established,
the
population
will
represent
a
range
extension
of
the
donor
stock.

Skokomish
A
viable,
self­
sustaining
summer
chum
population
does
not
exist
in
the
Skokomish
River.
Analysis
of
historical
data
is
needed
to
determine
the
abundance
and
distribution
of
the
past
population
and
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
166
desirable
rebuilding
objectives
that
might
be
pursued
through
the
use
of
supplementation
in
the
watershed.
The
following
are
objectives
for
the
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
to
the
Skokomish
system:

Objective
1:
A
detailed
assessment
of
the
status
of
the
habitat
pertaining
to
its
to
sustain
summer
chum
is
needed
prior
to
any
attempts
at
reintroduction.
If
suitable
habitat
is
found,
retain
future
options
for
reintroduction.

Objective
2:
If
the
habitat
is
deemed
suitable,
consider
the
development
and
maintenance,
for
up
to
12
years,
a
population
comprised
of
reintroduced
summer
chum
from
an
adjacent
watershed
and
naturally
spawning
fish
using
hatchery
and
wild­
origin
broodstock.
This
establishment
will
be
considered
to
be
a
range
extension
for
the
founding
population.

Objective
3:
Monitor
and
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
any
reintroduction
program,
as
measured
by
consistency
with
criteria
set
forth
in
section
3.2.2.3.
Report
the
results
of
the
program
each
year.

Anderson
The
Anderson
Creek
summer
chum
population
was
extirpated
in
the
early
1980s,
and
no
spawners
have
been
observed
in
the
creek
since
1985.
The
following
are
objectives
for
reintroducing
a
summer
chum
population
in
Anderson
Creek:

Objective
1:
Transfer
in
eyed
eggs
from
an
appropriate
summer
chum
stock
for
incubation,
rearing
and
release
of
fry
into
the
historical
habitat
of
the
Anderson
Creek
population.
Monitor
adult
returns
from
the
initial
releases
and
assess
the
natural
spawning
success
of
these
adults,
where
success
is
measured
by
return
of
the
naturally
produced
adult
offspring.

Objective
2:
Determine
if
a
self­
sustaining,
viable
population
has
been
established
through
the
reintroduction
program.
If
return
levels
are
below
desired
recovery
levels
after
an
indigenous
population
has
been
established,
use
it
as
broodstock
to
supplant
transfers,
fostering
local
adaptation.
If
a
self­
sustaining
population
is
successfully
established,
the
population
will
represent
a
range
extension
of
the
donor
stock.

f)
Stocks
Not
Recommended
for
Supplementation
or
Reintroduction
Dosewallips
Production
in
the
Dosewallips
River
has
depended
on
wild
spawners
only,
and
recent
year
abundances
do
not
appear
to
have
been
influenced
by
hatchery­
origin
strays.
This
population
is
not
being
considered
for
supplementation
because
of
an
increasing
population
abundance
trend
and
an
assigned
"
low"
extinction
risk
rating.
The
following
objective
addresses
recovery
of
the
Dosewallips
River
population.

Objective
1:
Maintain
the
Dosewallips
River
as
a
wild
fish
production
area,
retaining
the
summer
chum
population
in
its
natural
state.
No
supplementation
is
planned
for
this
population,
and
recovery
is
expected
through
promotion
of
natural
rebuilding,
commensurate
with
habitat
protection
and
fisheries
protection
initiatives.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
167
Duckabush
No
supplementation
of
summer
chum
in
the
Duckabush
River
watershed
has
occurred
over
the
past
57
years,
and
production
depends
entirely
on
natural
spawners.
This
population
is
not
being
considered
for
supplementation
because
of
an
increasing
population
abundance
trend
and
an
assigned
"
low"
extinction
risk
rating.
The
following
objective
addresses
recovery
of
the
Duckabush
River
population.

Objective
1:
Maintain
the
Duckabush
River
as
a
wild
fish
production
area,
retaining
the
summer
chum
population
in
its
natural
state.
No
supplementation
is
planned
for
this
population,
and
recovery
is
expected
through
promotion
of
natural
rebuilding,
commensurate
with
habitat
protection
and
fisheries
protection
initiatives.

Finch
Examination
of
rack
return
data
for
Hoodsport
Hatchery
indicates
that
the
indigenous
chum
populations
in
Finch
Creek
likely
included
a
summer
race
(
Tynan
and
Ames
1997).
The
annual
summer
chum
return
to
the
creek
numbered
up
to
550
fish,
according
to
these
rack
count
data.
The
November
spawn­
timing
for
the
present
return
qualifies
it
as
a
fall
run
race.
Few
or
no
fish
now
return
to
the
creek
during
the
summer
chum
migration
period,
and
it
is
believed
that
the
original
summer
chum
population
in
Finch
Creek
has
been
extirpated.
The
following
are
objectives
for
managing
Finch
Creek
for
summer
chum
under
this
plan:

Objective
1:
Manage
Finch
Creek
above
the
Hoodsport
Hatchery
rack
as
a
wild
production
area,
allowing
for
the
potential
establishment
of
a
naturally­
producing
population
through
straying
of
adult
fish
from
neighboring
creeks.

Objective
2:
Chum
returning
to
the
Hoodsport
Hatchery
rack
during
the
summer
chum
migration
period
shall
be
passed
upstream
for
natural
spawning
to
assist
in
meeting
the
above
objective.

Miscellaneous
Streams
Not
Selected
for
Supplementation
or
Reintroduction
Eagle
Creek,
Fulton
Creek,
Little
Lilliwaup
Creek,
Stavis
Creek,
and
Seabeck
Creek
Although
no
historical
spawner
escapement
estimates
are
available,
summer
chum
were
historically
observed
during
spawning
ground
surveys
in
a
number
of
smaller
Hood
Canal
streams.
It
is
unknown
whether
indigenous,
naturally
producing
populations
existed
in
these
watersheds,
or
if
observed,
sporadic
escapements
were
the
result
of
straying
from
other
Hood
Canal
streams
supporting
viable
populations.
The
following
objective
applies
to
the
summer
chum
populations
in
these
tributaries:

Objective
1:
Manage
these
miscellaneous
tributaries
where
summer
chum
spawners
have
historically
been
observed
as
wild
production
areas,
allowing
for
the
potential
establishment
of
naturally­
producing
populations
through
straying
of
adult
fish
from
neighboring
creeks.

Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Region
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
168
Following
are
goals,
objectives
and
strategies
for
the
use
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
for
the
individual
stocks
within
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region.

g)
Selected
Projects
Salmon/
Snow
Broodstock
has
been
collected
from
Salmon
Creek
for
a
supplementation
program
starting
in
1992,
and
natural­
origin
fish
have
been
incorporated
annually
since
that
year.
Prior
to
the
1992
brood
year,
production
has
depended
only
on
wild
spawners,
and
no
hatchery
programs
using
summer
chum
were
implemented
in
the
watershed.
A
weir
located
at
R.
M.
0.2
on
Salmon
Creek
is
currently
used
to
trap
broodstock
for
the
supplementation
program,
and
to
enumerate
spawners
passed
upstream.
The
supplementation
program
was
implemented
as
a
strategy
for
boosting
the
abundance
of
the
population
to
allow
for
transfers
of
surplus
fish
for
a
reintroduction
program
on
Chimacum
Creek.
This
reintroduction
shall
represent
a
range
extension
of
the
Salmon/
Snow
stock.
Removals
of
summer
chum
females
for
use
as
broodstock
for
the
supplementation
program
are
limited
to
20%
of
the
total
Salmon
Creek
return.
A
WDFW
research
facility
on
Snow
Creek
has
collected
spawner
abundance
and
fry
out­
migration
timing
data
in
past
years.
Following
are
objectives
for
using
supplementation
in
the
recovery
of
this
stock:

Objective
1:
Retain
future
options
for
recovery
of
the
Salmon/
Snow
stock.
Develop
and
maintain,
for
12
years
(
beginning
in
1992),
a
population
comprised
of
supplemented
and
naturally
spawning
fish
using
hatchery
and
wild­
origin
broodstock
on
Salmon
Creek.

Objective
2:
Boost
the
numbers
of
naturally
produced
fish
in
Salmon
Creek
using
the
indigenous
population
as
the
donor.
Procure
no
greater
than
20%
of
the
total
annual
number
of
returning
females
when
the
spawning
population
exceeds
250
fish.
If
the
spawning
population
is
less
than
250,
follow
broodstock
removal
criteria
set
forth
herein
(
Table
3.2)
for
small
population
sizes.
Produce
approximately
60,000
fed
fry
each
year
for
release
from
net­
pens
situated
adjacent
to
the
mouth
of
Salmon
Creek
in
Discovery
Bay.

Objective
3:
Monitor
and
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
supplementation
program,
as
measured
by
consistency
with
criteria
set
forth
in
section
3.2.2.3.
Report
the
results
of
the
program
each
year.

Objective
4:
Support
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
into
Chimacum
Creek.
Procure
an
additional
32
spawning
pairs
to
produce
80,000
fed
fry
each
year
for
release
into
Chimacum
Creek.

Objective
5:
Manage
Snow
Creek
as
a
wild
production
area.
Supplementation
in
this
watershed
is
an
option
in
the
future
if
this
portion
of
the
population
is
not
able
to
recover
on
its
own.

Chimacum
Summer
chum
spawners
have
not
been
observed
in
Chimacum
Creek
since
1983
(
see
section
1.7.2
Stock
Definition
and
Status).
When
a
summer
chum
population
was
present,
production
was
based
entirely
on
wild
spawners,
and
no
hatchery
programs
using
summer
chum
were
previously
implemented.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
169
A
reintroduction
program
was
initiated
in
1996
using
Salmon
Creek
summer
chum
to
re­
establish
a
population
in
Chimacum
Creek.
The
reintroduction
program
was
continued
in
1997
and
1998,
and
approximately
141,000
total
fed
fry
have
been
released
as
a
result
of
this
effort.
The
first
adult
returns
from
the
reintroduction
program
are
expected
in
1999.
The
following
are
objectives
for
using
supplementation
in
the
re­
establishment
of
a
summer
chum
population
in
Chimacum
Creek:

Objective
1:
Release
80,000
Salmon
Creek­
origin
fry
reared
on
Chimacum
Creek
into
the
lower
watershed
or
the
immediate
estuary.
Monitor
adult
returns
from
the
initial
releases
and
evaluate
the
natural
spawning
success
of
these
adults,
where
success
is
measured
by
return
of
the
naturally
produced
adult
offspring.
This
re­
introduction
will
represent
a
range
extension
of
the
Salmon/
Snow
stock.

Objective
2:
Develop
and
maintain,
for
up
to
12
years,
a
population
comprised
of
supplemented
and
naturally
spawning
fish
using
hatchery
and
wild­
origin
broodstock.

Objective
3:
Monitor
and
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
supplementation
program,
as
measured
by
consistency
with
criteria
set
forth
in
section
3.2.2.3.
above.
Report
the
results
of
the
program
each
year.

Jimmycomelately
Summer
chum
production
In
Jimmycomelately
Creek
has
historically
depended
only
on
wild
spawners,
and
no
hatchery
programs
using
summer
chum
have
been
implemented
in
the
watershed.
The
following
are
objectives
for
using
supplementation
in
the
recovery
of
this
population:

Objective
1:
Initiate
a
supplementation
program
using
the
indigenous
Jimmycomelately
Creek
broodstock,
thus
retaining
future
options
for
recovery
of
the
Jimmycomelately
population.

Objective
2:
Boost
the
numbers
of
naturally
produced
fish
in
Jimmycomelately
using
the
indigenous
population
as
the
donor.
Develop
and
maintain,
for
12
years,
a
population
comprised
of
supplemented
and
naturally
spawning
fish
using
hatchery
and
wild­
origin
broodstock.

Objective
3:
Monitor
and
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
supplementation
program,
as
measured
by
consistency
with
criteria
set
forth
in
section
3.2.2.3.
above.
Report
the
results
of
the
program
each
year.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
170
h)
Projects
Not
Recommended
at
This
Time,
Pending
Further
Assessment
Dungeness
The
status
of
summer
chum
in
the
Dungeness
River
is
unknown,
and
an
"
of
special
concern"
extinction
risk
rating
has
been
assigned
for
this
stock.
Analysis
of
recent
and
historical
stream
survey
and
rack
count
data,
and
further
assessment
work
during
the
likely
spawner
return
period,
are
needed
to
determine
the
abundance
and
distribution
of
the
population
and
to
identify
the
desirable
rebuilding
objectives
that
might
be
pursued
through
the
use
of
supplementation
in
the
watershed.
The
following
are
objectives
for
using
supplementation
in
the
recovery
of
this
population:

Objective
1:
Collect
information
to
better
determine
stock
status
and
provide
a
basis
for
a
decision
on
supplementation.

Objective
2:
Eventually
initiate
a
supplementation
program
using
the
indigenous
Dungeness
River
broodstock
if
the
population
appears
to
be
at
a
low
abundance
level
where
intervention
is
warranted,
thus
retaining
future
options
for
recovery.

Miscellaneous
Streams
Not
Selected
for
Supplementation
or
Reintroduction
Miscellaneous
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Tributaries:
Johnson
Creek
and
Morse
Creek
Although
no
historical
spawner
escapement
estimates
are
available,
summer
chum
were
historically
observed
during
spawning
ground
surveys
in
two
small
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams.
It
is
unknown
whether
indigenous,
naturally
producing
populations
existed
in
these
watersheds,
or
if
observed,
sporadic
escapements
were
the
result
of
straying
from
other
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
harboring
viable
populations.
The
following
objective
applies
to
these
streams:

Objective
1:
Manage
Johnson
and
Morse
creeks
as
wild
production
areas,
allowing
for
the
potential
establishment
of
naturally­
producing
populations
through
straying
of
adult
fish
from
neighboring
creeks.

3.2.3.5
Specific
Criteria
Guiding
Supplementation
Program
Operations
Specific
methods,
practices,
and
parameters
that
will
be
employed
in
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
for
selected
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
are
presented
in
Appendix
Report
3.1.
These
criteria
are
consistent
with
general
principles
presented
in
section
3.2.2.3.
of
this
report,
which
includes
methods
for
maintaining
the
ecological
and
genetic
characteristics
of
the
natural
populations.
In
some
cases,
no
refinements
of
those
general
principles
are
indicated
in
Appendix
Report
3.1,
and
reference
is
made
to
the
appropriate
criteria
within
section
3.2.2.3.
But
in
most
instances,
detailed
criteria
such
as
loading
factors,
actual
numbers
of
fish,
and
fish
release
methods
are
prescribed
to
provide
more
specific
guidance
for
the
artificial
propagation
of
summer
chum.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
171
3.2.4
Funding
Priorities
Within
this
section,
programs
and
actions,
and
the
level
of
funding
needed
for
each,
are
identified.
This
information
is
intended
to
provide
support
to
NMFS,
the
Washington
State
Legislature,
and
to
overarching
watershed
organizational/
action
groups
such
as
the
Governor's
Joint
Natural
Resources
Cabinet
(
JNRC),
the
Governor's
Salmon
Recovery
Office
(
also
known
as
the
Salmon
Team),
the
Puget
Sound
Action
Team,
the
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council,
the
affected
counties,
and
other
local
entities
regarding
activities
that
should
receive
immediate
attention
and
prioritization
for
funding.

3.2.4.1
Criteria
Criteria
used
to
prioritize
funding
needs
to
effect
summer
chum
recovery
programs
using
supplementation
or
reintroduction
strategies
will
include
the
following,
listed
by
priority:

i)
Recommended
supplementation
projects
with
populations
at
higher
risk;
j)
On­
going
programs
supporting
summer
chum
recovery
that
do
not
have
designated
funding
from
any
agency
for
operation;
k)
New
actions
that
will
benefit
summer
chum
region­
wide,
including
monitoring
and
evaluation;
l)
Reintroduction.

3.2.4.2
Supplementation
Plan
Priorities
Table
3.8
identifies
funding
needs
for
effectively
implementing
this
supplementation
and
reintroduction
plan.
Items
are
listed
in
descending
order
of
priority.
It
is
recommended
that
the
following
projects
be
implemented
as
soon
as
possible
to
allow
for
effective
and
timely
action
directed
toward
recovery
of
the
summer
chum
populations.

Table
3.8.
Funding
priorities
for
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects.

Watershed
Affected
Actions
Identified
(
approx.)
Purpose
Annual
Costs
Jimmycomelately
Initiate
supplementation
program
unknown
Supplementation
Creek
Lilliwaup
Creek
Construct
and
operate
temporary
weir;
$
30,000/
yr
Broodstock
collection
collect
sufficient
broodstock;
Monitor
and
and
project
assessment.
assess
supplementation
program.

Hamma
Hamma
Develop
and
conduct
effective
broodstock
$
50,000/
yr
Broodstock
collection;
River
collection
program;
assist
in
program
effective
program
monitoring
and
evaluation
monitoring
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.2
Artificial
Production
Page
172
Table
3.8.
(
Continued)
Funding
priorities
for
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects.

Watershed
Affected
Actions
Identified
(
approx.)
Purpose
Annual
Costs
Entire
region
­
GSI
Sampling
­
fisheries
and
escapement;
$
40,000/
yr
Monitoring
and
sample/
analyze
800
fish
per
year.
evaluation
Entire
region
­
Implement
otolith
marking
program
to
assess
$
50,000/
yr
Monitoring
and
project
returns
to
all
supplemented
streams.
evaluation
Otolith
mark
all
supplementation
program
fish;
collect
and
analyze
otoliths
from
adult
returns.

Big
Beef
Creek
Evaluate
Hatchery
and
wild
summer
chum
$
36,845
Monitoring
and
productivity
and
survival
evaluation
Big
Quilcene
River
Mass
mark
hatchery
production
with
visibly
$
9,000/
yr
Production
and
survival
identifiable
mark
(
e.
g.
ad­
clip).
assessment;
assessment
of
degree
of
straying.

Entire
region
­
Assess
straying
of
supplementation
fish;
$
40,000/
yr
Monitoring
and
sample
fish
on
spawning
grounds.
evaluation
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
173
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
There
are
complex
sets
of
interactions
that
occur
between
organisms
that
share
an
ecosystem.
Summer
chum
salmon
are
affected
in
both
positive
and
negative
ways.
Such
ecological
interactions
can
include
factors
like;
competition
for
food
and
space,
direct
predation,
sources
of
nutrient
input
to
the
ecosystem,
etc.
Section
3.3
only
addresses
those
negative
competition
and
predation
impacts
that
were
identified
in
Part
Two
as;
1)
potentially
contributing
to
the
summer
chum
decline
(
hatchery
salmonids),
and
2)
possibly
impacting
recovery
(
marine
mammal
predation).

3.3.1
Impacts
of
Supplemented
Summer
Chum
Like
pink
salmon,
chum
salmon
have
an
unique
relationship
with
the
other
salmonid
species.
In
most
circumstances,
because
of
their
small
size
and
relative
abundance
at
out­
migration,
they
have
a
positive
impact
as
prey
for
other
salmon
and
trout.
They
are
also
prey
for
many
other
species,
including
piscivorous
birds
and
marine
mammals.
Chum
salmon
have
not
been
identified
as
predators
on
other
salmonids
(
Fresh
1997),
and
the
risk
that
these
species
will
have
a
significant
negative
impact
on
other
salmonids
through
predation
is
low
(
Fresh
1984).
They
may
have
some
competitive
impact;
however,
differences
in
diets
and
life
histories
probably
minimize
any
potential
competition.
Fresh
(
1984)
reported
a
low
risk
that
competition
between
enhanced
chum
and
wild
salmonids
would
have
a
significant
negative
impact
on
the
productivity
of
wild
salmonids,
with
the
exception
of
pink
salmon
during
early
marine
life.
The
discharge
of
hatchery
effluent
and
interactions
between
supplemented
and
wild­
origin
summer
chum
in
freshwater
and
estuarine
areas
may
lead
to
fish
pathogen
transmission.
Although
hatchery­
origin
populations
are
considered
to
be
reservoirs
for
disease
pathogens
because
of
their
elevated
exposure
to
high
rearing
densities
and
stress,
there
is
little
evidence
to
suggest
that
diseases
are
routinely
transmitted
from
hatchery
to
wild
fish
(
Steward
and
Bjornn
1990).

Because
of
the
above,
summer
chum
salmon
are
unlikely
to
exert
a
negative
influence
on
the
ecosystem.
However,
to
be
conservative
in
implementing
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction
programs,
measures
to
mitigate
for
any
potential
summer
chum
impacts
on
other
species
are
included
in
this
recovery
plan.

3.3.1.1
Predation
Juvenile
chum
salmon
released
at
the
life
stage
and
time
proposed
in
the
regional
supplementation
program
do
not
pose
a
predation
risk
to
other
salmonids,
including
wild
chum
fry,
during
their
fresh
or
marine
water
migration
period
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Juvenile
chum
salmon
migrating
out
of
Hood
Canal
at
a
size
characteristic
for
hatchery­
origin
fish
(>
45
mm)
feed
upon
neritic
zooplankton
in
open
water
areas,
and
fish
of
any
life
stage
have
not
been
shown
to
be
an
important
prey
item
(
Simenstad
et
al.
1980).
In
addition,
salmonid
predators
prey
on
food
items
less
than
or
equal
to
one­
third
of
their
length
(
Witty
et
al.
1995).
The
average
size
range
for
supplemented
fed
chum
fry
liberated
at
390­
450
fish
per
pound
is
50­
53
mm
(
Fuss
1997b),
compared
to
a
size
of
37­
41
mm
for
newly
emerged
and
migrating
wild
summer
chum
fry
(
Tynan
1997).
Supplementation
programs
will
continue
to
release
summer
chum
at
an
average
size
no
greater
than
53
mm
as
a
strategy
to
ensure
that
predation
on
wild
fry
is
not
likely.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
174
Large­
scale
hatchery
releases
may
attract
predators,
potentially
leading
to
increased
predation
on
cooccurring
wild
fish
(
Steward
and
Bjornn
1990).
The
sporadic
nature
of
annual
hatchery
releases
(
one
or
two
release
events
per
year
at
a
given
location)
and
the
mass
release
of
hatchery
fish
during
night­
time
hours
are
strategies
that
will
decrease
the
likelihood
for
the
concentration
of
dependent
predator
populations
that
might
negatively
affect
wild
chum.

3.3.1.2
Competition
Enhanced
chum
salmon
have
been
judged
to
have
a
highly
significant
risk
of
negative
impact
on
the
productivity
of
wild
chum
through
competition
for
food
during
early
marine
life
(
Fresh
1984).
The
risk
that
supplemented
chum
liberated
during
the
summer
chum
out­
migration
period
(
March)
will
compete
with
wild
summer
chum
fry
for
food
will
be
minimized
through
the
release
of
hatchery
fish
at
a
larger
size
than
the
wild
fry.
This
differentiation
in
size
leads
to
niche
separation
between
the
two
summer
chum
groups.
Larger
(>
45­
50
mm)
chum
fry
have
been
shown
to
prey
predominately
on
pelagic
organisms
in
open
water
areas
of
Hood
Canal,
whereas
newly
emerged,
smaller
chum
fry
feed
on
epibenthic
organisms
in
shallow,
sublittoral
habitats
(
Simenstad
et
al.
1980).
The
larger
hatchery­
origin
chum
migrate
and
forage
within
a
different
estuarine
realm
(
offshore)
than
wild
fry,
which
adhere
to
shallow
nearshore
areas
during
migration
(
as
summarized
in
Tynan
1997).
This
spatial
separation
minimizes
the
likelihood
for
competition
for
food
between
hatchery­
origin
and
wild
chum
fry.

Hatchery­
origin
adults
may
compete
with
wild­
origin
chum
for
spawning
sites
or
access
to
mates.
This
interaction
is
not
viewed
as
negative
in
the
context
of
this
plan,
as
intermixing
between
supplemented
and
wild
broodstock
of
the
same
stock
on
the
spawning
grounds
is
an
anticipated
and
desirable
consequence
of
the
supplementation
program.
This
inter­
mixing
on
the
spawning
grounds
meets
the
objective
of
the
supplementation
program
of
increasing
natural
production
in
the
region.
Straying
of
non­
indigenous,
supplemented
adult
summer
chum
between
watersheds
is
not
expected
to
be
a
significant
concern
regarding
competition.
Naturally­
produced
chum
may
exhibit
straying
levels
ranging
from
2­
46
%
(
Tallman
and
Healy
1994).
However,
hatchery­
origin
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
have
demonstrated
a
high
fidelity
for
their
stream
of
origin
(
Fuss
and
Hopley
1991;
WDFW
data
for
QNFH­
origin
marked
summer
chum
1997).
Selective
breeding
that
may
occur
in
hatrcheries
using
gametes
from
returned
migrants
has
been
shown
to
result
in
a
decrease
in
straying
with
time
(
Tallman
and
Healy
1994).

3.3.1.3
Disease
Transmission
Supplementation
projects
implemented
under
this
conservation
plan
will
be
conducted
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
Pacific
Northwest
Fish
Health
Protection
Committee
(
PNFHPC)
(
1989)
and
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
of
the
Fisheries
Co­
Managers
of
Washington
State
(
NWIFC
and
WDFW
1998)
guidelines.
These
guidelines
define
rearing,
sanitation,
and
fish
health
practices
that
minimize
the
incidence
of
disease
outbreaks
in
propagated
populations,
thereby
decreasing
the
risk
of
fish
pathogen
transmission
to
co­
occurring
wild
populations.
All
hatchery­
origin
fish
will
be
inspected
by
fish
pathologists
to
certify
their
disease
status
prior
to
liberation.
The
release
of
viable
healthy
summer
chum
smolts
is
promoted
through
adherence
to
these
fish
health
maintenance
guidelines.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
175
3.3.2
Impacts
of
Other
Species
on
Summer
Chum
Salmon
The
ecological
risks
of
artificially
propagating
summer
chum
are
low.
However,
there
is
a
need
to
recommend
mitigative
measures
to
reduce
the
potential
impacts
of
predator
and
competitor
species
that
could
affect
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
salmon;
notably
other
salmonids
and
marine
mammals
(
see
Part
Two).

3.3.2.1
Hatchery
Salmonids
Background
The
use
of
hatcheries
for
the
artificial
production
of
anadromous
salmonids
by
WDFW,
the
Tribes,
USFWS,
and
volunteer
fish
enhancement
groups
administered
by
WDFW
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions
is
long­
standing
and
important.
Hatchery
programs
have
been
implemented
to
provide
surplus
fish
for
harvest
in
Washington
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
and
to
mitigate
for
natural
salmonid
production
losses
due
to
habitat
degradation.
Hatcheries
within
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions
annually
release
fall
chinook,
coho,
fall
chum,
steelhead
and,
in
odd
years,
pink
salmon
juveniles
to
increase
run
size
and
provide
fisheries
enhancement.
In
particular,
fall
chum
salmon
hatchery
production
in
Hood
Canal
is
the
largest
in
the
state,
with
annual
releases
of
30
million
fry
producing
adult
returns
to
the
Canal
averaging
416,000
fish
in
recent
years
(
1987­
94
WDFW
run
reconstruction
data,
June
27,
1995).
The
USFWS's
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
(
QNFH),
and
cooperative
projects
on
the
Lilliwaup
River,
Hamma
Hamma
River,
Big
Beef
Creek,
Salmon
Creek,
and
Chimacum
Creek
rear
indigenous
summer
chum
for
wild
stock
supplementation
and
reintroduction
purposes.
Critically
depressed
and
depressed
pink,
chinook,
and
coho
salmon
stocks
are
also
supplemented
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
through
WDFW
hatchery
programs
centralized
within
the
Dungeness
Hatchery
Complex.

The
effects
of
hatchery
program
activities
in
the
region
have
been
cited
within
the
NMFS
West
Coast
chum
salmon
stock
ESA
status
review
as
potential
factors
for
the
decline
of
ESA­
listed
wild
summer
chum
stocks
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
Possible
competition
for
food
resources
posed
by
hatchery
fall
chum
juveniles,
and
incidental
harvest
in
Washington
fisheries
targeting
more
abundant
salmonid
species
commingled
with
summer
chum
in
migration
areas
were
identified
as
of
particular
concern
regarding
the
status
of
summer
chum.
Current
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
in
which
summer
chum
are
taken
are
focused
on
other
adult
salmon
species,
including
those
produced
in
Puget
Sound
hatcheries.
However,
the
volume
of
hatchery
salmonid
production,
the
physical
location
and
operation
of
hatchery
facilities,
and
fisheries
enabled
by
hatchery
production
may
be
negatively
impacting
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
incidentally
and
directly.
The
first
two
factors
will
be
assessed
in
this
section.
Harvest
management
impacts,
and
measures
proposed
to
minimize
effects
on
summer
chum,
are
addressed
in
section
3.5.

Assessments
of
the
potential
effects
of
regional
hatchery
production
of
other
anadromous
salmonid
species
on
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations
can
be
made
through
review
of
hatchery
locations,
and
evaluation
of
salmonid
production
and
release
practices.
Potential
adverse
effects
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
176
addressed
in
this
section
fall
within
two
categories:
1)
direct
impacts
on
wild
summer
chum
caused
by
the
physical
operation
of
the
hatchery;
and
2)
ecological
impacts
occurring
as
a
result
of
interactions
between
liberated
hatchery
salmonids
and
summer
chum.
The
potential
for
adverse
effects
resulting
from
direct
physical
effects
of
hatchery
operations
can
be
evaluated
through
a
determination
of
the
location
of
hatchery
facilities
within
the
region
relative
to
summer
chum
production
areas.
To
gauge
potential
deleterious
ecological
effects,
it
is
necessary
to
determine
the
potential
level
of
interaction
between
hatchery
salmonid
species
and
wild
summer
chum.
Specifically,
the
spatial
and
temporal
occurrence
of
hatchery­
produced
salmonids
within
regional
waters
needs
to
be
characterized,
for
comparison
with
like
information
developed
for
summer
chum.
Through
this
comparison,
and
subsequent
analyses
of
the
degree
of
overlap
with
summer
chum
rearing
and
migratory
areas,
the
potential
ecological
hazards
to
wild
summer
chum
posed
by
other
hatchery­
origin
fish
species
can
be
generally
assessed.

Regional
watersheds
harboring
existing
and
reintroduced
summer
chum
populations
are
indicated
in
Part
One
and
the
locations
of
hatchery
programs
within
the
region
that
may
affect
those
populations
are
indicated
in
Tynan
(
1998).
For
ecological
impact
assessment
purposes,
estimates
of
wild
summer
chum
migrational
timing
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
freshwater
and
marine
areas
can
be
used
(
Tynan
1997).
Juvenile
and
adult
chum
salmon
spatial
and
temporal
occurrence
timings
in
the
regions
were
estimated
in
the
latter
report
from
available
studies.
Adult
summer
chum
enter
freshwater
spawning
areas
predominately
during
the
month
of
September.
As
reported
in
section
1.3.3.2
Emergence
and
Downstream
Migration,
the
majority
of
summer
chum
fry
emerge
in
Hood
Canal
streams
during
the
month
of
March,
entering
Hood
Canal
marine
waters
by
early
April.
Summer
chum
fry
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
are
estimated
to
emerge
predominately
in
April,
entering
estuarine
waters
by
early
May.
Figure
3.1,
taken
from
Tynan
(
1997),
presents
annual
migration,
spawning,
incubation,
and
emigration
timing
estimates
for
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations.

The
above
wild
summer
chum
emergence
and
mitigation
timing
estimates
can
be
compared
with
average
release
data
and
migration
timing
estimates
derived
for
hatchery­
origin
anadromous
salmonids
produced
in
the
region
to
assess
the
likelihood
for
interactions.
Overlaps
between
summer
chum
and
hatchery
release
groups
can
be
assessed,
taking
into
account
information
in
the
literature
reporting
the
risk
of
ecological
hazards
posed
by
hatchery
fish
by
species
and
age
class,
to
assign
risks
of
negative
effects
to
summer
chum.
Evaluation
of
the
likely
effects
of
interactions,
and
assignment
of
risk
levels,
can
then
allow
for
the
development
of
general
risk
aversion
measures
that
can
be
applied
where
appropriate
to
minimize
the
likelihood
for
negative
effects
to
summer
chum
resulting
from
hatchery
salmonid
production
within
the
region.
The
general
intent
will
be
to
minimize
ecological
risks
by
releasing
hatchery
fish
to
avoid
the
predominant
summer
chum
fry
egression
and
early
marine
arrival
periods.
For
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
programs,
these
practices
will
include
delaying
releases
until
after
April
1
to
allow
summer
chum
fry
first
access
to
the
estuary,
reducing
competition
and
behavioral
modification
risks.
For
hatchery
programs
producing
larger
salmonids
that
may
pose
predation
risks,
an
additional
delay
in
allowable
release
timing
through
April
15
will
be
imposed
to
allow
some
progression
in
the
migration
of
summer
chum
fry
seaward
and
out
of
the
estuary.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
177
Figure
3.1.
Estimated
summer
chum
stream
utilization
and
migration
timing
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
freshwater
and
marine
waters
(
based
on
Tynan
1997).
The
0%
to
50%
timing
is
shown
on
left
hand
axis
and
50%
to
100%
timing
is
shown
on
right
hand
axis.
Hood
Canal
Region
Strait
of
Juan
De
Fuca
Region
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
178
The
basis
for
examining
the
likelihood
for
hatchery­
origin
salmonid
interactions
with
wild
summer
chum
is
the
summer
chum
stock
geographic
distribution
imformation
provided
in
section
1.7.2,
and
a
report
summarizing
WDFW
and
WDFW­
cooperative
anadromous
salmonid
production
within
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
geographical
area
prepared
by
WDFW
(
Tynan
1998).
The
following
format
was
used
in
Tynan
(
1998)
to
profile
regional
hatchery
programs,
and
to
describe
salmonid
production
for
each
regional
facility:

Baseline
facility
information
°
the
physical
location
of
each
facility
or
hatchery
complex,
noting
their
proximity
to
summer
chum
production,
rearing
and
migration
areas.
°
duration
of
facility
operation
and
history
of
production;
°
institutional
and
legal
drivers
of
production;
­
guidelines,
permit
requirements
and
policies
determining
practices;
and
­
hatchery
effluent
and
fish
health
status
for
each
hatchery.

Salmonid
production
characterization
for
each
species
produced
°
purpose/
objectives
of
production;
°
stocks
used,
release
strategy;
°
adult
return
data,
including
return
timing
to
Washington
marine
and
freshwater
areas;
°
historical
Puget
Sound
return
levels
(
1968­
95)
and
homing
behavior;
°
historical
and
current
annual
production
levels
by
class;
°
historical
and
current
release
timing
by
class;
°
efforts
to
minimize
wild
stock
interactions;
and
°
a
literature
review
of
migration
information
for
released
fish,
leading
to
characterization
of
out­
migration
timing
to
coastal
water
masses
for
currently
practiced
production.

The
focus
of
the
salmonid
hatchery
program
characterization
was
on
operational
and
production
strategies
currently
applied
at
those
facilities
producing
species
of
potential
concern
regarding
the
status
of
summer
chum.
It
was
recognized
that
hatchery
programs
in
Washington
have
evolved
greatly
over
the
past
twenty
years
to
maximize
hatchery
fish
survival
upon
release,
meet
changing
harvest
and
production
needs
identified
by
the
public
and
the
tribes,
and
minimize
negative
effects
on
wild
salmonid
stocks
using
the
same
ecological
resources.

This
section
responds
to
potential
risks
of
the
artificial
production
of
other
anadromous
salmonid
species
within
the
geographical
area
encompassed
by
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
In
addition
to
production
for
fisheries
enhancement
purposes,
hatchery
activities
within
the
region
include
"
formal
recovery
programs",
directed
at
the
recovery
of
other
ESA­
listed
or
severely
depressed
stocks,
including
Dungeness
River
chinook
salmon,
Dungeness
River
pink
salmon,
Snow
Creek
coho
salmon,
and
Hood
Canal
region
fall
chinook
salmon
populations.
The
discussion
of
risks
and
proposed
risk
aversion
measures
included
here
is
not
limited
by
the
status
of
the
propagated
stock
nor
the
intent
of
the
program.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
179
Artificial
production
programs
implemented
for
recovery
of
other
ESA­
listed
or
critically­
depressed
anadromous
salmonid
populations
may
lead
to
adverse
impacts
to
summer
chum.
Conservation
plans
implementing
formal
recovery
programs
should
therefore
consider
potential
effects
of
the
programs
on
summer
chum.
However,
risks
to
summer
chum
will
be
weighed
against
benefits
imparted
to
the
recovery
of
the
target
population
in
determining
its
acceptability,
and
hence,
those
practices
applied
to
implement
the
program.
Exceptions
to
the
risk
aversion
criteria
presented
below
may
therefore
be
allowed
when
two
formal
recovery
programs
for
separate
stocks
are
in
the
same
watershed,
striking
a
balance
between
summer
chum
protection
and
the
recovery
needs
of
other
salmonid
species.

For
the
purposes
of
this
assessment,
resident
trout
plants
within
the
region
are
assumed
to
not
pose
significant
risks
of
adverse
ecological
impacts
to
summer
chum,
and
programs
producing
trout
are
therefore
not
characterized
here.
No
resident
trout
plants
are
made
into
anadromous
waters,
nor
into
areas
providing
a
high
likelihood
of
access
to
those
waters.
The
majority
of
resident
trout
produced
in
the
region
are
rainbow
trout
that
are
planted
into
land­
locked
lakes.

Hatchery­
origin
Anadromous
Salmonid
Production
Summary
Table
3.9
summarizes,
for
each
anadromous
salmonid
species
produced
through
regional
hatcheries,
total
recent
year
annual
average
release
numbers,
size/
age
class
at
release,
and
release
timings
(
from
data
summarized
in
Tynan
1998).
Spawning
ground
entry
and
migrational
timing
estimates,
and
the
locations
of
hatchery
fish
releases
relative
to
summer
chum
production
areas,
are
also
indicated.
This
information
will
be
compared
with
summer
chum
occurrence
and
migrational
data
to
determine
the
likelihood
for
spatial
and
temporal
interaction
between
each
species
produced
in
the
hatchery
program
and
summer
chum
salmon.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
180
Table
3.9.
Recent
year
average
annual
salmon
and
steelhead
production
within
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
region.

Species
Agency
(
Complex)
Stock
Origin/
Lineage
Release
Numbers
( 
86­
94
avg.)
Release
Class
Release
Size
(
avg.
fl)
Release
Timing
(
avg./
range)
Juvenile
Marine
Migrational
Timing
Freshwater
Entry
Timing
(
avg.
adults)
Presence
of
Summer
Chum
1
Fall
Chinook
WDFW
(
Hood
Canal)
Hoodsport
6,123,000
Fing.
Smolt
80­
86
mm
June
1
June
1
­
June
22
Aug
12
­
Sep
20
No
Hoodsport
226,000
Yearlg.
195
mm
May
2
May
2
­
June
4
"
"
Net­
pens
2
Citizen
Groups
Hoodsport
480,000
Fing.
Smolt
80­
86
mm
June
1
June
1
­
June
22
"
"
Yes
3
Hoodsport
398,000
Unfed
Fry
37­
40
mm
~
Dec
­
Jan
unknown
"
"
Yes
4
Hoodsport
90,000
Yearlg.
195
mm
June
June
"
"
Yes
3
Pt.
Gamble
Tribe
(
L.
Boston
Ck)
Hoodsport
120,000
Fing.
Smolt
75
mm
May
20
May
20
­
June
10
"
"
No
Skokomish
Tribe
Hoodsport
314,000
Fing.
Smolt
65­
91
mm
May
20
May
20
­
June
10
"
"
No
(
Enetai
Ck)
Hoodsport
208,000
Fing.
39
­
53
mm
March­
May
May­
June
"
"
No
Chinook
WDFW
Native
975,000
Fing.
Smolt
>
57
mm
Jun
15­
Jul
15
June
15
­
Aug
30
Aug
8
­
Sep
14
Yes
5
(
Dungeness)
Native
200,000
Fingl.
48­
56
mm
"
"
July­
August
"
"
Yes
Native
800,000
Fed
fry
47
mm
"
"
July­
August
"
"
Yes
Coho
WDFW
Purdy
Ck.
422,000
Yearlg.
131­
156
mm
June
11
June
11­
July
16
Sept
18
­
Nov
6
No
(
Hood
Canal)
Purdy
Ck.
157,000
Fingl.
6
35­
42
mm
Feb­
March
April­
May
"
"
No
(
Dungeness)
Native
447,000
Yearlg.
131
mm
May
30
May
30
­
June
10
Sept
22
­
Nov
2
Yes
7
"
Native
315,000
Fingl.
6
40­
46
mm
June
1
April­
May
"
"
Yes
7
"
Native
Un.
fry
6
35­
38
mm
mid­
March
"
"
"
"
Yes
7
(
Snow
Creek)
Native
16,000
Fingl.
75­
100
mm
Nov,
March
"
"
"
"
Yes
8
"
Native
16,000
Unfed
fry
35­
38
mm
mid­
March­
mid
April
"
"
"
"
Yes
8
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
181
Table
3.9.
Continued
Species
Agency
(
Complex)
Stock
Origin/
Lineage
Release
Numbers
( 
86­
94
avg.)
Release
Class
Release
Size
(
avg.
fl)
Release
Timing
(
avg.
/
range)
Juvenile
Marine
Migrational
Timing
Freshwater
Entry
Timing
(
avg.
adults)
Presence
of
Summer
Chum
1
Coho
(
cont.)
Skokomish
Tribe
(
Quil.
Bay)
Quilcene
242,000
Delayed
131­
167
mm
April
23­
May
30
April
23­
June
19
Sept
1
­
Nov
9
Net­
pens
9
Pt.
Gamble
Tribe
(
Pt.
Gamble
Bay)
Quilcene
361,000
Delayed
131­
167
mm
April
23­
May
30
April
23­
June
19
Sept
1
­
Nov
9
Net­
pens
9
USFWS
­
QNFH
10
Native
445,639
Yearlg.
154
mm
May
2­
May
14
May
2­
June
3
Sept
1
­
Nov
9
Yes
Native
42,974
Fingl.
79
mm
March­
Nov
April­
May
Sept
1
­
Nov
9
Pink
WDFW
(
Hood
Canal)
Hoodsport
4,500,000
Fed
fry
50
mm
March
15
Feb
16
­
Apr
25
Sept
15­
Oct
15
No
(
Dungeness)
Native
500,000
Fed
fry
40­
50
mm
March­
Apr
Mar
17
­
Apr
25
"
"
Yes
11
Pt.
Gamble
Tribe
(
L.
Boston
Ck)
Hoodsport
200,000
Fed
fry
50
mm
April
5
April
5
­
?
"
"
No
Fall
chum
WDFW
Native
15,000,000
Fed
fry
48­
52
mm
Mar
24
­
Apr
Mar
24
­
May
10
Nov
7
­
Dec
7
No
(
Hood
Canal)
Finch
Ck.
13,100,000
Fed
fry
42­
52
mm
Mar
17
­
Apr
Mar
17
­
May
12
"
"
No
Citizen
Groups
Finch
Ck.
1,000,000
Unfed
fry
38
mm
Feb­
Mar
(?)
Feb
­
Mar
(?)
"
"
Yes
12
Pt.
Gamble
Tribe
(
L.
Boston
Ck)
Finch
Ck.
730,000
Fed
fry
41­
66
mm
Apr
23­
30
Apr
23
­
May
5
"
"
No
Skokomish
Tribe
Wolcott
Sl
1,380,000
Fed
fry
43­
56
mm
Apr
9­
May
15
Apr
16
­
June
1
Dec
1
­
Jan
11
No
(
Enetai
Ck)
Wolcott
Sl
263,000
Unfed
fry
38­
40
mm
Mar
?­
April
22
Apr.
7
­
May
4
Dec.
1
­
Jan
11
No
USFWS
­
QNFH
Native
1,856,121
Fed
fry
47
mm
Apr
22­
June
9
Apr
22
­
June
26
Dec.
1
­
Jan
11
Yes
Steelhead
WDFW
(
Dosewallips
R.)
Chambers
12,500
Yearlg.
180­
230
mm
Apr
15­
May
15
Apr
15
­
June
14
Dec
7
­
Apr
14
Yes
13
(
Duckabush
R.)
Chambers
10,000
Yearlg.
180­
230
mm
"
"
Apr
15
­
June
14
"
"
Yes
13
(
Skokomish
R.)
Chambers
50,000
Yearlg.
180­
230
mm
"
"
Apr
15
­
June
14
"
"
Yes
13
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
182
Table
3.9.
Continued.

Species
Agency
(
Complex)
Stock
Origin/
Lineage
Release
Numbers
( 
86­
94
avg.)
Release
Class
Release
Size
(
avg.
fl)
Release
Timing
(
avg.
/
range)
Juvenile
Marine
Migrational
Timing
Freshwater
Entry
Timing
(
avg.
adults)
Presence
of
Summer
Chum
1
Steelhea
d
(
cont.)
Citizen
Groups
(
Hamma
Hamma)
Native
200
Adults
620
mm
Mar­
April
­­­
March­
April
Yes
"
"
Native
4,400
2+
Yearlg.
165
mm
May
May­
June
Dec
7
­
Apr
14
Yes
Determination
made
from
review
of
"
existing
stocks"
and
"
known
recently
extinct
stocks"
presented
in
section
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
and
summarized
in
Table
1.8.

1
Fall
chinook
yearlings
are
released
from
marine
area
net­
pens
at
Sund
Rocks,
Hoodsport
Marina,
and
Pleasant
Harbor
Marina.
These
fish
may
stray
at
unknown
rates
to
2
adjacent
summer
chum
streams.

Hoodsport­
origin
fall
chinook
underyearling
smolts
are
released
into
several
summer
chum
streams
in
Hood
Canal,
including
the
Union
River,
Big
Beef
Creek,
Duckabush
River,

3
and
the
Hamma
Hamma
River.
Hoodsport­
lineage
chinook
are
also
planted
into
three
streams
where
self­
sustaining
summer
chum
runs
are
no
longer
present:
Dewatto
River,

Tahuya
River,
and
Skokomish
River.

Hoodsport­
origin
fall
chinook
unfed
fry
are
released
from
RSIs
into
regional
summer
chum
streams
including
the
Tahuya
and
Dewatto
rivers.

4
Dungeness
chinook
are
planted
as
underyearling
smolts,
fingerlings
and
fry
as
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program.
The
status
of
the
summer
chum
stock
that
may
be
affected
5
by
these
releases
is
unknown.

Coho
fingerling
out­
plants
into
regional
streams
were
discontinued
from
George
Adams
Hatchery
in
1996,
and
from
Dungeness
Hatchery
in
1995.

6
The
status
of
the
summer
chum
stock
that
may
be
affected
by
these
coho
releases
is
unknown.

7
These
coho
originate
from
indigenous
stock
planted
as
pre­
smolts
into
Crocker
Lake
to
acclimate
and
emigrate
2­
5
months
after
release.

8
Coho
yearlings
are
released
from
marine
area
net­
pens
in
Quilcene
and
Port
Gamble
bays.
These
fish
may
stray
at
unknown
rates
to
regional
summer
chum
streams.

9
Quilcene
NFH
average
release
range
for
1992­
96
for
yearlings
and
1994­
96
for
fingerlings.

10
Dungeness
fall
run
pink
salmon
are
produced
as
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program.

11
Finch
Creek
stock
fall
chum
are
released
from
RSIs
into
several
regional
summer
chum
streams,
including
the
Union
River
and
the
Tahuya
River.

12
Steelhead
yearlings
of
Chambers
Creek
lineage
are
truck­
planted
into
three
regional
streams,
two
of
which
have
known
summer
chum
populations.

13
Steelhead
yearlings
of
Chambers
Creek
lineage
are
transferred
into
Dungeness
Hatchery
for
two
months
of
rearing
prior
to
release.
The
status
of
the
summer
chum
stock
that
14
may
be
affected
by
these
releases
is
unknown.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
183
Risk
Assessment
of
Hatchery
Salmonid
Releases
on
Summer
Chum
Based
on
regional
production
information
presented
in
Tynan
(
1998)
and
summarized
in
Table
3.9,
an
assessment
of
each
hatchery
species
program
is
made
to
assign
likely
risks
of
deleterious
effects
to
wild
summer
chum.
The
format
for
conducting
this
risk
assessment
is
similar
in
structure
to
the
ecological
risk
assessment
template
provided
in
section
7.6
of
the
draft
Artificial
Production
chapter
of
the
Comprehensive
Chinook
Management
Plan
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1999).
This
template
has
been
modified
to
comport
with
the
purpose
of
this
section,
which
is
to
assess
operational
and
ecological
risks
posed
by
regional
hatchery
programs.
In
this
instance,
wild
Hood
Canal/
SJF
summer
chum
in
freshwater
and
proximate
regional
marine
waters
are
the
"
non­
target
taxa
of
concern."
The
focus
of
this
assessment
will
be
on
overlap
between
hatchery
operations
and
salmonid
juveniles
and
adults
that
they
produce,
with
summer
chum
of
the
same
life
stages.

Potential
hazards
assessed
for
effects
on
summer
chum
are
presented
below.
For
each
species
and
program,
the
risk
of
deleterious
effects
for
each
hazard
will
generally
be
identified
as
"
high,"
"
moderate,"
or
"
low."
In
some
instances,
risks
will
be
assigned
as
either
"
high"
or
"
low,"
and
no
"
moderate"
rating
judgement
is
viewed
as
applicable.
Criteria
that
were
used
to
assign
risk
levels
for
each
hazard
are
indicated.
One,
or
a
combination
of,
the
listed
criteria
may
be
used
to
assign
a
hazard
risk
level
for
an
artificial
propagation
program.

Hatchery
Operations
This
hazard
includes
risks
to
wild
summer
chum
associated
with
salmonid
trapping
operations
(
weir
placement/
operation,
fish
handling,
migrational
delay
or
blockage
effects),
hatchery
water
intakes
(
dewatering,
fry
mortality),
screening
(
fry
entrainment),
and
effluent
discharge
(
adverse
water
quality
effects).
Assignment
of
risk
for
this
hazard
will
result
from
consideration
of
a
number
of
factors
bearing
on
the
likelihood
that
adult
trapping
and
hatchery
operations
for
a
program
will
contact
adult
summer
chum
and
whether
the
programs
are
appropriately
operated
to
minimize
the
risk
of
adverse
effects
to
summer
chum
within
a
watershed.
Table
3.10
presents
risk
ratings
for
hatchery
operational
effects
on
summer
chum.

Fish
capture
operations,
including
weirs,
traps,
beach
seining,
and
hand
collection
during
snorkeling
can
adversely
affect
summer
chum
adults
through
physical
injury,
migrational
delay,
changes
in
migrational
or
spawning
behavior,
increased
susceptibility
to
predation
and
poaching,
and
migration
blockage.
Negative
effects
to
summer
chum
may
include:
physical
harm
that
may
result
from
capture
and
retention
in
the
fish
holding
area
within
a
weir
trap,
or
from
snagging
or
seining
methods
used
for
certain
programs;
harm
that
may
result
from
delay
in
upstream
migration,
if
the
fish
is
reluctant
to
enter
the
trap,
or
as
a
result
of
capture
and
excessive
holding
durations;
harm
resulting
from
handling
prior
to
release
upstream;
damage
or
mortality
resulting
from
entrainment
on
the
face
of
weirs,
if
upstream­
released
fish
drop
back
downstream;
incidental,
immediate
mortality
resulting
from
the
above
impacts;
and
increased
susceptibility
after
release
to
displacement
downstream
by
current,
and
to
predation,
as
the
summer
chum
recovers
from
handling.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
184
Table
3.10.
Basis
for
"
Hatchery
Operations"
risk
ratings
assigned
to
regional
hatchery
programs
for
summer
chum
effects.

Risk
Level
Criteria
"
High"
Risk
is
"
high"
if
any
one
of
the
following
five
criteria
are
met:
1.
Broodstock
collection
weir
is
directed
at
other
species,
and
is
located
at
or
near
mouth
of
summer
chum
stream,
affecting
majority
(>
50
%)
of
the
return,
AND
any
one
of
the
following:
x.
Broodstock
collection
weir
is
checked
less
than
twice
daily;
y.
Summer
chum
incidentally
collected
in
weir
held
for
longer
than
24
hours
before
passage
upstream;
z.
Staff
operating
fish
weir
not
trained
in
proper
fish
handling
techniques.
2.
Hatchery
water
intakes
and
outlets
do
not
prevent
fish
from
entering,
or
are
not
screened;
3.
Water
withdrawal
for
the
hatchery
operation
reduces
flows
with
substantial
negative
impact
on
a
portion
of
the
stream
accessible
to,
and
used
by,
summer
chum;
4.
Hatchery
facility
regularly
out
of
compliance
with
NPDES
permit
effluent
limitations
and
best
management
practices;
5.
No
information
is
available
for
the
hatchery
and/
or
broodstocking
operation.

"
Moderate"
Risk
is
"
moderate"
if
no
"
high"
criteria
are
met
and
any
one
of
the
following
two
criteria
is
met:
1.
Broodstock
collection
weir
is
directed
at
other
species,
and
is
located
on
a
summer
chum
stream,
affecting
10­
50%
of
the
return,
AND
any
one
of
the
following:
a.
Weir
is
checked
at
least
twice
daily,
but
not
staffed
full
time;
b.
Weir
is
located
on
private
land
in
remote
location
and
is
not
staffed
full
time;
c.
Summer
chum
incidentally
collected
at
weir
held
for
between
12
and
24
hours
before
passage
upstream.
2.
Other
method
besides
weir
used
to
collect
broodstock,
including
seining,
snagging,
or
dip­
netting.

"
Low"
Risk
is
"
low"
if
none
of
the
"
high"
or
"
moderate"
criteria
are
met
and
any
one
of
the
first
four
criteria,
and
all
of
the
subsequent
criteria
are
met.
1.
The
broodstock
collection
facility
is
located
on
a
stream
that
lacks
an
existing
summer
chum
population;
2.
The
artificial
production
facility
is
located
on
a
stream
with
existing
summer
chum
population,
but
no
weir
is
used;
3.
Broodstock
weir
used
is
directed
at
summer
chum
collection
as
a
primary
purpose;
4.
Broodstock
collection
weir
is
directed
at
other
species,
and
is
located
above
major
summer
chum
spawning
areas
or
is
operated
outside
of
the
summer
chum
migration
period,
affecting
<
10%
of
the
return,
AND
all
of
the
following:
a.
Broodstock
collection
weir
location
is
checked
at
least
twice
daily
and
is
staffed
full
time;
AND
b.
Fish
collected
in
weir
are
held
for
no
longer
than
12
hours
before
upstream
passage;
AND
c.
Hatchery
personnel
trained
in
proper
fish
handling
methods.
5.
Hatchery
intakes
and
outlets
are
properly
screened;
6.
No
stream
sections
used
by
summer
chum
are
dewatered
through
hatchery
water
withdrawal;
7.
Hatchery
facility
complies
with
NPDES
permit
effluent
limitations
and
best
management
practices.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
185
The
risks
of
the
above
hazard
will
be
assessed
as
"
high"
for
programs
on
summer
chum
streams
that
collect
fish
using
weirs
or
traps
not
attended
and
operated
in
a
manner
that
ensures
safe
capture,
minimal
holding,
and
careful
handling
and
release
of
incidentally
captured
summer
chum.
Potential,
negative
impacts
can
generally
be
minimized
through
continuous
staffing
of
the
weir
site
by
hatchery
personnel,
frequent
removal
of
fish
collected
using
weirs
and
traps
(
e.
g.
minimizing
fish
holding
times
in
traps
boxes
to
under
12
hours),
careful
handling
and
upstream
release
of
incidentally
collected
summer
chum
by
personnel
trained
in
proper
fish
handling
procedures,
and
release
of
captured
fish
into
areas
where
the
risk
of
predation
by
birds
and
mammals
is
not
enhanced.
The
risk
of
this
hazard
will
generally
be
assessed
as
"
low"
for
trapping
operations
that
follow
these
risk
minimization
measures.

Water
withdrawals
within
spawning
and
rearing
areas
can
diminish
stream
flow
from
points
of
intake
to
outflow
and,
if
great
enough,
can
impede
migration
and
affect
spawning
behavior
of
listed
fish.
Water
rights
issued
for
regional
hatcheries
must
be
conditioned
to
prevent
dewatering
of
salmon
migration,
rearing,
or
spawning
areas.
All
hatcheries
must
be
designed
to
be
non­
consumptive;
the
water
will
be
returned
back
to
the
source
after
it
flows
through
the
facility
near
the
point
of
withdrawal
to
minimize
risks
to
wild
fish.
Water
withdrawals
may
have
impacts
to
other
stream­
dwelling
organisms
important
as
food
for
juvenile
salmonids
as
well,
including
habitat
loss
and
displacement,
and
physical
injury
at
intake
locations.
Screening
of
hatchery
intakes
is
critical
to
ensure
that
fish
are
not
injured
through
impingement
or
permanently
removed
from
streams.
All
water
intakes
associated
with
regional
hatchery
programs
must
be
adequately
screened.
The
risk
of
these
hazards
will
be
assigned
as
"
low"
for
hatchery
operations
that
are
in
compliance
with
water
right
permits
and
NMFS
water
intake
screening
criteria.

Hatchery
effluents
may
change
water
temperature,
pH,
suspended
solids,
ammonia,
organic
nitrogen,
total
phosphorus,
and
chemical
oxygen
demand
in
the
receiving
stream's
mixing
zone
(
Kendra
1991).
To
reduce
the
potential
for
adverse
effects
to
receiving
waters,
hatchery
effluent
should
be
monitored
periodically,
with
results
reported
to
the
Washington
Department
of
Ecology,
which
is
the
state
agency
with
authority
for
administering
Clean
Water
Act
NPDES
permits.
The
level
of
impact
or
the
precise
effect
of
hatchery
effluents
on
fish
and
other
stream­
dwelling
organisms
is
usually
unknown.
The
magnitude
of
the
receiving
water
flow
volume
relative
to
the
discharge
volumes
from
the
hatcheries
determines
the
level
of
impact
to
receiving
waters.
Any
adverse
effects
of
hatchery
effluent
are
probably
localized
at
the
immediate
point
of
discharge.
The
risk
of
this
hazard
will
generally
be
assigned
as
"
low"
for
hatchery
operations
that
are
in
compliance
with
applicable
NDPES
permit
requirements.

Predation
This
hazard
category
includes
risks
to
summer
chum
attributable
to
direct
predation
(
direct
consumption)
or
indirect
predation
(
increases
in
predation
by
other
predator
species
due
to
enhanced
attraction)
resulting
from
regional
hatchery
salmonid
releases
in
freshwater
and
estuarine
areas.
In
an
assessment
of
the
potential
ecological
effects
of
hatchery
fish
production
on
wild
salmonids,
Fresh
(
1984)
reported
that
there
is
a
high
risk
of
a
significant
negative
impact
on
wild
chum
salmon
due
to
predation
by
hatchery­
origin
chinook,
coho,
and
steelhead
in
freshwater
and
nearshore
estuarine
areas
where
the
species
co­
occur.
The
group
assigned
a
low
risk
of
predation
impacts
to
wild
chum
for
hatchery
pink
and
chum
release
groups
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
186
where
they
interact
in
freshwater
and
estuarine
migrational
areas.
Fresh
(
1984)
noted
that
predation
may
be
greatest
when
large
numbers
of
hatchery
smolts
encounter
newly
emerged
fry
or
fingerlings,
or
when
hatchery
fish
are
large
relative
to
wild
fish.

Data
collected
by
WDFW
personnel
in
the
Yakima
River
watershed,
and
data
from
hatchery
salmonid
migration
studies
on
the
Lewis
River
(
Hawkins
and
Tipping
in
press)
provide
evidence
of
hatchery
coho
yearling
predation
on
salmonid
fry
in
freshwater.
In
addition,
Bakkala
(
1970
­
quoting
Hunter
1959
and
Pritchard
1936)
reported
that
young
coho
salmon
in
some
British
Columbia
streams
averaged
two
to
four
chum
fry
per
stomach
sampled.
However,
extensive
stomach
content
analyses
of
coho
salmon
smolts
collected
during
University
of
Washington
Fisheries
Research
Institute
studies
in
Hood
Canal,
as
well
as
those
in
northern
Puget
Sound,
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
and
Nisqually
Reach
do
not
substantiate
any
indication
of
significant
predation
upon
juvenile
salmonids
in
Puget
Sound
marine
waters
(
Simenstad
and
Kinney
1978).
Similarly,
Hood
Canal,
Nisqually
Reach,
and
north
Puget
Sound
data
show
little
or
no
evidence
of
predation
on
juvenile
salmonids
by
juvenile
and
immature
chinook
(
Simenstad
and
Kinney
1978).

Salmonid
predators
are
generally
thought
to
prey
on
fish
approximately
1/
3
or
less
their
length
(
USFWS
1994;
NMFS
1999).
Coho
and
chinook
salmon,
after
entering
the
marine
environment,
generally
prey
upon
fish
one­
half
their
length
or
less
and
consume,
on
average,
fish
prey
that
is
less
than
one­
fifth
of
their
length
(
Brodeur
1991).
Juanes
(
1994),
in
a
survey
of
studies
examining
prey
size
selectivities
of
piscivorus
fishes,
showed
a
consistent
pattern
of
selection
for
small­
sized
prey.
Hargreaves
and
LeBrasseur
(
1986)
reported
that
coho
salmon
smolts
ranging
in
size
from
100­
120
mm
fl
selected
for
smaller
chum
fry
(
sizes
selected
43­
52
mm
fl)
from
an
available
chum
fry
population
including
larger
fish
(
available
size
range
43­
63
mm
fl).
Ruggerone
(
1989;
1992)
also
found
that
coho
smolts
(
size
range
70­
150
mm
fl)
selected
for
the
smallest
sockeye
fry
(
28­
34
mm
fl)
within
a
available
prey
population
that
included
larger
fish
(
28­
44
mm
fl).
Summer
chum
in
the
region
emerge
at
an
approximate
size
of
1200­
1300
fpp,
or
35­
39
mm
fl
(
Bakkala
1970;
Salo
1991;
Tynan
1997;
Fuss
1997b;
S.
Schroder,
Wash.
Dept.
Fish.
and
Wild.,
pers.
comm.,
1999).
For
"
0"
age
and
yearling
hatchery
salmon
and
steelhead
release
classes,
the
"
1/
3
size
criteria"
will
be
applied
to
the
minimum
chum
fry
size
from
the
above
range
(
35
mm)
to
assess
risk.
Hatchery
fish
released
at
a
size
equal
to
or
larger
than
106
mm
fl,
or
attaining
that
size
after
release
as
fry
through
freshwater
rearing,
during
the
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
fry
egression
and
early
marine
emigration
period
(
prior
to
April
15)
are
therefore
judged
to
pose
an
elevated,
direct
predation
risk
to
emigrating
summer
chum
fry.

Due
to
their
location
in
the
lower
portions
of
regional
watersheds
and
relatively
early
time
of
emergence,
wild
summer
chum
fry
will
not
generally
be
vulnerable
to
predation
by
hatchery
salmon
smolts.
Yearling
coho,
steelhead,
and
chinook
smolts
produced
in
hatcheries
that,
due
to
their
relatively
large
size
at
release,
have
the
greatest
potential
to
impact
juvenile
wild
fish
through
predation
are
liberated
into
mainstem
river
areas
beginning
in
late
April
or
early
May,
separating
them
spatially
and
temporally
to
a
significant
degree
from
emerging
and
migrating
summer
chum
fry.
Hatchery
coho
and
steelhead
planted
into
summer
chum
watersheds
as
fry
or
fingerlings
may
have
an
elevated
potential
to
prey
on
emerging
summer
chum
fry
the
subsequent
year
as
yearlings
if
they
are
rearing
in
lower
stream
areas.
Although
available
studies
indicate
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
187
that
predation
on
juvenile
salmonids,
including
summer
chum
fry,
is
not
of
great
concern,
release
practices
that
ensure
spatial
and
temporal
separation
between
hatchery
fall
chinook
salmon,
coho
salmon,
and
steelhead
smolts,
and
summer
chum,
should
be
implemented.
The
critically
depressed
status
of
summer
chum
calls
for
a
conservative
approach
to
hatchery
fish
release
practices
and
the
assessment
of
their
effects.
Further
studies
are
needed
in
nearshore
areas
to
fully
evaluate
the
risk
of
predation
to
summer
chum
emigrants
posed
by
resident
chinook
and
coho
resulting
from
the
Hood
Canal
hatchery
programs.

Large
concentrations
of
migrating
hatchery
fish
may
attract
predators
(
birds,
fish,
and
seals)
and
consequently
contribute
indirectly
to
predation
of
emigrating
wild
fish
(
Steward
and
Bjornn
1990).
The
presence
of
large
numbers
of
hatchery
fish
may
also
alter
wild
summer
chum
behavioral
patterns,
potentially
influencing
their
vulnerability
and
susceptibility
to
predation
(
Hillman
and
Mullan
1989).
Hatchery
fish,
including
pink
salmon
and
fall
chum
salmon,
released
as
fry
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
may
pose
an
elevated,
indirect
predation
risk.
Alternatively,
a
mass
of
hatchery
fry
migrating
through
an
area
may
overwhelm
established
predator
populations,
providing
a
beneficial,
protective
effect
to
co­
occurring
wild
summer
chum.
In
addition,
Hargreaves
and
LeBrasseur
(
1985)
demonstrated
that
coho
salmon
prey
selectively
on
pink
salmon
even
when
intermingled
chum
salmon
are
both
significantly
smaller
and
more
abundant
than
pink
salmon.
Thus,
hatchery
pink
salmon
fry
releases
during
the
summer
chum
fry
emigration
period
may
attract
and
occupy
potential
chum
predators.
For
the
purpose
of
this
assessment,
large
magnitude
releases
of
these
species
(>
1.0
million
per
facility)
during
the
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
fry
egression
and
estuarine
arrival
period
(
prior
to
April
1)
in
close
proximity
to
summer
chum
stream
(
1000
yds
or
less
distance),
or
fall
chum
or
pink
fry
releases
at
any
level
into
a
summer
chum
stream
before
April
1,
will
be
considered
to
pose
an
elevated
risk
to
emigrating
summer
chum
fry
through
predator
attraction.

Summary
Direct
predation
risks
will
be
assessed
as
"
high"
for
hatchery­
origin
juvenile
salmonids
released
prior
to
April
15
at
a
size
that
may
enable
chum
fry
predation
(>
106
mm
fl).
The
indirect
predation
risk
from
potential
enhanced
predator
attraction
will
be
assessed
as
"
high"
for
pre­
April
1
releases
of
fall
chum
or
pink
fry
at
levels
greater
than
1.0
million
within
1000
yds
of
a
summer
chum
stream,
and
for
fry
released
directly
into
a
summer
chum
stream
at
any
level.
Risks
of
predation
will
be
viewed
as
"
low"
for
salmonid
releases
made
after
April
15
for
"
large"
smolts
(
$
106
mm
fl)
that
may
pose
a
direct
predation
risk,
and
for
conspecific
fish
species
releases
in
or
near
summer
chum
streams
that
might
pose
indirect
predation
effects
made
after
April
1.
Table
3.11
presents
risk
ratings
assigned
for
predation
effects
by
hatchery
salmonid
releases.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
188
Table
3.11.
Basis
for
"
Predation"
risk
ratings
assigned
to
regional
hatchery
programs
for
summer
chum
effects.

Risk
Level
Criteria
"
High"
Risk
is
"
high"
if
any
one
of
the
following
criteria
are
met:
"
Direct"
predation
effects
1.
Hatchery
fish
are
released
as
yearlings
into
summer
chum
streams
or
the
estuary
during
the
estimated
wild
summer
chum
fry
emigration
period
(
pre­
April
15).
2.
Hatchery
fish
are
released
at
an
average
size
$
106
mm
prior
to
April
15.
3.
Any
salmonids
released
into
a
summer
chum
stream
that
will
grow
to
a
size
$
106
mm
and
be
present
during
the
summer
chum
egression
period;
4.
Release
timing
of
hatchery
fish
is
unknown;

"
Indirect"
predation
effects
5.
Fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
fry
released
from
individual
projects
into
marine
waters
at
levels
greater
than
1.0
million
within
1000
yds
of
a
summer
chum
stream
prior
to
April
1,
enhancing
predator
attraction
risks.
6.
Fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
fry
released
at
any
level
into
a
summer
chum
stream
prior
to
April
1.

"
Low"
Risk
is
"
low"
where
the
following
applicable
criteria
are
met:
"
Direct"
predation
effects
1.
Seaward­
migrating
hatchery
fish
of
any
species
or
size
released
after
April
15.
2.
Sub­
yearling
life
history
fall
chinook
released
as
unfed
fry
or
fingerlings
into
a
summer
chum
stream.
3.
Chinook,
coho,
or
steelhead
fry
or
fingerlings
released
into
a
stream
that
does
not
support
a
summer
chum
population.

"
Indirect"
predation
effects
4.
Fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
fry
released
into
marine
waters
greater
than
1000
yds
distance
from
a
summer
chum
stream
5.
Fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
fry
released
at
any
level
after
April
1.

Competition
and
Behavioral
Modification
Competition
Effects
Competition
occurs
when
the
demand
for
a
resource
by
two
or
more
organisms
exceeds
the
available
supply.
If
the
resource
in
question
(
e.
g.,
food
or
space)
is
present
in
such
abundance
that
it
is
not
limiting,
then
competition
is
not
occurring,
even
if
both
species
are
using
the
same
resource.
Hazards
associated
with
adverse
competitive
effects
of
hatchery
salmonids
on
summer
chum
may
include
food
resource
competition,
competition
for
spawning
sites,
and
redd
superimposition.
Fresh
(
1984)
reported
a
low
risk
that
competition
between
hatchery
salmonids
and
wild
chum
in
freshwater
will
have
a
significant
negative
impact
on
the
productivity
of
wild
chum.
For
early
marine
life,
a
high
risk
of
adverse
competitive
impacts
between
wild
chum
and
hatchery­
origin
pink
and
chum
was
assessed,
with
other
salmonid
species
produced
by
hatcheries
viewed
as
having
an
unknown
impact
(
Fresh
1984).
In
general,
hatchery­
produced
smolts
emigrate
seaward
soon
after
liberation,
minimizing
the
potential
for
competition
with
juvenile
wild
fish
in
freshwater
(
Steward
and
Bjornn
1990).
Impacts
from
competition
are
assumed
to
be
greatest
in
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
189
spawning
areas
where
competition
for
redd
sites
and
redd
superimposition
may
be
concerns,
and
at
release
locations
where
hatchery
fish
densities
are
highest
(
USFWS
1994).
Any
competitive
impacts
likely
diminish
as
hatchery­
produced
fish
disperse,
but
resource
competition
may
continue
to
occur
at
some
unknown,
but
lower
level
as
summer
chum
fry
and
any
commingled
hatchery
fry
emigrate
seaward.
Steward
and
Bjornn
(
1990)
concluded
that
hatchery
fish
kept
in
the
hatchery
for
extended
periods
before
release
as
smolts
(
e.
g.,
yearling
salmon)
may
have
different
food
and
habitat
preferences
than
wild
fish,
and
that
hatchery
fish
will
be
unlikely
to
out­
compete
wild
fish.

Hatchery­
origin
adult
salmonids,
including
non­
indigenous
stocks
of
fall
chinook,
fall
chum,
or
pink
salmon
that
may
home
to,
or
stray
into,
summer
chum
production
streams
during
the
summer
chum
spawning
or
egg
incubation
period
are
viewed
as
posing
an
elevated
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
risk
to
wild
summer
chum
productivity.
These
returning
or
straying
fish
may
compete
for
spawning
gravel,
or
adversely
affect
summer
chum
survival
through
redd
superimposition.
Superimposition
of
redds
by
later
spawners
removes
previously
deposited
eggs
from
the
gravel,
and
has
been
identified
as
an
important
source
of
chum
mortality
in
some
areas
(
Bakkala
1970).

The
risk
of
straying
by
these
hatchery­
produced
species
may
be
minimized
through
acclimation
of
the
fish
to
their
stream
of
origin,
or
desired
stream
of
return.
Acclimation
can
be
instilled
through
the
use
of
locally
adapted
stocks,
and
by
rearing
of
the
fish
for
an
extended
duration
(
e.
g.,
eyed
egg
to
smolt)
in
the
"
home"
stream
prior
to
release
or
transfer
to
a
marine
area
net­
pen
site
for
further
rearing.
Of
the
above
three
species,
fall
chum
incubated,
reared,
and
released
into
streams
not
harboring
summer
chum
populations
are
viewed
as
the
least
likely
to
stray
from
the
home
stream,
and
thus
posing
low
risks
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards.
Several
sources
indicate
that
chum
salmon
homing
to
hatchery
release
sites
is
quite
strong.
Salo
(
1991),
reporting
on
a
1952
study
of
tagged
fall
chum
released
from,
and
returning
to,
Minter
Creek
Hatchery
in
south
Puget
Sound,
noted
no
strays
into
adjacent
streams
in
two
seasons
of
monitoring.
Studies
of
fall
chum
released
from
Wolcott
Slough
by
USFWS
showed
the
same
result,
with
no
strays
reported
in
adjacent
streams
(
Salo
1991,
citing
Wolcott
1978).
Studies
by
Fuss
and
Hopley
(
1991)
corroborated
the
above
work
indicating
the
high
fidelity
of
chum
salmon
to
their
stream
of
origin,
finding
that
over
five
consecutive
brood
years,
an
extremely
small
percentage
of
returning
adult
coded
wire
tagged
fall
chum
released
from
Hoodsport
Hatchery
strayed
to
streams
adjacent
to
the
release
site.
Out
of
6,600
tagged
fish
recovered
over
the
five
brood
years
studied,
only
four
were
recovered
in
Hood
Canal
streams
outside
of
the
hatchery.
None
of
the
tagged
fish
released
at
Hoodsport
Hatchery
during
this
study
were
recovered
at
other
adjacent
southwest
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
producing
fall
chum
salmon
(
Enetai,
McKernan,
and
George
Adams).

Many
summer
chum
streams
in
the
region
record
lowest
flows
during
the
summer
chum
spawning
period.
Low
flows
tend
to
constrain
spawning
of
all
species
to
center
channel,
lower
river
areas,
especially
in
smaller
creeks,
where
the
effects
of
non­
indigenous
fish
spawning
in
summer
chum
areas
may
impact
chum
survival.
Wild
summer
chum
spawners
in
streams
with
greater
channel
widths
and
flows
during
the
summer
chum
spawning
period
(
e.
g.,
certain
west­
side
Hood
Canal
rivers)
may
be
less
affected
by
non­
indigenous
salmon
spawners,
as
fish
may
be
able
to
disperse
over
larger
areas.
Hatchery
releases
of
indigenous
salmonid
stocks,
and
adult
returns
resulting
from
them,
are
assigned
a
decreased
risk
rating
through
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
190
assumption
of
some
measure
of
co­
adaptation
that
has
led
to
resource
partitioning
between
the
"
native
stock­
origin"
hatchery
fish
and
summer
chum.
It
is
assumed
that
the
indigenous
salmonid
species
within
a
watershed
have
evolved
mechanisms
for
segregating
their
use
of
limited
resources
that
act
to
prevent
or
reduce
interspecific
competition.

Simenstad
et
al.
(
1980)
hypothesized
that
limited
prey
resources
and
inadequate
foraging
success
in
the
estuary
were
responsible
for
higher
mortality
rates
for
emigrating
summer
chum
fry
relative
to
later
migrating
fall
chum
stocks.
They
also
suggested
that
even
expanded
populations
of
zooplankton
present
later
in
the
Hood
Canal
chum
fry
emigration
period
could
be
over­
exploited
given
high
enough
densities
of
juvenile
chum
salmon.
Research
and
experimentation
toward
development
of
hatchery
release
strategies
that
minimized
the
potential
effects
of
competition
and
food
limitation
and
increased
total
survival
to
adult
return
were
suggested
(
Simenstad
et
al.
1980).

Analysis
of
historical
Hood
Canal
hatchery
fall
chum
and
wild
summer
chum
production
and
abundance
data
summarized
by
WDFW
(
1997b)
indicated
the
speculative
nature
of
judgements
regarding
the
competitive
effects,
either
positive
or
negative,
of
fall
chum
releases
on
summer
chum
fry
survival.
Hatchery
fall
chum
releases
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
(
pre­
April
1)
in
some
recent
years
likely
exceeded
the
probable
numbers
of
wild
summer
chum
salmon
fry
that
resulted
in
any
one
year
from
escapements
that
have
occurred
between
1968
and
1996.
This
was
especially
true
for
brood
year
1992,
when
early
releases
of
fall
chum
salmon
from
the
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
totaled
28.6
million
fry,
compared
to
an
estimated
summer
chum
fry
emigration
of
420,000.
If
adverse
competitive
impacts
to
summer
chum
result
from
fall
chum
releases,
hatchery
fall
chum
fry
production
of
brood
year
1992
should
have
had
the
greatest,
most
observable
impact
on
summer
chum
success
of
any
year
in
the
WDFW
data
base.
However,
the
1992
brood
year
summer
chum
were
highly
productive,
making
up
the
majority
of
adults
in
the
large
returns
to
Hood
Canal
in
1995
and
1996
(
WDFW
1997b),
suggesting
that
the
hatchery
fall
chum
releases
had
minimal,
if
any,
adverse
effects
on
summer
chum
survival.

The
majority
of
fall
chum
fry
releases
from
southwest
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
are
now
made
after
the
estimated
summer
chum
out­
migration
period,
and
therefore
interaction
with
summer
chum
is
likely
limited.
However,
to
meet
hatchery
programming
schedules,
some
fall
chum
groups
(
e.
g.,
McKernan
Hatchery),
and
most
pink
salmon
cohorts
in
Hood
Canal,
are
still
released
in
mid­
to
late
March
in
most
years.
Although
these
releases
may
overlap
with
wild
summer
chum
in
the
estuary
temporally,
the
degree
to
which
the
hatchery
fish
and
wild
summer
chum
interact
is
affected
by
the
estuarine
realm
used
by
the
groups
during
seaward
emigration.
The
smaller,
wild
summer
chum
fry
likely
migrate
in
shallow
waters
along
the
shoreline,
until
the
fish
reach
a
larger
size
(
45­
60
mm)
that
decreases
their
susceptibility
to
predation,
enabling
off­
shore
movement.
Fed
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
released
from
hatcheries
at
a
size
of
50
mm
and
larger
tend
to
be
found
in
pelagic
areas
during
migration,
separating
them
spatially
from
wild
summer
chum
fry.
Unfed
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
from
hatcheries
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
are
of
greater
concern,
because
of
their
greater
propensity
to
use
the
same
nearshore
feeding
and
migratory
areas
within
the
estuary
as
wild
summer
chum
fry.
Unfed
fry
release
may
therefore
have
a
greater
potential
for
interaction,
posing
an
increased
risk
of
adverse
competitive
effects.
As
noted
above,
researchers
have
postulated
that
food
resources
preferred
by
chum
salmon
may
be
limited
during
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
191
summer
chum
emigration
period
(
Simenstad
et
al.
1981).
Any
level
of
hatchery
fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
present
in
the
estuary
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
may
pose
risks
to
summer
chum.

Behavioral
Modification
Effects
Interactions
with
hatchery­
origin
salmonids
may
lead
to
behavioral
changes
to
summer
chum
that
are
detrimental
to
productivity
and
survival.
Hatchery
fish
might
alter
wild
salmon
habitat
use,
making
them
more
susceptible
to
predators
(
Hillman
and
Mullan
1989;
Steward
and
Bjornn
1990).
Hatchery­
origin
fish
may
also
alter
wild
salmonid
migratory
responses
or
movement
patterns,
leading
to
a
decrease
in
foraging
and/
or
spawning
success
(
Steward
and
Bjorrn
1990;
Hillman
and
Mullan
1989).
A
negative
change
in
growth
and
condition
of
summer
chum
through
a
change
in
their
diet
or
feeding
habits
could
occur
following
the
release
of
hatchery
salmonids
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period.
Effects
on
wild
fish,
including
summer
chum,
would
depend
on
the
degree
of
dietary
overlap,
food
availability,
size­
related
differences
in
prey
selection,
foraging
tactics,
and
differences
in
microhabitat
use
(
Steward
and
Bjorrn
1990).

Hatchery
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
of
large
magnitude
could
potentially
cause
displacement
of
migrating/
rearing
wild
summer
chum
from
normal
migratory
areas,
leading
to
abandonment
of
advantageous
feeding
areas.
The
presence
of
large
numbers
of
hatchery
fish
may
also
alter
wild
fish
behavioral
patterns,
which
may
increase
their
vulnerability
to
predation
(
USFWS
1994).
Non­
indigenous
hatchery­
produced
fall
chinook,
pink,
and
early­
timed
fall
chum
salmon
adults
returning
to
a
summer
chum
at
the
same
time
as
summer
chum
may
cause
displacement
of
summer
chum
spawners
from
preferred,
advantageous
spawning
areas.

Summary
The
likelihood
for
high
spatial
and
temporal
overlap
and,
therefore,
potentially
significant
interaction
with
summer
chum
on
the
spawning
grounds
or
during
fry
emigration
will
be
used
to
assign
a
"
high"
risk
rating
for
hatchery
release
programs.
For
the
purposes
of
this
assessment,
it
is
assumed
that
there
is
some
as
yet
undefined,
but
critical
food
resource
carrying
capacity
in
Hood
Canal
that
limits
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
population
survival
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
(
March).
To
identify
practices
that
may
result
in
adverse
competitive
effects
to
summer
chum,
a
"
high"
risk
ranking
is
assigned
for
releases
of
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
from
individual
hatcheries
during
the
main
portion
of
the
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
egression
and
estuarine
arrival
period
(
prior
to
April
1).
Fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
after
April
1
will
be
assigned
a
"
low"
risk
rating.
The
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
will
also
be
assessed
as
"
high"
in
instances
where
the
release
timing
is
unknown.

Risks
will
be
assessed
as
"
high"
for
hatchery­
origin
adult
fall
chinook,
fall
chum,
or
pink
salmon
that
are
not
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program
returning
to,
or
straying
into,
summer
chum
spawning
areas
during
the
summer
chum
adult
migration,
spawning
or
egg
incubation
period.
"
Moderate"
ratings
will
be
assigned
where
spatial
and
temporal
overlap
with
summer
chum
is
lower,
or
tempered
by
hatchery
management
actions.
Ratings
will
be
assigned
as
"
low"
in
instances
where
little
overlap
on
the
spawning
grounds
or
in
the
estuary
between
the
hatchery
fish
and
summer
chum
is
expected,
and
the
risk
of
adverse
interactions
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
192
with
summer
chum
are
considered
insignificant.
Table
3.12
rates
competition
and
behavioral
modification
risks
to
summer
chum
posed
by
adult
and
juvenile
hatchery­
origin
salmonids
within
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions.

Table
3.12.
Basis
for
"
Competition
and
Behavioral
Modification"
risk
ratings
assigned
to
hatchery
programs
for
summer
chum
effects.

Risk
Level
Criteria
"
High"
Risk
is
"
high"
if
any
one
of
the
following
criteria
are
met:
Risks
posed
by
adult
fish
­
1.
Hatchery
fall
chinook,
coho,
fall
chum,
or
pink
salmon
that
are
not
a
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program
are
released
into
a
summer
chum
stream
without
avenues
for
removing
$
90%
of
returning
spawners.
Risks
posed
by
juvenile
fish
­
2.
Unfed
or
fed
fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
fry
are
released
prior
to
April
1;
3.
Release
timing
of
hatchery
fish
is
unknown;

"
Moderate"
Risk
is
"
moderate"
if
no
"
high"
criteria
are
met
and
any
one
of
the
following
criteria
is
met:
Risks
posed
by
adult
fish
­
1.
Hatchery
fall
chinook,
coho,
fall
chum,
or
pink
salmon
that
are
not
a
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program
are
released
into
a
summer
chum
stream
with
high
likelihood
for
removing
>
90%
of
returning
spawners.
2.
Unacclimated
hatchery
fall
chinook,
fall
chum,
or
pink
salmon
are
released
into
a
stream
lacking
summer
chum.
3.
Fall
chinook
salmon
are
released
from
marine
area
net­
pens.

"
Low"
Risk
is
"
low"
where
the
following
applicable
criteria
are
met:
Risks
posed
by
adult
fish
­
1.
(
a)
Hatchery
fall
chinook,
coho,
fall
chum,
or
pink
salmon
that
are
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program,
or
(
b)
are
not
a
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program
and
are
released
into
a
summer
chum
stream
with
high
likelihood
for
removing
100%
of
returning
spawners.
2.
Hatchery
chinook,
fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
are
acclimated
and
released
as
smolts
into
a
stream
where
no
summer
chum
population
exists.
3.
Hatchery
chinook,
fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
are
acclimated
and
released
into
a
large
river
system
where
timing
overlap
with
summer
chum
adults
exists,
and
spatial
separation
during
spawning
is
known
to
exist.
Risks
posed
by
juvenile
fish
­
4.
Unfed
or
fed
fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
fry
are
released
after
April
1.
5.
Coho
and
steelhead
are
released
as
fingerling
or
smolts.
6.
Acclimated
chinook,
coho,
or
steelhead
fry
or
fingerlings
are
released
into
a
stream
that
lacks
a
summer
chum
population.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
193
Fish
Disease
Transfer
This
category
addresses
the
risk
of
acute
or
chronic
mortality,
or
elevated
susceptibility
to
predation,
resulting
from
the
potential
transfer
of
fish
diseases
from
hatchery­
origin
fish
species
to
summer
chum.
The
risk
of
this
hazard
will
be
assessed
through
consideration
of
operational
practices
applied
to
minimize
the
likelihood
for
disease
outbreaks
at
a
hatchery
facility,
and
of
disease
transfer
to
wild
fish.

Under
certain
conditions,
hatchery
effluent
has
the
potential
to
transport
fish
pathogens
out
of
the
hatchery,
where
natural
fish
may
be
exposed
to
infection.
Interactions
between
hatchery
fish
and
natural
fish
in
the
environment
may
also
result
in
the
transmission
of
pathogens,
if
either
the
hatchery
or
natural
fish
are
harboring
a
fish
disease.
This
latter
impact
may
occur
in
tributary
areas
where
hatchery
fish
are
planted
and
throughout
migration
corridors
where
hatchery
and
wild
fish
may
interact.
As
the
pathogens
responsible
for
fish
diseases
are
present
in
both
hatchery
and
natural
populations,
there
is
some
uncertainty
associated
with
determining
the
source
of
the
pathogen
(
Williams
and
Amend
1976;
Hastein
and
Lindstad
1991).
Hatchery­
origin
fish
may
have
an
increased
risk
of
carrying
fish
disease
pathogens
because
of
relatively
high
rearing
densities
that
increase
stress
and
can
lead
to
greater
manifestation
and
spread
of
disease
within
the
hatchery
population.
Under
natural,
low
density
conditions,
most
pathogens
do
not
lead
to
a
disease
outbreak.
When
fish
disease
outbreaks
do
occur,
they
are
often
triggered
by
stressful
hatchery
rearing
conditions,
or
by
a
deleterious
change
in
the
environment
(
Saunders
1991).
Consequently,
it
is
possible
that
the
release
of
hatchery
fish
may
lead
to
the
loss
of
natural
fish,
if
the
hatchery
fish
are
carrying
a
pathogen,
if
that
pathogen
is
transferred
to
the
natural
fish,
and
if
the
transfer
of
the
pathogen
leads
to
a
disease
outbreak.
Although
hatchery
populations
can
be
considered
to
be
reservoirs
for
disease
pathogens
because
of
their
elevated
exposure
to
high
rearing
densities
and
stress,
there
is
little
evidence
to
suggest
that
diseases
are
routinely
transmitted
from
hatchery
to
wild
fish
(
Steward
and
Bjornn
1990).

To
address
concerns
of
potential
disease
transmission
from
hatchery
salmonids
to
wild
fish,
the
comanagers
developed
a
Fish
Health
Policy,
which
established
guidelines
to
ensure
that
fish
health
is
monitored
and
that
hatchery
fish
are
reared
and
released
in
good
condition,
thus
minimizing
impacts
to
natural
fish
(
NWIFC
and
WDFW
1998).
WDFW
has
also
developed
a
Fish
Health
Manual
that
sets
forth
policies
and
procedures
for
the
production
of
quality,
healthy
fish
by
the
Department's
Hatcheries
Program
(
WDFW
1996).
The
WDFW
manual
also
serves
as
a
guide
for
training
Fish
Hatchery
Specialists
in
fish
culture
and
fish
health
practices.
Compliance
with
NPDES
permit
provisions
at
hatcheries
also
acts
to
minimize
the
likelihood
for
disease
epizootics
and
water
quality
impacts
that
may
lead
to
increased
wild
fish
susceptibility
to
disease
outbreaks.
Full
compliance
with
the
co­
manager's
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
is
used
to
assign
a
"
low"
risk
rating
for
fish
disease
transfer.
Degree
of
deferral
from
Policy
guidelines
will
be
used
to
assign
a
"
high"
or
"
moderate"
risk
rating.
Table
3.13
presents
criteria
used
to
assign
risk
ratings
for
this
hazard
category.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
194
Table
3.13.
Basis
for
"
Fish
Disease
Transfer"
risk
ratings
assigned
to
regional
hatchery
programs
for
summer
chum
effects.

Risk
Level
Criteria
"
High"
Risk
is
"
high"
if
the
following
criterion
is
met:
1.
Co­
manager
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
procedures
not
followed,
e.
g.:
a.
Hatchery
fish
health
condition
is
not
monitored
and
recorded
during
broodstock
spawning
and
juvenile
fish
rearing.
b.
Hatchery
fish
not
examined
and
certified
as
free
of
regulated
pathogens
prior
to
release.
c.
Fish
released
during
disease
outbreak.
d.
Transfers
of
fish
not
documented
or
out
of
compliance
with
transfer
policies
specified
in
co­
manager's
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy.

"
Moderate"
Risk
is
"
moderate"
if
the
following
criterion
is
met:
1.
Co­
manager
Salmonid
Disease
Control
policy
procedures
are
not
consistently
followed,
e.
g.:
a.
Broodstock
certified
by
Fish
Health
professional
but
fish
health
during
rearing
is
monitored
only
by
hatchery
staff.
b.
Hatchery
fish
not
fish
health
certified
prior
to
release.
c.
Fish
released
in
good
health
with
relatively
low
(<
0.1%)
daily
mortalities
in
previous
week.

"
Low"
Risk
is
"
low"
if
the
following
criterion
is
met:
1.
Co­
manager
Salmonid
Disease
Control
policy
procedures
are
consistently
followed,
e.
g.:
a.
Hatchery
broodstock
and
juvenile
fish
health
is
monitored
by
fish
health
professional
during
operation.
b.
Hatchery
fish
health
are
examined
and
certified
by
fish
health
professional
as
free
of
regulated
pathogens
prior
to
release.
c.
Fish
transfers
documented
and
in
compliance
with
transfer
policies
specified
in
comanager's
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy.

Risk
Rating
Summary
The
risk
of
the
above
hatchery
operational
and
ecological
hazards
to
summer
chum
are
assigned
based
on
the
preceding
text
for
each
of
the
hatchery
programs
listed
in
Table
3.9.
A
summary
of
assigned
risk
levels
for
the
programs
is
presented
in
Table
3.14.

Risk
levels
are
assigned
for
each
age
class
produced
through
the
programs,
and
grouped
by
species
produced.
Criteria
set
forth
in
Tables
3.10
through
3.13
were
used
to
determine
risk
levels.
Criteria
applied
from
the
tables
to
assign
the
risk
level
for
each
hazard
are
identified
by
number.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
195
Table
3.14.
Assessment
of
risks
to
wild
summer
chum
juveniles
and
adults
posed
by
the
production
and
release
of
anadromous
salmonids
by
artificial
propagation
programs
in
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
region.

Species
Hazard
Categories
and
Assigned
Risk
(
criteria
#
from
risk
ranking
within
category
applied)

Agency
Project
Release
Class
Hatchery
Operations
Predation
Competition
and
Behavioral
Modification
Disease
Transfer
Fall
chinook
WDFW
Hoodsport
FH
George
Adams
FH
Sund
Rocks
Net­
pens
Fingl.
Fingl.
Yearl.
Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
7)
Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)
Low
(
2)

Low
(
2)
Moderate
(
3)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Port
Gamble
Tribe
L.
Boston
Fingl.
Low
(
1,
7)
Low
(
1)
Low
(
2)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Skokomish
Tribe
Enetai
Fingl.
Low
(
1,
7)
Low
(
1)
Low
(
2)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Citizen
Groups
Union
River
Tahuya
River
Dewatto
River
Big
Beef
Creek
Skokomish
River
Hamma
Hamma
River
Johnson
Ck.
(
Duckabush)

Unnamed
tribs.

Pleasant
Harbor
Net­
Pens
HC
Marina
Net­
Pens
Fingl.

Fing.
Unfed
Fry
Fingl.
Fingl.
Yearl.

Fingl.
Fingl.
Fingl.
Unfed
Fry
Yearl.
Yearl.
Low
(
2,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
3,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Moderate
(
2)

Low
(
2,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1,
7)

Low
(
1,
7)
Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
2)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
3)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)
High
(
1)

High
(
1)

High
(
1)

High
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
2)

Low
(
2)

Low
(
3)

Low
(
3,
5)

Low
(
6)
Moderate
(
3)

Moderate
(
3)
Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Chinook
WDFW
Dungeness
FH
Fry
Fingl.
Fingl.
smolt.
Low
(
4,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
4,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
4,
5,
6,
7)
Low
(
2)

Low
(
2)

Low
(
1)
Low
(
1,
3)

Low
(
1,
3)

Low
(
1,
3)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
196
Table
3.14.
Continued
Species
Hazard
Categories
and
Assigned
Risk
(
criteria
#
from
risk
ranking
within
category
applied)

Agency
Project
Release
Class
Hatchery
Operations
Predation
Competition
and
Behavioral
Modification
Disease
Transfer
Coho
WDFW
Dungeness
FH
Pt.
Gamble
Net­
pens
Quilcene
Net­
pens
George
Adams
FH
Tarboo
Ck.

Snow
Ck.
Yearl.
Yearl.
Yearl.
Yearl.

Fingl.
Unfed
fry
Pre­
smolts
Low
(
4,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
7)

Low
(
1,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
4)

Low
(
4)
Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
3)

High
(
3)

High
(
3)
Low
(
5)

Low
(
5)

Low
(
5)

Low
(
5)

Low
(
6)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

USFWS
Quilcene
NFH
Yearl.

Fing.
Low
(
3,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
3,
5,
6,
7)
Low
(
1)

High
(
3)
Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Pink
WDFW
Hoodsport
FH
Dungeness
FH
Fed
fry
Fed
fry
Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Moderate
(
1)
Low
(
4)

High
(
6)
High
(
2)

Low
(
1,
3)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Fall
Chum
WDFW
Hoodsport
FH
George
Adams
FH
McKernan
FH
Fed
fry
Fed
fry
Fed
fry
Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)
Low
(
4)

Low
(
5)

Low
(
4)
High
(
2)

Low
(
2)

High
(
2)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Skokomish
Tribe
Enetai
FH
Fed
fry
Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)
Low
(
5)
Low
(
2)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Pt.
Gamble
Tribe
Pt.
Gamble
FH
Fed
fry
Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)
Low
(
5)
Low
(
2)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

USFWS
QNFH
Fed
fry
Low
(
3,
5,
6,
7)
Low
(
5)
Low
(
2)
Low
(
1
a­
c)
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
197
Table
3.14.
Continued
Species
Hazard
Categories
and
Assigned
Risk
(
criteria
#
from
risk
ranking
within
category
applied)

Agency
Project
Release
Class
Hatchery
Operations
Predation
Competition
and
Behavioral
Modification
Disease
Transfer
Fall
chum
­
continued
Citizen
Groups
Mills
Ck.

Tahuya
R.

Union
R.

L.
Mission
Ck.

Skull
Ck.
Sweetwater
Ck.

Unnamed
14.0124
Chinom
Pt.
(
Ck.)

Unnamed
14.0136
Skokomish
R.

Jump­
off
Joe
Ck.
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Low
(
1)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1,
5,
6,
7)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)
Low
(
4)

High
(
6)

High
(
6)

Low
(
4)

Low
(
4)

Low
(
4)

Low
(
4)

Low
(
4)

Low
(
4)

Low
(
4)

Low
(
4)
High
(
2);
Low
(
2)

High
(
1,
2)

High
(
1,
2)

High
(
2);
Low
(
2)

High
(
2);
Low
(
2)

High
(
2);
Low
(
2)

High
(
2);
Low
(
2)

High
(
2);
Low
(
2)

High
(
2);
Low
(
2)

High
(
2);
Low
(
2)

High
(
2);
Low
(
2)
Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Moderate
(
1
a,
b)

Steelhead
WDFW
Skokomish
R.

Dosewallips
R.

Duckabush
R.

Dungeness
FH
Yearl.
Yearl.
Yearl.
Yearl.
Low
(
2)

Low
(
2)

Low
(
2)

Low
(
4,
5,
6,
7)
Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)

Low
(
1)
Low
(
5)

Low
(
5)

Low
(
5)

Low
(
5)
Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Low
(
1
a­
c)

Citizen
Groups
Hamma
Hamma
R.
2+
Yearl.
Low
(
2)
Low
(
1)
Low
(
5)
Low
(
1
a­
c)
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
198
Risk
Aversion
and
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
Measures
Proposed
to
Reduce
the
Risks
of
Hatchery
Operational
and
Ecological
Hazards
to
Summer
Chum
Following
are
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
proposed
to
reduce
the
risk
of
hazards
to
wild
summer
chum
productivity
that
may
result
from
regional
hatchery
salmonid
production
programs.
These
measures
were
designed
to
compliment
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
included
in
section
3.2
of
this
plan
that
pertain
to
summer
chum­
directed
supplementation
programs.
Proposed
measures
are
included
here
to
minimize
risks,
as
needed,
of
the
aforementioned
operational
and
ecological
hazards
posed
by
hatchery
programs
producing
other
anadromous
species
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
region.
These
measures
are
also
set
forth
to
identify
monitoring
and
evaluation
work
needed
to
answer
critical
questions
regarding
hatchery
program
impacts
to
the
summer
chum
populations.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
results
will
be
used
to
adaptively
manage
the
hatchery
programs
to
reduce
the
risk
of
hazards
to
summer
chum
that
may
be
affected.

Generally,
risk
aversion
measures
are
proposed
for
application
in
instances
where
risks
of
hazards
to
summer
chum
are
assigned
as
"
high"
or
"
moderate."
Monitoring
and
evaluation
programs
are
also
proposed
to
address
risks
judged
as
"
high"
or
"
moderate,"
or
where
the
uncertainty
of
the
effects
on
summer
chum
associated
with
a
particular
release
program
is
high.
The
intent
is
to
adjust
assessed
"
high"
and
"
moderate"
impact
programs
through
application
of
the
following
measures,
as
appropriate,
so
that
the
risk
of
adverse
effects
on
wild
summer
chum
becomes
"
low."
Requirements
for
monitoring
and
evaluation
will
allow
for
the
adaptive
management
of
programs,
if
needed,
as
new
information
regarding
the
occurrence
and
effects
of
each
hazard
is
gathered.

The
assignment
of
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
evaluation
measures
to
programs
judged
as
potentially
hazardous
to
summer
chum
productivity
is
consistent
with
the
approach
applied
by
NMFS
in
biological
assessments
of
hatchery
salmonid
production
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
(
NMFS
1999).
In
forming
biological
opinions
regarding
whether
or
not
Basin
hatchery
programs
jeopardize
the
survival
of
listed
fish,
"
reasonable
and
prudent
alternatives"
are
developed
and
applied
as
requirements
for
certain
hatchery
operations
and
practices
to
minimize
or
avert
perceived
risks
to
listed
fish.
Similarly,
NMFS
also
applies
"
conservation
measures"
within
the
biological
opinions
as
required
or
suggested
methods
to
reduce
the
risk
of
negative
effects
or
to
study
their
potential
for
impacting
ESA­
listed
fish.
These
alternatives
and
measures
included
in
the
NMFS
hatchery
biological
opinions
serve
the
same
risk
minimization
purpose
as
the
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
set
forth
in
this
plan.
All
are
mechanisms
for
reducing
the
likelihood
that
the
hatchery
programs
will
negatively
affect
ESA­
listed
or
depressed
salmonid
populations
requiring
protection.

Hatchery
Operations
The
following
proposed
measures
and
programs
should
apply
to
all
hatchery
programs
in
the
region.
The
risk
aversion
approach
will
be
directed
towards
minimizing
harm
to
summer
chum
that
may
be
encountered
during
adult
salmonid
trapping
directed
at
other
species,
and
ensuring
compliance
with
state,
tribal,
and
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
199
federal
hatchery
operational
and
reporting
guidelines
and
laws
designed
to
minimize
adverse
effects
on
wild
fish
attached
with
hatchery
operational
practices.

Risk
aversion
measures
1.
All
weirs
used
to
capture
non­
ESA­
listed
anadromous
salmonid
adults
will
be
designed
and
operated
with
a
primary
intent
of
passing
incidentally
captured
summer
chum
upstream
with
minimal
harm
or
delay
in
migration.
Handling
of
summer
chum
will
be
minimized
to
the
extent
feasible
to
meet
this
measure.
2.
All
weirs
will
be
operated
by
individuals
trained
in
proper
and
safe
fish
handling
procedures
that
will
be
protective
of
any
summer
chum
adults
encountered.
3.
All
fish
weirs
where
summer
chum
may
be
captured
incidentally
will
be
monitored
continuously
to
ensure
that
captured
fish
are
held
under
safe
conditions,
including
maintenance
of
adequate
flow
in
fish
holding
boxes
and
protection
from
poaching.
4.
Summer
chum
captured
incidentally
in
fish
weir
or
broodstocking
operations
shall
be
held
for
no
longer
than
12
hours
prior
to
release
upstream
to
minimize
delay
in
migration.
5.
All
fish
weirs
will
be
placed
and
removed
in
a
manner
that
does
not
lead
to
adverse
changes
in
summer
chum
spawning
areas,
spawning
distributions,
or
to
summer
chum
redds
upstream
or
downstream
of
the
weir
location.
6.
All
fish
weirs
and
hatchery
operations,
including
annual
fish
removal,
egg
take,
and
juvenile
production
criteria
set
forth
for
the
weir
or
hatchery
in
the
Future
Brood
Document,
should
be
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
this
plan..
7.
All
hatchery
intakes
and
other
structures
shall
be
operated
to
prevent
dewatering
of
adjacent
spawning
or
migration
areas
that
may
be
used
by
summer
chum.
8.
All
hatchery
intake
and
outfall
screens
shall
be
maintained
to
prevent
harm
to
summer
chum
adults
or
juveniles.
9.
All
hatcheries
producing
over
20,000
pounds
of
fish
production
or
applying
more
than
5,000
pounds
of
feed
per
calendar
month
shall
be
operated
in
accordance
with
NPDES
permits
issued
to
minimize
adverse
water
quality
effects
resulting
from
hatchery
effluent.

Monitoring
and
Evaluation
Programs
1.
All
fish
weir
or
trapping
programs
will
record
the
daily
number
by
species
of
salmonids
captured,
the
disposition
of
all
fish
trapped
(
i.
e.
passed
upstream,
downstream,
or
removed
as
broodstock),
and
trap
mortalities
by
species.
These
data
will
be
provided
to
the
WDFW
Hatcheries
Program
weekly
through
the
seasonal
duration
of
trapping.
Similar
data
for
Tribal
and
Federal
agency
hatchery
programs
should
also
be
provided.
2.
Broodstock
removal
data
by
date,
including
number
and
sex
of
fish
by
species
and
estimated
egg
take
will
be
reported
to
the
WDFW
Hatcheries
Program
weekly
over
the
duration
of
the
trapping
season.
Similar
data
for
Tribal
and
Federal
agency
hatchery
programs
should
also
be
provided.
3.
To
address
hatchery
effluent
quality
concerns,
the
release
of
harmful
fish
pathogens
into
downstream
waters
will
be
controlled
by
monitoring
the
fish
health
status
of
all
salmonids
reared
in
summer
chum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
200
watersheds,
or
destined
for
release
into
summer
chum
watersheds,
on
a
regular
basis
by
State,
Tribal,
or
Federal
agency
fish
health
professionals.
4.
Fish
production
data
for
each
species
released
from
regional
hatcheries,
including
fish
health
certification
data,
release
numbers,
age
class
at
release,
size
at
release,
date
of
release,
and
location
of
release
will
be
reported
to
the
WDFW
Hatcheries
Program
during
the
month
in
which
the
release
occurred.
Similar
data
for
Tribal
and
Federal
agency
hatchery
programs
should
also
be
provided.
5.
Data
regarding
hatchery
effluent
monitoring
will
be
recorded
and
reported
consistent
with
NPDES
permits
that
may
be
required
and
issued
for
each
hatchery
operation.

Predation
The
following
measures
and
programs
are
either
species­
specific
or
applicable
to
all
artificial
propagation
operations.
Risk
aversion
measures
will
be
based
on
the
concept
that
the
risk
of
predation
can
be
minimized
by
reducing
the
likelihood
for
interaction
between
hatchery
fish
and
wild
summer
chum
using
spatial
and
temporal
separation
measures.
Therefore,
the
size,
timing,
and
location
of
hatchery
salmonid
releases
are
the
factors
subject
to
control
through
the
risk
aversion
measures.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
are
included
to
help
address
uncertainties
regarding
hatchery
fish
effects,
and
to
ensure
compliance
with
standing,
required
hatchery
practice
and
reporting
standards.

Risk
aversion
measures
1.
All
steelhead,
coho,
and
chinook
smolt
releases
from
regional
hatcheries,
truck­
plants,
or
marine
area
net­
pens
will
occur
no
earlier
than
April
15
to
allow
for
the
clearance
of
juvenile
wild
summer
chum
from
freshwater
and
Hood
Canal
estuarine
areas,
minimizing
the
likelihood
of
interaction
between
the
hatchery
fish
and
summer
chum.
A
maximum
coefficient
of
variation
in
average
smolt
length
of
10%
shall
be
pursued
to
help
ensure
that
the
majority
of
fish
meet
target
smolt
size
criteria,
minimizing
the
likelihood
for
migration
delay
or
residualization
resulting
from
the
release
of
undersize
fish.
2.
Releases
of
coho,
chinook,
or
steelhead
fry,
fingerlings,
or
sub­
yearlings
into
summer
chum
streams
that
are
not
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program,
and
that
will
have
a
high
likelihood
of
residualizing
or
being
present
as
yearling
fish
in
freshwater
during
the
summer
chum
egression
period,
shall
be
avoided.
3.
All
salmonids
released
from
regional
hatcheries
or
transferred
from
out­
of­
watershed
facilities
for
planting
into
summer
chum
streams
will
be
volitionally­
migrating
smolts
that
are
acclimated
to
the
stream
of
release
to
reduce
the
risk
of
residualization,
and
straying
as
returning
adults,
respectively.
4.
Hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
(
George
Adams,
McKernan,
or
Hoodsport
lineage)
fed
and
unfed
fry
populations
should
be
released
after
April
1
each
year
to
reduce
the
risk
of
predator
attraction
to
summer
chum
fry
in
estuarine
areas
where
they
may
aggregate
with
hatchery
fish.
Releases
that
are
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program
are
exempt
from
this
measure.
5.
Resident
trout
shall
only
be
released
into
lakes,
ponds,
or
stream
sections
within
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
region
that
are
land­
locked
or
have
screened
outlets,
or
where
access
to
anadromous
waters
is
unlikely.

Monitoring
and
evaluation
programs
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
201
1.
Fish
production
data
for
each
species
released
from
regional
hatcheries,
including
fish
health
certification
data,
release
numbers,
age
class
at
release,
size
at
release,
date
of
release,
and
location
of
release
will
be
reported
to
the
WDFW
Hatcheries
Program
during
the
month
in
which
the
release
occurred.
Similar
data
for
Tribal
and
Federal
agency
hatchery
programs
should
also
be
provided.
2.
Yearling
fish
resulting
from
the
planting
of
indigenous­
origin,
chinook,
coho,
and
steelhead
fry
and
fingerlings,
or
other
resident
fish,
released
into
a
summer
chum
stream
as
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program
shall
be
monitored
to
identify
survival
rates,
distribution
within
the
stream,
and
potential
predation
effects
on
wild
summer
chum.

Competition
and
Behavioral
Modification
The
following
measures
and
programs
are
either
species­
specific
or
applicable
to
all
artificial
propagation
operations.
Risk
aversion
measures
will
focus
on
application
of
timing
and
area
of
release
criteria
for
hatchery
juveniles,
and
return
area
and
removal
criteria
for
non­
indigenous
hatchery
adults,
to
minimize
adverse
competition
and
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
result
from
the
release
and
adult
return
of
hatchery
fish.
Suggested
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
are
directed
towards
collection
of
data
to
address
uncertainties
regarding
the
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
of
a
hatchery
fish
release
program
on
summer
chum
productivity.

Risk
aversion
measures
1.
No
fed
fall
chum
salmon
or
Hoodsport
Hatchery
pink
salmon
fry
will
be
released
from
individual
hatcheries
prior
to
April
1
each
year
to
minimize
the
risk
of
food
resource
competition
with
emigrating
summer
chum
fry
in
estuarine
areas
and
to
reduce
the
risk
of
adverse
behavioral
modifications,
including
changes
in
summer
chum
fry
feeding
behavior,
predator
avoidance,
and
preferred
migration
areas.
2.
No
unfed
fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
fry
shall
be
released
from
all
artificial
production
facilities
prior
to
April
1
to
reduce
the
risk
of
food
resource
competition
from
hatchery
fish
that
may
utilize
the
same
estuarine
realm
as
wild
summer
chum
fry.
3.
No
Finch
Creek
lineage
(
George
Adams,
Hoodsport,
or
McKernan)
fall
chum
or
pink
salmon
fry
shall
be
released
into
existing
summer
chum
watersheds
where
there
is
no
ability
to
remove
100%
of
returning
spawners,
or
where
it
is
not
advisable
to
do
so
(
i.
e.
where
removal
would
impose
further
risks
to
summer
chum
by
trapping
fish),
to
reduce
the
risk
of
spawning
ground
space
competition,
redd
superimposition,
and
behavioral
modification
posed
by
early­
returning
hatchery­
origin
adults,
and
to
reduce
the
risk
of
genetic
introgression
by
early­
returning
fall
chum.
4.
Unless
part
of
a
formal
stock
recovery
program,
no
fall
chinook
salmon
shall
be
released
into
eastside
Hood
Canal
or
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
streams
in
instances
where
there
is
no
ability
to
capture
100%
of
adults
upon
freshwater
return,
or
where
it
is
not
advisable
to
do
so
(
i.
e.,
where
removal
would
impose
further
risks
to
summer
chum
by
trapping
fish).
This
provision
is
necessary
to
reduce
the
risk
of
spawning
ground
space
competition,
redd
superimposition,
and
behavioral
modification
to
summer
chum.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
202
5.
Fall
chinook,
fall
chum,
and
pink
salmon
released
into
streams
with
no
existing
summer
chum
populations
shall
be
fully
acclimated
to
the
stream
of
release
to
minimize
the
risk
of
adult
straying
to
summer
chum
streams.
6.
Hatchery
under­
yearling
chinook,
fall
chum,
or
pink
salmon
that
are
indigenous
to
a
summer
chum
watershed
and
are
part
of
a
stock
maintenance
or
formal
recovery
program
shall
be
released
after
April
1
to
minimize
overlap
with
summer
chum
fry.
7.
Net­
pen
fall
chinook
and
coho
salmon
shall
be
acclimated
to
a
freshwater
or
marine
return
location
to
minimize
the
risk
of
straying
to
summer
chum
streams.

Monitoring
and
evaluation
programs
1.
Fall
chinook,
fall
chum,
pink,
and
coho
salmon
originating
from
artificial
propagation
programs
that
are
allowed
to
spawn
naturally
will
be
monitored
to
determine
the
location
of
spawning
relative
to
summer
chum
streams
or
spawning
areas
and
the
effects
of
any
spawning
on
summer
chum
spawning
success
and
redd
integrity.
2.
All
RSIs
producing
unfed
fall
chum
and
fall
chinook
fry
for
direct
release
will
be
monitored
to
determine
the
timing
of
emergence
and
number
of
fish
emigrating
from
the
incubators.
3.
Smolts
resulting
from
the
planting
of
indigenous­
origin,
non­
migrant
chinook,
coho,
and
steelhead
fry
and
fingerlings
released
into
a
summer
chum
stream
shall
be
monitored
to
identify
survival
rates,
stream
distribution,
and
to
evaluate
potential
competitive
effects
on
wild
summer
chum.

Fish
Disease
Transfer
The
following
measures
and
programs
are
applicable
to
all
artificial
propagation
operations.
Proposed
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
are
designed
to
ensure
compliance
with
accepted
fish
health
monitoring
and
management
standards,
and
adherence
to
applicable
NPDES
permit
conditions
to
protect
downstream
water
quality.

Risk
aversion
measures
1.
Hatchery
broodstock
and
juvenile
fish
health
will
be
monitored
by
a
fish
health
professional
during
operation
of
broodstock
capture
and
juvenile
fish
incubation
and
rearing
programs.
2.
Co­
manager's
of
Washington
Salmonid
Disease
Control
procedures
and
WDFW
Fish
Transfer
policy
procedures
will
be
followed
for
all
hatchery
practices,
including
broodstock
capture,
fish
rearing
and
fish
releases.
3.
The
condition
and
health
of
all
anadromous
salmonids
reared
by
a
facility
will
be
certified
by
a
fish
health
professional
prior
to
release.
4.
All
fish
shall
be
released
in
a
healthy
condition
into
regional
waters.
5.
The
hatchery
will
be
in
compliance
with
permitted
water
rights,
and
with
applicable
NPDES
permit
conditions
and
best
management
practices.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
programs
1.
Hatchery
broodstock
and
juvenile
fish
health
will
be
monitored
and
evaluated
by
a
fish
health
professional
during
operation
of
broodstock
capture
and
rearing
programs.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
203
2.
The
fish
health
condition
of
hatchery
fish
over
the
duration
of
rearing
and
at
release
shall
be
reported
to
WDFW
within
one
month
after
the
time
of
release.
Summary
of
Risk
Aversion
and
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
Measures
Proposed
to
be
Applied
to
Reduce
Harm
to
Wild
Summer
Chum
by
Hatchery
Program
Table
3.15
summarizes,
by
regional
hatchery
program,
proposed
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
that
will
be
applied
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
wild
summer
chum
populations.
As
mentioned
above,
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
are
assigned
to
programs
assessed
as
of
"
high"
or
"
moderate"
risk
within
a
particular
hazard
category.
In
some
instances
where
risks
have
been
assessed
as
"
low,"
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
may
be
required,
due
to
uncertainty
of
the
effects
on
summer
chum
associated
with
a
program
or
when
a
consistent,
reliable
avenue
for
receiving
information
regarding
the
project
is
viewed
needed.
If
it
is
infeasible
to
adjust
a
program
in
accordance
with
these
measures
so
that
the
risk
of
hazards
to
summer
chum
across
hazard
categories
becomes
"
low,"
options
including
reduction
in
production
levels
or
termination
of
the
program
shall
be
considered.
In
no
instances
shall
a
program
be
adjusted
in
a
manner
that
reduces
the
risk
of
hazards
in
one
category,
while
increasing
the
risk
of
adverse
effects
in
another
category.

Compliance
with
appropriate
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
shall
be
indicated
in
annual
reports
assembled
for
each
program.
Annual
reports
for
regional
hatchery
production
will
be
prepared
by
WDFW
for
WDFW­
managed
programs,
the
PNPT
tribes
for
tribal
programs,
and
by
private
and
volunteer
enhancement
groups,
with
technical
assistance
from
WDFW,
for
citizen­
managed
production
programs.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
204
Table
3.15.
Summary
of
Risk
Aversion
(
r.
a.)
and
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
(
m&
e)
measures
proposed
to
be
applied
to
artificial
propagation
programs
in
the
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
ESU.

Species
Hazard
Categories
and
Assigned
Risk
(
criteria
#
from
risk
ranking
within
category
applied)

Agency
Project
Release
Class
Hatchery
Operations
Predation
Competition
and
Behavioral
Modification
Disease
Transfer
Fall
chinook
WDFW
Hoodsport
FH
George
Adams
FH
Sund
Rocks
Net­
pens
Fingl.
Fingl.
Yearl.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
r.
a.
#
7;
m&
e#
1
 
 
 
Skokomish
Tribe
Enetai
Fingl.
 
 
m&
e#
1
 
Port
Gamble
Tribe
Little
Boston
Fingl.
 
 
 
 
Citizen
Groups
Union
River
Tahuya
River
Dewatto
River
Big
Beef
Creek
Skokomish
River
Hamma
Hamma
River
Johnson
Ck.
(
Duckabush)

Unnamed
tribs.

Pleasant
Harbor
Net­
Pens
HC
Marina
Net­
Pens
Fingl.

Fing.
Unfed
Fry
Fingl.
Fingl.
Yearl.

Fingl.
Fingl.
Fingl.
Unfed
Fry
Yearl.
Yearl.
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
r.
a.
#
4,
#
6;
m&
e
#
1­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
r.
a.
#
4;
m&
e#
1,
2
r.
a.
#
4;
m&
e#
1,
2
r.
a.
#
4;
m&
e#
1,
2
r.
a.
#
4;
m&
e#
1,
2
r.
a.
#
4;
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1
m&
e#
1,
2
r.
a.
#
7;
m&
e
#
1
r.
a.
#
7;
m&
e
#
1
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
m&
e
1,
2
m&
e
1,
2
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,2
m&
e
1,
2
m&
e
1,
2
Chinook
WDFW
Dungeness
FH
Fry
Fingl.
Fingl.
smolt.
 
 
 
m&
e
#
2
m&
e
#
2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
205
Table
3.15.
Continued
Species
Hazard
Categories
and
Assigned
Risk
(
criteria
#
from
risk
ranking
within
category
applied)

Agency
Project
Release
Class
Hatchery
Operations
Predation
Competition
and
Behavioral
Modification
Disease
Transfer
Coho
WDFW
Dungeness
FH
Pt.
Gamble
Net­
pens
Quilcene
Net­
pens
George
Adams
FH
Tarboo
Ck.

Snow
Ck.
Yearl.
Yearl.
Yearl.
Yearl.

Fingl.
Unfed
fry
Pre­
smolts
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
m&
e
#
2
m&
e
#
2
 
r.
a.
#
7
r.
a.
#
7
 
 
m&
e
#
3
m&
e
#
3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
USFWS
Quilcene
NFH
Yearl.

Fing.
 
 
 
r.
a.
#
2,
3
 
 
 
 
Pink
WDFW
Hoodsport
FH
Dungeness
FH
Fed
fry
Fed
fry
 
r.
a.
#
1­
5
r.
a.
#
4
 
r.
a.
#
1,
2
r.
a.
#
6
 
 
Fall
Chum
WDFW
Hoodsport
FH
George
Adams
FH
McKernan
FH
Fed
fry
Fed
fry
Fed
fry
 
 
 
r.
a.
#
4
 
r.
a.
#
4
r.
a.
#
1,
2
 
r.
a.
#
1,
2
 
 
 
Skokomish
Tribe
Enetai
FH
Fed
fry
 
 
 
 
Pt.
Gamble
Tribe
Pt.
Gamble
FH
Fed
fry
 
 
 
 
USFWS
Quilcene
NFH
Fed
fry
 
 
 
 
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
206
Table
3.15.
Continued
Species
Hazard
Categories
and
Assigned
Risk
(
criteria
#
from
risk
ranking
within
category
applied)
1
Agency
Project
Release
Class
Hatchery
Operations
Predation
Competition
and
Behavioral
Modification
Disease
Transfer
Fall
chum
­
continued
Citizen
Groups
Mills
Ck.

Tahuya
R.

Union
R.

L.
Mission
Ck.

Skull
Ck.
Sweetwater
Ck.

Unnamed
14.0124
Chinom
Pt.
(
Ck.)

Unnamed
14.0136
Skokomish
R.

Jump­
off
Joe
Ck.
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
Unfed
fry
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
3­
5
m&
e
#
1
r.
a.
#
4;
m&
e
#
1
r.
a.
#
4;
m&
e
#
1
m&
e
#
1
m&
e
#
1
m&
e
#
1
m&
e
#
1
m&
e
#
1
m&
e
#
1
r.
a.
#
4;
m&
e
#
1
m&
e
#
1
r.
a.
#
3;
m&
e
#
1,
2
r.
a.
#
3;
m&
e
#
1,
2
r.
a.
#
2,
3;
m&
e
#
2
r.
a.
#
2;
m&
e
#
2
r.
a.
#
2;
m&
e
#
2
r.
a.
#
2;
m&
e
#
2
r.
a.
#
2;
m&
e
#
2
r.
a.
#
2;
m&
e
#
2
r.
a.
#
2;
m&
e
#
2
r.
a.
#
2;
m&
e
#
2
r.
a.
#
2;
m&
e
#
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
r.
a.
#
1­
4;
m&
e
1,
2
Steelhead
WDFW
Skokomish
R.

Dosewallips
R.

Duckabush
R.

Dungeness
FH
Yearl.
Yearl.
Yearl.
Yearl.
 
 
 
 
r.
a.
#
1­
3
r.
a.
#
1­
3
r.
a.
#
1­
3
r.
a.
#
1­
3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizen
Groups
Hamma
Hamma
R.
2+
Yearl.
r.
a.
#
4,
#
6;
m&
e
#
1­
5
r.
a.
#
1­
3;
m&
e
#
1
m&
e
#
3
m&
e
#
1,
2
Risk
aversion
("
r.
a.")
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
("
m&
e")
measures
indicated
as
required
for
each
project
are
keyed
by
number
to
measures
described
in
1
the
preceding
text
under
each
hazard.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
207
Hatchery
Program
Effects
on
Individual
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Summer
Chum
Populations
and
Measures
Applied
to
Minimize
the
Risk
of
Adverse
Effects
This
section
summarizes
potential
hatchery
operation
and
fish
release
impacts
to
individual
summer
chum
populations
within
the
region,
and
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
that
will
be
applied
to
help
address
or
alleviate
the
risk
of
those
impacts.
The
list
of
summer
chum
populations
included
in
this
summary
was
taken
from
Table
1.12
of
the
overall
summer
chum
conservation
plan.
Included
are
existing
stocks,
populations
in
the
process
of
being
reintroduced,
and
populations
that
were
recently
extirpated
from
watersheds
that
were
major
summer
chum
producers
and
have
been
identified
for
reintroduction
programs
in
the
near
future.

The
intent
of
this
section
is
to
indicate
how
specific
hatchery
programs
may
affect
individual
summer
chum
populations,
both
as
adult
and
juvenile
fish.
The
intent
is
also
to
specify
those
measures
proposed
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
the
each
population,
and
to
discuss
why
and
how
those
measures
will
be
applied.
As
stated
previously,
risk
aversion
measures
are
proposed
for
application
in
instances
where
risks
of
hazards
are
"
high"
or
"
moderate".
Programs
assessed
as
having
a
"
high"
and
"
moderate"
risk
of
negative
impact
will
be
modified
through
application
of
these
measures,
as
appropriate,
so
that
the
risk
of
adverse
effects
on
wild
summer
chum
becomes
"
low."
Monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
are
proposed
when
risks
are
"
high"
or
"
moderate,"
or
where
further
information
is
needed
in
order
to
assess
the
effects
of
a
program
on
summer
chum.
Requirements
for
monitoring
and
evaluation
will
allow
for
the
adaptive
management
of
programs,
if
needed,
as
new
information
regarding
the
occurrence
and
effects
of
each
hazard
is
gathered.

There
may
be
some
instances
where
risk
aversion
measures
proposed
to
address
one
hazard
create
a
conflict
by
increasing
risk
of
another
hazard.
Therefore,
in
some
cases,
a
further
assessment
and
judgement
of
risks
and
of
the
applicability
and
implementability
of
aversion
measures
will
be
presented.
Risk
minimization
measures
actually
applied
to
hatchery
operations
or
release
practices
may
be
adjusted
based
upon
this
assessment.

Union
Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Hazards
to
Union
River
summer
chum
include
a
"
high"
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
resulting
from
interactions
on
the
spawning
ground
with
hatchery­
origin
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
adults.
Adult
fall
chinook
originating
from
volunteer
enhancement
group
releases
into
the
river,
or
from
Hood
Canal
regional
net­
pen
operations,
that
escape
into
summer
chum
spawning
areas
may
compete
for
spawning
sites
and
adversely
affect
summer
chum
productivity
through
redd
superimposition.
Redd
superimposition
concerns
also
apply
for
on­
station
or
WDFW
hatchery­
origin
Finch
Creek
lineage
fall
chum
that
return
earlier
in
the
season
than
indigenous
fall
chum.
The
risk
of
these
hazards
is
exacerbated
by
the
constrained
spawning
area
available
in
the
river
due
to
low
late
summer­
early
fall
stream
flows
and
the
relatively
small
size
of
the
stream
channel.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
208
Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Moderate
to
high
risks
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
fry
releases
from
on­
station
(
fall
chum)
and
WDFW
southwest
Hood
Canal
programs
(
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon).
These
risks
are
associated
with
competition
for
potentially
limiting
food
resources,
and
behavioral
changes
effected
by
the
releases
that
may
adversely
alter
summer
chum
foraging
success,
posed
by
fall
chum
released
into
the
river
and/
or
estuary,
and
by
pink
salmon
fry
released
from
Hoodsport
Hatchery,
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period.
Enhanced
risks
of
predator
attraction
potentially
caused
by
on­
station
fall
chum
liberations
are
of
concern,
as
is
the
potential
for
disease
transfer
from
Union
River­
based
hatchery
programs.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Measures
proposed
to
decrease
the
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
be
caused
by
spawning
hatchery­
origin
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
adults
include
cessation
of
on­
station
releases
of
stocks
not
a
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program.
The
existing
hatchery
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
projects
on
the
Union
River
are
therefore
candidates
for
termination.
Fall
chinook
released
from
Hood
Canal
marine
area
net­
pen
operations
shall
be
imprinted
so
there
is
a
high
likelihood
for
their
return
as
adults
to
Hoodsport
or
George
Adams
Hatchery.
The
intent
of
this
measure
is
to
minimize
the
risk
of
straying
to
summer
chum
streams,
including
the
Union
River.
An
alternative
to
acclimation,
if
not
feasible,
is
elimination
of
the
net­
pen
program.
The
above
measures
will
be
linked
with
monitoring
and
evaluation
requirements
to
determine
the
location
of
spawning
of
hatchery
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
escaping
into
the
Union
River,
and
the
effects
of
any
spawning
on
summer
chum
productivity.
The
results
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
may
be
used
to
help
determine
the
actual
risks
of
hazards
to
summer
chum
spawners
attached
with
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
escapement.

The
risk
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
associated
with
hatchery
juvenile
fall
chum
interactions
will
be
minimized
by
requiring
that
all
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
in
Hood
Canal
be
made
after
April
1.
This
measure
should
minimize
the
likelihood
for
interactions
with
emigrating
summer
chum,
allowing
clearance
of
the
majority
of
the
fish
from
Hood
Canal.
Risks
associated
with
fish
disease
transfer
from
hatchery­
origin
fish
can
be
minimized
through
compliance
with
co­
manager
fish
health
monitoring
and
pre­
release
certification
procedures.

Discussion
­
Union
River
summer
chum
have
been
judged
to
be
at
"
moderate"
risk
of
extinction
(
Table
1.12).
If
the
current
Union
River
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
programs
are
not
considered
formal
recovery
programs,
further
releases
of
these
fish
into
the
Union
River
will
no
longer
be
allowed.
Measures
to
control
releases
from
marine
net­
pen
operations
will
be
necessary
to
minimize
risks
to
summer
chum
posed
by
fall
chinook
straying.
A
delay
in
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
fry
releases
into
Hood
Canal
marine
waters
until
after
April
1
will
require
changes
in
pond
loading
and
fish
production
regimes
at
Hoodsport,
McKernan,
and
George
Adams
hatcheries
to
maintain
safe
fish
rearing
densities.
These
changes
may
lead
to
reduced
annual
production
levels
of
certain
species
at
these
hatcheries,
potentially
including
pink
salmon,
yearling
fall
chinook,
and
fall
chum
salmon.
Lilliwaup
Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Summer
chum
that
are
part
of
the
regional
recovery
program
are
the
only
hatchery
salmonids
intentionally
released
into
Lilliwaup
River
through
the
programmed
hatchery
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
209
operation.
Any
adverse
competition
or
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
impact
summer
chum
spawners
would
therefore
originate
from
fall
chinook
or
pink
salmon
that
may
stray
into
the
watershed
from
Hood
Canal
marine
area
net­
pen
and
other
chinook
hatchery
projects,
or
from
Hoodsport
Hatchery,
respectively.
Adult
chinook
and
pink
salmon
that
escape
into
summer
chum
spawning
areas
may
compete
for
spawning
sites
and
adversely
affect
summer
chum
productivity
through
redd
superimposition.
These
hazards
are
assessed
as
posing
a
"
moderate"
risk
to
summer
chum.
The
risk
of
these
hazards
is
exacerbated
by
the
low
available
spawning
area
accessible
to
spawners
below
Lilliwaup
Falls
(~
0.7
miles),
low
late
summer­
early
fall
stream
flows,
and
the
relatively
small
size
of
the
stream
channel.
These
factors
act
to
limit
the
availability
of
spawning
sites,
and
increase
the
risk
of
adverse
competition
and
behavioral
effects
to
summer
chum
spawners.

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
High
risks
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
mainly
from
WDFW
southwest
Hood
Canal
programs.
Neither
of
these
species
are
released
through
the
Lilliwaup
Hatchery
program.
High
risk
levels
were
assigned
based
on
potential
competition
for
potentially
limiting
food
resources
posed
by
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
released
into
the
estuary
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period,
and
behavioral
changes
effected
by
the
releases
that
may
adversely
alter
summer
chum
foraging
success.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Measures
proposed
to
minimize
the
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
that
result
from
spawning
in
Lilliwaup
River
by
straying
hatchery­
origin
fall
chinook
and
pink
salmon
adults
may
include
removal
of
stray
fish
at
the
Lilliwaup
weir,
which
is
operated
primarily
to
collect
summer
chum.
Fall
chinook
released
from
Hood
Canal
marine
area
net­
pen
operations
shall
be
imprinted
so
there
is
a
high
likelihood
for
their
return
as
adults
to
Hoodsport
or
George
Adams
hatcheries.
Pink
salmon
that
are
progeny
of
returning
Finch
Creek
spawners,
and
that
are
reared
and
released
from
Hoodsport
Hatchery,
likely
have
a
high
fidelity
to
the
Finch
Creek,
and
straying
risks
should
be
minimal.
The
above
measures
will
be
linked
with
monitoring
and
evaluation
requirements
to
determine
the
location
of
spawning
of
hatchery
fall
chinook
and
pink
salmon
escaping
into
Lilliwaup
River,
and
the
effects
of
any
spawning
on
summer
chum
productivity.
The
results
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
may
be
used
to
help
determine
the
actual
risks
of
hazards
to
summer
chum
spawners
attached
with
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
and
pink
salmon
escapement.
An
alternative
to
acclimation,
if
not
effective,
is
elimination
of
the
net­
pen
program.

The
risk
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
to
summer
chum
fry
will
be
minimized
by
requiring
that
all
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
be
made
after
April
1.
This
measure
should
minimize
the
likelihood
for
interactions
with
emigrating
Lilliwaup
summer
chum
in
the
estuary,
allowing
clearance
of
the
majority
of
the
fish
from
Hood
Canal
prior
to
release
of
the
hatchery
fish.
It
should
also
enhance
acclimation
and
fidelity
of
returning
adult
fish
to
the
hatcheries.
Risks
associated
with
fish
disease
transfer
from
hatchery­
origin
fish
can
be
minimized
through
compliance
with
co­
manager
fish
health
monitoring
and
pre­
release
certification
procedures.

Discussion
­
The
need
to
minimize
risks
to
Lilliwaup
summer
chum
is
heightened
by
an
assessed
"
high"
extinction
risk
status
of
the
population
(
status
designation
from
Table
1.12).
As
noted
above,
a
weir
on
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
210
Lilliwaup
River
directed
at
summer
chum
broodstock
collection
can
be
used
to
remove
nearly
all
straying
fall
chinook
and
pink
salmon
adults
to
minimize
risks
to
summer
chum
spawners.
A
determination
should
be
made
whether
pink
salmon
observed
on
odd
years
are
Hoodsport
Hatchery
strays
or
an
indigenous
stock
before
any
decision
regarding
their
removal
is
made.
A
delay
in
fall
chum
and
pink
fry
releases
until
after
April
1
may
require
changes
in
pond
loading
and
fish
production
regimes
at
Hoodsport,
McKernan,
and
George
Adams
hatcheries
to
maintain
safe
fish
rearing
densities.
These
changes
could
lead
to
reduced
annual
production
levels
of
certain
species
at
these
hatcheries,
potentially
including
pink
salmon,
yearling
fall
chinook,
and
fall
chum
salmon.

Hamma
Hamma
Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
The
potential
need
to
conduct
broodstocking
operations
for
cooperative
programs
directed
at
fall
chinook
as
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program
may
pose
a
"
moderate"
risk
to
summer
chum
adults.
The
potential
effects
on
summer
chum
resulting
from
trapping
or
capturing
chinook
were
used
to
assign
this
risk
rating.
Adverse
competition
or
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
impact
summer
chum
spawners
might
originate
from
on­
station
fall
chinook
releases,
or
from
fall
chinook
that
may
stray
into
the
watershed
from
WDFW
co­
operative
marine
area
net­
pen
projects.
The
Hamma
Hamma
River
has
an
indigenous
pink
salmon
population
that
is
considered
to
be
co­
adapted
with
summer
chum.
The
presence
of
pinks
on
the
spawning
grounds,
regardless
of
origin,
is
therefore
not
considered
to
be
a
risk
factor
to
summer
chum.
The
Hamma
Hamma
River
has
a
relatively
large
amount
of
spawning
area,
and
interactions
between
summer
chum
and
fall
chinook
are
not
expected
to
adversely
affect
summer
chum
productivity.
The
risks
of
spawning
gravel
competition
and
redd
superimposition
hazards
posed
by
on­
station
origin
(
and
straying)
fall
chinook
have
therefore
been
assessed
as
"
low."

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
"
High"
risks
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
mainly
from
WDFW
southwest
Hood
Canal
programs.
Neither
of
these
species
are
released
through
the
Hamma
Hamma
Hatchery
program.
High
risk
levels
were
assigned
based
on
possible
competition
for
potentially
limiting
food
resources
posed
by
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
released
into
the
estuary
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period,
and
behavioral
changes
effected
by
the
releases
that
may
adversely
alter
summer
chum
foraging
success.
Risks
of
predator
attraction
potentially
caused
by
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
liberations
are
judged
"
low"
because
of
the
geographical
distance
between
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
and
the
nearest
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
release
site.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Measures
proposed
to
minimize
the
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
result
from
spawning
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
by
straying
marine
area
net­
pen­
origin
fall
chinook
include
acclimation
of
fall
chinook
released
from
Hood
Canal
marine
area
net­
pen
operations
to
minimize
the
risk
of
straying.
This
measure
will
be
linked
with
monitoring
and
evaluation
requirements
to
determine
the
location
of
spawning
of
hatchery
fall
chinook
escaping
into
Hamma
Hamma
River,
and
the
effects
of
any
spawning
on
summer
chum
productivity.
The
results
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
may
be
used
to
help
determine
the
actual
risks
of
hazards
to
summer
chum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
211
spawners
attached
with
any
stray,
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
escapement.
An
alternative
to
acclimation,
if
not
feasible,
is
elimination
of
the
net­
pen
program.

The
risk
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
to
summer
chum
fry
will
be
minimized
by
requiring
that
all
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
be
made
after
April
1.
This
measure
should
minimize
the
likelihood
for
interactions
with
emigrating
Hamma
Hamma
summer
chum
in
the
estuary,
allowing
clearance
of
the
majority
of
the
fish
from
Hood
Canal.
Risks
associated
with
fish
disease
transfer
from
hatchery­
origin
fish
can
be
minimized
through
compliance
with
co­
manager
fish
health
monitoring
and
pre­
release
certification
procedures.

Discussion
­
The
need
to
minimize
risks
to
Hamma
Hamma
summer
chum
is
heightened
by
an
assessed
"
moderate"
extinction
risk
status
of
the
population
(
status
designation
from
Table
1.12).
A
delay
in
fall
chum
and
pink
fry
releases
until
after
April
1
may
require
changes
in
pond
loading
and
fish
production
regimes
at
Hoodsport,
McKernan,
and
George
Adams
hatcheries
to
maintain
safe
fish
rearing
densities.
These
changes
could
lead
to
reduced
annual
production
levels
of
certain
species
at
these
hatcheries,
potentially
including
pink
salmon,
yearling
fall
chinook,
and
fall
chum
salmon.

Duckabush
Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
A
modest
fall
chinook
salmon
enhancement
program
is
the
only
source
of
on­
station
salmonid
production
in
the
watershed.
The
Duckabush
River
has
an
indigenous
pink
salmon
population
that
is
considered
to
be
co­
adapted
with
summer
chum.
The
presence
of
pinks
on
the
spawning
grounds,
regardless
of
origin,
is
therefore
not
considered
to
be
a
risk
factor
to
summer
chum.
Potentially
adverse
competitive
or
behavioral
modification
effects
to
summer
chum
adults
on
the
spawning
grounds
may
result
from
homing
hatchery­
origin
fall
chinook.
Adverse
effects
to
summer
chum
spawners
might
also
result
from
fall
chinook
that
stray
into
the
watershed
from
WDFW
cooperative
marine
area
net­
pen
projects.
The
Duckabush
River
has
a
relatively
large
amount
of
spawning
area,
and
interactions
between
summer
chum
and
fall
chinook
are
not
expected
to
adversely
affect
summer
chum
productivity.
The
risks
of
spawning
gravel
competition
and
redd
superimposition
hazards
posed
by
straying
fall
chinook
are
therefore
assessed
as
"
low."

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
The
volunteer
group
fall
chinook
program
on
Johnson
Creek
is
judged
to
pose
a
"
moderate"
risk
of
disease
transfer
to
summer
chum,
with
a
"
low"
risk
of
adverse
effects
assigned
for
other
hazard
categories.
Steelhead
that
are
truck­
planted
into
the
river
are
released
as
migrating
smolts
after
the
summer
chum
migration
period
and
are
judged
to
pose
no
significant
threat
to
summer
chum.
"
High"
risks
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
mainly
from
WDFW
southwest
Hood
Canal
programs.
"
High"
risk
ratings
were
assigned
based
on
possible
competition
for
potentially
limiting
food
resources
posed
by
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
released
into
the
estuary
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period,
and
behavioral
changes
effected
by
the
releases
that
may
adversely
alter
summer
chum
foraging
success.
Risks
of
predator
attraction
potentially
caused
by
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
liberations
are
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
212
judged
"
low"
because
of
the
geographical
distance
between
the
Duckabush
River
and
the
nearest
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
release
site.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Measures
proposed
to
minimize
the
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
result
from
spawning
in
the
Duckabush
River
by
straying
marine
area
net­
pen­
origin
fall
chinook
include
acclimation
of
fall
chinook
released
from
Hood
Canal
marine
area
net­
pen
operations
to
minimize
the
risk
of
straying.
This
measure
will
be
linked
with
monitoring
and
evaluation
requirements
to
determine
the
location
of
spawning
of
stray
hatchery
fall
chinook,
and
the
effects
of
any
spawning
on
summer
chum
productivity.
The
results
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
may
be
used
to
help
determine
the
actual
risks
of
hazards
to
summer
chum
spawners
attached
with
stray,
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
escapement.
An
alternative
to
acclimation,
if
not
feasible,
is
elimination
of
the
net­
pen
programs.

The
risk
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
associated
with
hatchery
juvenile
fall
chum
interactions
will
be
minimized
by
requiring
that
all
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
be
made
after
April
1.
This
measure
should
minimize
the
likelihood
for
interactions
with
emigrating
Duckabush
summer
chum,
allowing
clearance
of
the
majority
of
the
fish
from
Hood
Canal.
Risks
associated
with
fish
disease
transfer
from
hatchery­
origin
fish
can
be
minimized
through
compliance
with
co­
manager
fish
health
monitoring
and
pre­
release
certification
procedures.

Discussion
­
Duckabush
River
summer
chum
have
been
judged
to
be
at
"
low"
risk
of
extinction
(
status
designation
from
Table
1.12).
Risks
to
these
summer
chum
may
include
disruption
of
spawning
by
homing
and
straying
hatchery
fall
chinook
adults,
potential
fish
disease
transfer
from
the
Johnson
Creek
fall
chinook
program,
and
negative
effects
in
the
estuary
that
may
result
from
southwest
Hood
Canal
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
(
pre­
April
1
in
the
Canal).
Risks
associated
with
fall
chinook
competition
and
behavioral
modification
are
assessed
as
"
low"
due
to
the
relatively
large
size
of
the
river,
and
the
likelihood
that
interactions
between
summer
chum
and
fall
chinook
adults
will
be
minimal.
The
risk
of
fish
disease
transfer
can
be
minimized
through
compliance
with
comanager
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
procedures.
A
delay
in
fall
chum
and
pink
fry
releases
until
after
April
1
may
require
changes
in
pond
loading
and
fish
production
regimes
at
Hoodsport,
McKernan,
and
George
Adams
hatcheries
to
maintain
safe
fish
rearing
densities.
These
changes
could
lead
to
reduced
annual
production
levels
of
certain
species
at
these
hatcheries,
potentially
including
pink
salmon,
yearling
fall
chinook,
and
fall
chum
salmon.

Dosewallips
Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
No
hatchery
programs
are
located
on
the
Dosewallips
River.
Any
hatchery­
induced,
adverse
competitive
or
behavioral
modification
effects
to
summer
chum
adults
on
the
spawning
grounds
would
be
attributable
only
to
straying
fish.
Adverse
impacts
to
summer
chum
spawners
might
emanate
from
fall
chinook
that
may
stray
into
the
watershed
from
WDFW
co­
operative
marine
area
net­
pen
projects.
Straying
pink
salmon
from
Hoodsport
Hatchery
were
not
considered
a
risk
factor,
as
the
Dosewallips
River
has
an
indigenous
pink
salmon
population.
The
Dosewallips
River
has
a
relatively
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
213
large
amount
of
spawning
area,
and
interactions
between
summer
chum
and
fall
chinook
are
not
expected
to
adversely
affect
summer
chum
productivity.
The
risks
of
spawning
gravel
competition
and
redd
superimposition
hazards
posed
by
straying
fall
chinook
was
therefore
judged
as
"
low."

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
"
High"
risks
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
mainly
from
WDFW
southwest
Hood
Canal
programs.
High
risk
levels
were
assigned
based
on
potential
competition
for
potentially
limiting
food
resources
posed
by
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
released
into
the
estuary
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period,
and
behavioral
changes
effected
by
the
releases
that
may
adversely
alter
summer
chum
foraging
success.
Risks
of
predator
attraction
potentially
caused
by
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
liberations
are
judged
"
low"
because
of
the
geographical
distance
between
the
Dosewallips
River
and
the
nearest
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
release
site.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Measures
proposed
to
minimize
the
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
result
from
spawning
in
the
Dosewallips
River
by
straying
marine
area
net­
pen­
origin
fall
chinook
include
acclimation
of
fall
chinook
released
from
Hood
Canal
marine
area
net­
pen
operations
to
minimize
the
risk
of
straying.
This
measure
will
be
linked
with
monitoring
and
evaluation
requirements
to
determine
the
location
of
spawning
of
escaping
hatchery
fall
chinook,
and
the
effects
of
any
spawning
on
summer
chum
productivity.
The
results
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
may
be
used
to
help
determine
the
actual
risks
of
hazards
to
summer
chum
spawners
attached
with
stray,
nonindigenous
fall
chinook
escapement.
An
alternative
to
acclimation,
if
not
feasible,
is
elimination
of
the
netpen
program.

The
risk
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
associated
with
hatchery
juvenile
fall
chum
interactions
will
be
minimized
by
requiring
that
all
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
be
made
after
April
1.
This
measure
should
minimize
the
likelihood
for
interactions
with
emigrating
Dosewallips
River
summer
chum,
allowing
clearance
of
the
majority
of
the
fish
from
Hood
Canal.

Discussion
­
Dosewallips
River
summer
chum
have
been
judged
to
be
at
"
low"
risk
of
extinction
(
status
designation
from
Table
1.12).
No
hatchery
programs
are
located
on
the
Dosewallips
River,
and
risks
to
summer
chum
spawners
are
posed
only
by
straying
hatchery­
origin
adult
fish.
These
risks
are
assessed
as
"
low"
due
to
the
relatively
large
size
of
the
river,
and
the
likelihood
that
interactions
between
summer
chum
and
fall
chinook
adults
will
be
minimal.
Potentially
adverse
competition
and
behavioral
modification
effects
to
summer
chum
fry
can
be
minimized
through
a
delay
in
fall
chum
and
pink
fry
releases
until
after
April
1.
This
delay
in
release
timing
may
require
changes
in
pond
loading
and
fish
production
regimes
at
Hoodsport,
McKernan,
and
George
Adams
hatcheries
to
maintain
safe
fish
rearing
densities.
These
changes
could
lead
to
reduced
annual
production
levels
of
certain
species
at
these
hatcheries,
potentially
including
pink
salmon,
yearling
fall
chinook,
and
fall
chum
salmon.

Big
and
Little
Quilcene
Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
During
the
summer
chum
migration
period,
the
Quilcene
NFH
weir
is
directed
mainly
at
the
capture
of
returning
indigenous
origin
hatchery
coho
salmon.
Some
summer
chum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
214
produced
at
the
hatchery
return
to
the
weir
during
the
same
period
as
the
early­
returning
coho,
and
the
weir
is
now
operated
with
summer
chum
as
a
primary
concern
and
as
part
of
the
formal
recovery
program
for
the
species.
The
focus
on
summer
chum
collection,
and
the
location
of
the
weir
in
the
upper
portion
of
the
Big
Quilcene
River
watershed
(~
R.
M.
2.8)
act
to
limit
the
significance
of
any
impacts
to
summer
chum
survival
and
spawning
distribution.
The
operation
of
the
weir
is
therefore
assessed
as
of
"
low"
risk
to
summer
chum.

Adverse
competition
or
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
impact
summer
chum
spawners
might
result
from
on­
station
coho
salmon
releases,
and
from
coho
returning
to
the
Big
Quilcene
River
from
the
Quilcene
Bay
net­
pens.
These
coho
are
of
early­
run,
indigenous
stock
origin,
and
some
spawning
ground
resource
partitioning
between
the
coho
and
summer
chum
can
be
expected.
The
hatchery
coho
also
have
a
tendency
to
migrate
rapidly
to
the
Quilcene
Hatchery
weir,
rather
than
spawn
in
the
lower
river
used
by
summer
chum.
The
risks
of
spawning
gravel
competition
and
redd
superimposition
hazards
posed
by
onstation
origin
and
straying
coho
salmon
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
have
therefore
been
assessed
as
"
low."
Quilcene
NFH
and
net­
pen­
origin
coho
salmon
may
stray
into
the
Little
Quilcene
River.
Although
these
coho
may
be
similar
to
the
native
stock,
increased
coho
escapement
levels
resulting
from
these
strays
may
negatively
impact
summer
chum.
Adverse
impacts
to
summer
chum
spawners
might
emanate
from
fall
chinook
straying
into
the
watershed
from
WDFW
co­
operative
marine
area
net­
pen
projects
in
the
Canal.
Straying
pink
salmon
from
Hoodsport
Hatchery
were
not
considered
a
risk
factor,
as
the
Big
Quilcene
River
has
an
indigenous
pink
salmon
population.
The
Big
Quilcene
River
has
a
relatively
large
amount
of
spawning
area,
and
interactions
between
summer
chum
and
any
fall
chinook
strays
are
not
expected
to
adversely
affect
summer
chum
productivity.
The
risks
of
spawning
gravel
competition
and
redd
superimposition
hazards
posed
by
straying
fall
chinook
may
therefore
be
assessed
as
"
low".

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Coho
salmon
smolts
produced
at
Quilcene
NFH
and
the
Quilcene
Bay
net­
pens
are
released
after
completion
of
the
estimated
summer
chum
emigration
period
in
the
Canal.
Ecological
risks
to
summer
chum
fry
associated
with
these
smolt
releases
have
been
assessed
as
"
low."
The
Quilcene
NFH
program
also
produces
coho
fry
for
release
upstream
of
the
hatchery
to
seed
a
portion
of
the
watershed
not
accessible
to
adult
fish.
These
fry
releases
are
judged
to
pose
a
"
high"
risk
to
summer
chum
productivity
through
potential
predation
when
the
fish
rear
to
yearling
size.
"
High"
risks
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
to
Quilcene
summer
chum
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
mainly
from
WDFW
southwest
Hood
Canal
programs.
These
"
high"
ratings
were
assigned
based
on
possible
competition
for
potentially
limiting
food
resources
posed
by
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
released
into
the
Hood
Canal
estuary
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period,
and
behavioral
changes
effected
by
the
releases
that
may
adversely
alter
summer
chum
foraging
success.
Enhanced
risks
of
predator
attraction
potentially
caused
by
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
liberations
are
judged
as
of
"
moderate"
concern.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Risks
to
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
summer
chum
posed
by
the
Quilcene
NFH
and
Quilcene
Bay
net­
pen
coho
programs
are
judged
to
be
low.
No
risk
aversion
measures
are
therefore
proposed
for
these
programs.
The
Quilcene
NFH
coho
fingerling
production
program
should
be
modified
to
release
only
volitionally
migrating
smolts
that
will
not
remain
in
the
river
to
potentially
prey
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
215
on
emigrating
summer
chum.
The
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
result
from
fall
chinook
spawning
in
the
rivers
by
straying
marine
area
net­
pen­
origin
fish
may
be
minimized
through
acclimation
of
fall
chinook
released
from
Hood
Canal
net­
pen
operations
to
minimize
the
tendency
for
straying.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
programs
may
be
used
to
determine
the
location
of
spawning
of
hatchery
coho
salmon
and
any
stray
hatchery
fall
chinook,
and
the
effects
of
any
spawning
on
summer
chum
productivity.
An
alternative
to
acclimation,
if
not
feasible,
is
elimination
of
net­
pen
programs
releasing
fall
chinook
in
the
region.

The
risk
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
associated
with
hatchery
juvenile
fall
chum
interactions
will
be
minimized
by
requiring
that
all
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
be
made
after
April
1.
This
measure
should
minimize
the
likelihood
for
interactions
with
emigrating
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
summer
chum,
allowing
clearance
of
the
majority
of
the
fish
from
Hood
Canal.

Discussion
­
Although
at
"
high"
risk
prior
to
the
implementation
of
conservation
programs
in
1992,
Quilcene
summer
chum
are
presently
judged
to
be
at
"
low"
risk
of
extinction
(
status
designation
from
Table
1.12).
Ecological
impact
risks
to
summer
chum
adults
and
juveniles
posed
by
the
Quilcene
NFH
and
Quilcene
Bay
net­
pen
coho
programs
are
assessed
as
"
low."
A
delay
in
Hood
Canal
regional
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
fry
releases
until
after
April
1
to
minimize
competition
and
behavioral
modification
risks
could
require
changes
in
pond
loading
and
fish
production
regimes
at
Hoodsport,
McKernan,
and
George
Adams
hatcheries
to
maintain
safe
fish
rearing
densities.
These
changes
may
lead
to
reduced
annual
production
levels
of
certain
species
at
these
hatcheries,
potentially
including
pink
salmon,
yearling
fall
chinook,
and
fall
chum
salmon.

Snow/
Salmon
Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Indigenous­
stock
coho
salmon
are
trapped
at
the
Snow
Creek
trap
to
effect
a
formal
recovery
program.
This
operation
is
unlikely
to
adversely
affect
summer
chum
that
are
incidentally
encountered,
due
to
the
location
of
the
weir
upstream
of
the
majority
of
known
summer
chum
habitat
and
on­
site
staffing
by
WDFW
Snow
Creek
Station
personnel.
A
"
low"
risk
rating
is
therefore
assigned.

Summer
chum
that
are
part
of
a
recovery
program
are
the
only
hatchery
salmonids
released
into
Salmon
Creek.
Due
to
the
lack
of
any
hatchery
operations
producing
other
species
near­
by,
no
significant
adverse
competition
or
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
impact
summer
chum
spawners
are
expected
from
straying
fall
chinook
or
pink
salmon.
The
risk
of
hatchery
operation
and
release
impacts
to
summer
chum
in
Salmon
Creek
is
judged
to
be
"
low."

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Snow
Creek
is
planted
with
coho
salmon
fingerlings
and
subyearlings
each
year
to
help
rebuild
the
indigenous
population.
"
High"
to
"
moderate"
risks
of
predation
to
summer
chum
were
assigned
to
these
two
coho
release
programs,
due
to
the
planting
of
fry,
fingerlings,
and
pre­
smolts,
and
the
likelihood
for
interaction
with
summer
chum
fry
during
the
coho's
one
to
five
months
of
rearing
in
the
Snow
Creek
watershed
.
No
hatchery
salmonids
other
than
summer
chum
are
planted
into
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
216
Salmon
Creek.
No
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
risk
levels
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
from
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
or
Hood
Canal
programs
in
other
watersheds
due
to
the
isolation
of
this
population
in
Discovery
Bay,
and
the
distance
of
the
stock
from
other
hatchery
operations.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
The
broodstock
collection
weir
on
Snow
Creek
will
be
operated
for
the
handling
of
summer
chum
as
a
primary
objective.
Risk
aversion
measures
identified
for
the
safe
operation
of
a
fish
weir
directed
at
other
species
on
a
summer
chum
stream
will
be
applied.
Coho
juveniles
released
into
Snow
Creek
watershed
are
an
indigenous
stock,
and
the
program
is
designed
to
rebuild
the
SASSI
"
critical"
wild
population.
Rather
than
applying
further
risk
aversion
measures
to
the
coho
program,
the
value
of
the
coho
program
and
summer
chum
protection
is
balanced
by
requiring
monitoring
and
evaluation
to
identify
coho
survival
rates,
distribution
during
rearing
in
the
watershed,
and
potential
predation
effects
on
summer
chum.

Discussion
­
Although
at
"
high"
risk
prior
to
the
implementation
of
conservation
programs
in
1992,
Snow/
Salmon
summer
chum
are
presently
judged
to
be
at
"
low"
risk
of
extinction
(
status
designation
from
Table
1.12).
The
few
summer
chum
adults
that
will
be
encountered
through
operation
of
the
Snow
Creek
weir
will
be
trapped,
handled,
and
released
in
a
manner
that
reduces
the
risk
of
negative
effects.
Ecological
impact
risks
to
Snow/
Salmon
summer
chum
juveniles
posed
by
the
Snow
Creek
coho
program
are
assessed
as
"
low,"
with
appropriate
monitoring
and
evaluation
to
evaluate
potential
coho
salmon
predation
effects
on
summer
chum.

Jimmycomelately
Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
No
hatchery
salmonids
are
released
into
Jimmycomelately
Creek.
Due
to
the
lack
of
any
hatchery
operations
producing
other
species
near­
by,
no
significant
adverse
competition
or
behavioral
modification
effects
on
summer
chum
spawners
are
expected
from
straying
fall
chinook
or
pink
salmon.
The
risk
of
hatchery
operation
and
release
impacts
to
summer
chum
in
Jimmycomelately
Creek
is
judged
to
be
"
low."

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
No
hatchery
salmonids
are
planted
into
Jimmycomelately
Creek.
No
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
risk
levels
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
from
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
or
Hood
Canal
programs
in
other
watersheds
due
to
the
isolation
of
this
population
in
Sequim
Bay,
and
the
distance
of
the
stock
from
other
hatchery
operations.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Given
the
lack
of
hatchery
programs
within
the
watershed,
or
in
the
general
vicinity,
no
risk
aversion
measures
to
protect
this
population
are
proposed.

Discussion
­
The
Jimmycomelately
summer
chum
population
is
at
"
high"
risk
of
extinction
(
status
designation
from
Table
1.12).
Although
no
adverse
hatchery
effects
have
been
assigned
to
this
population,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
217
any
future
consideration
of
hatchery
production
of
other
species
within
the
Sequim
Bay
area
should
take
into
account
the
need
to
minimize
risks
to
this
population.

Dungeness
Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Broodstock
capture
operations
in
the
lower
river
directed
at
pink
salmon
may
lead
to
the
incidental
capture,
handling
and
release
of
summer
chum
adults.
Hatchery­
origin
chinook
are
also
trapped
at
Dungeness
Hatchery.
The
trapping
operations
are
part
of
two
formal
recovery
programs
for
the
indigenous
chinook
and
pink
salmon
populations.
The
location
of
the
pink
salmon
trap
in
the
lower
river
poses
a
"
moderate"
risk
of
adverse
hatchery
operational
effects
on
the
summer
chum
population.
Chinook
and
pink
salmon
adults
returning
to
the
river
from
the
recovery
programs
will
overlap
in
spawning
areas
and
timing
with
summer
chum.
The
indigenous
origin
of
the
chinook
and
pink
stocks,
and
the
large
amount
of
spawning
area
available
to
salmon
returning
to
the
river
led
to
a
"
low"
risk
assessment
for
negative
competition
and
behavioral
modification
effects
to
spawning
summer
chum
and
their
redds.
Coho
salmon
adults
returning
through
the
Dungeness
Hatchery
are
not
expected
to
pose
a
significant
risk
to
summer
chum
due
to
their
later
return
timing
and
use
of
upper
watershed
areas
for
spawning.

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Chinook
fry
and
fingerlings
have
the
potential
to
remain
in
the
Dungeness
River
for
up
to
one
year
prior
to
migrating
seaward.
Because
these
fish
are
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program,
and
due
to
the
low
proportion
of
these
fish
that
adopt
a
yearling
life
history
pattern,
a
"
low"
risk
of
predation
effects
to
summer
chum
fry
is
assigned.
Although
the
program
is
currently
quite
small,
pink
salmon
fry
liberated
from
Dungeness
Hatchery
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
may
pose
"
high"
risks
of
predator
attraction
effects.
Coho
salmon
are
released
as
smolts
well
after
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
and
no
significant
adverse
impacts
to
summer
chum
are
anticipated.
No
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
risk
ratings
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
from
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
or
Hood
Canal
region
programs
in
other
watersheds
due
to
the
isolation
of
this
population
in
the
mid­
Strait­
Dungeness
Bay
area,
and
the
distance
of
the
stock
from
other
hatchery
operations.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
As
described
above,
risk
aversion
measures
are
being
applied
for
the
operation
of
the
pink
salmon
capture
weir
in
the
lower
river
and
the
Dungeness
Hatchery
weir.
No
risk
aversion
measures
are
proposed
to
address
spawning
ground
separation
between
summer
chum
and
propagated
chinook
and
pink
salmon
populations.
All
three
populations
are
the
subject
of
formal
recovery
programs
and
are
given
equal
weight
in
considering
rebuilding
priorities
and
allowable
effects.
To
address
potential
chinook
predation
effects,
monitoring
and
evaluation
is
proposed
to
identify
chinook
and
pink
salmon
survival
rates,
distribution
during
rearing
in
the
watershed,
and
predation
effects
on
summer
chum.
A
delay
in
release
timing
for
pinks
until
after
April
1
is
not
required
at
this
time
in
recognition
of
the
extremely
depressed
status
of
the
pink
salmon
population.
Given
the
lack
of
other
hatchery
programs
in
the
general
vicinity,
no
risk
aversion
measures
to
protect
this
summer
chum
population
are
proposed
for
hatchery
strays
nor
potential
competitors
for
food,
space,
or
migration
areas.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
218
Discussion
­
The
Dungeness
summer
chum
population
is
of
"
special
concern"
with
regards
to
extinction
risk
(
status
designation
from
Table
1.12).
Monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
may
be
used
to
determine
the
risks
of
adverse
ecological
impacts
to
summer
chum
posed
by
the
other
formal
recovery
programs
in
the
watershed.

Finch
The
summer
chum
population
in
Finch
Creek
was
extirpated
by
the
late
1960s,
and
current
hatchery
program
effects
on
the
population
are
nil.
Some
summer
chum
stray
each
year
to
Finch
Creek,
and
these
fish
may
help
re­
establish
a
return.

Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
The
Hoodsport
Hatchery
weir
located
at
the
mouth
of
the
creek,
and
hatchery
fall
chinook,
pink
salmon,
and
fall
chum
returning
during
the
summer
chum
migration
period
and
allowed
to
spawn
naturally
above
the
weir
may
pose
risks
to
the
future
establishment
of
a
summer
chum
population
in
Finch
Creek.

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
If
and
when
a
summer
chum
population
is
re­
established
in
Finch
Creek,
the
release
of
pink
and
fall
chum
salmon
from
Hoodsport
Hatchery,
and
from
other
southwestern
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period,
may
pose
moderate
to
high
risks
of
adverse
ecological
effects,
including
predator
attraction,
food
resource
competition,
and
behavioral
modification
hazards.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Finch
Creek
summer
chum
are
judged
to
have
been
recently
extirpated
(
Table
1.18),
and
no
risk
aversion
measures
are
proposed
to
specifically
address
impacts
to
this
population.

Discussion
­
Risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
may
be
developed
in
the
future
to
reduce
the
risk
of
hatchery
operation
or
fish
impacts,
if
and
when
a
summer
chum
population
is
reestablished

Skokomish
The
summer
chum
population
in
the
Skokomish
River
is
extirpated,
and
current
hatchery
program
effects
on
the
population
are
nil.
The
watershed
has
been
identified
as
a
candidate
for
summer
chum
reintroduction,
and
risks
to
the
reintroduced
population
are
therefore
assessed
herein.

Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
George
Adams
and
McKernan
hatchery
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
returning
during
the
summer
chum
migration
period
and
allowed
to
spawn
naturally
in
the
river
may
pose
risks
to
the
future
establishment
of
a
summer
chum
population
through
competition
for
spawning
sites
and
redd
superimposition.
The
large
amount
of
accessible
spawning
area
in
the
river
reduces
the
likelihood
for
these
impacts
to
be
of
major
consequence
to
summer
chum
productivity
however.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
219
Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
If
and
when
a
summer
chum
population
is
re­
established
in
the
Skokomish
River,
the
release
of
pink
and
fall
chum
salmon
from
Hoodsport
Hatchery,
and
from
other
southwestern
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period,
may
pose
moderate
to
high
risks
of
adverse
ecological
impacts,
including
predator
attraction,
food
resource
competition,
and
behavioral
modification
hazards.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Skokomish
summer
chum
are
judged
to
have
been
recently
extirpated
(
Table
1.18),
and
no
risk
aversion
measures
are
proposed
to
specifically
address
impacts
to
this
population.

Discussion
­
Risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
may
be
developed
in
the
future
to
reduce
the
risk
of
hatchery
operation
or
fish
impacts,
if
and
when
a
summer
chum
population
is
reestablished

Tahuya
The
summer
chum
population
in
the
Tahuya
River
has
been
functionally
extirpated
(
Table
1.18),
and
current
hatchery
program
effects
on
the
population
are
nil.
However,
the
watershed
has
been
identified
as
a
candidate
for
summer
chum
reintroduction,
and
risks
to
the
reintroduced
population
are
therefore
assessed.

Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Hazards
to
adult
summer
chum
when
reintroduced
to
the
river
include
a
"
high"
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
resulting
from
interactions
on
the
spawning
ground
with
hatchery­
origin
fall
chinook
and
Finch
Creek
lineage
fall
chum
adults.
Adult
fall
chinook
originating
from
volunteer
enhancement
group
releases
into
the
river
that
escape
into
summer
chum
spawning
areas,
or
stray
fish
from
regional
WDFW
cooperative
marine
area
net­
pen
operations,
may
compete
for
spawning
sites
and
adversely
affect
summer
chum
productivity
through
redd
superimposition.
Redd
superimposition
concerns
also
apply
for
on­
station
hatchery­
origin
fall
chum
that
return
earlier
in
the
season
than
indigenous
Tahuya
River
fall
chum.
The
risk
of
these
hazards
is
exacerbated
by
the
constrained
available
spawning
area
afforded
in
the
river
due
to
low
late
summer­
early
fall
stream
flows
and
the
relatively
small
size
of
the
stream
channel.

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
At
such
time
that
a
summer
chum
population
may
be
re­
established
in
the
Tahuya
River,
the
release
of
pink
and
fall
chum
salmon
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
from
the
major
Hood
Canal
hatcheries,
and
cumulatively,
from
regional
RSI
operations,
may
pose
"
moderate"
to
"
high"
risks
of
adverse
ecological
impacts.
These
impacts
include
predator
attraction,
food
resource
competition,
and
behavioral
modification
hazards.
Hatchery
programs
located
in
the
Tahuya
River
watershed
are
judged
to
pose
a
"
moderate"
risk
to
summer
chum
through
disease
transfer
as
presently
operated.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Upon
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
salmon
to
the
Tahuya
River,
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
will
be
proposed
to
minimize
the
risk
of
hazards
to
a
re­
established
population.
Measures
to
minimize
the
risk
of
interaction
and
deleterious
competitive
and
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
220
behavioral
modification
effects
posed
by
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
in
summer
chum
spawning
areas
could
include
removal
of
all
returning
adults
not
considered
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program,
or
cessation
of
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
releases.
Risk
aversion
measures
will
also
be
proposed
to
improve
fish
health
monitoring
and
reporting
to
reduce
the
risk
of
fish
disease
transfer.
The
risk
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
associated
with
hatchery
juvenile
fall
chum
interactions
will
be
minimized
by
requiring
that
all
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
within
the
region
be
made
after
April
1.
This
measure
should
minimize
the
likelihood
for
interactions
with
any
future
emigrating
Tahuya
summer
chum,
allowing
clearance
of
the
majority
of
the
fish
from
Hood
Canal.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
is
proposed
to
provide
additional
information
regarding
Tahuya
River
hatchery
operations
in
the
basin
and
to
further
reduce
their
potential
operational,
predation,
competition,
and
disease
transfer
effects
on
summer
chum
salmon.

Discussion
­
Placement
and
operation
of
a
fish
weir
in
the
Tahuya
River
to
remove
fall
chinook
and
Finch
Creek
lineage
fall
chum
may
pose
additional
hazards
to
summer
chum
when
re­
established,
including
delay
in
migration,
injury
or
mortality
resulting
from
holding
and
handling,
and
increased
susceptibility
to
predation
or
poaching.
The
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
programs
are
not
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program.
To
address
risks
to
summer
chum,
it
is
recommended
that
these
programs
be
eliminated.
A
delay
in
allowable
fall
chum
and
pink
fry
releases
until
after
April
1
may
require
changes
in
pond
loading
and
fish
production
regimes
at
Hoodsport,
McKernan,
and
George
Adams
hatcheries
to
maintain
safe
fish
rearing
densities.
These
changes
could
lead
to
reduced
annual
production
levels
of
certain
species
at
these
hatcheries,
potentially
including
pink
salmon,
yearling
fall
chinook,
and
fall
chum
salmon.

Dewatto
The
summer
chum
population
in
the
Dewatto
River
has
been
extirpated
(
Table
1.18),
and
current
hatchery
program
effects
on
the
population
are
nil.
However,
like
the
Tahuya,
the
watershed
has
been
identified
as
a
candidate
for
summer
chum
reintroduction
within
the
next
few
years,
and
risks
to
the
reintroduced
population
are
therefore
assessed
here.

Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Hazards
to
adult
summer
chum
when
reintroduced
to
the
river
include
a
"
high"
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
resulting
from
interactions
on
the
spawning
ground
with
hatchery­
origin
fall
chinook
adults.
Adult
fall
chinook
that
escape
into
summer
chum
spawning
areas
originating
from
volunteer
enhancement
group
releases
into
the
river,
or
as
stray
fish
from
regional
WDFW
cooperative
marine
area
net­
pen
operations,
may
compete
for
spawning
sites
and
adversely
affect
summer
chum
productivity
through
redd
superimposition.
The
risk
of
these
hazards
is
exacerbated
by
the
constrained
available
spawning
area
afforded
in
the
river
due
to
low
late
summer­
early
fall
stream
flows
and
the
relatively
small
size
of
the
stream
channel.

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
At
such
time
as
a
summer
chum
population
may
be
re­
established
in
the
Dewatto
River,
the
release
of
pink
and
fall
chum
salmon
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
from
the
major
Hood
Canal
hatcheries,
and
cumulatively,
from
regional
RSI
operations,
may
pose
"
moderate"
to
"
high"
risks
of
adverse
ecological
impacts.
These
impacts
may
include
predator
attraction,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
221
food
resource
competition,
and
behavioral
modification
hazards.
Hatchery
programs
located
in
the
Dewatto
River
watershed
are
judged
to
pose
a
"
moderate"
risk
to
summer
chum
through
disease
transfer
as
presently
operated.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Upon
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
salmon
to
the
Dewatto
River,
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
will
be
proposed
to
minimize
the
risk
of
hazards
to
a
re­
established
population.
Risk
aversion
measures
to
minimize
the
likelihood
of
interaction
and
deleterious
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
posed
by
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
salmon
in
summer
chum
spawning
areas
could
include
removal
of
all
returning
adults
not
considered
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program,
or
cessation
of
fall
chinook
releases.
Risk
aversion
measures
will
also
be
proposed
to
improve
fish
health
monitoring
and
reporting
to
reduce
the
risk
of
fish
disease
transfer.
The
risk
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
associated
with
hatchery
juvenile
fall
chum
interactions
will
be
minimized
by
requiring
that
all
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
within
the
region
be
made
after
April
1.
This
measure
should
minimize
the
likelihood
for
interactions
with
any
future
emigrating
Dewatto
summer
chum,
allowing
clearance
of
the
majority
of
the
fish
from
Hood
Canal.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
is
proposed
to
provide
additional
information
regarding
Dewatto
River
hatchery
operations
in
the
basin
and
to
further
reduce
their
potential
operational,
predation,
competition,
and
disease
transfer
effects
on
summer
chum
salmon.

Discussion
­
Placement
and
operation
of
a
fish
weir
to
remove
fall
chinook
salmon
adults
may
pose
additional
hazards
to
summer
chum
when
re­
established,
including
delay
in
migration,
injury
or
mortality
resulting
from
holding
and
handling,
and
increased
susceptibility
to
predation
or
poaching.
The
fall
chinook
program
is
not
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program.
To
address
risks
to
summer
chum,
it
is
recommended
that
this
program
be
eliminated.
A
delay
in
allowable
fall
chum
and
pink
fry
releases
until
after
April
1
may
require
changes
in
pond
loading
and
fish
production
regimes
at
Hoodsport,
McKernan,
and
George
Adams
hatcheries
to
maintain
safe
fish
rearing
densities.
These
changes
could
lead
to
reduced
annual
production
levels
of
certain
species
at
these
hatcheries,
potentially
including
pink
salmon,
yearling
fall
chinook,
and
fall
chum
salmon.

Anderson
The
summer
chum
population
in
Anderson
Creek
is
extirpated
(
Table
1.18),
and
current
hatchery
program
effects
on
the
population
are
therefore
now
nil.
There
are
no
plans,
at
present,
to
reintroduce
a
population
through
the
use
of
artificial
propagation.

Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
No
hatchery
salmonids
are
released
into
Anderson
Creek.
If
and
when
a
summer
chum
population
becomes
re­
established,
straying
fall
chinook
adults
originating
from
regional
marine
net­
pen
operations
may
pose
risks
of
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
on
the
spawning
grounds.

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
If
and
when
a
summer
chum
population
is
re­
established
in
Anderson
Creek,
the
release
of
pink
and
fall
chum
salmon
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
from
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
222
the
major
Hood
Canal
hatcheries,
and
cumulatively,
from
regional
RSI
operations,
may
pose
"
moderate"
to
"
high"
risks
of
adverse
ecological
impacts,
including
predator
attraction,
food
resource
competition,
and
behavioral
modification
hazards.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Anderson
summer
chum
are
extirpated,
and
no
risk
aversion
measures
are
proposed
to
specifically
address
impacts
to
this
population.

Discussion
­
Risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
may
be
developed
in
the
future
to
reduce
the
risk
of
hatchery
operation
or
fish
impacts,
if
and
when
a
summer
chum
population
is
reestablished

Big
Beef
The
original
summer
chum
population
in
Big
Beef
Creek
was
extirpated
(
Table
1.18),
and
current
hatchery
program
effects
on
the
population
are
presently
nil.
However,
summer
chum
are
in
the
process
of
being
reintroduced
into
the
watershed,
and
risks
to
the
reintroduced
population
are
therefore
assessed.

Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
The
volunteer
enhancement
group
hatchery
program
on
Big
Beef
Creek
produces
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
that
are
removed
at
an
existing
fish
weir
in
the
lower
creek
upon
adult
return.
Separation
from
summer
chum
that
are
carefully
passed
upstream
and
allowed
to
spawn
naturally
in
the
creek
or
in
the
renovated
artificial
spawning
channel
will
be
afforded
by
this
practice.
The
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects
to
newly
introduced
summer
chum
adults
posed
by
the
operation
is
judged
to
be
"
low,"
pending
continuation
of
100%
removal
practices
for
returning
fall
chinook
adults.
The
potential
of
negative
effects
on
summer
chum
spawning
success
below
the
weir
will
be
evaluated
and
if
a
problem
is
found
to
exist,
the
returning
adult
chinook
will
be
removed
or
the
program
will
be
terminated.

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
Fall
chinook
sub­
yearling
releases
are
made
into
Big
Beef
Creek
in
June,
well
after
the
summer
chum
emigration
period.
Due
to
this
separation,
adverse
effects
to
summer
chum
fry
that
may
result
from
predation,
competition,
or
behavioral
modification
are
judged
to
be
"
low."
A
"
moderate"
risk
of
adverse
effects
to
summer
chum
juveniles
was
assigned
for
the
risk
of
fish
disease
transfer,
due
to
the
need
to
rear
fall
chinook,
monitor,
and
to
report
fish
health
conditions
in
accordance
with
co­
manager
Salmonid
Disease
Contol
Policy
standards.
The
release
of
pink
and
fall
chum
salmon
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
from
the
major
Hood
Canal
hatcheries,
and
cumulatively,
from
regional
RSI
operations,
may
pose
"
moderate"
to
"
high"
risks
of
adverse
ecological
impacts,
including
predator
attraction,
food
resource
competition,
and
behavioral
modification
hazards,
to
Big
Beef
summer
chum.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Risks
associated
with
fish
disease
transfer
from
Big
Beef
Creek
hatchery­
origin
fish
can
be
minimized
through
application
of
risk
aversion
measures
leading
to
compliance
with
co­
manager
fish
health
monitoring
and
pre­
release
certification
procedures.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
may
also
be
employed
to
determine
the
location
of
any
spawning
of
hatchery
fall
chinook
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
223
returning
to
Big
Beef
Creek
(
e.
g.,
downstream
of
the
weir),
and
the
effects
of
any
spawning
on
summer
chum
productivity.
The
results
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
may
be
used
to
help
determine
the
actual
risks
of
hazards
to
summer
chum
spawners
attached
with
the
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
production
program.

The
risk
of
competition
and
behavioral
modification
hazards
associated
with
hatchery
juvenile
fall
chum
interactions
will
be
minimized
by
requiring
that
all
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
releases
be
made
after
April
1.
This
measure
should
minimize
the
likelihood
for
interactions
with
emigrating
summer
chum,
allowing
clearance
of
the
majority
of
the
fish
from
Hood
Canal.

Discussion
­
Risks
to
reintroduced
summer
chum
have
been
judged
to
be
generally
"
low"
for
the
present
fall
chinook
sub­
yearling
program
at
Big
Beef
Creek.
This
assessment
was
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
Big
Beef
Creek
weir
will
be
properly
operated
to
exclude
all
returning
fall
chinook
from
the
spawning
grounds,
while
preventing
harm
to
commingled
summer
chum
adults.
The
assumption
that
the
weir
would
be
operated
with
summer
chum
as
the
primary
concern
during
the
summer
chum
migration
period
was
also
made
in
assigning
a
"
low"
risk
level
for
the
program.
Fish
disease
transfer
concerns
can
be
addressed
through
compliance
with
the
co­
manager's
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
standards
and
practices.
Potential
interactions
of
chinook
and
summer
chum
spawners
downstream
of
the
weir
will
be
evaluated
and
appropriate
action
will
be
taken
to
eliminate
any
negative
impact
on
summer
chum
including,
if
necessary,
termination
of
the
chinook
program.

Chimacum
The
indigenous
summer
chum
population
in
Chimacum
Creek
was
extirpated
(
Table
1.18),
and
current
hatchery
program
effects
on
the
population
are
therefore
now
nil.
However,
summer
chum
are
in
the
process
of
being
reintroduced
into
the
watershed,
and
risks
to
the
reintroduced
population
are
therefore
assessed
here.

Adult
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
No
hatchery
salmonids
are
released
into
Chimacum
Creek
that
may
pose
hatchery
operational
or
ecological
hazards
to
the
reintroduced
summer
chum
adult
population.
In
addition,
due
to
the
lack
of
any
hatchery
operations
producing
other
species
near­
by,
no
significant
adverse
competition
or
behavioral
modification
effects
that
may
impact
summer
chum
spawners
are
expected
from
straying
fall
chinook
or
pink
salmon.
The
risks
of
adverse
hatchery
operation
and
release
impacts
to
summer
chum
in
Chimacum
Creek
are
therefore
judged
to
be
"
low."

Juvenile
hatchery
salmonid
effects
­
No
hatchery
salmonids
besides
summer
chum
are
planted
into
Chimacum
Creek.
No
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
risk
levels
have
been
assigned
for
hatchery
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
releases
from
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
or
Hood
Canal
programs
in
other
watersheds
due
to
the
isolation
of
this
population
in
Port
Townsend
Bay,
and
the
distance
of
the
stock
from
other
hatchery
operations.

Proposed
risk
aversion
strategies
­
Given
the
lack
of
hatchery
programs
within
the
watershed,
or
in
the
general
vicinity,
no
risk
aversion
measures
to
protect
this
population
are
proposed.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
224
Discussion
­
Summer
chum
have
been
recently
reintroduced
into
Chimacum
Creek.
Although
no
adverse
hatchery
effects
have
been
assigned
to
this
population,
any
future
consideration
of
hatchery
production
of
other
species
within
the
Port
Townsend
Bay
area
should
take
into
account
the
need
to
minimize
risks
to
this
population.

Summary
of
Proposed
Adjustments
in
Regional
Salmonid
Hatchery
Production
Programs
to
Minimize
Adverse
Ecological
Effects
on
Summer
Chum
Salmon
As
an
outcome
of
the
above
assessment,
certain
fish
production
and
operational
practices
applied
through
hatchery
programs
within
the
region
are
recommended
for
adjustment
to
minimize
the
risk
of
adverse
impacts
to
summer
chum.
Fish
production
and
hatchery
operational
practices
for
selected
programs
will
also
need
to
be
monitored
and
evaluated
to
help
determine
hatchery­
induced
ecological
impacts
to
summer
chum,
allowing
for
adjustments
in
the
programs
as
needed
consistent
with
an
adaptive
management
approach.
Adjustments
in
hatchery
practices
that
will
result
from
the
implementation
of
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
proposed
herein
are
summarized
below
for
each
hatchery
facility
or
program
within
the
Hood
Canal/
SJF
summer
chum
region.

Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
Hatchery
Programs
Hoodsport
Hatchery
­
Pre­
April
1
releases
of
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
at
Hoodsport
Hatchery
have
been
judged
to
pose
a
high
risk
of
adverse
competition
and
behavioral
modification
impacts
to
emigrating
summer
chum.
To
reduce
the
risk
level
of
this
hazard,
all
releases
of
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
fry
should
be
delayed
until
after
April
1.
Compliance
with
this
measure
will
require
adjustments
in
existing
chum
and
pink
growth
and
feeding
rate
regimes
to
meet
this
criterion
for
a
later
release
date.
Meeting
this
criterion
may
necessitate
changes
in
total
fish
production
programming
levels
at
the
hatchery,
if
safe
pond
loading
densities
can
not
be
maintained,
given
available
pond
space
and
water
for
the
two
to
three
additional
weeks
of
rearing
that
will
be
needed
to
hold
pink
fry
and
the
earliest­
spawned
fall
chum
groups.
If
the
hatchery
is
over­
programmed
as
a
result
of
this
adjustment
from
a
fish
health
and
quality
maintenance
perspective,
alternatives
that
should
be
investigated
to
meet
this
objective
may
include
reduction
of
fall
chum
and
pink
salmon
release
size
targets
to
reduce
densities,
or
scaling
back
of
fall
chum,
pink
salmon,
or
yearling
fall
chinook
production
levels
at
the
hatchery.

Sund
Rock
Net­
pens
­
Yearling
fall
chinook
salmon
released
from
the
net­
pens
may
have
an
enhanced
tendency
to
stray
into
summer
chum
streams
upon
adult
return,
potentially
posing
a
high
risk
of
adverse
competitive
or
behavioral
modification
hazards
to
summer
chum
spawners.
These
hazards
could
include
redd
superimposition,
competition
for
spawning
gravel,
and
modification
of
summer
chum
spawning
behavior
through
physical
dominance.
An
enhanced
level
of
acclimation
to
the
parent
hatchery
responsible
for
producing
the
yearlings
(
e.
g.,
Hoodsport
Hatchery)
may
help
maximize
the
number
of
in­
migrating
fall
chinook
adults
that
home
to
the
hatchery
rather
than
stray
to
other
streams.
It
is
uncertain
what
measures
can
be
applied
to
further
induce
homing
to
Hoodsport
Hatchery,
given
the
low
amount
of
attraction
water
available
to
fall
chinook
at
the
hatchery
during
the
adult
migration
period.
An
alternative
would
be
to
produce
the
yearlings
destined
for
transfer
to
the
net­
pens
at
George
Adams
Hatchery,
which,
due
to
its
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
225
more
terminal
location
near
the
Skokomish
River
and
higher
flow
levels,
may
provide
an
enhanced
attraction
location
for
returning
fall
chinook
adults.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
is
also
recommended
to
determine
the
level
of
net­
pen
origin
fall
chinook
straying
to
summer
chum
streams,
and
the
effects
of
any
straying
on
summer
chum
spawning
success.
Implementation
of
these
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
will
require
increased
funding
to
pay
for
staff
time
necessary
to
investigate
straying
levels
and
impacts.
The
option
of
terminating
the
program
may
also
be
considered.

George
Adams
Hatchery
­
George
Adams
Hatchery
is
located
on
Purdy
Creek,
which
does
not
harbor
a
summer
chum
population.
The
species
and
classes
produced
under
the
current
program,
including
subyearling
smolt
fall
chinook,
yearling
coho
smolts,
and
Finch
Creek
stock
fall
chum
fry,
have
a
low
risk
of
interaction
with
summer
chum
as
juveniles
and
adults.
The
program
has
been
judged
to
have
a
low
risk
of
adverse
effects
on
Hood
Canal
summer
chum.
As
presently
operated
and
programmed,
no
changes
in
fish
production
or
hatchery
operational
practices
are
proposed
through
this
assessment
for
George
Adams
Hatchery.

McKernan
Hatchery
­
Pre­
April
1
releases
of
fall
chum
fry
at
McKernan
Hatchery
have
been
judged
to
pose
a
high
risk
of
adverse
competition
and
behavioral
modification
impacts
to
emigrating
summer
chum.
To
reduce
the
risk
level
of
this
hazard,
all
releases
of
fall
chum
fry
should
be
delayed
until
after
April
1.
Compliance
with
this
measure
will
require
adjustments
in
existing
fall
chum
growth
and
feeding
rate
regimes
to
meet
target
fish
size
at
release
criteria
for
a
later
release
date.
Meeting
this
criteria
may
necessitate
changes
in
total
fall
chum
production
programming
levels
at
the
hatchery,
if
safe
pond
loading
densities
can
not
be
maintained,
given
available
pond
space
and
water
for
the
two
to
three
additional
weeks
of
rearing
that
will
be
needed
to
hold
and
rear
fall
chum.
If
the
hatchery
is
over­
programmed
as
a
result
of
this
adjustment
from
a
fish
health
and
quality
maintenance
perspective,
alternatives
that
should
be
investigated
to
meet
this
objective
may
include
reduction
of
fall
chum
fry
release
size
targets
to
reduce
densities,
or
scaling
back
of
fall
chum
fry
production
levels
at
the
hatchery.

Eells
Springs
­
Hood
Canal
Steelhead
Truck­
plant
Program
­
Steelhead
truck­
planted
into
Hood
Canal
region
summer
chum
streams,
including
the
Dosewallips,
Duckabush,
and
Skokomish
rivers,
must
continue
to
be
liberated
after
April
15
to
maintain
a
low
risk
of
direct
predation
impacts
on
emigrating
summer
chum
fry.
In
addition,
pond
management
criteria
should
be
employed
to
ensure
that
only
volitionally
migrating
smolts
are
planted
at
a
uniform
fish
length
that
helps
ensure
that
the
majority
of
fish
migrate
seaward
rapidly
at
the
time
of
release.

Snow
Creek
Coho
Salmon
Recovery
Program
­
Coho
salmon
fingerlings
and
sub­
yearlings
produced
through
the
Snow
Creek
program
are
part
of
a
supplementation­
based
formal
recovery
program
for
the
native
population,
which
is
designated
as
"
critical"
in
status
under
SASSI
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
The
need
for
risk
aversion
measures
that
could
be
applied
to
help
minimize
potential
direct
predation
risks
to
summer
chum,
including
a
delay
in
sub­
yearling
releases
until
after
April
15,
were
weighed
against
the
value
of
the
program
for
recovery
of
the
indigenous
coho
population.
A
balance
between
actions
needed
to
foster
the
recovery
of
both
species
was
struck
by
leaving
the
coho
release
program
unaltered,
but
requiring
that
coho
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
226
juveniles
rearing
in
Snow
Creek
as
a
result
of
the
supplementation
program
be
monitored
to
identify
survival
rates
and
in­
stream
distribution,
and
to
evaluate
likely
predation
effects
on
summer
chum.

Dungeness
Fish
Hatchery
­
Chinook
salmon
fry,
fingerlings,
and
sub­
yearlings
produced
through
the
Dungeness
Hatchery
program
are
part
of
a
joint­
agency,
supplementation­
based
formal
recovery
program
for
the
ESA­
listed
native
population.
The
need
for
risk
aversion
measures
that
could
be
applied
to
help
minimize
potential
direct
predation
risks
to
summer
chum,
including
delays
in
chinook
releases
until
after
April
1
(
sub­
yearlings)
or
April
15
(
yearling
fish),
were
weighed
against
the
value
of
the
Dungeness
program
for
recovery
of
the
listed
chinook
population.
A
balance
between
actions
needed
to
foster
the
recovery
of
both
species
was
struck
by
leaving
the
chinook
release
program
unaltered,
but
requiring
that
chinook
juveniles
and
smolts
rearing
in
the
Dungeness
River
as
a
result
of
the
supplementation
program
be
monitored
to
identify
survival
rates
and
in­
stream
distribution,
and
to
evaluate
likely
predation
effects
on
summer
chum.

Pink
salmon
fry
produced
through
the
Dungeness
program
are
part
of
a
supplementation­
based
formal
recovery
program
for
the
native
fall
population,
which
is
designated
as
"
critical"
in
status
under
SASSI
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
The
need
for
risk
aversion
measures
that
could
be
applied
to
help
minimize
potential
indirect
predation,
competition,
and
behavioral
modification
risks
to
summer
chum
were
weighed
against
the
value
of
the
program
for
recovery
of
the
indigenous
pink
population.
A
balance
between
actions
needed
to
foster
the
recovery
of
both
species
was
struck
by
requiring
that
pink
salmon
fry
releases
be
made
after
April
1,
and
that
fall
pink
salmon
adults
returning
to
spawn
as
a
result
of
the
supplementation
program
be
monitored
to
determine
the
location
of
spawning
relative
to
summer
chum,
and
to
evaluate
the
potential
effects
on
summer
chum
spawning
success
and
redd
integrity.

Yearling
coho
salmon
produced
for
fisheries
enhancement
purposes
are
from
indigenous
stock,
released
as
yearling
smolts
after
the
estimated
summer
chum
emigration
period.
Adult
fish
returning
to
the
river
have
a
tendency
to
return
directly
to
the
hatchery
release
site,
segregating
the
fish
from
summer
chum
spawning
areas.
Temporal
separation
from
summer
chum
fry
afforded
by
the
mid­
late
spring
release
timing
for
these
fish
minimizes
the
risk
of
interaction
and
predation
by
larger
coho
smolts.
The
coho
program,
as
presently
practiced,
is
viewed
as
a
"
low"
risk
to
summer
chum
productivity.

Steelhead
acclimated
and
liberated
into
the
Dungeness
River
must
continue
to
be
released
after
April
15
to
maintain
a
low
risk
of
direct
predation
impacts
on
emigrating
summer
chum
fry.
In
addition,
pond
management
criteria
should
be
employed
to
ensure
that
only
volitionally
migrating
smolts
are
planted
at
a
uniform
fish
length
that
helps
ensure
that
the
majority
of
fish
migrate
seaward
rapidly
at
the
time
of
release.

Tribal
Hatchery
Programs
Enetai
Hatchery
­
The
Skokomish
tribal
hatchery
is
not
located
on
a
summer
chum
stream.
"
Late
normal"­
timed
fed
fall
chum
fry
and
fall
chinook
sub­
yearling
smolts
have
been
released
through
the
program.
Fall
chinook
released
from
Enetai
may
stray
to
other
watersheds
upon
adult
return.
The
effects
of
this
straying
on
summer
chum
salmon
needs
to
be
evaluated.
The
Wolcott
Slough­
stock
fall
chum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
227
program
is
judged
to
have
a
low
risk
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
summer
chum.
As
presently
operated
and
programmed,
no
changes
in
fish
production
or
hatchery
operational
practices
are
proposed
through
this
assessment
for
Enetai
Hatchery,
pending
evaluation
of
fall
chinook
straying
and
potential
effects.

Quilcene
Bay
Net­
pens
­
QNFH
stock
delayed
release
coho
salmon
produced
through
the
net­
pen
operation
have
a
low
likelihood
for
interaction
with
summer
chum
due
to
temporal
separation
afforded
by
a
post­
April
15
release
schedule.
The
coho
smolts
are
not
present
in
the
estuary
during
the
summer
chum
fry
emigration
period.
Returning
adult
coho
are
early­
timed,
and
may
interact
with
summer
chum
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
and
Little
Quilcene
River
when
homing
to
the
release
area.
Although
some
coho
salmon
are
observed
spawning
each
year
in
the
lower
Big
Quilcene
River,
the
tendency
of
the
majority
of
Quilcene
coho
to
proceed
directly
to
the
QNFH
hatchery
rack
upon
return
limits
the
degree
of
interaction
with
predominantly
downstream­
spawning
summer
chum
(
L.
Telles,
USFWS,
pers.
comm.
July,
1999).
The
ecological
risks
to
summer
chum
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
posed
by
net­
pen
origin
adult
coho
have
therefore
been
judged
to
be
low.
Returning
coho
may
enter
the
Little
Quilcene
River
and
may
spawn
within
areas
used
by
summer
chum.
The
effects
of
net­
pen­
origin
coho
spawning
on
summer
chum
productivity
in
the
Little
Quilcene
River
needs
to
be
evaluated.
As
presently
operated
and
programmed,
no
changes
in
fish
production
or
net­
pen
operational
practices
are
proposed
through
this
assessment
for
the
Quilcene
Bay
net­
pens.
Operational
changes
may
be
proposed
in
future
years
pending
evaluation
of
the
effects
of
adult
coho
straying
on
Little
Quilcene
River
summer
chum.
An
alternative
to
acclimation
to
reduce
straying,
if
proven
detrimental
to
summer
chum,
is
elimination
of
the
net­
pen
program.

Little
Boston
Hatchery
­
The
Port
Gamble
tribal
hatchery
is
not
located
on
a
summer
chum
stream.
The
hatchery
produces
Finch
Creek
stock
fed
fall
chum
fry,
which,
given
current
production
practices,
are
judged
to
have
a
low
risk
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
summer
chum.
As
presently
operated
and
programmed,
no
changes
in
fish
production
or
hatchery
operational
practices
are
proposed
through
this
assessment
for
the
Little
Boston
Hatchery.

Port
Gamble
Bay
Net­
pens
­
QNFH
stock
delayed
release
coho
salmon
produced
through
the
net­
pen
operation
have
a
low
likelihood
for
interaction
with
summer
chum
as
juveniles
due
to
the
late
time
of
coho
release
relative
to
the
summer
chum
fry
emigration
period.
Returning
adult
coho
are
early­
timed,
entering
freshwater
at
approximately
the
same
time
as
summer
chum.
The
coho
therefore
could
interact
with
summer
chum
if
the
coho
stray
into
summer
chum
streams.
However,
since
the
coho
release
site
is
relatively
far
removed
from
summer
chum
streams
and
coho
tend
to
spawn
further
upstream
than
summer
chum,
the
ecological
risks
to
summer
chum
posed
by
Port
Gamble
net­
pen
origin
adult
coho
have
been
judged
to
be
low.
As
presently
operated
and
programmed,
no
changes
in
fish
production
or
net­
pen
operational
practices
are
proposed
through
this
assessment
for
the
Port
Gamble
Bay
net­
pens.

USFWS
Hatchery
Programs
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
­
Indigenous
stock
coho
and
fall
chum
salmon
are
released
as
yearling
smolts
and
fed
fry,
respectively,
each
year
through
this
hatchery
program.
Both
species
have
a
low
likelihood
for
interaction
with
summer
chum
as
juveniles
due
to
the
late
time
of
coho
and
fall
chum
releases
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
228
(
late
April
through
May)
relative
to
the
March
summer
chum
fry
emigration
period.
Returning
adult
coho
are
early­
timed,
and
may
interact
with
summer
chum
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
when
homing
to
the
hatchery.
The
tendency
of
the
coho
to
proceed
directly
to
the
hatchery
rack
upon
return
limits
the
degree
of
interaction
with
predominantly
downstream­
spawning
summer
chum
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
(
L.
Telles,
USFWS,
pers.
comm.
July,
1999).
The
ecological
risks
to
summer
chum
posed
by
adult
coho
have
therefore
been
judged
to
be
low.
Hatchery­
origin
fall
chum
adults
return
two
months
later
than
the
summer
chum
native
to
the
Quilcene
River,
and
are
not
expected
to
adversely
effect
summer
chum
productivity
through
interaction
on
the
spawning
grounds.
As
presently
operated
and
programmed,
no
changes
in
fish
production
or
hatchery
operational
practices
are
proposed
for
the
QNFH.

Citizen
Group
Hatchery
Programs
Lilliwaup
Hatchery
­
The
Long
Live
The
Kings'
hatchery
on
the
Lilliwaup
River
is
operated
with
the
primary
purpose
of
supplementing
the
indigenous
summer
chum
population.
Due
to
the
poor
status
of
summer
chum
returns,
as
an
emergency
measure,
all
summer
chum
spawners
are
currently
being
removed
from
the
river
for
propagation
in
the
supplementation
program.
A
research
program
to
assess
the
survival
of
progeny
of
captive
brood
coho
salmon
is
currently
in
progress.
These
fish
were
released
as
smolts
for
one
year
only.
With
the
exception
of
this
modest
research
project,
no
other
salmon
species
are
intentionally
released
into
the
Lilliwaup
River
through
the
program.
Fall
chinook
salmon
reared
at
Lilliwaup,
and
transferred
to
the
Skokomish
River
area
for
rearing
and
release
may
have
an
enhanced
tendency
to
stray
back
to
the
Lilliwaup
River.
Fall
chinook
adult
returns
to
the
Lilliwaup
River
will
be
monitored
to
determine
if
straying
from
program
releases
is
a
legitimate
risk
factor.
Given
that
most
if
not
all
summer
chum
adults
are
being
used
to
supplement
the
population,
and
pending
the
results
of
the
above
monitoring,
no
changes
in
fish
production
or
hatchery
operational
practices
are
proposed
at
this
time
for
the
Lilliwaup
Hatchery.
However,
as
a
future
management
measure,
straying
adult
chinook
salmon
will
be
removed
upon
return
when
summer
chum
are
allowed
to
spawn
naturally
in
the
Lilliwaup
River.

Hamma
Hamma
Program
­
The
Hamma
Hamma
artificial
production
program
is
designed
to
rebuild
indigenous
salmonid
populations,
including
summer
chum,
through
supplementation.
Hazards
to
summer
chum
that
have
been
identified
in
association
with
the
production
of
other
species
through
the
program
include
methods
used
to
collect
broodstock
(
in
particular,
the
potential
for
installation
of
a
weir)
and
potential
predation
by
steelhead
smolts.
Chinook
salmon
produced
through
the
program
as
sub­
yearling
smolts
are
not
expected
to
adversely
effect
summer
chum
as
adults
returning
during
the
same
period
as
summer
chum,
due
to
the
relatively
large
amount
of
available
spawning
area
in
the
river,
or
as
juveniles,
due
to
the
late
time
of
hatchery
chinook
release
(
June
release
strategy)
relative
to
the
summer
chum
emigration
period.
Steelhead
produced
as
age
2
smolts
should
be
released
into
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
after
April
15
to
minimize
the
risk
of
predation
to
egressing
summer
chum
fry.
Collection
of
chinook
and
steelhead
broodstock
for
the
program
should
be
conducted
in
a
manner
that
minimizes
adverse
effects
to
summer
chum
adults
and
redds.
Placement
of
a
weir
in
the
river
to
collect
broodstock,
if
proposed,
may
pose
additional
hazards
to
summer
chum,
including
migration
delay,
injury
during
trap
holding
and
handling,
and
increased
susceptibility
to
predation.
If
a
weir
is
selected
for
use
in
the
future,
the
weir
should
be
operated
for
summer
chum
management/
protection
as
the
primary
purpose.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
229
Union
River
Fall
Chinook
and
Fall
Chum
Programs
­
Non­
indigenous­
origin
fall
chinook
adults
produced
through
this
program
are
judged
to
pose
a
high
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
impacts
upon
return
to
summer
chum
spawners.
These
fall
chinook
adults
have
been
observed
to
enter
the
Union
River
at
the
same
time
as
summer
chum,
and
due
to
the
low
flows
available
in
September
and
early
October,
the
two
species
have
been
observed
to
use
the
same
spawning
areas
in
the
lower
river
(
spawning
ground
survey
information
for
R.
M.
0
­
2.1
from
R.
Egan,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.,
July
1999).
The
presence
of
spawning
fall
chinook
in
summer
chum
spawning
areas
enhances
risks
of
spawning
gravel
competition
and
redd
superimposition
to
summer
chum.
Early­
returning
Finch
Creek
lineage
fall
chum
adults
produced
pose
similar
spawning
ground
competition
and
redd
superimposition
risks
to
summer
chum
spawners.
Placement
of
a
weir
in
the
river
to
remove
returning
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
would
pose
additional
hazards
to
summer
chum,
including
migration
delay,
injury
during
trap
holding
and
handling,
and
increased
susceptibility
to
predation.
If
the
current
Union
River
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
programs
are
not
considered
formal
recovery
programs,
further
releases
of
these
fish
into
the
Union
River
will
no
longer
be
allowed.

Skokomish
River
("
Old
Hatchery
Inn")
­
Currently
there
is
no
self­
sustaining
population
of
summer
chum
in
the
Skokomish
River,
and
there
are
therefore
no
impacts
of
the
fall
chinook
sub­
yearling
and
yearling
release
program
on
summer
chum.
If
summer
chum
are
reintroduced
into
the
Skokomish
in
future
years,
the
fall
chinook
program
as
currently
operated
is
still
judged
to
pose
a
low
risk
of
adverse
effects.
Fall
chinook
adults
returning
to
the
river
as
a
result
of
the
program
are
not
expected
to
adversely
affect
summer
chum
on
the
spawning
grounds
due
to
the
large
amount
of
available
spawning
area
in
the
Skokomish
River
watershed,
which
should
afford
a
large
amount
of
separation
between
the
two
species.
The
current
release
timings
for
the
two
fall
chinook
age
classes
separate
the
hatchery
fish
from
March­
emigrating
summer
chum
fry,
making
predation
and
competition
unlikely.
As
presently
operated,
no
changes
in
fish
production
or
hatchery
operational
practices
are
proposed
for
this
program.

Tahuya
River
Fall
Chinook
and
Fall
Chum
Programs
­
Summer
chum
were
functionally
extirpated
in
the
Tahuya
River,
and
the
effects
of
the
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
sub­
yearling
and
fall
chum
fry
production
programs
on
summer
chum
are
presently
nil.
However,
the
Tahuya
River
has
been
identified
as
a
candidate
for
reintroduction
of
summer
chum,
and
the
effects
of
the
present
hatchery
program
have
therefore
been
evaluated
in
light
of
potential
reintroduction.

Non­
indigenous­
origin
fall
chinook
adults
produced
through
this
program
are
judged
to
pose
a
high
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
impacts
upon
return
to
summer
chum
spawners.
Fall
chinook
adults
enter
freshwater
at
the
same
time
as
summer
chum,
and
due
to
the
low
flows
available
in
the
Tahuya
River
in
September
and
early
October,
the
two
species
will
be
confined
to
the
same
spawning
areas
in
the
lower
river.
This
interaction
enhances
risks
of
spawning
gravel
competition
and
redd
superimposition
to
summer
chum.
Early­
returning
Finch
Creek
lineage
fall
chum
adults
produced
through
the
program
pose
similar
spawning
ground
competition
and
redd
superimposition
risks
to
summer
chum
spawners.
Placement
of
a
weir
in
the
river
to
remove
returning
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum,
if
proposed,
may
pose
additional
hazards
to
summer
chum,
including
migration
delay,
injury
during
trap
holding
and
handling,
and
increased
susceptibility
to
predation.
If
the
current
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
programs
are
not
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
230
considered
formal
recovery
programs,
further
releases
of
these
fish
into
the
Tahuya
River
will
no
longer
be
allowed.

Dewatto
River
Fall
Chinook
Program
­
Summer
chum
have
been
extirpated
in
the
Dewatto
River,
and
the
effects
of
the
non­
indigenous
fall
chinook
sub­
yearling
and
fall
chum
fry
production
programs
on
summer
chum
are
presently
nil.
Like
the
Tahuya
River,
the
Dewatto
has
been
identified
as
a
candidate
for
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
within
the
next
four
years.
The
effects
of
the
present
hatchery
program
have
therefore
been
evaluated
in
light
of
this
planned
reintroduction.

Non­
indigenous­
origin
fall
chinook
adults
produced
through
this
program
are
judged
to
pose
a
high
risk
of
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
impacts
upon
return
to
summer
chum
spawners.
Fall
chinook
adults
enter
freshwater
to
spawn
at
the
same
time
as
summer
chum.
The
relatively
small
channel
width
and
low
flows
available
in
the
Dewatto
River
in
September
and
early
October
will
confine
the
two
species
to
the
same
spawning
areas
in
the
lower
river.
Risks
of
spawning
gravel
competition
and
redd
superimposition
to
summer
chum
are
enhanced
by
these
factors.
Placement
of
a
weir
in
the
river
to
remove
returning
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum,
if
proposed,
may
pose
additional
hazards
to
summer
chum,
including
migration
delay,
injury
during
trap
holding
and
handling,
and
increased
susceptibility
to
predation.
In
view
of
the
likely
adverse
effects
resulting
from
the
presence
of
fall
chinook
in
summer
chum
spawning
areas,
if
the
current
fall
chinook
program
is
not
considered
a
formal
recovery
program,
further
releases
of
these
fish
into
the
Dewatto
River
will
no
longer
be
allowed.

Big
Beef
Creek
Program
­
Summer
chum
are
in
the
process
of
being
re­
introduced
to
Big
Beef
Creek,
and
the
present
fall
chinook
hatchery
program
used
for
fisheries
enhancement
was
evaluated
assuming
the
presence
of
a
summer
chum
population.
Risks
to
summer
chum
posed
by
the
fall
chinook
sub­
yearling
program
were
judged
to
be
low
as
presently
programmed
and
operated,
with
the
exception
of
disease
transfer
hazards.
This
location
currently
hosts
a
variety
of
research
oriented
programs
aimed
at
wild
salmonid
productivity
assessment
and
ESA
stock
recovery,
including
Big
Beef
Creek
wild
coho
and
reintroduced
summer
chum.
The
existing
weirs
associated
with
these
programs
on
lower
Big
Beef
Creek
allows
for
the
removal
of
all
returning
adult
fall
chinook,
preventing
interactions
with
naturally
spawning
summer
chum
that
could
result
in
adverse
competitive
and
behavioral
modification
effects.
Fall
chinook
sub­
yearlings
are
released
in
June,
minimizing
the
likelihood
for
ecological
interactions
with
March­
migrating
summer
chum
fry.
The
hatchery
program
does
not
presently
follow
co­
manager
fish
health
management
guidelines.
Fish
health
monitoring
and
certification
practices
presented
in
the
co­
manager
policy
will
be
applied
to
minimize
the
risk
of
disease
transfer
to
summer
chum.

Pleasant
Harbor
Net­
pens
and
Hood
Canal
Marina
Net­
pens
­
Yearling
fall
chinook
salmon
released
from
the
net­
pens
may
have
an
enhanced
tendency
to
stray
into
summer
chum
streams
upon
adult
return,
potentially
posing
a
moderate
risk
of
adverse
competitive
or
behavioral
modification
hazards
to
summer
chum
spawners.
These
hazards
could
include
redd
superimposition,
competition
for
spawning
gravel,
and
modification
of
summer
chum
spawning
behavior
through
physical
dominance.
An
enhanced
level
of
acclimation
to
the
parent
hatchery
responsible
for
producing
the
yearlings
(
e.
g.,
Hoodsport
Hatchery)
may
help
maximize
the
number
of
in­
migrating
fall
chinook
adults
that
home
to
the
hatchery
rather
than
stray
to
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
231
other
streams.
It
is
uncertain
what
measures
can
be
applied
to
further
induce
homing
to
Hoodsport
Hatchery,
given
the
low
amount
of
attraction
water
available
to
fall
chinook
at
the
hatchery
during
the
adult
migration
period.
An
alternative
would
be
to
produce
the
yearlings
destined
for
transfer
to
the
net­
pens
at
George
Adams
Hatchery,
which,
due
to
its
more
terminal
location
near
the
Skokomish
River
and
higher
flow
levels,
may
provide
an
enhanced
attraction
location
for
returning
fall
chinook
adults.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
is
also
recommended
to
determine
the
level
of
net­
pen
origin
fall
chinook
straying
to
summer
chum
streams,
and
the
effects
of
any
straying
on
summer
chum
spawning
success.
Implementation
of
these
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
will
require
increased
funding
to
pay
for
staff
time
necessary
to
investigate
straying
levels
and
impacts.
The
option
of
terminating
these
programs
may
also
be
considered,
pending
an
evaluation
of
net­
pen
fall
chinook
straying
to
summer
chum
streams,
and
the
effectiveness
of
measures
implemented
to
reduce
straying
if
proven
to
adversely
affect
summer
chum.

Duckabush
River
(
Johnson
Creek)
­
The
HCSEG
fall
chinook
program
in
the
Duckabush
River
watershed
may
pose
risks
to
summer
chum
as
a
result
of
homing
fall
chinook
adults
and
potential
fish
disease
transfer.
Risks
associated
with
fall
chinook
competition
and
behavioral
modification
have
been
assessed
as
"
low"
due
to
the
relatively
large
size
of
the
river,
and
the
likelihood
that
interactions
between
summer
chum
and
fall
chinook
adults
will
be
minimal.
The
risk
of
fish
disease
transfer
can
be
minimized
through
compliance
with
co­
manager
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
procedures.
No
other
changes
to
this
program
are
proposed
through
this
assessment.

Miscellaneous
Additional
Hood
Canal
Region
Projects
­
A
number
of
programs
in
minor
Hood
Canal
tributaries
produce
fall
chinook
fry
and
sub­
yearlings,
and
fall
chum
fry.
Only
one
of
these
programs
is
located
on
a
summer
chum
stream
­
a
very
modest
fall
chum
salmon
educational
project
operated
by
the
Hood
Canal
Elementary
School
on
the
Skokomish
River.
Although
none
of
these
other
projects
are
located
on
a
summer
chum
stream,
they
may
pose
elevated
risks
to
summer
chum
after
release
in
estuarine
areas
through
predator
attraction,
competition,
and
behavioral
modification.
To
reduce
the
risk
of
adverse
predator
attraction,
competition
and
behavioral
modification
effects
to
emigrating
summer
chum
fry,
all
fall
chinook
and
fall
chum
produced
in
each
program
should
be
released
no
earlier
than
April
1.
Disease
transfer
risks
to
summer
chum
have
been
judged
"
moderate"
for
the
programs.
Compliance
with
comanager
Salmonid
Disease
Control
Policy
guidelines
and
procedures
will
reduce
the
risk
of
disease
transfer
to
summer
chum
to
acceptable
levels.
Risks
to
summer
chum
may
also
be
addressed
by
terminating
projects.

3.3.2.2
Marine
Mammals
Potential
Risks
Certain
marine
mammal
populations
in
Puget
Sound
have
exhibited
extraordinary
increases
in
population
abundance
in
recent
decades.
In
particular,
harbor
seals
(
Phoca
vitulina)
and
California
sea
lions
(
Zalophus
californianus)
have
dramatically
increased
in
number
in
marine
waters
of
the
state
that
serve
as
summer
chum
migration
corridors
and
staging
areas
for
spawning
ground
entry.
The
California
sea
lion
population
has
been
increasing
at
an
annual
rate
of
about
5%
per
year
since
the
mid­
1970s
(
NMFS
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
Page
232
1997b).
Two
haul­
out
areas
in
Hood
Canal
are
used
by
10­
50
sea
lions
from
fall
through
spring,
during
the
male
sea
lion
residence
period
in
Washington
waters.
Harbor
seals
are
present
year­
round
in
the
region,
and
their
populations
have
been
increasing
in
abundance
at
a
rate
of
about
5­
7%
annually
since
the
mid­
1970s.
Thirteen
haul­
out
areas
in
Hood
Canal
are
used
by
approximately
1,200
harbor
seals
yearround

Both
species
are
opportunistic
feeders,
with
sea
lions
foraging
on
schooling
fish
and
other
prey
that
form
dense
aggregations
and
harbor
seals
preying
on
a
wide
variety
of
benthic
and
epibenthic
fish
and
cehalopods
(
NMFS
1997b).
Diets
of
the
two
pinniped
species
varies
regionally,
seasonally,
and
annually.
Chum
salmon
have
been
documented
as
prey
of
pinnipeds
in
Washington.
Adult
salmonids
are
most
vulnerable
to
pinniped
predation
during
spawning
migration
through
estuaries
and
river
mouths,
especially
where
salmonids
concentrate
or
passage
may
be
restricted.

NMFS
(
1997b)
concluded
that
the
presence
of
California
sea
lions
and
harbor
seals
in
Pacific
Northwest
rivers
and
estuaries
concurrent
with
migrations
of
depressed
salmonid
populations
is
a
concern
because
pinniped
predation
can
impact
small
runs
of
depressed
salmonids.
Predation
by
California
sea
lions
and
harbor
seals
may
now
constitute
an
additional
factor
in
salmonid
population
decline
and
can
affect
recovery
of
depressed
salmonid
populations
in
some
situations
(
NMFS
1997b).
Summer
chum
adults
returning
to
Discovery
Bay
tributaries
are
believed
to
be
vulnerable
to
being
impacted
by
pinniped
predation,
as
are
all
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
populations
(
NMFS
1997b).

Risk
Minimization
Measures
The
impacts
of
pinniped
predation
on
summer
chum
salmon
requires
further
study.
Summer
chum
are
at
high
risk
of
predation
because
their
early
return
timing
relative
to
other
salmonids,
extended
milling
time
in
the
estuary,
entry
into
spawning
grounds
during
low
flow
periods,
and
critically
depressed
abundance
status
enhance
their
vulnerability.

NMFS
(
1997b)
reported
that
although
substantial
research
is
needed
to
fully
address
the
issue,
existing
information
on
the
seriously
depleted
status
of
many
salmonid
stocks
is
sufficient
to
warrant
actions
to
remove
pinnipeds
in
areas
of
co­
occurrence
where
pinnipeds
prey
on
depressed
salmonid
populations.
Therefore,
if
predation
on
critical
summer
chum
stock
is
identified
as
substantial,
mitigative
measures
may
be
applied
to
control
the
predation,
including
institution
of
federally
authorized
pinniped
removal
programs.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
233
3.4
Habitat
3.4.1
Introduction
Ample,
high­
quality
habitat
is
critical
to
the
recovery
of
wild,
naturally­
spawning
summer
chum
populations
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region.
To
be
effective,
summer
chum
recovery
efforts
must
consider
the
linked
issues
of
habitat
quality,
life
history
diversity,
and
population
resiliency.
Summer
chum
in
Hood
Canal/
SJF
exhibit
unique
genetic,
phenotypic,
and
behavioral
diversity
that
has
allowed
them
to
survive
and
thrive
in
a
fluctuating
environment.
At
the
southern
terminus
of
the
range
of
summer­
run
chum,
these
populations
represent
a
unique
and
significant
component
of
regional
biological
diversity
worthy
of
full
protection
and
recovery
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
The
distinctiveness
of
these
populations
is
tied,
at
least
in
part,
to
the
ecological
setting
of
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.

Summer
chum
populations
rely
on
a
complex
of
different
habitat
types,
connected
by
seasonal
migrations
of
different
life
stages.
Spawning
and
egg
incubation
occur
in
freshwater,
juveniles
rear
and
find
refuge
in
estuarine
deltas
and
nearshore
areas,
while
feeding
and
growth
of
subadults
takes
place
in
the
open
ocean.
The
timing
of
migrations
between
these
different
environments
is
closely
tied
to
seasonal
patterns
of
productivity,
which
summer
chum
populations
have
evolved
to
exploit.
Adaptations
of
Hood
Canal/
SJF
summer
chum
include
early
adult
river
entry,
lower
mainstem
and
intertidal
spawning,
small
adult
body
size,
high
fecundity,
and
large
egg
size
(
relative
to
fall
chum).
Spatial
and
temporal
variation
in
spawning,
rearing,
and
migration
(
life
history
diversity)
minimizes
the
impact
of
harmful
factors
and
dampens
extinction
risk,
conferring
resiliency
to
whole
populations.
Individual
watershed
subpopulations
or
stocks
also
exhibit
variation
in
life
history
strategies
(
e.
g.
adult
freshwater
entry
timing)
based
on
the
range
of
physical
characteristics
in
their
natal
watersheds.
Regional
differences
in
geology,
climate,
hydrology,
landform,
and
estuarine
conditions
create
potential
for
the
evolution
of
different
life
history
strategies
within
the
Hood
Canal/
SJF
region.

A
major
consequence
of
human
land
use
over
the
last
150
years
has
been
the
degradation
and
fragmentation
of
these
linked
habitats.
This
has
resulted
in
a
contraction
of
expressed
life
history
diversity
that,
in
turn,
has
had
consequences
for
summer
chum
population
resiliency.
Maintaining
and
rebuilding
the
full
diversity
of
life
history
strategies
is
the
dominant
consideration
in
the
design
of
the
habitat
portion
of
the
summer
chum
recovery
plan.
Recovery
efforts
are
focused
on
rehabilitating
habitat
conditions
that
will
permit
the
full
expression
of
diverse
life
histories.
Our
reasoning
is
that
the
spatial/
temporal
diversity
of
life
histories
expressed
within
a
complex
habitat
structure
is
an
important
determinant
of
the
health
and
adaptability
of
summer
chum
populations.
Conversion
of
complex
habitat
to
simplified,
degraded
conditions,
or
the
complete
loss
of
habitat
can
reduce
life
history
diversity
and
compromise
the
natural
occurrence
and
persistence
of
summer
chum
populations.
Without
this
diversity,
populations
are
unable
to
recover
from
natural
variations
in
environmental
conditions
(
e.
g.
drought,
floods)
or
changes
in
environmental
quality
related
to
human
activities
(
e.
g.
loss
of
riparian
forests,
dam
or
dike
construction).

Our
approach
is
to
provide
for
the
habitat
requirements
of
each
life
stage
(
including
adult
migration,
spawning,
incubation
and
emergence,
rearing,
and
juvenile
migration)
and
for
overall
life
history
diversity
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
234
to
ensure
the
integrity
and
resilience
of
the
entire
region.
The
strategies
outlined
in
the
plan
focus
on
protecting
or
restoring
habitat
conditions
that
appear
to
limit
particular
life
stages.
This
approach
utilizes
the
best
available
science
currently
available
to
define
conditions
necessary
to
sustain
wild
summer
chum
but
it
is
intended
to
be
updated
as
new
information
becomes
available.

Plan
organization
The
habitat
section
is
organized
around
three
primary
habitat
types,
freshwater,
subestuarine
delta,
and
estuarine
nearshore,
that
are
utilized
by
summer
chum
salmon
during
their
life
cycle.
A
fourth
habitat
type,
offshore
and
open
ocean,
is
not
discussed
here
because
of
limited
information
and
a
lack
of
expertise
within
the
habitat
workgroup.
The
ocean
environment
is
generally
discussed
in
Part
Two
­
Region­
wide
Factors
for
Decline.
Harvest
management
and
artificial
production
practices
also
impact
survival,
and
are
addressed
in
detail
in
other
chapters
of
Part
Three.

Background
information
on
summer
chum
life
history
and
the
ecology
of
their
native
watersheds
within
the
wider
estuarine
landscape
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
are
presented
in
section
3.4.2
Background
and
Ecological
Context.
Using
this
information,
the
habitat
workgroup
developed
a
specific
methodology
for
analyzing
limiting
factors
of
different
life
stages.
The
methodology
and
results
of
the
analysis
are
outlined
in
section
3.4.3
Limiting
Factors
Analysis:
Methodology
and
Results.
Section
3.4.4
Protection/
Restoration
Strategy
describes
a
protection
and
restoration
strategy,
including
general
principles,
specific
measures,
and
guidance
for
evaluating
particular
restoration
projects.
Monitoring
and
research
priorities
are
defined
in
section
3.4.5
for
the
evaluation
of
habitat
recovery
planning
effectiveness.
Parties
critical
to
the
implementation
of
the
habitat
elements
of
the
recovery
plan
and
their
respective
roles
are
described
in
section
3.4.6.
Appendix
Report
3.5
includes
a
detailed
description
of
the
estuarine
landscape.
Appendix
Report
3.6
­
Summer
Chum
Watershed
Narratives,
provides
detailed
information
on
the
results
of
the
limiting
factors
analysis
and
recommendations
for
recovery
specific
to
individual
watersheds.
Supporting
documentation
for
the
limiting
factors
analysis
and
methods
used
for
the
riparian
forest
evaluation
are
provided
in
Appendix
Report
3.7,
and
channel
habitat
data
background
information
is
included
in
Appendix
Report
3.8.

3.4.2
Background
and
Ecological
Context
Abundant
and
self­
sustaining
summer
chum
populations
require
a
mosaic
of
complex,
dynamic,
and
interconnected
habitats
through
which
they
move
to
complete
their
life
cycle.
This
includes
a
variety
of
habitats
within
freshwater,
estuarine,
and
marine
environments
that
have
been
altered
by
human
development
during
the
last
century.
Before
we
can
understand
the
magnitude
of
human
impacts
to
summer
chum
habitat,
we
must
have
a
comprehensive
understanding
of
how
summer
chum
life
history
is
linked
to
particular
habitats,
appreciate
critical
ecological
processes
that
sustain
these
habitats,
and
understand
the
historical
context
for
present­
day
conditions.

This
section
details
the
connection
between
summer
chum
life
history
and
the
ecology
of
their
native
watersheds
within
the
wider
estuarine
landscape
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
235
We
provide
an
overview
of
summer
chum
life
history
association
with
particular
habitats,
ecological
processes
and
functions
important
to
summer
chum,
and
historical
habitat
conditions.
This
discussion
is
divided
into
three
parts
to
emphasize
specific
connections
between
summer
chum
life
history
and
the
ecology
of
different
environments.
Sections
3.4.2.1
and
3.4.2.2
detail
summer
chum
life
history
association,
important
ecological
processes,
and
historical
conditions
within
freshwater
and
subestuarine
environments,
respectively.
Section
3.4.2.3
discusses
summer
chum
life
history
association
and
ecological
processes,
in
the
nearshore
environment
and
within
the
broader
estuarine
landscape
of
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
The
general
discussion
of
historical
conditions
within
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
watersheds
and
estuaries
sets
the
stage
for
the
analysis
of
specific
impacts
to
individual
watersheds,
discussed
in
section
3.4.3
Limiting
Factor
Analysis:
Methodology
and
Results.

3.4.2.1
Freshwater
Environment
Life
History
Association
Life
history
stages
associated
with
freshwater
habitat
include
adult
migration
and
spawning,
egg
incubation,
fry
emergence
and
downstream
migration.
Freshwater
conditions
likely
exert
a
greater
influence
on
adult
migration,
spawning
and
egg
incubation,
given
the
extended
time
periods
associated
with
these
stages
in
contrast
to
relatively
short
freshwater
residence
time
for
fry
emergence
and
emigration.
Adults
typically
enter
freshwater
and
spawn
from
late
August
through
mid­
October,
usually
choosing
low
gradient,
lower
mainstem
reaches
with
adequate
flow
and
suitable
velocities.
Egg
incubation
typically
lasts
5
to
6
months.
Eggs
incubating
in
the
gravel
are
particularly
vulnerable
to
scour
and
channel
disturbance
associated
with
high
winter
flows
for
the
first
three
months
until
they
reach
the
"
eyed"
stage.
Summer
chum
fry
emerge
from
redds
between
January
and
April,
and
move
rapidly
downstream
to
subestuarine
areas.

Freshwater
Processes
and
Functions
Important
to
Summer
Chum
Survival
of
freshwater
life
history
stages
are
linked
to
a
number
of
habitat
parameters
including
water
quantity
(
low
and
peak
flows),
water
quality
(
primarily
temperature),
riparian
forest
conditions
(
width
of
riparian
forest,
age
of
trees,
species
composition),
sediment
conditions
(
aggradation,
degradation,
presence
of
fines),
channel
complexity
(
large
woody
debris
quantities,
channel
condition,
amount
of
side
channel
habitat),
access
to
habitat,
and
presence
of
predators.
Most
factors
are
interrelated;
a
change
in
one
parameter
typically
manifests
itself
in
changes
to
other
parameters.
For
example,
reduced
channel
complexity
is
closely
correlated
with
high
rates
of
sediment
transport
and
deposition
as
well
as
reduced
channel
interaction
with
the
associated
floodplain.

Survival
during
adult
migration
and
spawning
is
largely
a
result
of
interactive
processes
between
recruitment
of
suitable
sized
gravel,
adequate
stream
flow,
water
temperature,
and
channel
complexity
such
as
the
presence
of
large
woody
debris
to
create
holding
pools
and
provide
cover
from
predators.
Conditions
conducive
to
successful
egg
incubation
and
rearing
include:
1)
the
presence
of
adequate
large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
to
reduce
scour
of
incubating
eggs
and
moderate
peak
winter
flow
velocities,
2)
the
absence
of
excessive
fines
within
spawning
gravel,
3)
stable
channel
configuration,
and
4)
access
to
floodplain
and
offchannel
areas.
The
excavation
of
redds
by
spawning
adults
may
also
contribute
to
streambed
surface
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
236
coarsening
and
sorting,
and
thereby
reduce
scour
of
incubating
salmon
embryos
during
winter
high
flow
events.

Processes
within
the
freshwater
environment
can
also
influence
the
condition
of
subestuarine
and
nearshore
environments.
Hydrologic
regimes,
as
well
as
transport
and
supply
of
LWD,
sediment,
and
nutrients
from
watersheds
has
a
direct
impact
on
both
the
quantity
and
quality
of
subestuarine
and
nearshore
habitats
used
by
summer
chum.

Historical
Conditions
Historically,
large
intense
prehistoric
wildfires
(
at
200­
400
yr.
intervals)
and
smaller­
scale
windthrow
played
a
major
role
in
shaping
upland
vegetation
habitat
conditions
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
watersheds.
Fire
and
windthrow
disturbances
episodically
supplied
large
quantities
of
LWD
and
sediment
to
stream
channels,
but
riparian
forests
and
other
protected
areas
may
have
escaped
destruction
and
served
to
buffer
aquatic
habitats
against
disturbance.
The
infrequent
nature
of
these
disturbances
moderated
volumes
of
wood
and
sediment
introduced
to
channels
and
allowed
for
habitat
recovery.
Natural
flow
regimes
and
periodic
floods
routed
and
stored
LWD
and
sediment
inputs
through
stream
networks,
contributing
to
high
habitat
diversity
and
complexity.
Low
gradient
reaches
and
floodplains,
where
abundant
quantities
of
LWD
collected
(
frequently
forming
log
jams),
possessed
complex
flow
patterns
that
formed
side
channel
and
backwater
habitats,
where
fish
found
ample
refuge
from
high
flows.
Rivers
and
streams
interacted
with
their
floodplains,
dissipating
the
erosive
energy
of
large
floods.
Riparian
forests
that
provided
shade
and
LWD
to
streams
contained
a
mixture
of
tree
species
of
varying
ages,
though
older
age
classes
and
conifers
were
likely
more
prominent
in
riparian
communities
than
at
present.
Unaltered
upland
drainage
patterns,
wetlands,
and
aquifers
interacted
with
stream
channels
and
moderated
both
winter
peak
flows
and
late
summer
low
flows.
Abundant
large
woody
debris
stabilized
spawning
gravel
and
created
diversity
in
flow
and
cover
characteristics
for
both
juvenile
and
adult
salmon.
Stream
habitat
complexity
and
diversity
provided
summer
chum
with
an
environment
for
spawning
and
incubation
that
was
resilient
to
natural
disturbances.
Fish
access
may
have
been
temporarily
limited
by
natural
blockages
such
as
beaver
dams
or
log
jams,
but
natural
cycles
of
creation
and
collapse
of
these
obstructions
insured
that
summer
chum
had
access
to
adequate
amounts
of
high
quality
habitat.

Variation
in
Watershed
and
Summer
Chum
Population
Characteristics
Regional
variation
in
environmental
factors
produce
differences
in
freshwater
habitat
conditions
that
presumably
shape
unique
life
history
characteristics
of
individual
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations.
Precipitation,
forest
communities,
landform,
underlying
geology,
and
drainage
area
vary
significantly
among
summer
chum
watersheds
with
important
consequences
for
the
hydrology,
channel,
and
floodplain
characteristics
of
individual
watersheds.
The
larger
and
steeper
gradient
west
side
Hood
Canal
watersheds
tend
to
have
relatively
few
stream
miles
accessible
to
summer
chum,
and
cooler
water
temperatures.
In
contrast,
eastside
Hood
Canal
watersheds
have
smaller
drainage
areas,
extensive
headwater
wetlands,
highly
erosive
glacial
sediment
regimes,
and
more
accessible
stream
miles.
Eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
are
also
steep
with
limited
anadromous
habitat,
but
lie
in
the
rainshadow
of
the
Olympic
mountains
and
possess
unique
rainfall­
runoff
characteristics
that
distinguish
them
from
Hood
Canal
streams.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
237
In
response
to
this
variability,
summer
chum
populations
have
evolved
different
freshwater
habitat
utilization
patterns.
For
example,
river
entry
of
adult
summer
chum
is
earlier
for
the
Union
River
population,
as
compared
to
other
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations.
Similarly,
the
delay
between
river
entry
and
spawning
is
more
protracted
in
the
Union
River
as
compared
to
other
Hood
Canal
populations,
which
in
turn
have
longer
adult
freshwater
residence
times
than
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
populations.
Earlier
adult
entry
to
the
Union
River
has
been
hypothesized
to
be
related
to
higher
tidal
flux
during
early
fall,
as
compared
to
other
rivers
within
the
region.
Recognizing
the
importance
of
this
life
history
variation,
the
differences
in
habitat
conditions
across
watersheds,
as
well
as
the
linkages
between
freshwater
and
estuarine
systems
is
essential
if
recovery
is
to
be
successful.

3.4.2.2
Subestuarine
Environment
Life
History
Association
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
subestuary
deltas
support
a
diverse
array
of
habitats
(
tidal
channels,
mudflats,
marshes,
and
eelgrass
meadows)
that
serve
as
critical
rearing
and
transition
environments
for
summer
chum.
Summer
chum
fry
migrate
to
subestuaries
immediately
after
emergence
where
they
may
feed
and
rear
for
days
to
weeks
before
continuing
seaward.
Juveniles
are
thought
to
use
subestuaries
as
temporary
refuge
areas
during
migrations
out
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.5).
Returning
adults
congregate
in
subestuaries
before
ascending
their
natal
streams
to
spawn
and
at
least
one
extirpated
population
(
Big
Beef)
was
known
to
spawn
in
the
intertidal
zone.

Subestuary
Processes
and
Functions
Important
to
Summer
Chum
The
importance
of
subestuaries
for
summer
chum
is
linked
to
the
placement
of
diverse,
productive
habitats
in
areas
where
summer
chum
fry
are
making
dramatic
transitions
in
physiology,
feeding,
and
predator
avoidance
strategies.
Diffuse
networks
of
distributary
channels
allow
fry
migrating
down
rivers
to
access
shallow­
water
wetlands
such
as
tidal
freshwater
sloughs
and
salt
marshes.
In
salt
marshes,
complex,
branching
networks
of
tidal
channels
serve
as
opportune
feeding
areas,
as
well
as
refugia
from
predators
and
migratory
corridors
linking
the
marsh
to
riverine
and
marine
realms
as
well
as
other
estuarine
habitats.
Juvenile
chum
salmon
feed
on
invertebrate
prey
that
depend
on
detritus.
Marshes,
mudflats,
and
riparian
forests
supply
detritus
to
tidal
channels,
algal
mats,
and
eelgrass
meadows
where
summer
chum
and
their
invertebrate
prey
concentrate.
Tidal
channel
and
subtidal
habitats
provide
resting
and
hiding
places
for
summer
chum,
and
expand
salinity
gradients
to
ease
fish
transition
between
fresh­
and
saltwater.
The
seasonal
pulse
in
production
of
shallow­
water
invertebrate
prey
in
subestuaries
is
thought
to
be
an
important
resource
for
juvenile
summer
chum,
enabling
them
to
grow
quickly
and
attain
a
large
size
to
help
them
escape
predation
once
they
begin
their
migration
through
the
open,
deepwater
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.

Variation
in
winter­
early
spring
estuarine
conditions
can
impose
constraints
on
juvenile
feeding,
growth,
migration
timing,
and
ultimately
survival.
Year­
to­
year
variation
in
river
temperatures
and
flows,
timing
of
fry
movement
to
subestuaries,
and
availability
of
prey
in
subestuaries
likely
have
a
large
impact
on
mortality
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
238
of
early
life
stages.
Diversity
in
the
timing
of
fry
emigration
from
rivers,
both
within
and
among
summer
chum
populations
likely
confers
resiliency
to
these
populations,
given
the
variability
of
estuarine
conditions.

The
integrity
of
subestuarine
environments
is
closely
linked
to
ecosystem
processes
in
adjacent
freshwater
and
nearshore
areas.
Subestuaries
route
and
store
riverine­
and
marine­
derived
LWD,
sediment,
and
detritus.
Rivers
and
longshore
currents
transport
LWD
to
subestuarine
deltas
where
it
collects,
serves
as
cover
for
fish,
and
acts
as
a
berm
or
breakwater,
slowing
wave
or
current
action
and
enhancing
sediment
accumulation.
Sediment
supply
from
river
and
nearshore
cliffs
transported
by
cross­
delta
and
longshore
currents
determines
available
substrates
for
eelgrass
and,
in
turn,
invertebrate
prey
on
which
summer
chum
feed.
A
natural
regime
of
freshwater
inflow
and
tidal
exchange
is
essential
for
maintenance
of
tidal
channel
networks
and
the
highly
productive,
detritus­
based
food
web
upon
which
juvenile
chum
depend.
Finally,
tidal
flushing
transports
sediment
offshore
and
maintains
subestuarine
channel
networks,
contributing
to
stable,
slowly
evolving,
complex
and
productive
habitat
for
summer
chum.

Regional
Variation
and
Historical
Conditions
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
subestuaries
vary
widely
in
size,
complexity,
and
configuration.
The
Dungeness
and
westside
Hood
Canal
watersheds
(
Skokomish,
Hamma
Hamma,
Duckabush,
Dosewallips,
and
Big/
Little
Quilcene)
have
extensive,
complex
subestuaries
that
likely
serve
a
broader
function
than
simply
supporting
their
particular
population
of
summer
chum
(
see
3.4.2.3
Estuarine
Landscape,
below).
In
contrast,
eastside
Hood
Canal
subestuaries
are
relatively
small,
and
frequently
exhibit
spit
features.

Historically,
summer
chum
had
unimpeded
access
to
a
diverse
array
of
these
subestuarine
habitats
(
tidal
channels,
mudflats,
marshes,
and
eelgrass
meadows).
Subestuaries
functioned
as
important
pathways
for
the
movement
of
fish,
water,
LWD,
sediment,
and
nutrients
between
freshwater
and
marine
realms,
and
productive
subestuarine
marshes
and
mudflats
sustained
rich
foodwebs
dependent
upon
these
material
fluxes.
Natural
tidal
circulation
and
river
flow
regimes
maintained
supplies
of
LWD,
sediment,
and
detritus
and
provided
a
structurally­
complex
rearing
and
transition
environment
for
summer
chum
that
was
resilient
to
natural
disturbances
such
as
winter
storms.
In
particular,
tidal
action
in
subestuaries
was
unimpeded
by
human
structures
and
effectively
transported
sediment
out
of
river
mouths
to
offshore
areas,
maintaining
structurally­
complex
channel
networks
where
summer
chum
found
abundant
refuge.

3.4.2.3
Estuarine
Landscape
Life
History
Association
The
"
estuarine
landscape"
includes
deepwater,
nearshore
and
subestuarine
delta
environments
used
by
summer
chum
as
they
feed
and
migrate
through
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
for
a
detailed
description
and
assessment
of
the
estuarine
landscape,
see
Appendix
Report
3.5).
The
above
discussion
of
summer
chum
habitat
use,
processes,
and
historical
conditions
in
subestuaries
is
thus
also
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
239
important
for
their
effects
on
the
broader
estuarine
landscape.
Within
the
landscape,
subestuaries
function
as
stopover
sites
for
juvenile
chum
during
their
outmigration,
providing
productive
shallow
water
feeding
and
refuge
areas.
In
addition
to
subestuarine
deltas,
the
landscape
includes
the
nearshore
environment
that
largely
functions
as
a
movement
corridor
for
smaller
summer
chum
fry,
as
well
as
deepwater
habitat
used
by
larger
fry.
The
nearshore
environment
is
comprised
of
narrow,
intertidal­
shallow
subtidal
beaches
with
mixed
cobble­
gravel­
sand
substrates,
which
support
near
continuous
bands
of
eelgrass.
Other
prominent
habitats
that
are
integrated
with
the
eelgrass
corridor
include
macroalgae
and
kelp
beds,
as
well
as
mudand
sand­
flats.
Smaller
juvenile
chum
(<
50­
55
mm
in
length)
feed
and
migrate
in
or
adjacent
to
this
corridor,
while
larger
fish
will
occupy
deeper,
open
water
habitats.

Nearshore
Processes
and
Functions
Important
to
Summer
Chum
Relatively
little
is
known
about
summer
chum
habitat
use
in
the
nearshore
environment
though
it
may
be
presumed
that
smaller
juveniles
require
relatively
contiguous
patches
of
eelgrass
to
feed
and
migrate
in.
Natural
bluff
and
beach
erosion,
working
in
concert
with
longshore
drift,
maintains
beaches
within
discrete
`
drift
cells'.
Eelgrass,
which
is
confined
to
mud
or
sand
substrates
within
a
narrow
intertidal­
shallow
subtidal
zone,
typically
forms
a
continuous
corridor
within
a
drift
cell
but
may
fragment
between
cells
where
deeper
water
or
coarse
substrates
prevent
its
establishment.

Estuarine
Landscape
Features
Important
to
Summer
Chum
Since
summer
chum
fry
tend
to
migrate
in
shallow
water
during
the
early
stages
of
their
migration
out
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
they
are
confined
to
particular
areas
distributed
along
the
shoreline
that
meet
their
habitat
requirements.
Food
availability
and
growth
of
smaller
summer
chum
fry
in
subestuaries
and
shallow
water,
nearshore
environments
affects
the
timing
of
their
transition
to
deep,
open­
water
environments.

The
broad
expanses
of
intertidal
delta
habitats
(
emergent
marsh,
mudflat,
eelgrass,
tidal
channels)
at
the
mouths
of
major
rivers
comprise
critical
feeding,
rearing,
and
stopover
sites
that
are
relatively
dispersed
along
the
fringes
of
the
deeper
water
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Eleven
of
the
twenty
deltas
are
less
than
1
km
in
area
and
only
two
are
>
2
km
,
yet
the
relatively
small
size
of
these
habitat
2
2
"
patches"
may
mask
their
proportionately
large
importance
to
juvenile
summer
chum,
given
their
specific
habitat
requirements
during
this
early,
vulnerable
life
stage.
As
patches
of
productive
shallow
water
feeding
areas,
subestuarine
deltas
(
including
those
that
do
not
support
indigenous
summer
chum
populations)
may
attract
juvenile
summer
chum
from
adjacent
watersheds
and
thereby
serve
a
larger
landscape
function.
Similarly,
shallow­
water
nearshore
environments
used
by
fry
as
a
migration
corridor
are
also
of
limited
extent
but
likely
play
a
disproportionately
large
role
in
the
production
of
juvenile
summer
chum.
Moreover,
particular
eelgrass
corridors
may
be
more
important
than
others,
simply
due
to
their
location
or
orientation
which
would
influence
their
use
by
summer
chum.

Together,
the
subestuarine
deltas,
shallow
nearshore
corridor,
and
deepwater
environments
function
as
interconnected
systems
that
summer
chum
rely
on
for
rearing
and
migration.
The
proximity
or
location
of
these
different
habitats
may
impact
the
overall
integrity
and
productivity
of
the
summer
chum
estuarine
landscape
as
much
as
the
quality
and
quantity
of
the
individual
component
habitats.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
240
3.4.3
Limiting
Factor
Analysis:
Methodology
and
Results
Before
specific
protection
and
restoration
actions
could
be
developed
to
support
the
region­
wide
recovery
of
summer
chum,
detailed
watershed­
specific
information
was
needed
for
each
Hood
Canal/
SJF
summer
chum
population.
A
standardized
approach
was
developed
to
determine
freshwater
limiting
factors
in
each
watershed.
Charles
Simenstad,
UW
research
scientist
and
expert
on
estuarine
life
history
of
salmon,
was
contracted
to
complete
the
analysis
of
subestuarine
impacts.
Species
and
life­
stage
specific
freshwater
and
subestuarine
processes
important
to
summer
chum
(
see
3.4.2),
shaped
the
development
of
our
methodology.
The
protection
and
restoration
strategies
(
section
3.4.4)
were
developed
from
the
details
of
each
watershed
assessment,
and
are
the
natural
outgrowth
of
this
work.

3.4.3.1
Methodology
Watersheds
were
used
as
the
basic
unit
for
the
freshwater
and
subestuary
limiting
factor
analyses.
Each
watershed
contains
a
range
of
habitat
condition
related
to
past
land­
use
and
resource
management.
No
watershed
in
Hood
Canal/
SJF
contains
pristine,
pre­
settlement
conditions.
All
have
been
impacted
in
the
past
and
are
either
at
various
stages
of
recovery
or
continued
degradation.

Watersheds
selected
for
this
analysis
include
those
with
current
summer
chum
populations,
documented
historical
summer
chum
populations,
and
watersheds
with
sufficient
late
summer
discharge
that
potentially
could
have
supported
summer
chum.
Watersheds
with
known
current
or
recently
extinct
populations
are:
Dungeness,
Jimmycomelately,
Salmon,
Snow,
Chimacum,
Little
Quilcene,
Big
Quilcene,
Dosewallips,
Duckabush,
Hamma
Hamma,
Lilliwaup,
Skokomish,
Union,
Tahuya,
Dewatto,
Big
Anderson,
and
Big
Beef.
After
completing
the
analysis,
it
came
to
our
attention
that
Finch
Creek
has
an
extirpated
summer
chum
run.

Watersheds
that
historically
could
have
supported
a
summer
chum
population
were
identified
as:
Stavis,
Seabeck,
Big
Mission,
Fulton,
Eagle,
Jorsted,
Little
Lilliwaup,
Tarboo,
Thorndyke,
Shine,
and
Morse
creeks.
Due
to
time
constraints
only
Stavis,
Seabeck
and
Big
Mission
were
included
in
this
analysis.
Some
of
these
watersheds
have
spawning
survey
data
over
the
previous
25
years
that
observe
summer
chum
in
some
years
and
not
in
others;
the
occurrences
of
summer
chum
were
not
in
sufficient
numbers
or
frequency
to
indicate
a
viable
population
(
Stavis,
Fulton,
Eagle,
Little
Lilliwaup,
and
Morse
creeks,
see
Part
One
­
Life
History
and
Stock
Assessment).
The
other
basins
contain
sufficient
late
summer
flows
and
habitat
conditions
that
historically
a
population
could
have
been
present
(
Seabeck,
Big
Mission,
Jorsted,
Tarboo,
and
Shine
creeks).
Spawning
surveys
on
both
Big
Mission
and
Seabeck
have
shown
a
summer
chum
run
is
not
present.
However
both
streams
are
degraded
and
our
group
felt
that
given
flow
conditions
and
proximity
to
summer
chum
watersheds,
both
could
have
historically
supported
a
population.

Freshwater
Assessment
Fish
biologists
with
field
knowledge
of
Hood
Canal
freshwater
watershed
conditions
were
gathered
to
identify
factors
that
are
determinants
of
the
quality
of
freshwater
summer
chum
habitat
(
Table
3.16).
Habitat
factors
included:
winter
high
flow
and
summer
low
flow;
temperature;
nutrient
loading;
fine
and
coarse
sediment;
LWD
presence;
channel
condition;
loss
of
side
channels;
channel
instability;
riparian
forest
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
241
size,
extent
and
species
composition;
floodplain
wetland
loss;
and
fish
access
and
passage.
These
habitat
factors
were
used
to
determine
habitat
quality
for
the
following
life
stages:
freshwater
migration,
spawning,
incubation,
rearing,
and
saltwater
migration.

For
each
watershed,
the
biologists
as
a
group
rated
the
condition
of
each
habitat
factor
according
to
the
severity
of
impact
(
none,
low,
moderate,
and
high).
The
potential
impacts
to
summer
chum
from
each
limiting
factor
are
described
in
Table
3.16.
For
each
watershed,
a
narrative
summary
was
prepared
that
identifies
habitat­
related
factors
for
decline
(
Appendix
Report
3.6).
Data
were
used,
when
available,
to
rate
habitat
quality
against
that
found
in
relatively
unimpacted
basins.
Information
gaps
were
filled
with
the
habitat
biologist's
field
knowledge
of
each
basin.
Ratings
for
riparian
condition
were
based
upon
the
results
of
the
riparian
assessment
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
A
summary
of
the
available
freshwater
habitat
data
and
how
it
was
rated
is
found
in
Appendix
Report
3.8.
Each
habitat
factor
was
considered
across
the
known
or
presumed
range
of
summer
chum
within
a
watershed,
however
some
(
e.
g.
flow)
had
to
be
discussed
at
the
watershed
scale.
Many
habitat
factors
were
closely
correlated
to
other
factors
(
e.
g.
winter
high
flow,
LWD,
and
channel
instability),
however
in
the
group
discussion
each
factor
was
considered
separately.
The
interaction
of
habitat
factors
as
it
impacts
summer
chum
is
discussed
in
section
3.4.3
(
toolkit),
and
in
the
individual
watershed
narratives
(
Appendix
Report
3.6).
Background
information
for
the
ratings
and
watershed
narratives
included
TFW
ambient
monitoring
data;
completed
state
and
federal
watershed
analyses;
and
temperature,
sediment,
and
stream
discharge
data.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
242
Table
3.16.
Habitat
factors
for
decline
and
supporting
information.

Habitat
Factors
Impacts
to
Channel
Processes
and
Summer
Chum
Life
History
Stages
Affected
*
Supporting
Literature
Winter
high
flow
Redd
scour
through
increased
sediment
transport
I
McNeil
1964,
Tripp
and
Poulin
1986,
Thorne
and
Ames
1987,
Nawa
et
al.
1990,
Chamberlain
et
al.

1991,
Schuett­
Hames
et
al.
1994,
Montgomery
et
al.

1996
Summer
low
flow
Prevention
or
delay
of
upstream
passage,
reduction
of
available
spawning
area
AM,
S
Chamberlain
et
al.
1991,
Johnson
et
al.
1997
Water
temperature
Elevated
temperatures
impede
adult
passage,
cause
direct
mortality,
and
accelerate
development
during
incubation
leading
to
diminished
survival
in
subsequent
life
stages
AM,
S,
I
Beschta
et
al.
1987,
Holtby
and
Scrivener
1989,

Bjornn
and
Reiser
1991,
PNPTC
unpublished
data,

Dissolved
oxygen
Low
dissolved
oxygen
results
in
direct
egg
suffocation
and
diminished
survival
of
subsequent
life
stages
I
Mason
1969,
Koski
1975,
Bams
and
Lam
1983,

Chapman
1988,
Bjornn
and
Reiser
1991,
Peterson
and
Quinn
1994b
Fine
sediment
Suffocation
of
developing
embryos,
entombment
of
fry
in
the
gravel
bed,
compaction
and
cementing
of
spawning
beds
S,
I
Koski
1975
and
1981,
Chapman
1988,
Scrivener
and
Brownlee
1989,
Salo
1991,
McHenry
et
al.
1994,

Peterson
and
Quinn
1994a
Coarse
sediment
Channel
aggradation
leading
to
egg/
fry
entombment,

redd
dislocation
S,
I
Madej
1978,
Tripp
and
Poulin
1986
LWD
Low
levels
may
increase
redd
scour,
contribute
to
channel
instability,
and
limit
availability
of
adult
holding
pools
AM,
S,
I
Bilby
1984,
Sedell
and
Froggatt
1984,
Dolloff
1986,

Lisle
1986a
and
1986b,
Bisson
et
al.
1987,
Bilby
and
Ward
1989,
Montgomery
et
al.
1995
Channel
condition
Reduced
holding
pool
quality
and
availability
renders
adults
vulnerable
to
predation/
harassment;
reduced
channel
complexity
increases
frequency
and
severity
of
redd
scour
AM,
S,
I
Orsborn
and
Ralph
1994,
Beschta
et
al.
1995,

Spence
et
al.
1996
Loss
of
side
channels
Limits
adult
holding
areas,
and
confines
spawning
to
main
channel
areas
where
redds
are
prone
to
scour
AM,
S,
I
Sedell
and
Luchessa
1982,
Sedell
and
Froggatt
1984,
Hirshi
and
Reed
1998
Channel
instability
Increased
substrate
mobility
resulting
in
redd
scour/
entombment
or
de­
watering
of
redds
I
Nawa
and
Frissell
1993,
Orsborn
and
Ralph
1994,

Beschta
et
al.
1995
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
243
Table
3.16.
Habitat
factors
for
decline
and
supporting
information
(
continued).

Habitat
Factors
Impacts
to
Channel
Processes
and
Summer
Chum
Life
History
Stages
Affected1
Supporting
Literature
Riparian
condition
(
species
composition,
age,

and
extent)
Removal
and
modification
of
native
riparian
forests
increases
water
temperatures,
reduces
stability
of
floodplain
landforms,
and
reduces
LWD
recruitment
to
stream
channels
(
see
above)
AM,
S,
I
Bisson
et
al.
1987,
FEMAT
1993,
Beschta
1995
Floodplain
and
wetland
loss
Concentrates
flood
flows
in
main
channel,
increases
peak
flow
volumes,
and
results
in
increased
redd
scour;
loss
of
wetlands
reduce
summer
low
flow
volumes
(
see
above)
AM,
S,
I
Henegar
and
Harmon
1971,
Spence
et
al.
1996
Fish
passage
and
access
In­
channel
structures
obstruct
or
impede
adult
passage;

tidegates
and
dikes
limit
juvenile
access
to
subestuarine
rearing
and
feeding
habitats
AM,
R
Evans
and
Johnson
1980,
Toews
and
Brownlee
1981,
Furniss
et
al.
1991
Estuarine
habitat
loss/
modification
Dikes,
ditches,
and
road
causeways
eliminate
marsh
habitats,
limit
tidal
circulation,
and
reduce
estuarine
productivity
R,
SM
Writght
et
al.
1973,
Beemer
and
LaRock
1998,

Levings
1980,
Levy
and
Northcote
1981,

Simenstad
et
al.
1982,
Varanasi
1993,
Waldichuk
1993,
Thom
et
al.
1994
Nearshore
habitat
loss/
modification
Bulkheads
eliminate
natural
sediment
sources
and
contribute
to
coarsening
of
nearshore
substrates,
which
reduces
or
eliminates
eelgrass
habitats
used
by
chum
fry
R,
SM
Levings
1980,
Waldichuk
1993,
MacDonald
et
al.

1994,
Thom
et
al.
1994
AM
is
Adult
migration,
S
is
spawning,
I
is
incubation,
R
is
rearing,
SM
is
saltwater
migration
1
This
cutoff
is
somewhat
arbitrary
but
necessary
because
the
upstream
extent
of
salinity
intrusion
or
tidal
influence
1
could
not
be
interpreted
from
aerial
photograph
imagery.
In
fact,
this
imposes
a
non­
trivial
underestimate
of
the
actual
estuarine
and
tidal­
freshwater
habitat
used
by
juvenile
salmon
because
forested
wetlands
and
sloughs
above
this
arbitrary
cutoff
could
not
be
included.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
244
Summer
chum
range
was
determined
from
information
supplied
by
WDFW,
with
changes
made
to
a
few
watersheds
when
the
biologists
agreed
that
better
information
existed.
Distribution
for
streams
with
known
extirpated
populations
or
those
that
may
have
had
runs
historically,
was
defined
as
the
portion
of
fall
chum
range
presumed
to
have
adequate
summer
flow
conditions.

Limitations
of
the
freshwater
assessment.
While
14
of
20
watersheds
had
channel
habitat
data,
few
basins
contained
temperature
or
fine
sediment
data
(
Appendix
Report
3.8).
Scour
chain
data,
or
the
effect
of
bed
scour
on
redds,
was
also
available
for
only
a
few
basins.
Data
limitations
will
always
be
a
problem.
The
habitat
assessment
was
designed
to
utilize
both
field
knowledge
and
quantitative
data
in
determining
limiting
factors.
In
addition,
the
full
range
of
impacts
of
some
habitat
factors
to
summer
chum
were
not
considered
due
to
incomplete
knowledge.
For
example,
temperature
was
assessed
only
in
terms
of
lethal
or
sub­
lethal
temperature
to
adult
fish.
Changes
in
the
duration
of
embryo
development
due
to
altered
stream
temperature,
with
potential
negative
impacts
of
early
or
late
emergence,
was
not
considered.
The
upstream
recruitment
potential
of
LWD
outside
of
the
summer
chum
zone
was
also
not
considered.
Large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
was
considered
in
terms
of
pool
formation,
stabilization
of
sediment,
and
formation
of
side
channels.
It
was
beyond
the
scope
of
the
assessment
to
differentiate
how
LWD
creates
habitat
relative
to
basin
size.
Refer
to
section
3.4.5
for
further
discussion
of
research
needs.

Subestuarine
assessment
(
analyzed
by
Simenstad)

1997
aerial
photos
of
20
sub­
estuaries
were
analyzed
to
provide
estimates
of
anthropogenic
impacts
to
estuarine
rearing
capacity
and
natural
migratory
corridors
through
delta
habitat.
Rearing
capacity
refers
to
the
ability
of
delta
habitat
to
supply
prey
to
juvenile
summer
chum,
along
with
providing
cover
to
avoid
predation.
Disruption
or
elimination
of
migratory
corridors
can
negatively
effect
chum
if
they
are
significantly
delayed,
moved
away
from
productive
rearing
areas,
or
forced
into
areas
of
higher
predation
risk.

The
delta
was
defined
as
all
intertidal
and
shallow
subtidal
sediment
accretions
at
the
river
mouth,
while
shrub­
scrub
and
woody
(
forested)
vegetation
was
used
as
the
upland
margin
of
the
delta
.
The
outer
1
margin
of
the
delta
was
the
apparent
margin
of
the
intertidal/
shallow
subtidal
break,
as
evidenced
by
the
outer
margin
of
eelgrass
(
Zostera
marina)
or
change
in
water
color.

The
following
attributes
were
measured
to
identify
and
delineate
sub­
estuary
deltas
and
anthropogenic
changes:
original
delta
area,
diked
area,
filled
area,
dredged
area,
excavated
pond
and
marina
area,
dock
area,
log
storage
area,
aquaculture
area,
unidentified
area,
road
and
causeway
length,
jetty
and
piledike
length,
ditch
and
remnant
dike
length.
Each
feature
was
interpreted
by
examination
of
the
aerial
photograph,
or
its
image
scanned
into
a
computer.
Comparisons
of
computer
images
to
USGS
7.5
minute
quad
maps
were
used
to
check
the
accuracy
of
measurements.
Some
features
were
verified
with
further
discussions
with
field
biologists.
The
historic
landward
extent
of
the
intertidal
area
was
often
particularly
difficult
to
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
245
identify
because
of
extensive
alteration
(
diking,
filling,
and
roads).
While
map
and
aerial
photo
measurements
require
further
groundtruthing
and
historical
analyses
before
they
can
be
considered
highly
accurate,
they
provide
a
valuable
starting
point
to
evaluate
impacts
to
individual
subestuaries.

Impact
ratings
to
individual
subestuaries
were
based
on
changes
to
the
1)
area
of
the
historic
delta
(
and
specific
habitat
within
the
delta),
2)
location
of
features
within
the
delta,
3)
vulnerability
of
impacted
habitat,
and
4)
duration
and
intensity
of
impact
to
summer
chum,
were
considered.
Dikes,
filling,
excavations,
marinas,
and
road
causeways
were
considered
of
long
duration
and
a
high
impact
if
they
occupied
greater
than
20%
of
the
historic
delta.
Ditches,
remnant
dikes,
jetties
and
piledikes,
and
some
road
causeways,
although
not
necessarily
comprising
a
large
proportion
of
the
historic
delta
area,
were
rated
as
moderate
or
high
impact
if
they
potentially
diverted
fish
away
from
remnant
productive
sub­
estuarine
rearing
areas.
Other
structures
such
as
docks
were
considered
to
be
short
duration
and
no
to
low
impact,
because
fish
are
often
able
to
migrate
through
these
structures.
Log
storage
and
aquaculture
were
difficult
to
assess
because
the
extent
and
intensity
of
disturbance
could
not
easily
be
determined
without
field
evaluation.
These
were
assumed
to
be
no
to
low
impact
unless
they
were
extensive
or
other
information
suggested
a
greater
effect.
For
several
subestuaries
(
Dungeness,
Jimmycomelately,
Snow/
Salmon,
Big
and
Little
Quilcene,
Skokomish,
and
Big
Anderson),
field
knowledge
was
used
to
upgrade
or
downgrade
some
of
the
ratings.

Indirect
impacts
to
juvenile
summer
chum,
such
as
those
changes
to
estuarine
circulation
and
sedimentation,
were
also
considered
when
ranking.
For
example,
following
dike
removal,
drainage
and
borrow
ditches
may
still
inhibit
tidal
circulation
and
distribution
of
sediment
within
the
marsh,
thus
potentially
impacting
rearing
and
migration
habitat.

Estuarine
landscape
assessment:
The
estuarine
landscape
occurs
at
the
scale
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
and
includes
those
areas
utilized
by
outmigrating
summer
chum.
Very
little
information
exists
at
this
scale
on
the
impacts
of
development
on
outmigrating
summer
chum.
Indeed,
no
quantitative
information
exists
on
the
quantity
of
shoreline
development
across
Hood
Canal/
SJF.
The
results
are
presented
as
a
discussion
of
potential
nearshore
and
cumulative
effects.

3.4.3.2
Results
of
Limiting
Factor
Analysis
Freshwater
Detailed
description
of
the
results
in
terms
of
habitat
factors
for
decline
and
recovery
for
each
watershed
is
found
in
the
Watershed
Narratives
(
Appendix
Report
3.6).
Please
refer
to
that
for
a
full
discussion
of
limiting
factors
at
the
watershed
scale.
At
the
region­
wide
scale,
protection
and
restoration
strategies
for
each
limiting
factor
for
decline
are
found
in
section
3.4.4.

The
habitat
factors
for
decline
were
rated
for
each
watershed
(
Table
3.17).
When
the
summary
of
habitat
ratings
across
all
watersheds
is
compared
to
stock
status
(
Table
3.17),
it
becomes
apparent
that
for
some
watersheds
degraded
habitat
alone
did
not
cause
the
decline
of
summer
chum.
Habitat
is
just
one
element
in
the
recovery
plan.
However,
each
watershed
we
analyzed
contained
several
to
many
habitat
factors
negatively
impacted
by
landuse.
If
recovery
of
summer
chum
to
a
healthy,
fishable
population
status
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
246
throughout
the
region
is
to
occur
(
and
the
listing
of
other
salmon
prevented),
then
habitat
condition
must
be
returned
to
a
functional
state
throughout
the
region.

Stream
channels,
in
terms
of
LWD,
pool
density,
riparian
forest
size,
type
and
extent,
and
subestuaries,
were
with
few
exceptions,
moderately
to
highly
degraded
throughout
the
region
(
Figure
3.2).
In
about
half
of
the
basins,
peak
and
low
flow,
and
sediment
aggradation
were
also
considered
a
moderate
to
high
impact.
During
the
past
150
years,
logging,
road
building,
rural
development,
agriculture,
water
withdrawal,
and
channel
manipulations
(
stream
cleanout,
dredging,
straightening)
were
common
and
widespread,
especially
within
low
gradient
stream
reaches
utilized
by
summer
chum.

Overall,
fifteen
of
the
20
watersheds
contained
simplified,
degraded
channels
surrounded
by
absent
or
small
diameter,
deciduous
dominated
riparian
forests
(
Table
3.17,
Figure
3.2).
The
Dungeness,
Jimmycomelately,
Snow,
Salmon,
Big
Quilcene,
Little
Quilcene,
Skokomish,
and
Seabeck
were
the
most
severely
degraded.
The
Dungeness,
Jimmycomelately,
Snow
and
Skokomish
all
had
severe
problems
with
winter
flow
and
sediment
aggradation.
In
all
these
watersheds
except
Seabeck
and
Salmon,
summer
low
flow
was
considered
a
severe
problem.
Channel,
riparian
forest,
and
subestuarine
conditions
for
all
the
watersheds
were
moderately
to
severely
degraded.
Finally,
most
of
these
watersheds
contained
a
high
percentage
of
landuse
within
the
riparian
zone
(
Appendix
Report
3.7).
Close
behind
in
terms
of
degraded
habitat
were
Big
Beef,
Union,
and
Hamma
Hamma.
We
considered
the
Union
stock
particularly
vulnerable
due
to
the
rapid
urbanization
around
Belfair,
along
with
a
degraded
riparian
forest
and
subestuary.
The
Union
stock
is
the
only
stock
rated
"
healthy."
A
full
description
of
the
limiting
habitat
factors
and
needed
action
for
recovery
for
each
watershed
is
found
in
the
watershed
narratives
(
Appendix
Report
3.6).

The
Tahuya,
Dewatto,
and
Stavis
watersheds
and
subestuaries
are
recovering
and
in
good
condition.
The
Tahuya,
however,
is
vulnerable
to
habitat
degradation
with
a
small,
deciduous
dominated
riparian
forest,
and
agricultural
and
residential
development
within
the
100
year
floodplain
at
several
locations.
Summer
chum
is
extinct
in
all
three
watersheds.
Moderately
degraded
with
areas
of
good
habitat
are
Chimacum,
Dosewallips,
Duckabush,
Lilliwaup
and
Big
Anderson
watersheds.
As
described
in
the
Watershed
Narratives
(
Appendix
Report
3.6),
habitat
protection
in
terms
of
floodplain
and
easements
or
outright
purchase
(
along
with
the
land
bordering
subestuaries)
will
be
especially
useful
in
all
these
watersheds.
However,
easements
and
purchase
should
be
considered
for
any
watershed
if
good
quality
remnant
habitat
exists.
Overall,
we
recommend
that
habitat
protection
in
terms
of
land­
use
regulation
should
be
broadly
applied
in
all
watersheds
across
the
region.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
247
Table
3.17.
Summary
of
ratings
for
habitat
factors
for
decline.
The
ratings
are
0­
no
impact
to
chum,
1­
low
impact,
2­
moderate
impact,
and
3­
high
impact.
A
"?"
by
itself
means
not
enough
information
existed
to
make
a
call.
A
number
followed
by
a
question
mark
means
there
was
uncertainty
over
the
call;
the
number
represents
an
estimate.
For
stock
status,
potential
habitat
has
adequate
flows
and
habitat,
but
no
surveyed
historical
run
(
see
section
3.4.3.1
­
Methodology
for
further
information).
Watersheds
are
organized
by
the
geographic
position
within
Hood
Canal/
SJF.
*
Skokomish
includes
the
Miaistem/
NF
(
RM
0­
15.6),
SF
(
0­
5.0),
Vance
(
0­
3.0),
Richert
Springs
(
0­
0.3),
Purdy
(
0­
1.5),
Weaver
(
0­
3.5),
and
hunter
Ck
(
0­
3.5).

WATERSHED
Dung.
JimCo
Salmon
Snow
Chim.
LitQuil
BigQui
l
Dose.
Duck.
Hama
Lilli.
Skok.
Union
BigMis
Tahuya
Dewatt
Ander.
Stavis
Seabeck
BigBf
Presumed
FW
Dist.

(
RM)
0­
10.8
0­
1.5
0­
2.0
0.­
3.0
0­
3.0
0­
3.0
0.4.8
0­
4.3
0­
3.0
0­
2.0
0­
0.7
0­
15.6*
0­
6.0
0­
1.5
0­
8.0
0­
4.0
0­
1.8
0­
0.6
0­
0.9
0­
6.0
Confidence
Measure
High
High
Mod
Mod
Mod
High
High
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
High
High
Mod
Mod
Mod
High
High
Mod
High
Stock
Status
(
Part
1)
Unk.
Critical
Depr.
Depr.
Extinct
Depr.
Depr.
Depr.
Depr.
Depr.
Critical
Extinct
Healthy
Pot.
Extinct
Extinct
Extinct
Pot.
Pot.
Extinct
HABITAT
FACTORS:

Flow
Winter
î
í
î
?
î
í
í
í
ì
ì
ì
0
î
ì
?
0?
?
0
í
ì
?
í
î
Summer
î
ì
?
î
í
î
î
0
0
0
0
î
ì
?
ì
?
0
0
0
ì
í
í
Water
Quality
Temperature
í
í
?
í
í
ì
ì
?
0
0
0
ì
?
ì
ì
?
0?
î
î
0
0
0
í
Other
(
FC,
nutrients,
DO)
î
?
ì
ì
?
í
0
0
0
0
?
0
ì
ì
?
ì
?
0
0
0
ì
?
0
Sediment
Aggradation
î
î
ì
î
ì
í
î
ì
ì
ì
0
î
0
ì
0
0
î
í
î
î
Degradation
?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
í
0
0
0
?
0
0
0
í
í
ì
Fines
í
?
í
í
î
î
í
í
0
0
ì
0
0
ì
?
ì
í
í
ì
î
î
Channel
Complexity
LWD
î
î
î
î
ì
î
î
î
î
î
ì
î
í
î
î
í
í
í
î
í
Channel
condition
î
î
í
î
ì
î
î
í
í
í
í
î
í
î
ì
ì
ì
ì
í
í
Loss
of
side
channel
î
î
í
î
ì
î
î
í
í
í
ì
î
ì
?
ì
?
ì
ì
ì
ì
í
î
Channel
instability
î
î
ì
?
î
í
î
î
ì
ì
ì
ì
î
í
î
í
ì
î
ì
í
î
Riparian
Condition
Species
Composition
í
í
í
î
í
î
í
í
í
ì
í
î
î
î
î
í
î
í
í
í
Age
î
í
í
î
î
î
î
î
í
î
í
î
î
í
í
í
î
í
í
í
Extent
í
î
î
î
í
î
í
ì
ì
ì
í
í
í
í
ì
ì
í
ì
î
ì
Floodplain
loss
í
?
ì
?
í
î
î
î
í
í
?
ì
î
ì
?
ì
?
ì
ì
ì
ì
ì
?
í
Subestuary
î
î
í
î
í
î
î
í
í
î
í
î
î
î
ì
ì
í
ì
î
î
Fish
Access/
Passage
í
í
í
ì
0
ì
í
0
0
0
0
ì
ì
ì
0
0
ì
0
ì
?
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
248
Table
3.18.
Summary
of
ratings
for
the
subestuarine
factors
for
decline.
The
ratings
are
0­
no
impact
to
chum,
1­
low
impact,
2­
moderate
impact,
and
3­
high
impact.
A
"?"
by
itself
means
not
enough
information
existed
to
make
a
call.
A
number
followed
by
a
question
mark
means
there
was
uncertainty
over
the
call;
the
number
represents
an
estimate.
The
overall
"
subestuary"

rating
in
Table
3.17
is
a
synthesis
of
these
ratings.
Diking,
road/
causeways,
ditches,
filling,
and
dredging
all
influenced
the
overall
rating
in
Table
3.17
to
a
greater
extent
than
the
remaining
subestuary
habitat
factors.

Subestuary
Dung.
JimCo
Snow/
Salmon
Chim.
LitQuil
BigQui
l
Dose.
Duck.
Hama
Lilli.
Skok.
Union
BigMis
Tahuya
Dewatt
Ander.
Stavis
Seabeck
BigBf
HABITAT
FACTORS:

Diking
î
í
î
0
î
î
î
?
í
?
î
í
î
?
î
î
0
0
0
0
0
0
Roads/
causeways
í
î
í
í
ì
0
ì
í
î
?
í
?
í
0
0
í
0
í
?
ì
0
î
Ditches
or
remnant
dikes
ì
ì
0
0
0
0
ì
ì
0
0
0
î
?
ì
0
0
í
0
0
0
Filling
í
?
ì
í
í
0
í
í
ì
ì
ì
ì
í
?
ì
ì
0
0
î
?
ì
Dredging
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
î
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Excavation
or
Marinas
0
0
ì
0
0
í
?
0
0
0
ì
0
ì
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Docks
ì
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ì
0
ì
0
0
0
0
0
0
ì
ì
Log
Storage
ì
î
0
í
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Aquaculture
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ì
?
0
0
0
0
0
0
ì
0
0
0
Jetties
or
piledikes
0
í
?
0
0
0
ì
?
0
0
ì
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
249
Figure
3.2.
Habitat
factors
organized
by
impact
for
the
entire
summer
chum
region.
Uncertainty
highlights
areas
where
further
research
is
needed.
Ulva
sp.
is
commonly
found
to
respond
positively
to
increases
in
nitrogen
loading
in
marine
waters.
Furthermore,
2
shifts
from
eelgrass
to
ulvoids
are
theorized
to
force
ecosystem
shifts
by
changing
both
water
flow
and
substrate
composition
(
Shaffer
and
Burge,
in
press).

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
250
Subestuaries
Nearly
all
subestuaries
within
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
have
been
developed
over
the
past
150
years.
Eleven
of
the
20
subestuaries
were
severely
degraded,
with
an
additional
five
subestuaries
moderately
degraded
(
Table
3.18).
Dikes,
roads
or
causeways,
remnant
dikes
or
ditches,
and
fill
were
considered
the
most
important
impacts
to
summer
chum.
In
the
Dungeness,
Snow,
Big
and
Little
Quilcene,
Dosewallips,
Hamma
Hamma,
Skokomish,
Union,
Big
Mission,
and
Seabeck,
dike
construction
and
filling
has
eliminated
productive
marsh
and
tidal
channel
habitats.
Road
fill,
jetty,
and
piledike
construction
has
disrupted
tidal
circulation
and
restricted
fish
access
in
the
Tahuya,
Skokomish,
Lilliwaup,
Hamma
Hamma,
Anderson,
Duckabush,
Dosewallips,
Big
Beef,
Snow,
Salmon,
Jimmycomelately
and
Dungeness.
Altered
river
and
tidal
dynamics
has
likely
undermined
the
productivity
of
the
subestuarine
food
web
and
thus
the
carrying
capacity
of
this
environment
for
chum
and
other
salmonids.
In
the
Hamma
Hamma,
dredging,
ditching,
excavation,
and
oyster
culture
that
involve
frequent
disturbance
to
substrates
have
modified
the
structure,
configuration,
and
proportion
of
shallow­
and
deepwater
habitats.
For
most
subestuaries
there
is
no
data
on
changes
to
the
areal
extent
and
distribution
of
eelgrass
through
time.
However,
between
1987
and
1993,
eelgrass
declined
by
31%
in
Dungeness
Bay,
in
large
measure
due
to
the
impact
of
ulvoid
algae
mats
(
Wilson
1993)
.
Not
considered,
due
to
the
lack
2
of
information,
was
the
potential
impact
of
water
quality
in
the
subestuary
on
summer
chum.
For
example
since
1985,
Lynch
Cove
(
Union
River),
Duckabush,
Dosewallips
and
Quilcene
Bay
all
have
had
shellfish
closures
for
at
least
one
summer
(
Cook­
Tabor
1995).

Landscape­
nearshore
­
Settlement
and
shoreline
development
has
fragmented
and
degraded
summer
chum
nearshore
habitat.
The
installation
of
bulkheads
(
especially
those
built
with
rock
or
concrete)
and
docks,
operation
of
boats,
and
destruction
of
shoreline
vegetation
have
altered
shoreline
habitat
structure.
An
enormous
loss
of
marine
riparian
vegetation
has
occurred
as
a
result
of
shoreline
bulkhead
construction
and
development.
Bulkheads,
nearly
continuous
along
parts
of
Hood
Canal,
coarsen
nearshore
substrates
through
eliminating
sources
of
beach
sediment
and
increasing
beach
erosion
from
intensified
wave
energy.
Summer
chum
<
50­
55
mm
in
length
appear
to
be
closely
associated
with
the
shallow
eelgrass
habitat
that
is
lost
with
the
coarsened
beach
sediment
(
Appendix
Report
3.5).
Shading
from
docks
slows
eelgrass
growth/
recruitment,
and
LWD
removal
from
shorelines
reduces
immediate
habitat
structure,
as
well
as
sources
of
LWD
for
subestuaries.
Bulkheads,
fill,
and
docks
in
the
lower
intertidal
zone
also
force
chum
fry
into
deep
water
where
they
may
become
more
vulnerable
to
predation.
Bulkheads
may
also
reduce
prey
items
and
increase
predator
densities.
How
and
when
summer
chum
use
these
habitats
needs
further
study.
Continued
shoreline
development
of
Kitsap,
Mason,
Jefferson,
and
Clallam
counties
will
impact
summer
chum
and
a
whole
community
of
organisms
that
utilize
eelgrass
habitat.
Recovery
of
nearshore
habitats
for
summer
chum
should
emphasize
protection
of
beach
sediment
sources,
unaltered,
natural
shoreline
areas,
and
intertidal­
shallow
subtidal
vegetation
habitats.
A
high
priority
for
study
is
a
detailed
assessment
of
the
location
and
amount
of
bulkheads
and
other
shoreline
structures
throughout
the
region.
See
section
3.4.4.2,
nearshore
toolkit,
for
a
full
discussion
of
protection
and
restoration
measures.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
251
Landscape­
cumulative
­
The
historic
changes
to
integrity
of
subestuarine
and
nearshore
environments
must
be
considered
within
the
wider
context
of
the
Hood
Canal/
SJF
estuarine
landscape.
As
patches
of
productive
shallow
water
feeding
areas,
subestuarine
deltas
may
attract
juvenile
summer
chum
from
adjacent
watersheds.
Particular
patches
of
nearshore
eelgrass
may
be
more
critical
than
other
patches
simply
due
to
their
location
or
orientation.
The
importance
of
particular
patches
within
the
region
needs
further
study.
For
example,
the
Skokomish
subestuary
may
function
as
rearing
habitat
for
juveniles
originating
in
nearby
watersheds
or
those
east
to
the
Union
River
The
Skokomish
is
potentially
the
most
productive
subestuary
in
Hood
Canal
due
to
its
size
and
location.
The
subestuary
is
degraded
due
to
diking
and
roads.
Residences
and
Highway
101
extend
in
a
nearly
continuous
strip
along
the
shoreline
from
the
Skokomish
River
north
to
the
Lilliwaup
River
Across
Hood
Canal,
west
of
the
Tahuya
River
to
Rendsland
Creek
is
another
nearly
continuous
strip
of
road
and
houses.
Both
areas
are
substantially
bulkheaded.
It
is
not
known
what
the
regional
impact
of
this
development
has
on
summer
chum,
however
at
a
landscape
scale
it
is
likely
important.

3.4.4
Protection/
Restoration
Strategy
The
following
section
contains
a
restoration
and
protection
strategy
to
address
those
habitat
parameters
found
to
be
limiting
summer
chum
production
across
critical
life
stages.
Protection
and
restoration
principles
are
first
defined
that
provide
the
general
framework
for
specific
action
strategies
to
protect
and
recover
summer
chum
habitat.
The
action
strategies
are
outlined
in
a
"
toolkit".
Priorities
for
action
by
individual
watershed
are
addressed
in
watershed
narratives
(
Appendix
Report
3.6).
Guidance
on
selection
of
specific
restoration
projects
is
also
outlined.
Implementation
of
these
strategies
is
outlined
by
authority
and
jurisdiction
in
section
3.4.6.

3.4.4.1
Protection/
Restoration
Strategy
Overview
The
goal
of
the
protection
and
restoration
strategy
is
to
maintain
and
recover
the
full
array
of
watershed
and
estuarine­
nearshore
processes
critical
to
the
survival
of
summer
chum
across
all
life
stages
(
Table
3.19).
Key
watershed
processes
include
transport
and
deposition
of
sediment,
riparian
forest
and
floodplain
interactions,
a
subestuary
molded
by
tidal
energy,
and
the
hydrology
necessary
for
creation
and
maintenance
of
key
habitats.
Key
habitats
for
summer
chum
salmon
include
the
lower
mainstems
and
floodplains,
subestuaries
and
nearshore
environments.

Protection
of
existing
habitat
is
generally
the
first
level
of
defense
in
this
strategy.
The
recommendations
listed
in
the
plan
should
be
applied
to
all
watersheds
currently,
historically,
or
with
the
potential
to
support
summer
chum
to
allow
full
recovery
across
the
Hood
Canal/
Eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region.
Many
of
the
recommendations
address
processes
that
originate
above
the
summer
chum
zone,
and
as
such,
will
involve
actions
throughout
the
watershed.
Watershed
scale
protection
will
benefit
not
only
summer
chum
but
other
aquatic
resources
as
well.
Protection
strategies
are
of
two
general
types:
1)
regulatory
standards
to
be
implemented
by
the
appropriate
jurisdiction;
and
2)
habitat
acquisition
through
direct
purchase,
conservation
easements,
and
mitigation
banking.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
252
"
The
return
of
an
ecosystem
to
a
close
approximation
of
its
condition
prior
to
disturbance.
In
restoration,
ecological
damage
to
the
resource
is
repaired.
Both
the
structure
and
the
functions
of
the
ecosystem
are
recreated.
Merely
recreating
form
without
the
function,
or
the
functions
in
an
artificial
configuration
bearing
little
resemblance
to
a
natural
resource,
does
not
constitute
restoration.
The
goal
is
to
emulate
a
natural,
functioning,
self­
regulating
system
that
is
integrated
with
the
ecological
landscape
in
which
it
occurs."
National
Research
Council
(
1992)
Protection
standards
are
based
on
the
most
recent
scientific
literature,
provide
a
margin
of
safety
in
the
face
of
uncertainty,
take
into
account
natural
disturbance
regimes,
and
may
be
modified
as
new
information
becomes
available.

Table
3.19.
Recovery
objectives
by
life
stage.

Life
Stage
Recovery
objective
Freshwater
migration
Provide
free
and
unimpeded
access
to
migrating
adult
and
emigrating
juvenile
chum
through
elimination
of
existing
human
caused
barriers
and
maintenance
of
adequate
flow
and
complex
habitat.

Spawning
Improve
the
stability,
quantity,
and
quality
of
spawning
habitat
by
providing
adequate
streamflow;
providing
suitable
quality
and
quantity
of
spawning
gravel;
restoring
a
stable
channel
bed
through
dike
removal,
floodplain
reconnection,
subestuarine
tidal
channel
reconnection,
and
the
placement
of
large
woody
debris;
and
providing
favorable
stream
temperatures
through
the
protection
and
restoration
of
adequate
riparian
buffers.

Incubation
Improve
egg
incubation
success
by
providing
stable,
complex
channel
conditions
that
moderate
peak
winter
flow
effects.

Rearing
Protect
or
restore
natural
delta
morphologies
of
Hood
Canal
tributaries
to
allow
for
unrestricted
estuarine
circulation,
natural
sediment
transport/
storage
rates,
and
development
of
tidal
channels.
Protect
and
restore
eelgrass
beds
in
the
subestuarine
delta.

Saltwater
migration
Protect
beach
sediment
sources,
unaltered,
natural
shoreline
areas,
and
intertidal­
shallow
and
subtidal
eelgrass
habitat.

Given
the
degraded
condition
of
many
watersheds,
restoration
will
be
an
important
component
of
summer
chum
recovery
efforts.
For
the
purposes
of
this
habitat
section,
restoration
is
defined
as:

Habitat
restoration
is
viewed
as
a
complementary
strategy
rather
than
as
a
substitute
for
protection.
In
order
to
succeed,
restoration
must
focus
on
re­
establishing
watershed
processes
rather
than
addressing
simply
symptoms
of
watershed
degradation.
Priorities
for
restoration
include:
1)
taking
actions
to
further
secure
existing
good
quality
habitat;
2)
restoring
watershed
processes
in
areas
deemed
to
have
a
high
likelihood
of
success;
3)
remedying
site
specific
problems
while
considering
upstream/
downstream
conditions.
Due
to
the
high
cost
and
relatively
new
science
involved
in
restoration,
it
is
important
that
restoration
activities
be
prioritized
to
make
efficient
use
of
limited
restoration
funds.
For
lands
and
forest
practice
activities
regulated
by
state
forest
practice
regulations,
WDFW
is
on
record
supporting
3
the
Forest
and
Fish
Report
and
the
protective
provisions
contained
therein.
Not
all
tribes
endorse
the
Forest
and
Fish
plan.
WDFW
continues
to
support
this
agreement
as
a
reasonable
approach
to
providing
properly
functioning
habitat
conditions
on
these
lands,
provided
that
the
Forest
Practices
Board
adopts
all
the
necessary
regulations
to
implement
the
agreement,
adequate
funding
remains
available
to
support
the
adaptive
management
provisions,
and
the
comanagers
are
adequately
funded
to
participate
in
implementing
the
agreement.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
253
3.4.4.2
Tool
Kit
of
Protection/
Restoration
Strategies
by
Habitat
Parameter
The
following
presentation
describes
protection
and
restoration
strategies
for
seven
primary
habitat
features
within
the
freshwater
habitat
(
flow,
water
quality,
channel
complexity/
floodplain,
sediment,
riparian
forest,
fish
access/
passage)
and
for
estuarine
and
nearshore
habitats.
The
purpose
is
to
provide
a
"
tool
kit"
of
alternative
strategies
applicable
to
each
habitat
parameter.

Each
habitat
parameter
is
introduced
with
a
problem
statement
that
links
the
parameter
to
an
associated
life
stage
as
well
as
defining
sources
of
impairment.
This
is
followed
by
an
objective
for
recovery
and
description
of
protection
and
restoration
strategies.
Because
of
the
interrelationship
between
factors,
some
strategies
may
overlap
and
some
strategies
may
be
more
restrictive
than
others.
In
those
cases,
the
most
restrictive
standard
should
apply.
For
each
watershed,
the
appropriate
strategies
are
found
under
the
Factors
for
Recovery
section
of
the
watershed
narratives
in
Appendix
Report
3.6.

The
strategies
presented
here
are
not
totally
exclusive;
others
strategies
such
as
habitat
conservation
plans
and
other
local
agreements
may
be
included
as
long
as
they
achieve
the
stated
objective.
3
Flow
A.
Low
Flow
Problem
Statement:
Natural
low
stream
flows
from
August
to
October
are
exacerbated
by
water
withdrawals,
sediment
aggradation,
forest
management,
extent
of
impervious
surfaces,
and
alteration
of
floodplains
and
groundwater
recharge
areas.
These
impacts
have
hindered
or
prevented
upstream
migration,
reduced
the
available
area
for
spawning,
caused
dewatering
of
redds,
or
forced
spawning
in
the
mid­
channel,
an
area
that
is
more
vulnerable
to
winter
flows
and
associated
scour
of
eggs.

Objective:
Provide
adequate
stream
flow
to
allow
upstream
migration
and
spawning
within
stable
habitat,
especially
during
natural
drought
cycles.

Protection
Strategies:

1.
Establish
adequate
instream
flow
levels
to
meet
the
stated
objective.
Department
of
Ecology
should
conduct
studies,
identify
target
instream
flows
and
condition
all
water
right
applications
consistent
with
WDFW,
Washington
Department
of
Ecology,
and
other
state
agencies
have
recognized
the
Watershed
Planning
4
process
created
under
RCW
90.82
(
HB
2514)
as
a
reasonable
approach
to
provide
properly
functioning
habitat
conditions
with
respect
to
the
establishment
of
minimum
instream
flows.
Not
all
tribes
endorse
the
Watershed
Planning
process;
some
are
participating
under
a
specific
set
of
conditions.
Where
local
watershed
groups
organized
through
the
HB
2514
process
have
failed
to
act,
adopt,
implement,
or
achieve
the
stated
objective,
then
the
strategies
outlined
in
this
section
should
be
followed.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
254
this
standard.
Instream
flows
and
closures
have
been
established
for
WRIA
15,
but
not
WRIA
16,
4
17,
or
18.
2.
For
streams
with
completed
flow
studies
but
not
yet
adopted
by
rule,
adopt
recommended
instream
flow.
3.
Water
right
compliance
should
be
enforced
and
illegal
users
prosecuted.
4.
Single
family
wells
are
currently
exempt
and
unregulated
by
the
Department
of
Ecology,
but
when
considered
as
a
whole
for
a
watershed,
with
other
issues
such
as
watershed
geology,
these
wells
may
impact
streamflow,
especially
during
summer
low
flow.
The
number
of
exempt
wells
in
a
watershed
and
their
impact
to
streamflow
needs
to
be
quantified.
Local
governments
may
have
to
restrict
building
permits
or
use
some
other
measures
in
areas
where
exempt
wells
are
potentially
in
hydrologic
continuity
with
streamflow.

Restoration
Options:

1.
To
restore
recommended
flows
to
overappropriated
streams
(
watersheds
with
a
completed
flow
study
and
with
water
rights
that
exceed
recommended
flows),
establish
mandatory
water
conservation
programs,
enact
emergency
water
conservation
measures
during
critical
low
flow
periods,
and
investigate
the
feasibility
of
trust
water
right
programs
or
other
water
conservation
measures
such
as
purchase
of
existing
water
rights.
2.
Restore
lost,
isolated,
or
degraded
wetlands
to
promote
hydrologic
connectivity
between
streams
and
wetlands.
3.
Reconnect
and
revegetate
floodplains
throughout
summer
chum
watersheds
to
allow
for
greater
longterm
water
storage
and
groundwater
recharge.
4.
Require
stormwater
management
and
reduce
the
extent
of
impervious
surfaces
to
increase
the
contribution
of
rainwater
to
groundwater
recharge,
and
ultimately
summer
baseflow
(
see
Peak
Flow).

B.
Peak
Flow
Problem
Statement:
Simplification
of
the
drainage
network
has
increased
the
frequency,
magnitude,
and
duration
of
peak
flows,
affecting
spawning
success
and
egg
incubation
mortality.
Modifications
include
increases
in
the
amount
of
impervious
surfaces,
diking,
clearing
of
vegetation
for
forestry
and
development,
draining
and
ditching
of
wetlands,
and
improper
routing
of
runoff
from
roads.
The
end
result
is
horizontal
and
vertical
instability
in
stream
channels,
loss
of
habitat
complexity
due
to
displacement
of
LWD,
and
increased
depth
of
scour
in
streambeds
due
to
increased
hydrologic
power.
Increased
peak
flows
have
the
greatest
impact
during
the
period
when
eggs
are
incubating
in
the
gravel.

Objective:
Prevent
or
minimize
anthropogenic
increases
to
peak
flows
which
displace
summer
chum
fry
or
scour
redds.
Threshold
for
effective
impervious
area
is
based
on
Booth
and
Jackson
(
1997);
and
May
et
al.
(
1997).
We
lack
a
precise
5
understanding
of
the
level
of
impervious
surface
development
at
which
peak
flows
become
a
problem.
In
reality,
the
designation
of
a
single
threshold
is
highly
problematic
because
variation
in
soils,
rainfall,
and
the
location
of
development
can
produce
highly
variable
patterns
of
water
delivery
to
stream
channels
at
similar
levels
of
development.
However,
we
recognize
that
there
is
a
pressing
need
for
this
information
to
direct
local
planning
and
we
believe
it
is
noteworthy
that
there
are
no
basins
with
levels
of
development
>
5­
10%
where
little
or
no
impact
exists.
Consequently
we
use
5%
EIA
as
a
conservative
threshold
until
further
information
becomes
available.

Retention
of
forest
cover
based
on
Horner
and
May
(
1998);
King
County
(
1989);
Holtz
et
al
(
1998).
6
Innovative
design
standards
refers
to
new
site
planning
techniques
that
utilize
open
space
subdivision,
cluster
7
development,
smaller
lot
sizes,
narrower
streets,
greener
and
smaller
parking
lots,
integration
of
unaltered
forest
and
vegetated
areas
into
developments
to
serve
as
zones
of
stormwater
infiltration,
stream
buffers,
stormwater
practices,
and
other
measures
designed
to
reduce
impervious
surfaces
and
conserve
natural
areas
(
Holtz
et
al.
1998)

"
Zero­
impact"
design
is
a
series
of
techniques
and
practices
directed
at
reducing
the
amount
of
effective
impervious
8
area.
Examples
of
such
techniques
include
eco­
roofs
(
a
green
living
roof
composed
of
vegetation
and
soil),
rainbarrels
bioretention,
alternative
paving
surfaces,
soils
amendments,
filter
strips
and
filter­
swale
systems
(
Holtz
et
al.
1998).

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
255
Protection
Strategies:

1.
Establish
a
maximum
impervious
area
based
on
best
available
science
for
all
basins
and
condition
land
use
permits
to
be
consistent
with
the
stated
objective.
To
minimize
effects
on
stream
ecosystems,
establish
5%
effective
impervious
area
(
EIA)
as
an
interim
threshold.
In
basins
with
existing
EIA
>
5%
5
see
restoration
option
#
2.
2.
Require
stormwater
management
practices
on
all
new
development,
at
the
scale
of
individual
parcels.
Minimize
stormwater
runoff
by
establishing
low
zoning
densities
in
rural
areas
to
minimize
the
amount
of
impervious
surfaces,
and
retain
60%
or
more
of
a
watershed
in
native
forest
vegetation
.
In
both
6
rural
and
urban
areas,
require
the
use
of
innovative
development
and
zero­
impact
design
standards.
7
8
3.
Ensure
adequate
cross
drainage
in
ditchlines
and
mimic
stormwater
flow
in
undeveloped
basins
by
infiltration
of
stormwater
into
retention
ponds,
grassy
swales,
forest
floor,
and
constructed
wetlands
prior
to
entering
the
stream
network.
4.
New
roads
should
be
designed
and
constructed
using
techniques
that
minimize
watershed­
scale
impacts.
Such
techniques
include
the
use
of
narrow
roads
and
limited
overall
road
network
density
within
the
watershed.

Restoration
Options:

1.
To
minimize
channel
instability
associated
with
peak
flows,
re­
vegetate
degraded
riparian
zones.
2.
For
basins
with
existing
EIA
>
5%,
provide
stormwater
retention/
detention
facilities
for
development
where
it
is
currently
lacking,
and
remove/
refit
unnecessary
impervious
surfaces.
3.
To
increase
channel
complexity
and
reduce
the
impact
of
peak
flows,
evaluate
the
potential
to
restore
large
woody
debris
in
appropriate
sites
(
see
Channel
Complexity
section).
4.
To
increase
floodwater
storage
capacity,
restore
wetlands
within
the
entire
basin.
5.
Remove
dikes
to
allow
access
of
floodwater
to
the
floodplain
(
see
Channel
Complexity).

Water
Quality
Riparian
buffer
widths
for
maintaining
stream
temperatures
are
based
on
Brosofske
et
al.
1997,
Pollock
and
Kennard,
9
1998.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
256
A.
Temperature
Problem
Statement:
Adult
summer
chum
enter
subestuaries
and
rivers
to
spawn
during
or
immediately
following
the
period
of
annual
thermal
maxima
and
are
thus
vulnerable
to
peak
temperatures,
especially
in
streams
with
extensive
groundwater
or
surface
water
extraction.
Absent
or
degraded
riparian
corridors
provide
inadequate
shading
in
many
Hood
Canal/
SJF
summer
chum
natal
streams,
and
potential
climate
change
poses
a
threat
in
many
streams
with
current
healthy
thermal
regimes.
Secondary
and
potential
impacts
to
stream
temperature
include
channel
widening
which
exposes
a
larger
surface
to
solar
radiation,
and
thermal
heating
of
shallow
groundwater
related
to
vegetation
clearing.

Objective:
Promote
or
re­
establish
temperature
regimes
favorable
for
summer
chum
spawning
and
egg
incubation
life
stages.
Target
temperature
ranges
are
7­
12
E
C
for
spawning
and
4­
13
E
C
for
incubation
(
Bjornn
and
Reiser
1991).

Protection
Strategies:

1.
For
perennial
streams,
provide
a
250­
foot,
fully
vegetated
stream
buffer
measured
from
the
edge
of
the
channel
migration
zone
or
100­
year
floodplain.
For
seasonal
streams,
the
buffer
width
should
9
equal
a
site
potential
tree
height
(
see
Riparian
Areas
section).
Alternative
strategies
must
be
site
specific
and
use
best
available
science
to
provide
properly
functioning
habitat
for
summer
chum
salmon.
The
burden
of
demonstrating
the
sufficiency
of
an
alternative
strategy
rests
with
the
landowner
(
see
footnote
3
in
the
introduction
to
section
3.4.4.2
regarding
the
Forest
and
Fish
Report).
2.
Prohibit
additional
surface
water
withdrawal
and
limit
groundwater
extraction
in
basins
rated
as
moderate
or
high
impact
for
temperature,
unless
the
location
is
not
in
hydrologic
continuity
with
the
stream.

Restoration
Options:

1.
Re­
vegetate
degraded
riparian
areas
(
see
Riparian
Areas
section).
Farmers
can
enroll
in
the
USDA/
Washington
State
Conservation
Enhancement
Program
(
CREP).
2.
Establish
a
trust
for
the
conservation
of
instream
flows
(
modeled
after
land
trusts),
and
in
water
quality/
quantity­
limited
streams,
purchase
existing
instream
water
rights
and
pursue
forfeited
or
abandoned
rights
for
relinquishment.

B.
Toxics
Problem
statement:
Summer
chum
adults
and
juveniles
migrate,
spawn
and
rear
in
freshwater
and
estuarine
habitats
subject
to
soil
and
water
contamination
from
toxic
or
hazardous
substances.
Sediment
contamination
and
water
quality
impacts
from
these
substances
(
heavy
metals,
volatile
and
semivolatile
organics,
radionuclides,
etc.)
may
have
direct
and
indirect
effects
on
the
ecology
of
the
aquatic
ecosystem,
thereby
reducing
the
ability
of
the
habitat
to
support
aquatic
life.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
257
Objective:
Prevent
the
contamination
of
freshwater
and
marine
aquatic
ecosystems
caused
by
toxic
or
hazardous
chemicals
through
prevention,
education
and
proper
disposal
strategies.

Protection
Strategies:

1.
Prohibit
new
industrial
waste
sites
within
summer
chum
watersheds.
2.
Enforce
current
regulations
regarding
business
use
and
disposal
of
toxic
or
hazardous
materials.
Encourage
businesses
that
produce
or
use
these
materials
to
convert
to
non­
toxic
alternatives.
3.
Educate
the
public
about
the
use
of
toxic
substances
(
including
lawn
and
garden
pesticides
and
fertilizers)
and
assure
that
adequate
waste
disposal
systems
are
available
to
the
general
public.

Restoration
Options:

1.
Where
contamination
of
surface
water
or
sediments
by
toxic
substances
are
known
or
suspected,
conduct
inventories
to
detect
sources
and
volumes
and
implement
clean­
up
programs.

C.
Nutrients
Problem
statement:
Nutrient
loading
of
surface
and
ground
water
can
degrade
freshwater
and
marine
habitats
used
by
summer
chum
and
alter
the
food
webs
on
which
they
depend.
Increases
in
nutrient
loads
induce
changes
in
primary
productivity
and
the
decay
of
organic
matter.
These
changes
frequently
result
in
dissolved
oxygen
depletions
that
directly
impact
summer
chum
survival
and
fitness.

Objective:
Prevent
and
mitigate
the
impacts
to
aquatic
ecosystems
utilized
by
summer
chum
salmon
due
to
excessive
nutrient
loading
attributed
to
inadequate
septic
systems,
wastewater
treatment
facilities;
improper
disposal
of
domestic
animal
wastes;
and
poorly
designed
landfill
sites.

Protection
Strategies:

1.
Prohibit
the
construction
of
new
septic
systems
within
the
100­
year
floodplain,
adjacent
riparian
forests,
and
other
areas
with
high
ground
water
tables
in
hydrologic
continuity
with
the
channel
network.
2.
In
sensitive
areas
or
areas
of
high
water
tables
require
containment
and
pump­
out
septic
systems
that
do
not
discharge
to
groundwater,
and
institute
inspection
and
education
programs
to
ensure
compliance
of
on­
site
sewage
system
owners
and
users.
3.
Restrict
livestock
from
foraging
and
pasturing
within
riparian
areas
by
fencing
livestock
out.
Retain
and
plant
native
riparian
vegetation.
4.
Prohibit
the
construction
of
new
landfills
in
summer
chum
watersheds
within
the
region.
While
federal
and
state
standards
prohibit
leachate
or
surface
runoff
from
landfill
facilities
from
contacting
ground
or
surface
waters,
it
is
expected
that
landfills
constructed
in
wet
Northwest
climates,
using
current
technology,
will
eventually
fail.

Restoration
Options:
High
quality
remnant
habitat
would
include
a
naturally
unconfined
100­
year
floodplain
with
multiple
side­
channels,
10
a
riparian
forest
of
large
mixed
conifer/
hardwood
or
conifer
dominated,
LWD
frequency
greater
than
0.4
pieces
per
meter,
and
pools
spaced
less
than
2­
3
channel
widths
between
each
pool
(
Montgomery
et
al.
1995,
Washington
Forest
Practices
Board
1995).

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
258
1.
Institute
regular
on­
site
sewage
system
inspection,
education,
and
maintenance
programs
in
waterquality
limited
areas.
Establish
operating
permits
for
failing,
inadequate,
or
improperly
maintained
onsite
sewage
systems
and
condition
their
annual
renewal
on
progress
achieved
towards
meeting
compliance.
2.
Replace
failing
septic
systems.
Require
that
upgraded
sewage
disposal
systems
utilize
containment
and
pump­
out
septic
systems,
or
alternative
systems
in
water­
quality
limited
or
high­
risk
areas.
3.
Fence
livestock
out
of
riparian
areas
and
plant
riparian
vegetation
adjacent
to
streams
currently
dominated
by
farming
and
agricultural
activities.
4.
Eliminate
surface
water
and
ground
water
discharges
from
existing
landfills
to
summer
chum
habitats
and
require
extensive
monitoring
to
evaluate
performance
of
elimination
strategies.

Channel
Complexity
and
Connection
to
Floodplain
Problem
statement:
A
stream
channel
with
complex
habitat
contains
the
best
available
chum
habitat
for
their
migration,
spawning,
and
incubation
life
stages.
Complex
habitat
includes
deep
pools
(
used
for
adult
migration),
stable
riffles
(
spawning
and
incubation),
side
channels,
and
a
sinuous
channel
form
or
enough
LWD
to
slow
water
velocity
and
vary
flow
patterns
(
stabilizes
riffles
and
creates
pools).
The
floodplain
should
be
fully
connected
to
the
channel
and
not
confined
by
dikes,
bridges,
levees,
bank
hardening,
or
other
man­
made
structures.
Channel
confinement
leads
to
bed
instability
from
increased
velocities
and
eliminates
sediment
and
water
storage
on
the
floodplain
during
floods.
Man­
made
structures
negatively
impact
fish
habitat
over
time
by
reducing
the
area
available
for
new
habitat
created
by
channel
migration.
Within
the
region,
many
streams
have
been
simplified
through
LWD
removal,
ditching,
diking,
and
bank
armoring,
which
has
negatively
impacted
summer
chum.

Objective:
Identify,
protect,
and
restore
channel
segments
to
a
complex
habitat
condition.
Modifying
landuse
practices
that
degrade
channel
conditions,
protecting
key
habitat,
and
restoring
channel
processes
are
emphasized
in
the
strategies
below.

Protection
Strategies:

1.
Remnant
habitat­
Identify
floodplain
areas
(
with
a
priority
towards
high
quality
remnant
habitat
)
for
10
protection
through
floodplain
easements,
non­
development
agreements,
or
purchase.
2.
LWD­
Agencies
and
Counties
with
the
authority
to
manage
LWD
(
Department
of
Ecology,
counties,
USFS,
DNR,
Army
Corps,
WDFW),
should
preserve
in­
channel
and
floodplain
LWD.
For
example,
LWD
moved
for
culvert
maintenance
should
be
passed
downstream.
3.
Channel
simplification­
Prohibit
future
bank
armoring
with
riprap,
diking,
dredging,
and
gravel
removal
unless
the
project
is
shown
to
be
consistent
with
a
salmon
habitat
restoration
plan.
The
State's
Shoreline
Management
Act
currently
exempts
bank
armoring
to
protect
single­
family
residences;
this
exemption
should
be
removed.
Local
governments
should
implement
more
restrictive
Shoreline
Master
Programs
in
summer
chum
streams.
Where
existing
homes
are
threatened,
relocation
or
government
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
259
purchase
should
be
thoroughly
evaluated.
In
instances
where
these
are
not
options,
LWD
jams
should
be
used
to
address
channel
stability
problems.
4.
Riparian
forest
­
Retain
riparian
forests
within
the
100­
year
floodplain
and
adjacent
riparian
buffer
of
(
250
ft
or
SPTH)
to
preserve
future
LWD
sources
to
the
channel
and
floodplain
(
see
Riparian
Areas
section).
5.
Floodplain
development
­
Prohibit
new
housing,
business,
and
road
development
within
the
100­
year
floodplain.
Upgrade
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency
(
FEMA)
floodplain
maps
to
account
for
increased
peak
flows
due
to
construction
of
roads
and
impervious
surfaces.
Floodproofing
of
existing
homes
within
the
100­
year
floodplain
should
also
be
discouraged
if
such
work
further
confines
the
river
channel.
Such
projects
shall
be
designed
so
as
to
result
in
no
increased
building
footprint
within
the
floodplain.
6.
Education
­
Promote
public
education
on
the
importance
of
LWD­
rich,
complex
channels
and
the
problems
that
occur
when
development
and
bank
armoring
occur
within
the
floodplain.

Restoration
Options:

1.
Floodplain
and
in­
channel
restoration
­
Remove
or
setback
dikes
to
allow
the
channel
to
meander,
develop
a
pool­
riffle
morphology,
and
create
a
floodplain.
The
channel
would
naturally
return
to
meandering
morphology
with
minimal
engineering
assistance.
Use
LWD
and
other
bioengineering
systems
to
replace
riprap.
Remove
spur­
dikes,
revetments,
and
othe
man­
made
hard
points.
2.
Riparian
forest
­
Identify
channel
segments
where
riparian
forest
restoration
would
provide
a
future
source
of
LWD
to
the
channel.
This
may
include
planting
appropriate
conifer
species
on
agricultural
or
urban
land,
fencing
livestock
away
from
streams,
conifer
release
through
hardwood
thinning,
or
conifer
underplanting
below
thinned
hardwood
stands.
3.
LWD
placement
­
Identify
channel
segments
where
engineered
logjams
or
LWD
could
be
placed
in
the
channel.
This
should
be
done
only
after
a
basin
assessment
has
been
completed
for
mass
wasting
and
peak
flows,
and
steps
taken
to
reduce
the
impacts
of
these
elements.
Logjams
that
are
fixed
in
place
through
cabling
are
less
desirable
since
they
create
a
fixed
point
in
a
dynamic
system.
4.
Home
buyout/
relocation
program
 
Identify
homes
and
businesses
within
the
floodplain
for
buyout
and
relocation
from
willing
citizens.
Prioritize
homes
based
on
technical
analysis
of
their
impact
to
floodplain
sediment
transport
and
deposition
processes
and
summer
chum
populations.

Sediment
Problem
statement:
The
development
and
stability
of
migration,
spawning
and
incubation
habitat
for
summer
chum
depends
on
the
delivery
rate,
storage,
routing,
and
composition
of
sediment.
Landuse
practices
can
increase
the
amount
or
type
of
sediment
moving
through
the
network
through
soil
compaction
or
disturbance,
changes
to
basin
hydrology,
ditches
and
impervious
surfaces,
vegetation
removal
or
conversion,
mass
wasting
(
e.
g.
road
fill
failure),
and
a
reduction
in
sediment
storage
through
LWD
removal
or
diking.
The
capacity
to
route
and
store
sediment
is
decreased
by
channel
straightening
and
LWD
removal.
In
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
watersheds,
unstable
and
aggrading
stream
channels
and
high
levels
of
fine
sediment,
is
a
common
problem,
resulting
in
chum
redd
burial,
scour,
or
suffocation
of
incubating
eggs.
See
the
Kitsap
County
Critical
Areas
Ordinance
for
an
example
of
standards
that
minimize
mass
wasting
and
protect
11
aquatic
habitat.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
260
Objective:
Re­
establish
sediment
regimes
to
levels
approximating
historic
variability
by
limiting
landuse
practices
that
increase
the
delivery
rate
and
alter
routing
of
sediment
throughout
the
entire
watershed.

Protection
Strategies:

1.
Mass
wasting:
Identify
areas
in
a
basin
with
high
likelihood
of
mass
wasting
(
landslides)
using
the
Mass
Wasting
module
in
Watershed
Analysis
as
a
guide
.
In
these
areas
restrict
development,
road
building,
11
and
logging.
Pursue
conservation
easements
or
outright
purchase
for
full
protection
of
sensitive
areas.
2.
Fine
sediment:
Prevent
the
entry
of
anthropogenic
fine
sediment
into
any
stream
channel,
wetland,
or
ditchline
connected
with
the
stream
network
through
improved
stormwater
management,
clearing
and
grading
standards.
Biofiltration
swales
or
ditches
designed
to
trap
sediment
that
are
not
directly
connected
to
the
stream
network
should
be
capable
of
withstanding
100­
year
storm
events.
3.
Large
woody
debris:
Protect
intact
riparian
forests,
especially
those
with
large
diameter
conifer
trees
as
a
source
of
LWD
to
the
channel
(
See
Riparian
Areas
and
Channel
Complexity
sections).

Restoration
Options:

1.
Road
and
culvert
upgrade:
Reroute
road
drainage
away
from
stream
channels
into
stable
receiving
areas
such
as
retention
ponds,
grassy
swales,
forest
floor,
and
constructed
wetlands
(
see
Peak
flow
section).
Increase
road
cross
drains
to
lower
concentrated
road
drainage.
Re­
vegetate
or
stabilize
road
side­
cast,
vegetate
or
armor
ditch
lines,
and
harden
road
surfaces
to
reduce
the
creation
of
fine
sediment.
Upgrade
all
stream
crossings
to
current
WDFW
regulations.
2.
Decommission
forest
roads:
For
roads
no
longer
used,
remove
culverts,
de­
compact
roads,
outslope
and
waterbar
road
surfaces,
remove
unstable
fill
and
side­
casting,
and
seed
with
native
species.
Prioritize
decommissioning
by
the
risk
that
a
road
will
contribute
sediment
to
a
stream
channel.
Allow
for
adequate
revegetation
of
the
area
prior
to
fall
rains.
3.
Floodplains:
Reconnect
floodplains
through
dike
removal
and
re­
vegetate
with
the
appropriate
conifer
species
to
provide
temperature
regulation,
future
recruitment
of
LWD,
and
the
stabilization
of
sediment
(
see
Channel
Complexity
section).
4.
LWD
introduction:
If
necessary
after
the
above
measures
are
completed,
re­
introduce
LWD
to
provide
short­
term
channel
structure
and
sediment
storage
(
see
Riparian
Areas
and
Channel
Complexity
section).
5.
Channel
sinuosity:
Restore
channel
form
to
areas
where
the
channel
has
previously
been
straightened.

Riparian
Areas
Problem
Statement:
Riparian
forests
provide
a
variety
of
critical
functions
essential
for
all
life
stages
of
summer
chum.
These
functions
include:
nutrient
processing
and
retention,
pollutant
filtration
and
removal,
microclimate
modification
and
temperature
regulation,
fine
and
coarse
sediment
storage,
bank
stabilization,
delivery
of
organic
material
to
stream
channels
(
leaf
litter,
small
and
large
woody
debris),
and
the
creation
and
maintenance
of
off­
channel
habitat.
When
forests
are
cleared
from
riparian
areas
these
critical
Riparian
buffer
standards
are
based
on
an
extensive
literature
review
of
riparian
functions
and
recommended
buffers
12
(
Pollock
and
Kennard,
1998).

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
261
functions
are
lost
and
the
stream
environment
becomes
more
susceptible
to
impacts
from
grazing,
agriculture,
residential
development,
road
construction,
and
urbanization.

Riparian
forests
influence
the
survival
of
all
summer
chum
life
stages:

°
Migration:
Large
woody
debris
forms
pools,
creates
critical
holding
areas,
and
hiding
areas
for
migrating
adults
and
juveniles.
°
Spawning:
Debris
jams
and
individual
pieces
of
LWD
route,
store,
and
stabilize
spawning
gravel;
the
rooting
strength
of
live
trees
promotes
channel
and
bed
stability;
streamside
vegetation
filters
nutrients
and
fine
sediment
before
it
enters
the
stream
channel.
°
Rearing:
Large
woody
debris
and
log
jams
create
overflow
channels,
side
channels,
and
off
channel
ponds;
LWD
provides
hiding
cover
for
juveniles;
live
vegetation
provides
thermal
protection
for
incubating
eggs;
leaf
litter
provides
nutrient
input
and
supports
macroinvertebrate
populations
that
are
prey
resources.

Many
riparian
areas
have
been
cleared
of
native
forest
and
their
capacity
to
perform
these
ecological
functions
have
been
lost
or
severely
degraded.
Even
where
riparian
forests
remain
relatively
intact,
their
character
and
quality
have
been
altered
from
past
logging,
causing
shifts
in
age
and
species
composition
(
largely
to
younger,
deciduous­
dominated
forests),
which
has
reduced
their
functional
value.

Objective:
Identify,
protect,
and
restore
healthy
riparian
forests
within
the
channel
migration
zone
or
100­
year
floodplain,
and
areas
adjacent
to
the
active
stream
channel.
Riparian
forests
should
contain
a
diversity
of
plant
species,
vegetation
size
classes,
downed
woody
debris
critical
for
tree
seedling
regeneration,
and
be
of
sufficient
size
to
persist
over
time
through
natural
disturbance
events
(
fire,
wind,
drought).

Because
of
the
longitudinal
connectivity
in
riparian
systems,
consideration
of
the
entire
stream
network
is
necessary.
This
network
includes
the
primary
summer
chum
zone,
upstream
reaches
that
do
not
directly
support
summer
chum,
and
smaller
seasonal
tributaries
that
are
non­
fish
bearing.
These
areas
affect
the
quality
of
the
primary
summer
chum
zone
by
producing
and
transporting
LWD,
water,
and
sediment
materials
that
create
and
maintain
critical
habitats
in
the
lower
gradient
reaches
inhabited
by
summer
chum.
For
example,
up
to
48%
of
LWD
found
in
low
gradient
stream
channels
comes
from
upstream
sources
rather
than
riparian
forests
immediately
adjacent
to
the
stream
channel
(
McDade
et
al.
1990;
Burnett
and
Reeves
1997;
McGarry
1994).

Protection
Strategies:

1.
Protect
riparian
areas
with
a
properly
functioning
buffer.
A
properly
functioning
buffer
is
defined
as
250
ft
measured
horizontally
from
the
landward
edge
of
the
channel
migration
zone
or
the
100
year
floodplain
(
whichever
is
greater).
For
seasonal
streams,
the
buffer
width
should
equal
that
of
a
site
12
potential
tree
height
(
SPTH)
measured
horizontally
from
the
edge
of
the
ordinary
high
water
mark.
To
maintain
and
restore
habitat,
it
is
necessary
to
retain
properly
functioning
riparian
forests
in
non­
All
four
counties
have
commented
on
the
difficulty
in
applying
this
strategy
in
areas
where
they
have
jurisdiction.
13
This
strategy
received
more
comments
than
all
others
in
a
preliminary
review.
This
strategy
is
biologically
based
and
contains
no
economic
considerations.
Our
recommendations
are
conservative
and
centered
on
habitat
recovery.
Alternative
strategies
must
be
site
specific
and
use
best
available
science
to
provide
fully
functional
habitat
for
summer
chum
salmon.
The
burden
of
demonstrating
the
sufficiency
of
such
a
strategy
rests
with
the
landowner.

For
lands
and
forest
practice
activities
regulated
by
state
forest
practice
regulations,
WDFW
is
on
record
supporting
the
Forest
and
Fish
Report
and
the
protective
provisions
contained
therein.
Not
all
tribes
endorse
the
Forest
and
Fish
plan.
WDFW
continues
to
support
this
agreement
as
a
reasonable
approach
to
providing
properly
functioning
habitat
conditions
on
these
lands,
provided
that
the
Forest
Practices
Board
adopts
all
the
necessary
regulations
to
implement
the
agreement,
adequate
funding
remains
available
to
support
the
adaptive
management
provisions,
and
the
co­
managers
are
adequately
funded
to
participate
in
implementing
the
agreement.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
262
developed
portions
of
a
watershed
and
recreate
functional
riparian
forests
where
possible
within
developed
portions
of
a
watershed.
13
2.
Prohibit
salvage,
thinning
of
trees,
or
other
manipulations
of
riparian
vegetation
within
the
defined
buffer
unless
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
the
activity
will
result
in
a
net
improvement
in
riparian
forest
quality
(
see
restoration
option
#
3).
3.
Restrict
road
building
and
development
within
the
channel
migration
zone
and
reduce
or
eliminate
these
activities
within
the
adjacent
riparian
buffer.
4.
Prohibit
all
grazing
within
riparian
areas.
5.
Provide
incentives
and
compensation
to
small
landowners
for
buffers
left
for
the
benefit
of
ESA
listed
species
(
e.
g.
CREP,
Public
Benefit
Rating
System,
or
other
tax
incentives).
6.
Identify
priority
riparian
forest
areas
within
the
100­
year
floodplain
and
associated
wetlands,
and
acquire
through
purchase
or
donation,
conservation
easements
or
transfer
of
development
rights.
This
may
include
acquisition
of
timber,
farm/
grazing,
development
rights,
and/
or
restrictions
on
hydrological
modifications.

Restoration
Options:

1.
Fence
and
replant
riparian
areas
impacted
by
grazing
or
other
agricultural
activities.
2.
Plant
native
trees
and
shrubs
appropriate
for
site
conditions
within
riparian
forests
to
promote
recruitment
of
young
trees
and
restore
native
vegetation,
species
diversity,
and
large
old
trees.
3.
Identify
opportunities
for
silvicultural
treatments
to
improve
riparian
forest
composition
in
terms
of
species
diversity
and
size
of
trees.
A
qualified
biologist
should
be
consulted
for
silvicultural
treatments
within
the
first
50
feet
of
the
riparian
buffer,
or
the
channel
migration
zone.
Silvicultural
treatments
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
thinning
of
overstocked
conifer
stands,
thinning
hardwood
stands
to
release
understory
conifer,
and
girdling
to
create
snags
or
encourage
recruitment
of
LWD.
Silvicultural
treatments
should
be
regarded
as
experimental,
include
a
monitoring
plan
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
the
treatment,
and
be
done
in
cooperation
with
tribal
and
state
biologists.
4.
Identify
opportunities
to
abandon
existing
road
grades
and
replanting
with
native
species
to
restore
riparian
forests.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
263
Fish
Access/
Passage
Problem
Statement:
Roads,
dikes,
and
causeways
have
reduced
the
production
potential
in
summer
chum
riverine
and
estuarine
habitats
through
modification
and
restricted
access
for
spawning,
incubation,
migration,
and
rearing.

Objective:
Provide
adult
summer
chum
salmon
with
free
and
unimpeded
passage
in
all
waters
within
their
historic
range
and
provide
opportunities
for
juvenile
chum
to
migrate
from
their
natal
streams
downstream
into
historical
estuarine
and
nearshore
habitats.

Protection
Strategies:

1.
Restrict
the
placement
of
new
roads
and
culverts
within
the
channel
migration
zone
adjoining
the
historic
range
of
summer
chum
or
provide
adequate
mitigation
for
unavoidable
projects.
Mitigation
could
include
minimizing
the
placement
of
fill
within
the
100
year
floodplain,
reducing
the
extent
of
the
road
footprint,
avoiding
roads
paralleling
streams,
and
the
use
of
bridges
rather
than
culverts
for
stream
crossings.
2.
Prohibit
the
placement
of
dikes,
the
augmentation
of
existing
dikes,
and
new
development
activities
(
including
agriculture)
in
summer
chum
zones
that
may
confine
and
restrict
the
development
of
side
channels
and
complex
channel
segments.

Restoration
Options:

1.
Identify
opportunities
for
removing
existing
dikes,
roads,
and
causeways
that
prevent
the
establishment
of
side
channels
and
complex
stream
channel
characteristics.
2.
Redesign
existing
dikes,
roads
or
causeways
to
allow
the
free
movement
of
water,
wood
and
sediment
and
passage
of
summer
chum
adults
and
juveniles.

Subestuarine
Habitat
Problem
Statement:
Summer
chum
salmon
rely
on
diverse,
productive,
and
structurally­
complex
subestuaries
as
rearing,
feeding,
refuge,
and
transition
habitat.
Extant
dikes,
ditches,
road
causeways,
and
fill
disrupt
the
linkage
between
stream
channels,
subestuaries
and
tidal
energy.
As
a
result,
the
productive
capacity
of
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
tributary
subestuaries
is
degraded
or
destroyed
and
mortality
potentially
increased
at
critical
life
stages.
Subestuaries
are
truncated
or
sediment
accumulates
in
subestuaries
and
the
lower
reaches
of
freshwater
streams.
Water
quality
degradation
has
led
to
deleterious
shifts
in
marine
vegetation
communities.
Remaining,
high­
quality
subestuaries
are
threatened
by
agricultural
and
residential
development.

Objective:
Protect
or
restore
natural
delta
morphologies
of
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
tributaries
to
allow
for
unrestricted
estuarine
circulation,
natural
sediment
transport/
storage
rates,
and
development
of
tidal
channels,
tidal
marshes,
swamps
and
eelgrass
beds,
all
of
which
maintain
high
quality
summer
chum
rearing
and
transition
habitat.

Protection
Strategies:
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
264
1.
Identify
and
acquire
(
through
outright
purchase
or
transfer
of
development
rights)
undeveloped,
highquality
subestuarine
habitats
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
2.
Prohibit
further
ditching,
diking
and
road
causeway
construction
in
deltas
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
including
but
not
limited
to
watersheds
harboring
summer
chum
populations.
3.
Control
water
quality
impacts
(
failing
septic
systems,
livestock,
etc.).

Restoration
Options:

1.
Remove
or
setback
dikes
in
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
delta
areas
to
restore
summer
chum
rearing
and
production.
Consider
breaching
if
other
options
are
not
available
and
there
is
accessible
and
functional
salt
marshes
or
swamps
behind
breached
dikes.
One
experimental
method
(
to
be
tried
on
a
limited
basis)
is
to
remove
anthoprogenically
caused
channel
sediment
accumulations
associated
with
dike
construction
into
the
subestuary.
2.
Re­
establish
natural,
branching
tidal
channels
and
patterns
of
inundation
across
the
delta
face.
3.
Refit
or
remove
road
causeways
to
reconnect
distributary
channel
and
tidal
slough
habitats
with
mainstem
river
channels
and
restore
the
interface
between
freshwater
and
subestuarine
habitats.
4.
Restore
sinuous
stream
channel
morphology
in
the
lower
reaches
of
channelized
streams.

Nearshore
Habitat
Problem
Statement:
Shoreline
activities
such
as
construction
of
bulkheads
and
piers,
filling
portions
of
the
intertidal
zone,
shoreline
armoring,
and
vegetation
clearing
have
disrupted
important
shoreline
processes
and
altered
or
destroyed
critical
rearing
and
migratory
habitats.
Water
quality
degradation
has
led
to
deleterious
shifts
in
marine
vegetation
communities.

Objectives:
Maintain
or
restore
critical
nearshore
processes
and
conditions
including:
1)
sediment
supply
and
transport
necessary
for
the
formation
and
maintenance
of
critical
habitats
(
e.
g.
eelgrass
and
kelp
beds);
2)
critical
migratory
pathways
free
of
impediments
for
juvenile
and
adult
summer
chum;
3)
abundant
and
diverse
native
macroinvertebrate
populations
necessary
for
the
growth
and
survival
of
juvenile
summer
chum;
and
4)
large
woody
debris
recruitment
processes,
shoreline
shading
and
cover,
detrital
inputs,
and
slope
stability
provided
by
mature
shoreline
vegetation.

Protection
Strategies:

1.
Prohibit
the
construction
of
new
bulkheads
along
shoreline
areas.
If
existing
homes
and
infrastructure
are
threatened
by
erosion,
use
geotechnical
analyses
to
develop
alternative
shoreline
protection
measures
(
in
order
of
preference):
relocation
of
threatened
structure,
drainage
control,
vegetation
plantings,
beach
nourishment,
or
other
reasonably
protective
measures.
2.
Prohibit,
or
severely
restrict
the
construction
of
new
piers,
docks,
stair­
towers,
and
recreational
floats
by
private
individuals.
Require
joint
use
facilities
in
areas
away
from
critical
habitat
(
i.
e.
eelgrass,
kelp,
baitfish
spawning
habitat).
We
adopt
a
conservative
strategy
with
regard
to
protection
of
marine
riparian
areas,
designed
to
be
improved
and
14
refined
as
our
understanding
of
this
system
expands.
While
we
lack
adequate
scientific
understanding
of
functions
served
by
marine
riparian
areas,
the
demonstrated
functional
values
of
riparian
areas
in
freshwater
systems
also
apply
along
marine
shorelines
(
Desbonnet
et
al.
1995):
bank
stabilization,
shade,
organic
material
inputs,
pollutant
removal,
etc.
Our
choice
of
a
conservative
buffer
width
is
also
related
to
the
intensity
of
land
use
typically
found
along
developed
portions
of
the
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
shoreline
(
e.
g.
residential
development
with
on
site
septic
systems),
which
necessitates
prudence
given
the
potentially
profound
impacts
to
nearshore
and
open­
water
environments
used
by
summer
chum.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
265
3.
Eliminate
chemically­
treated
wood
products,
where
these
products
can
leach
to
adjacent
marine
waters
(
see
City
of
Tacoma
Shoreline
Master
Program
for
an
example).
4.
Establish
interim
minimum
shoreline
riparian
buffers
of
250
ft
measured
horizontally
from
the
landward
edge
of
the
mean
higher
high
water
(
MHHW)
mark
or
salt
marsh­
forest
transition
zone,
whichever
is
greater.
No
vegetation
removal
should
be
allowed
within
buffers,
except
for
minor
view
clearing
(<
15%
removal
of
stems
over
a
ten­
year
period).
For
unstable
and
eroding
shoreline
segments,
additional
setbacks
should
be
required
to
accommodate
50
years
of
erosion
(
determined
by
geotechnical
analysis).
In
general,
the
higher
and
steeper
the
bank,
the
greater
the
additional
setback
requirements
are
needed
to
secure
intact,
fully
functional
riparian
areas
over
the
long­
term.
14
5.
Identify
critical
nearshore
migratory
corridors
and
establish
as
marine
reserve
areas.
6.
Purchase
and
permanently
protect
undeveloped
shoreline
areas.
7.
Control
water
quality
impacts
(
failing
septic
system,
livestock,
etc.).

Restoration
Options
1.
For
unavoidable
construction
of
new
shoreline
roads,
bulkheads,
docks
or
piers,
require
compensatory
mitigation
payments
to
a
mitigation
fund
account,
which
would
be
used
to
fund
purchase
or
restoration
of
shoreline
and
subestuaries.
2.
For
existing
bulkheads
that
are
failing,
evaluate
the
need
for
replacement.
If
the
structure
is
not
necessary,
remove
it
and
restore
shoreline.
Where
existing
homes
are
threatened,
relocation
or
government
purchase
should
be
thoroughly
evaluated.
In
instances
where
these
are
not
options,
failing
bulkheads
should
be
replaced
with
an
alternative
lower­
impact
designs
(
e.
g.
"
soft­
bank"
protection,
beach
nourishment).
3.
Remove
or
relocate
bulkheads
and
fill,
and
structures
above
extreme
high
water
or
higher
to
recover
lost
habitat
and
restore
beaches.
4.
Require
revegetation
of
banks
that
have
been
damaged
during
shoreline
construction
projects.
5.
Remove
man­
made
structures
that
prevent
erosion
of
natural
marine
sediment
sources
(
feeder
bluffs,
etc.)
and
structures
that
interrupt
sediment
in
the
nearshore.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
266
3.4.4.3
Evaluation
Criteria
for
Proposed
Restoration
Projects
The
toolkit
(
section
3.4.4.2)
describes
strategies
or
general
options
for
restoration
actions.
It
is
anticipated
that
specific
projects
will
be
developed
out
of
the
general
strategies.
The
objective
for
individual
restoration
projects
is
to
restore
aquatic
ecosystems
and
natural
channel
processes
within
the
region
that
impact
specific
summer
chum
life
history
strategies.
In
pursuit
of
this
objective,
the
following
criteria
should
be
used
as
an
aid
in
making
decisions
about
proposed
projects,
and
in
prioritizing
and
comparing
proposed
habitat
restoration
projects
within
the
region.

Projects
are
evaluated
relative
to
a
set
of
criteria
that
test
the
scientific
basis
and
validity
of
the
proposal.
The
criteria
are
weighted
based
on
the
importance
of
the
criteria
in
achieving
the
stated
objective
of
restoring
natural
channel
processes.
A
score
on
the
low
end
of
the
defined
range
indicates
a
low
probability
of
achieving
the
criteria.
Conversely,
a
project
that
has
a
high
probability
of
achieving
the
criteria
should
be
awarded
the
high
end
of
the
defined
range.
The
total
score
will
help
establish
priorities
for
restoration
actions
across
the
region.
Other
factors
such
as
funding
and
socio­
political
objectives
may
also
be
factored
in
to
establish
restoration
priorities.

Evaluation
Criteria:

1.
The
proposal
is
linked
to
the
factors
for
recovery
identified
in
the
watershed
narrative
and/
or
objectives
in
the
tool
kit
and
addresses
the
habitat
factor(
s)
for
decline
and
not
just
symptoms.
(
1,5,10
pts)
2.
Extinction
risk
(
from
section
1.7.4
Stock
Extinction
Risk,
Part
One)
of
the
local
population
within
the
targeted
drainage.
(
1,3,6,10
pts)
(
Proposals
in
drainages
with
local
populations
at
higher
risk
of
extinction
should
be
rated
higher).
3.
The
proposal
addresses
the
effect
of
the
completed
project
on
the
upstream
and
downstream
channel
reaches
including
its
effect
on
lateral
channel
migration,
bed
scour,
gravel
deposition
and
the
connection
of
the
channel
to
the
floodplain
(
i.
e.,
the
proposal
will
have
a
positive
impact
outside
of
the
project
area).
(
1­
3
pts)
4.
The
proposal
is
self
sustaining
and
requires
minimum
maintenance
and
additional
human
intervention
to
the
fullest
extent
possible
or
such
maintenance
and
intervention
is
clearly
provided
for
throughout
the
life
of
the
project.
(
1­
3
pts)
5.
The
project
will
function
long
enough
to
positively
affect
the
targeted
factor
for
recovery
specified
in
a
watershed
narrative.
(
1­
3
pts.)
6.
The
proposal
includes
sufficient
evaluation
and
monitoring
to
assess
its
success
or
failure
consistent
with
evaluation
and
monitoring
guidelines
outlined
in
section
3.4.5.
(
1­
3
pts.)
7.
The
proposal
will
not
prevent
other
actions
from
being
implemented
at
or
near
the
site
that
would
provide
greater
benefit
to
the
restoration
of
channel
processes.
(
1­
3
pts)
For
example:
An
access
road
in
the
estuary
should
not
be
removed
until
dikes
or
fills
in
the
estuary
have
been
addressed.
8.
The
proposal
increases
our
knowledge
of
a
specific
option
in
the
tool
kit
and
utilizes
adaptive
management
principles
to
incorporate
the
information
gained
into
improved
project
selection
and
design.
(
1­
3pts.)
9.
The
proposal
provides
benefits
to
other
critical
species
(
Puget
Sound
chinook,
bull
trout,
etc.)
(
1­
3
pts)
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
267
3.4.5
Strategy
for
Monitoring
Population
and
Habitat
Recovery
Currently,
our
understanding
of
the
critical
habitat
needs
of
summer
chum
is
incomplete,
and,
as
such,
recovery
planning
will
require
careful
monitoring
and
research
to
evaluate
its
effectiveness
and
define
future
protection
and
restoration
needs.
The
toolkit
of
options
to
achieve
the
diverse
and
functional
habitat
will
need
refinement
to
focus
future
recovery
actions,
as
more
information
becomes
available.
In
addition,
implementation
and
effectiveness
monitoring
for
individual
restoration
projects
will
be
needed.
Finally,
validation
monitoring
will
be
required
to
understand
the
overall
ecosystem
or
watershed
context
for
restoration
actions,
and
to
determine
if
completed
restoration
actions
are
"
rejuvenating"
functional
habitat
and
that
it
is
being
used
by
summer
chum.
Together,
monitoring
and
research
will
provide
feedback
on
our
current
understanding
of
summer
chum
and
their
habitats,
which
will
be
used
to
guide
future
planning
and
recovery
efforts.

At
present,
we
lack
an
integrated
monitoring
system
for
summer
chum
and
their
habitat
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
with
which
to
evaluate
recovery
efforts.
Limited
stream
habitat
survey
data
exist,
but
there
is
little
interagency
coordination
and
prioritization
for
the
collection
of
additional
information.
There
is
little
or
no
data
for
subestuarine
or
nearshore
areas,
despite
the
apparent
importance
of
these
environments
in
the
life
history
of
summer
chum.
Lastly,
we
lack
a
meaningful
way
to
connect
information
on
habitat
and
life
history
processes
across
scales
to
determine
potential
population
"
bottlenecks"
and
to
evaluate
the
interrelationships
among
factors
responsible
for
population
decline
and
recovery.
As
a
result
of
these
deficiencies,
our
current
ability
to
evaluate
the
importance
of
various
habitat
factors
is
limited.

In
the
past,
targeted
research
and
monitoring
efforts
of
this
kind
have
lacked
rigor
in
their
design
and/
or
implementation,
which
has
diminished
their
overall
usefulness
in
later
planning
and
evaluation.
To
be
effective
an
overall
research
and
monitoring
strategy
for
summer
chum
will
have
to
consider
the
habitat
needs
of
particular
life
stages
in
the
context
of
watershed,
estuarine,
and
nearshore
processes
that
create
and
maintain
key
habitats.
To
accomplish
this,
the
strategy
will
have
to
be
long­
term,
provide
feedback
on
effectiveness,
utilize
a
multi­
scale
approach,
and
involve
both
landowners
and
government
agencies
with
regulatory/
management
authority
over
summer
chum
populations
(
or
their
habitat)
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Each
of
these
key
components
is
discussed
in
more
detail
below:

°
Long­
term
Focus
­
Both
summer
chum
populations
and
their
habitats
are
subject
to
natural
variation,
resulting
from
climate
and
natural
disturbances,
which
may
mask
the
detection
of
both
positive
and
negative
human
impacts.
Long­
term
monitoring
is
necessary
because
only
through
the
collection
of
data
across
a
number
of
years
can
effects
of
human
actions
be
separated
from
"
noise"
associated
with
natural
variation.
Moreover,
long­
term
monitoring
is
essential
because
recovery
is
necessarily
a
longterm
proposition
requiring
frequent
feedback
and
evaluation
(
see
below).

°
Multiscale
Approach
­
Effective
research
and
monitoring
for
summer
chum
habitat
recovery
will
require
explicit
definitions
of
the
appropriate
scale
of
analysis
and
measurement
of
target
parameters.
Information
collected
at
broader
scales
will
guide
analyses
at
finer
scales,
and
information
collected
at
finer
scales
provides
feedback
on
cumulative
effects
at
larger
scales.
For
example,
scour
chain
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
268
monitoring
to
measure
the
deleterious
impacts
of
peak
flows
and
mobile
spawning
substrates
on
incubating
summer
chum
could
be
implemented
along
a
single
reach,
within
a
single
watershed.
However,
inference
to
other
reaches
or
watersheds
would
be
problematic,
given
that
reach­
scale
hydrologic
regimes
are
often
a
function
of
stream
network
position,
and
watershed
or
regional
geoclimatic
characteristics.
To
be
effective
and
useful,
recovery­
oriented
research
and
monitoring
will
have
to
employ
spatially­
nested
sampling
regimes
to
separate
reach­,
watershed­,
and
subregionalscale
habitat
effects
on
summer
chum
populations.

°
Involvement
of
Diverse
Entities
­
As
noted
in
section
3.4.6,
which
discusses
plan
implementation,
numerous
federal,
state,
local
and
tribal
governments
have
different
mandates,
goals,
and
regulatory/
management
authorities
across
the
region.
To
efficiently
allocate
effort
and
monies
for
research
and
monitoring
there
needs
to
be
coordination
among
involved
parties.
While
priorities
for
research
and
monitoring
do
not
necessarily
have
to
be
agreed
upon,
acceptable
protocols
must
be
established
and
adhered
to
by
all
parties
if
the
collected
data
is
to
be
useful.
There
must
also
be
cooperation
with
data
sharing
among
all
parties,
and
efficient
data
storage
and
archiving
structures
to
facilitate
access
and
transfer
to
other
parties.
Private
land
owners
and
public
land
managers
will
also
need
to
cooperate
and
participate
in
conservation
monitoring.

°
Adaptive
Management
Approach
­
As
noted
above,
frequent
feedback
will
be
necessary
to
determine
if
conservation
actions
are
being
effective.
Adaptive
management
formalizes
this
arrangement
to
maximize
the
usefulness
of
new
information.
Management
actions
are
viewed
as
experiments,
under
a
continuous
cycle
of
monitoring,
evaluation,
planning
and
adjustment.
Three
types
of
monitoring
will
need
to
be
employed
to
provide
feedback
on
project
design,
effectiveness,
and
overall
ecosystem
context
(
Table
3.20).
Each
of
these
monitoring
types
will
provide
important
information
with
which
to
revise
future
recovery
action
planning.

We
provide
examples
of
the
types
of
questions
that
need
to
be
answered
in
monitoring
for
particular
restoration
actions
below.
These
examples
are
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
are
meant
to
focus
thinking
on
the
requirements
for
effective
restoration
actions.
We
recommend
the
formation
of
a
recovery
monitoring
and
research
workgroup
to
develop
an
integrated
monitoring
plan
for
habitat,
harvest,
and
supplementation
activities.

Table
3.20.
Key
monitoring
questions
and
approach.

Habitat
Parameter
of
Concern
Key
Monitoring
Questions
and
Approach
Peak
flows
1.
Stormflow
runoff
assessment:
Calculate
the
amount
of
impervious
surface
(
aerial
photo/
GIS
analysis)
and
monitor
the
hydrograph
in
watersheds
that
are
urbanizing
to
determine
if
stormwater
detention/
retention
facilities
and
other
mitigation
measures
meet
the
goal
of
not
exceeding
the
2­
year
and
10­
year
predevelopment
floods.
All
of
the
summer
chum
watersheds
need
continuous
real­
time
monitoring
of
stream
discharge
for
both
peak
and
low
flow
conditions
(
e.
g.
USGS
stream
gauging
stations).
2.
Upland
drainage
pattern
assessment:
Evaluate
channel
network
extension
as
a
result
of
forest
road
construction
and
determine
if
peak
flow
magnitude,
timing,
or
frequency
has
changed
as
a
result.
If
evidence
exists
for
altered
runoff
regimes,
examine
upland
mitigation
actions.
If
standards
are
not
being
met,
how
are
other
in­
channel
restoration
actions
to
be
justified?

Low
flow
3.
Low
flow
monitoring:
Monitor
low
flow
conditions
via
staff
gauges
(
or
USGS
gauging
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
269
stations)
and
wetted
area/
depth
to
ensure
that
target
stream
flows
are
being
met
and
Table
3.20.
Key
monitoring
questions
and
approach
(
continued).

Habitat
Parameter
of
Concern
Key
Monitoring
Questions
and
Approach
conservation
measures
are
effective.
If
there
is
evidence
of
low
flows,
is
temperature
being
monitored
(
see
5,
below)?
What
is
the
seasonal
pattern
of
low
flow,
and
does
it
coincide
with
presence
of
summer
chum
spawning?
4.
Wetland
restoration
planning:
Evaluate
potential
for
wetland
restoration
as
a
means
to
mitigate
for
low
flow
problems.
Define
existing
site
condition
of
wetland
to
be
restored
(
soils,
hydrology,
wetland
type,
watershed
relationship),
source
of
degradation
or
isolation,
and
pre­
disturbance
conditions
(
if
possible).
Establish
wetland
plant
objectives
(
vegetation
density
and
type,
hydrologic
regime)
and
identify
appropriate
wetland
reference
site
for
comparison.
Monitor
to
determine
if
desired
wetland
objectives
(
wetland
hydrology,
vegetation,
and
water
quality)
are
achieved
within
a
specified
time
period
and
compare
to
reference
site
conditions.

Water
Quality­
5.
Deploy
thermographs
in
Hood
Canal
streams
and
subestuaries
harboring
summer
chum.
temperature
Prioritize
streams
for
monitoring
based
on
existing
temperature
data
and
known
regional
patterns
(
e.
g.
eastside
Hood
Canal
should
have
a
high
priority
given
their
naturally­
warmer
temperature
regimes).
6.
Low
flow
monitoring
(
see
3,
above)
7.
What
is
the
frequency
and
extent
of
ulvoids
in
embayments?
Quantify
marine
vegetation
community
shifts.

Channel
complexity
8.
Channel
LWD
loading
assessment:
Calculate
the
existing
level
of
in­
channel
LWD
and
/
floodplain
compare
to
recommended
wood
loading
rates
for
the
appropriate
channel
type.
If
levels
are
below
target
and
short­
term
recruitment
potential
from
adjoining
stands
is
low,
evaluate
the
potential
for
LWD
placement.
Establish
LWD
objectives
and
monitor
implementation
of
plan
to
determine:
1)
if
LWD
is
retained
during
high
flow
events;
2)
effectiveness
in
storing
sediment
and
creating
desired
channel
conditions;
3)
changes
in
channel
characteristics
within
and
downstream
of
treated
reach.
9.
Channel
stability
assessment:
Establish
channel
cross­
sections
(
and
analyze
aerial
photos)
to
monitor
channel
change
each
year.
Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
removal
of
dikes,
roads
and
other
bank
hardening
structures
to
increase
the
resilience
and
flexibility
of
the
channel
to
respond
to
flood
events
and
changing
sediment
loads.
Methodology
includes
scourchain
monitoring
and
substrate
assessment
(
Wolman
pebble
count).
Factors
such
as
an
absence
of
stable
spawning
habitat,
lack
of
quality
pool
habitat,
and
high
flow
refugia
are
believed
to
be
the
limiting
factors
to
salmonids
due
to
channel
constriction
and
floodplain
loss.
Monitoring
activities
would
also
evaluate
spawning
and
rearing
success.
10.
Riparian
forest
condition
assessment:
(
see
13
and
14
below).

Sediment
11.
Sediment
delivery
sources:
What
are
the
existing
or
potential
sediment
sources
in
the
watershed?
Are
areas
of
mass
wasting
likely
to
deliver
sediment
to
stream
channels?
Has
any
mass
wasting
been
initiated
from
decommissioned
roads?
Is
follow­
up
work
necessary?
Is
percent
fine
sediment
increasing
in
spawning
gravel?
Monitoring
tools
includes
aerial
photo
landslide
inventories
and
field
surveys.
12.
Sediment
routing:
What
is
the
capacity
of
the
stream
for
transporting
and
storing
sediment
when
and
if
it
is
introduced
to
channels
as
a
result
of
landslides
or
road
failures?
How
will
this
impact
other
restoration
actions,
such
as
in­
channel
placement
of
LWD
(
see
8
above)?
Have
altered
flow
regimes
impacted
sediment
transport
capacity
of
stream?

Riparian
forest
13.
Acquisition
and
easements:
Would
riparian
acquisition/
protection
provide
for
the
longterm
protection
or
restoration
of
channel
processes
and
benefit
one
or
more
summer
chum
life
stages?
Are
any
involved
private
landowners
aware
of
any
property
restrictions
that
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
270
may
be
involved?
What
are
the
legal
obligations
of
involved
parties?
Who
will
be
responsible
for
the
routine
inspection,
management,
and
enforcement
activities?
Have
maps
or
inventories
been
prepared?
Is
there
a
need
for
baseline
inventory
and
mapping
for
future
monitoring
purposes?

Table
3.20.
Key
monitoring
questions
and
approach
(
continued).

Habitat
Parameter
of
Concern
Key
Monitoring
Questions
and
Approach
14.
Riparian
vegetation
restoration:
Are
the
plants
growing
and
being
maintained
to
ensure
the
establishment
of
an
effective
riparian
corridor?
What
percent
of
the
plant
material
survived
after
one
year?
Two
years?
Has
the
species
mix
changed?
What
was
the
survival
relative
to
the
landform
it
is
rooted
upon
(
e.
g.,
the
landform
height
above
the
channel)?
What
was
the
major
cause
of
plant
mortality?
Is
fencing
effectively
excluding
livestock
from
the
riparian
area
for
the
term
of
the
agreement
or
the
life
of
the
project?
What
happens
at
the
end
of
the
agreement
or
the
life
of
the
fence?

Fish
passage
15.
Evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
obstruction
removal
and
the
use
of
reclaimed
habitats
by
fish.
Are
summer
chum
utilizing
reclaimed
habitats?
What
other
additional
protection
and
restoration
actions
in
adjacent
areas
might
further
enhance
the
productivity
of
reclaimed
habitats.

Subestuarine
16.
Measure
salinity
and
tidal
inundation
in
subestuaries
before
and
after
habitat
alterations
Habitat
to
track
effectiveness
of
re­
establishing
natural
estuarine
processes.
17.
Analyze
1:
12,000
chronological
(
early
1940s
to
present)
scale
aerial
photo
record
and
other
historical
records
(
e.
g.,
topographic
`
T­
sheet'
surveys)
of
Hood
Canal
tributary
estuaries
and
use
to
monitor
changes
in
sediment
dynamics,
marsh
vegetation,
and
tidal
channel
development
resulting
from
natural
processes
and
specific
habitat
alterations.
18.
Standardize
subestuarine
sampling
protocols
and
surveys
for
subestuarine
function.

Nearshore
Habitat
19.
What
is
the
current
rate
of
shoreline
armoring
in
different
areas
of
Hood
Canal
and
how
has
this
impacted
nearshore
habitat?
Standardize
subestuarine
sampling
protocols
and
surveys
for
subestuarine
function.
20.
Do
summer
chum
utilize
native
understory
kelp
habitat,
and
what
is
the
significance
of
these
habitats
in
their
life­
history?

General
summer
chum
research
needs:
The
following
research
and
monitoring
needs
were
identified
in
our
watershed
and
subestuarine
assessments:

°
A
system
of
stream
classification
that
will
allow
for
the
appropriate
stratification
of
streams
for
the
purposes
of
protection,
restoration,
and
monitoring.
The
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Habitat
Inventory
and
Assessment
Project
(
SSHIAP)
is
currently
at
work
on
a
database
linked
to
a
GIS
that
will
provide
recovery
planners
with
a
valuable
tool
for
prioritizing
protection
and
restoration
work.
However,
technical
support
for
GIS
development
and
the
linking
of
database
and
GIS
interfaces
is
needed
to
make
the
promise
of
this
tool
a
reality.
°
Habitat
surveys
in
streams
for
which
little
or
no
data
exist.
Surveys
in
anadromous
reaches
should
be
highest
priority,
followed
by
surveys
of
streams
and
reaches
that
are
critical
contributing
areas
for
anadromous
reaches.
For
many
watersheds
(
e.
g.
Dosewallips,
Duckabush,
Lilliwaup,
Seabeck)
little
or
no
habitat
survey
data
exists.
In
most
other
streams,
survey
information
is
limited
in
scope
or
constitutes
a
single
season
survey.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
271
°
Surveys
to
identify
additional
streams
within
the
region
harboring
summer
chum.
Spawning
surveys
now
occur
in
watersheds
that
contain
extant
chum
populations,
and
some
watersheds
with
extinct
populations
(
Dewatto,
Tahuya,
Skokomish).
New
surveys
are
needed
to
document
recolonization
of
other
watersheds
(
e.
g.
Big
Anderson
and
Chimacum)
to
determine
the
relative
stability
of
recentlyfounded
populations.
Surveys
are
also
needed
in
the
Dungeness,
suspected
of
having
a
modest­
sized,
but
self­
sustaining
population.
°
Standardized
sampling
protocols
and
surveys
for
the
assessment
of
estuarine
function
and
condition
relative
to
their
rearing
capacity
for
summer
chum
and
their
historical
condition.
°
Scour­
chain
monitoring
in
multiple
watersheds
with
different
hydrologic
regimes
and
levels
of
human
impact.
Increases
in
peak
winter
flows,
streambed
mobility,
and
consequent
redd
scour
is
widely
perceived
as
a
major
factor
for
decline
of
summer
chum
in
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Scour
chain
monitoring
could
be
matched
with
emergence
trapping
to
link
population
processes
with
this
important
physical
parameter.
°
An
assessment
of
cumulative
impacts
at
the
scale
of
the
estuarine
landscape.
Quantitative
data
on
shoreline
impacts
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
is
needed,
and
must
be
connected
to
estuarine
and
nearshore
habitat
mapping
efforts
to
understand
the
impacts
of
human
modifications
on
critical
summer
chum
habitats.
°
A
multi­
scenario
analysis
of
full
buildout
(
completed
by
each
respective
county)
using
standard
and
alternative
design
and
materials
(
refer
to
peak
flow
toolkit
section).
Increasing
impervious
surfaces
from
roads,
residential
development,
and
urbanization
is
an
important
indicator
of
loss
of
fisheries
habitat
potential
(
May
et
al
1997).
An
analysis
evaluating
the
incorporation
of
innovative
designs
could
identify
potential
ways
to
reconcile
development
pressures
with
habitat
protection
needs.
°
A
life
history
study
of
selected
summer
chum
populations.
Do
summer
chum
spawn
intertidally?
How
long
do
they
rear
in
estuaries?
There
is
substantial
evidence
that
migration
timing
and
habitat
use
differs
between
summer
chum
and
fall
chum
in
Hood
Canal,
yet
most
of
our
current
life
history
information
is
derived
from
studies
on
fall
chum.
A
detailed
life
history
study
is
needed
for
summer
chum
to
understand
the
connections
between
populations
and
their
habitat.
°
An
analysis
of
hydrologic
change.
Channel
shape
and
form
result
from
the
interaction
of
water,
sediment,
and
gradient
working
together
over
many
years.
Channels
modify
their
shape
and
form
to
accommodate
different
levels
of
sediment
moving
through
rivers
over
time.
Artificial
constrictions
in
natural
channels
such
as
bridges
or
culverts
interfere
with
a
channel's
ability
to
accommodate
different
sediment
regimes,
concentrating
sediment
and
flow
in
confined
channels.
Increased
flows
have
severe
consequences
for
redds
and
rearing
habitat
such
as
pools
while
increasing
bank
erosion.
Channel
geometry
needs
to
be
investigated
in
conjunction
with
peak
flow
events
to
understand
the
ability
of
channels
to
handle
peak
flows.

3.4.6
Implementation
of
Habitat
Elements
of
Summer
Chum
Recovery
Plan
Authority
and
jurisdiction
for
habitat
protection
is
shared
by
a
multitude
of
agencies,
including
local,
state,
federal
and
tribal
governments.
Within
the
Hood
Canal
region
there
at
least
25
separate
agencies
with
some
level
of
jurisdiction
over
habitat.
These
organizations
vary
widely
in
their
mandate,
available
resources,
expertise,
and
implementation
abilities.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
272
Numerous
federal,
state,
and
local
laws
currently
exist
to
protect
habitat
(
Table
3.21).
Despite
this
fact,
habitat
conditions
within
the
Hood
Canal
region
continue
to
degrade
based
on
the
following
factors:

°
Many
natural
resource
laws
or
policies
were
typically
adopted
only
within
the
last
5­
30
years,
and
the
application
and
enforcement
of
earlier
laws
(
e.
g.
the
1949
Washington
State
Hydraulics
Code)
was
often
sporadic
at
best.
Many
of
the
most
egregious
impacts
were
historical
practices
(
e.
g.
splash
dams,
entire
watershed
logging)
that
continue
to
overshadow
relatively
recent
improvements
in
habitat
protection.
°
The
increasing
decentralization
of
natural
resource
management
authority
from
federal
to
state
to
local
levels
has
not
been
matched
with
adequate
funding,
resulting
in
a
lack
of
qualified
staff
to
implement
increasingly
complex
laws.
For
example,
the
Growth
Management
Act
established
extensive
planning
and
regulation
authority
at
the
County
level,
yet
implementation
of
its
standards
is
often
stymied
by
insufficient
funding
to
hire
qualified
biological
or
enforcement
staff.
°
Enforcement
of
existing
laws
is
often
inconsistent,
so
that
non­
compliance
penalties
is
seen
as
"
a
cost
of
doing
business".
For
example,
the
penalty
for
removing
trees
within
a
riparian
buffer
is
frequently
less
than
the
value
of
removed
timber,
creating
little
disincentive
to
potential
violators.
°
Many
laws
and
policies
are
not
strictly
based
on
biology
but
instead
represent
a
balancing
act
between
political
acceptability
and
science.
In
addition,
many
laws
are
enacted
at
geographic
scales
substantially
different
from
those
used
by
natural
resources,
especially
for
migratory
species.
For
example,
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
migrate
through
marine
areas
within
the
jurisdiction
of
four
county
governments
with
four
different
standards
for
shoreline
protection.
°
Many
laws
have
categorical
exemptions
for
smaller
projects,
such
as
those
associated
with
single
family
residences.
The
cumulative
impacts
of
these
projects
have
not
been
considered,
yet
single
family
residences
constitute
the
majority
of
development
within
the
rural
counties
of
the
Hood
Canal
region.
°
The
effectiveness
of
adopted
standards
has
not
been
consistently
monitored,
evaluated,
or
revised
based
on
adaptive
management
principles,
resulting
in
outdated
policies
that
are
difficult
if
not
politically
impossible
to
change.

Section
3.4.4
describes
a
broad
protection
and
restoration
strategy
and
implementation
for
the
watersheds
comprising
the
region
(
see
also
Appendix
Report
3.6).
This
section
outlines
a
procedural
framework
for
plan
implementation
by
defining
the
various
important
players,
roles,
and
key
implementation
elements
for
those
entities.
It
does
not
commit
these
parties
to
action,
but
rather
identifies
potential
pathways
for
further
policy
debate
and
decision
by
the
appropriate
jurisdictions.
Lacking
a
single
authority
with
a
habitat
protection
mandate,
the
success
of
the
recovery
plan
regarding
habitat
objectives
is
largely
dependent
on
mutual
cooperation
between
various
governmental
and
non­
governmental
entities.

Regional
policy
groups
(
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council)
The
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council
(
HCCC),
composed
of
the
three
counties
(
Mason,
Kitsap,
Jefferson),
two
tribal
governments
(
Port
Gamble
S'Klallam,
Skokomish
Tribe)
and
numerous
ex­
officio
members
(
federal,
state
governments)
has
been
identified
as
the
lead
entity
for
salmon
habitat
recovery
planning
under
Washington
State
HB
2496.
As
such,
the
HCCC
will
be
developing
a
strategic
plan
for
implementation
that
should
include
the
recommendations
of
this
plan
as
well
as
other
non­
regulatory
programs
such
as
education,
incentives,
and
voluntary
protections.
The
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council
has
also
elected
to
be
the
lead
entity
for
restoration
planning
through
House
Bill
2496,
and
as
such,
will
be
For
lands
and
forest
practice
activities
regulated
by
state
forest
practice
regulations,
WDFW
is
on
record
supporting
15
the
Forest
and
Fish
Report
and
the
protective
provisions
contained
therein.
Not
all
tribes
endorse
the
Forest
and
Fish
plan.
WDFW
continues
to
support
this
agreement
as
a
reasonable
approach
to
providing
functioning
habitat
conditions
on
these
lands,
provided
that
the
Forest
Practices
Board
adopts
all
the
necessary
regulations
to
implement
the
agreement,
adequate
funding
remains
available
to
support
the
adaptive
management
provisions,
and
the
comanagers
are
adequately
funded
to
participate
in
implementing
the
agreement.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
273
responsible
for
awarding
prioritization
of
restoration
and
protection
projects.
Numerous
technical
issues
will
need
to
be
addressed,
and
it
is
recommended
a
technical
committee
be
formed
to
assist
the
HCCC.

Clallam
County,
which
is
not
a
member
of
the
HCCC,
will
be
the
lead
entity
for
actions
within
their
jurisdiction,
with
the
same
relative
roles
and
responsibilities
described
above
for
the
HCCC.
Coordination
between
Clallam
County
and
the
HCCC
will
be
critical
to
ensure
consistency.
Local
governments
(
Counties,
Cities,
PUDs)
Local
governments
have
primary
authority
over
landuse
decisions
that
affect
habitat
quality.
As
outlined
in
Table
3.21,
numerous
laws
currently
exist
to
protect
habitat,
but
the
following
actions
are
recommended:
°
Counties/
Cities:
Evaluate
current
regulatory
and
policy
statements
for
consistency
with
specific
recommendations
provided
in
section
3.4.4.2
(
Toolkit
of
Protection
and
Restoration
Strategies).
In
particular,
elements
of
Critical
Areas
Ordinances,
Comprehensive
Plans,
Shoreline
Master
Programs,
and
Stormwater
Ordinances,
need
to
be
evaluated
and
recommendations
for
changes
made
to
local
decision­
making
bodies.
In
addition,
local
tax
codes
need
revision
to
remove
economic
incentives
encouraging
land
development
practices
that
are
deleterious
of
critical
salmon
habitat
(
e.
g.
construction
of
bulkheads
along
shorelines).
°
Local
governments
should
identify
timelines
for
changes,
staffing/
funding
needs,
and
enforcement
issues.
In
some
cases
improvements
in
landuse
ordinances
have
not
been
accompanied
by
increased
staff
to
enforce
needed
regulations.
°
PUDs,
cities,
and
other
water
purveyors:
Ensure
future
water
planning
is
consistent
with
recommendations
relative
to
flow,
integrate
planning
for
future
water
appropriations
with
long­
term
development
planning,
and
enact
water
conservation
programs.
°
The
Conservation
Districts
work
extensively
with
landowners
to
educate,
promote
stewardship
and
encourage
voluntary
restoration
projects.
They
will
play
a
key
role
in
translating
technical
information
contained
within
this
plan
to
local
landowners,
gaining
acceptance,
and
developing
specific
restoration
projects
for
individual
properties.

State
agencies
(
DNR,
DOE,
WDFW,
WADOT,
PSWQAT,
CTED,
WA
Conservation
Commission)
No
single
state
agency
has
authority
over
the
complex
array
of
processes
that
creates
habitat
quality.
The
Governor's
salmon
strategy
provides
a
programmatic
review
of
laws,
agencies
and
activities
that
the
state
intends
to
coordinate
and
implement
as
part
of
the
regional
salmon
strategy.
Section
3.4.4.2,
toolkit,
and
below
provide
direction
for
the
Governor's
task
force
and
agencies,
and
identify
key
deficiencies
in
existing
programs.
The
following
actions
are
recommended:

°
DNR
(
Department
of
Natural
Resources):
Evaluate
the
adequacy
of
forest
practices
rules,
monitor
effectiveness
of
completed
watershed
analyses
and
make
changes
as
needed.
Implement
appropriate
15
protection
and
restoration
measures,
especially
related
to
riparian
protection,
road
upgrades
or
decommissioning,
and
hydrologic
maturity.
In
some
instances,
modifications
to
existing
standards
and
conditioning
beyond
current
regulations
are
necessary
to
protect
and
restore
habitat
for
summer
chum.
WDFW
can
only
implement
this
recommendation
to
the
extent
of
its
legislative
authority.
The
tribes
recommend
16
changes
to
the
hydraulics
code,
RCW
Chapter
75.20,
that
will
support
this
recommendation.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
274
Take
a
significant
role
in
ensuring
SMA
compliance
in
forest
practice
applications
within
Shorelines
of
Statewide
Significance.
Continue
funding
the
Jobs
for
the
Environment,
which
has
given
conservation
districts,
tribes
and
others
a
resource
to
complete
restoration
projects.
°
DOE
(
Department
of
Ecology):
Implement
recommendations
related
to
establishing
instream
flows
and
processing
of
water
rights
requests,
implement
stormwater
programs,
investigate
the
impact
of
exempt
wells
on
groundwater
and
surface
flows,
monitor
effectiveness
of
water
quality
recommendations,
enforce
existing
and
new
state
water
quality
standards,
provide
information
on
and
adopt
updates
to
SMA
jurisdictional
areas,
develop
TMDLs
for
water
quality
and
habitat
parameters
identified
as
limiting
factors
for
summer
chum,
lead
watershed
planning
efforts
to
integrate
the
TMDLs
with
salmon
recovery,
and
assist
local
governments
in
evaluating
and
modifying
Shoreline
Master
Plans.
°
WDFW:
Incorporate
the
plan
recommendations
into
the
review
of
the
hydraulic
code,
review
and
condition
hydraulics
permits
consistent
with
this
plan's
recommendations
,
provide
technical
assistance
16
to
local
governments
in
evaluating
and
modifying
GMA
Comprehensive
Plans
and
ordinances,
provide
technical
assistance
to
local
salmon
enhancement
groups
in
developing
restoration
projects,
provide
guidance
on
the
selection
of
restoration
projects.
°
WSDOT
(
Washington
Department
of
Transportation):
Ensure
all
fish
passage
structures,
bridges,
and
other
transportation
elements
are
consistent
with
recommendations
in
this
plan,
and
develop
restoration
schedule
for
those
structures
that
do
not
meet
the
recommendations
of
this
plan.
Work
with
other
resource
agencies
and
cities/
counties
to
develop
specific
language
to
clarify
which
transportation
projects
are
allowed
shoreline
permit
exemption
and
those
that
are
not
allowed
exemption.
°
PSWQAT
(
Puget
Sound
Water
Quality
Action
Team):
While
PSWQAT
does
not
have
jurisdictional
authority,
their
water
quality
management
plan
provides
a
regional,
coordinated
approach
to
water
quality
improvements
and
protection.
Their
plan
should
be
viewed
as
a
general
framework,
with
the
more
stringent
recommendations
of
this
report
added
on
for
salmon
recovery.
°
CTED
(
Department
of
Community,
Trade
and
Economic
Development):
Responsible
for
Growth
Management
Act
comprehensive
planning.
For
most
counties,
their
critical
area
ordinances
(
required
under
GMA)
are
inadequate
in
terms
of
protecting
and
restoring
habitat
for
the
recovery
of
ESA
listed
species
(
see
Growth
Management
Act,
Table
3.21).
°
Conservation
Commission:
Under
HB
2496
the
Conservation
Commission
is
charged
with
developing
limiting
factors
analyses
for
all
salmon
species
within
the
state.
The
Conservation
Commission
has
used
this
plan's
draft
habitat
chapter
limiting
factor
analysis
for
summer
chum
as
a
component
of
its
multispecies
limiting
factors
analysis.
It
is
anticipated
that
the
restoration
objectives,
factors
for
recovery
(
Appendix
Report
3.6)
and
evaluation
criteria
(
section
3.4.4.3)
will
be
utilized
for
restoration
efforts
directed
at
summer
chum.
°
HB
2496
and
SB
5595
Lead
Entities
and
Salmon
Recovery
Funding
Board:
HB2496,
now
codified
as
Chapter
75.46
RCW
includes
language
that
describes
the
lead
entity
process
for
soliciting
and
ranking
salmon
habitat
recovery
projects
at
the
local
level.
Inititially,
projects
were
solicited
from
local
sponsors,
ranked
by
the
lead
entities
and
forwarded
to
the
Interagency
Review
Team.
However
SB5595,
passed
by
the
legislature
in
1999
created
a
new
funding
process,
with
grants
awarded
by
the
Salmon
Recovery
Funding
Board
(
SRF
Board).
The
lead
entity
solicitation
and
ranking
process
was
kept
intact,
but
the
grant
review
and
award
process
was
changed
from
the
IRT
to
the
SRF
Board.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
275
The
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council
is
the
lead
entity
for
all
Hood
Canal
streams.
In
addition,
Clallam
County
is
the
lead
entity
for
that
part
of
WRIA
17
in
Clallam
County
as
well
for
WRIAs
18­
20
(
North
Olympic
Peninsula
Lead
Entity).
Both
lead
entities
forwarded
habitat
projects
to
the
SRF
Board
that
addressed
summer
chum
habitat
limiting
factors
as
identified
in
this
plan
and
both
were
successful
in
receiving
grants.
It
is
anticipated
many
other
similar
habitat
projects
will
be
submitted
in
subsequent
SRF
Board
grant
cycles.
°
HB2514
Watershed
Planning
Act
Local
Planning
Units:
HB2514
addresses
water
allocation
planning,
but
can
include
habitat
protection
elements
and
a
link
to
HB2496
projects.
Watershed
planning
grants
within
the
summer
chum
ESU
have
been
provided
for
all
WRIAs
whose
streams
flow
into
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Again,
the
habitat
elements
of
the
Summer
Chum
Conservation
Initiative
should
be
integrated
into
these
planning
efforts.

Federal
Agencies
(
NMFS,
EPA,
USFWS,
USFS,
COE,
NPS)
Federal
agencies
have
authority
over
several
key
laws
protecting
habitat,
including
the
Endangered
Species
Act,
Clean
Water
Act,
and
National
Forest
Management
Act.
Their
role
in
implementing
the
plan
includes:

°
NMFS
(
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service):
Responsible
for
judging
adequacy
of
the
plan,
developing
4(
d)
rule
or
Section
7
and
10
permits
after
listings,
providing
consultation
on
individual
projects,
and
assisting
local
governments
in
developing
implementation
strategies.
°
EPA
(
Environmental
Protection
Agency):
Oversight
on
water
quality
standards
to
meet
Clean
Water
Act
requirements.
°
USFWS
(
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service):
Ensure
national
fish
hatchery
operations
are
consistent
with
habitat
protection
strategies.
°
USFS
(
U.
S.
Forest
Service):
Implement
appropriate
protection
and
restoration
strategies,
especially
related
to
riparian
protection,
roads,
and
hydrologic
maturity
on
National
Forest
lands.
°
COE
(
Army
Corps
of
Engineers):
Ensure
that
permits
issued
by
COE
are
consistent
with
the
recommendations
of
this
plan,
especially
as
it
relates
to
landuse
and
restoration
activities
within
floodplains
and
shoreline
areas.
°
NPS
(
National
Park
Service):
Provide
reference
sites
and
monitoring
to
use
as
targets
for
sediment
loading,
riparian
composition,
and
channel
condition.

Non­
governmental
entities
(
local
salmon
enhancement
groups
and
conservation
organizations)
The
Hood
Canal
Regional
Fisheries
Enhancement
Group,
the
North
Olympic
Salmon
Coalition
and
other
conservation
organizations
play
an
important
role
in
restoration.
In
recent
years,
the
tribes,
conservation
districts,
enhancement
groups
and
conservation
organizations
have
accounted
for
the
bulk
of
the
channel
and
riparian
restoration
projects
in
the
region.

Tribes
The
tribes
have
technical
staff
that
work
extensively
within
watersheds
based
on
tribal
usual
and
accustomed
areas.
Tribal
staff
have
and
will
continue
to
contribute
technical
knowledge
related
to
habitat
conditions,
assist
in
the
development
of
strategic
plans,
implement
restoration
activities,
and
monitor
the
effectiveness
of
the
conservation
initiative.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.4
Habitat
Page
276
Table
3.21.
Summary
of
habitat
protection
laws.

Law
Mandate
Clean
Water
Act
"
Restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
nation's
waters"
and
to
"
eliminate
all
discharges
of
pollutants
to
these
waters"

Federal
Power
Act
Licensing
non­
federal
dams
on
navigable
waters.
"
The
protection,
mitigation
of
damage
to,
and
enhancement
of
fish
and
wildlife ."

Endangered
Species
Act
"
To
provide
a
means
whereby
the
ecosystems
upon
which
endangered
species
and
threatened
species
depend
may
be
conserved,
to
provide
programs
for
the
conservation
of
these
species,
and
to
achieve
the
purposes
of
the
treaties
and
convention
set
forth
in
the
act".

Magnuson­
Stevens
Fisheries
Conserv.
Act
Designate
and
protect
essential
fish
habitat
for
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
Coastal
Zone
Management
Act
"
Preserve,
protect,
and
where
possible,
to
restore
and
enhance
the
resources
of
the
nation's
coastal
zone".

National
Forest
Management
Act
"
Develop
plans
to
manage
forests
consistent
with
protection
of
soils,
vegetation,
water
quality,
and
aquatic
habitats
needed
to
provide
viable
fish
and
wildlife
populations."

Washington
State
Hydraulic
Code
"
Regulate
construction,
of
any
form,
that
will
use,
divert,
obstruct,
or
change
the
natural
flow
or
bed
of
any
of
the
salt
or
fresh
waters
of
the
state
to
ensure
the
proper
protection
of
fish
life."

Washington
State
Forest
Practices
Act
Adopt
regulation
to
"
afford
protection
to
forest
soils
and
public
resources
by
utilizing
all
reasonable
methods
of
technology
in
conducting
forest
practices"
and
to
"
prevent
material
damage
or
the
potential
for
material
damage
to
a
public
resource."

Washington
State
Growth
Management
Act
Adopt
regulations
to
"
classify
and
designate
resource
lands
and
critical
areas
to
assure
the
long­
term
conservation
of
resource
lands
and
to
preclude
land
uses
and
developments
which
are
incompatible
with
critical
areas".
Critical
areas
include
fish
and
wildlife
habitat
conservation
areas.

Shoreline
Management
Act
"
Ensure
the
development
of
shorelines
in
a
manner
which,
while
allowing
for
limited
reduction
of
rights
of
the
public
in
the
navigable
waters,
will
promote
and
enhance
the
public
interest."

Water
Resources
Act
"
The
quality
of
the
natural
environment
shall
be
protected
and,
where
possible,
enhanced
as
follows 
Perennial
streams
and
streams
of
the
state
shall
be
retained
with
base
flows
necessary
to
provide
for
preservation
of
wildlife,
fish, ."

Water
Pollution
Control
Act
" 
protection
of
wildlife,
birds,
game,
fish
and
other
aquatic
life,
and
the
industrial
development
of
the
state,
and
to
that
end
require
the
use
of
all
known
available
and
reasonable
methods
by
industries
and
others
to
prevent
and
control
the
pollution
of
the
waters
of
the
state
of
Washington".

Instream
Resources
Protection
Program
"
Establish
only
base
level
flows
to
sustain
fish
life"

State
Environmental
Policy
Act
"
To
encourage
productive
and
enjoyable
harmony
between
man
and
his
environment;
to
promote
efforts
which
will
prevent
of
eliminate
damage
to
the
environment
and
biosphere;
and
stimulate
health
and
welfare
of
man;
and
to
enrich
the
understanding
of
the
ecological
systems
and
natural
resources
important
to
the
state
and
nation."
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
277
3.5
Harvest
Management
3.5.1
Introduction
The
short­
term
goal
of
the
harvest
strategies
outlined
in
this
section
is
to
protect
the
summer
chum
populations
within
Hood
Canal
and
Eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
HC­
SJF)
from
further
decline
by
minimizing
the
effect
of
harvest
as
a
major
factor
to
that
decline.
The
long­
term
goal
of
these
strategies
is
to
assist
in
the
restoration
and
maintenance
of
self­
sustaining
summer
chum
populations
throughout
the
Hood
Canal/
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
while
maintaining
harvest
opportunities
on
comingled
salmon
of
other
species.

In
order
to
contribute
to
recovery,
harvest
management
measures
are
designed
to
limit
fishing
mortality
to
a
rate
that
permits
a
high
proportion
of
the
summer
chum
run
to
return
to
spawning
grounds
and
thus
accommodate
the
maintenance
and
rebuilding
of
self­
sustaining
populations
(
Table
3.22).
Restrictions
will
be
applied
to
regulate
exploitation­
based
impacts
to
each
management
unit
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
(
section
3.5.2).
These
harvest
management
measures
are
designed
to
apportion
harvest
impacts
between
or
within
management
units
based
on
population
status
and
individual
population
characteristics,
and
to
result
in
a
broad
distribution
of
spawners
throughout
all
stocks
in
the
HC­
SJF
region.
These
harvest
management
actions,
when
coordinated
with
habitat
protection/
restoration
and
supplementation
actions,
should
lead
to
the
maintenance
and
restoration
of
genetic
and
biological
diversity
within
the
HC­
SJF
region.

Table
3.22.
Expected
Base
Conservation
Regime
incidental
exploitation
rates
and
ranges
by
fishery.

Fishery
Lower
Guideline
Expected
Average
Exploitation
Rate
Upper
Guideline
Canadian
2.3%
6.3%
8.3%
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
0.5%
2.5%
3.5%
Hood
C.
terminal
0.5%
2.1%
3.5%

Hood
Canal
Total
3.3%
10.9%
15.3%
1
SJF
Total
2.8%
8.8%
11.8%
2
Total
of
Canadian,
U.
S.
pre­
terminal,
and
Hood
Canal
terminal
exploitation
rates.
1
Total
of
Canadian
and
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
exploitation
rates.
There
is
no
terminal
area
harvest
of
Strait
of
2
Juan
de
Fuca
stocks.

These
strategies
are
expected
to
result
in
significant
reductions
from
total
exploitation
levels
estimated
for
the
period
from
the
1980s
to
the
early
1990s
which
were
the
result
of
fisheries
targeted
at
other
species.
The
harvest
management
portion
of
the
recovery
plan,
by
establishing
annual
fishing
regimes
for
Canadian,
U.
S.
mixed­
population,
and
Washington
terminal
area
fisheries,
is
designed
to
greatly
reduce
incidental
impacts
to
summer
chum
salmon,
during
fisheries
conducted
for
the
harvest
of
other
species.
The
expected
reduction
in
incidental
interceptions,
relative
to
the
high
rates
observed
during
the
1985­
1991
period,
is
approximately
71%
for
Canadian
fisheries,
50%
for
U.
S.
pre­
terminal,
and
93%
for
Washington
terminal
area
fisheries.
The
Base
Conservation
Regime
is
based
on
a
series
of
management
measures,
which
are
expected
to
effectively
and
substantially
reduce
incidental
impacts,
in
order
to
conserve,
and
not
appreciably
reduce
the
likelihood
of
survival
and
recovery
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
the
wild.
At
present,
because
of
the
lack
of
sufficient
Note
that
"
critical
status"
as
used
here
has
a
different
definition
and
application
(
described
in
section
1.7.3)
then
1
the
definition
and
application
for
SASSI
stocks
(
shown
in
section
1.7.2).

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
278
information
on
summer
chum
productivity,
it
is
not
possible
to
construct
a
regime
based
on
more
sophisticated
biologically­
based
objectives
such
as
maximum
sustained
yield
(
MSY).
The
combination
of
specific
management
actions
and
fishery
specific
exploitation
rates
comprising
the
Base
Conservation
Regime
is
based
on
a
conservative
integration
of
the
existing
data
and
management
experience.
However,
the
harvest
management
plan
is
designed
to
be
responsive
to
feedback
mechanisms,
in
order
to
provide
for
adaptive
management
towards
meeting
the
goals
of
protection
of
summer
chum,
while
maintaining
harvest
opportunities
on
other
species.

Improvements
in
escapement,
catch
and
abundance
databases
were
made
during
the
development
of
this
plan.
Historical
escapements,
run
sizes,
and
run­
timing
and
entry
patterns
were
revised
or
recomputed
significantly
improving
the
overall
consistency,
quality
and
reliability
of
the
data
from
which
the
current
management
baselines
are
drawn.
Harvest
impacts
were
reassessed
by
accounting
for
mortality
from
all
fisheries
and
incorporating
the
results
of
new
technologies.
This
reassessment
facilitated
the
use
of
exploitation
rates
in
setting
management
objectives.
The
managers
then
used
the
entry
patterns
in
conjunction
with
catch
and
exploitation
rate
information
to
develop
harvest
regimes
in
marine
and
freshwater
areas
that
offered
protection
to
the
populations
passing
through
these
areas.
These
improvements
underscore
the
contrast
between
the
enhanced
management
detailed
in
this
initiative
and
past
management
methods.

The
management
strategies
described
in
the
following
sections
will
continue
to
evolve
and
adapt
as
additional
information
is
collected,
analyzed
and
incorporated.
Programs
to
monitor
and
evaluate
harvest
actions
and
progress
toward
achieving
the
harvest
management
plan
objectives
are
designed
to
maintain,
at
a
minimum,
current
sampling
and
survey
activities
and,
as
funding
becomes
available,
provide
the
additional
information
described
in
section
3.5.10
(
Harvest
Management,
Monitoring
and
Assessment)
and
section
3.5.12
(
Stock
Assessment
Information
Needs).
For
example,
collection
of
age­
specific
survival
rate
information
will
be
essential
to
assess
productivity
and
assist
in
the
evaluation
and
establishment
of
abundance
and
escapement
thresholds,
exploitation
rates
and
recovery
levels,
for
the
various
management
units.

This
section
is
divided
into
five
main
components:
1)
a
description
of
the
management
units
and
their
component
stocks
and
their
status;
2)
review
of
harvest
as
a
factor
of
decline;
3)
a
description
of
the
harvest
regimes,
actions,
and
performance
criteria;
4)
a
description
of
plan
implementation
including
monitoring,
evaluation
and
review,
and;
5)
a
description
of
data
and
information
needed
to
fill
current
knowledge
gaps,
improve
management
and
facilitate
recovery.

3.5.2
Description
of
Management
Units,
Stocks,
and
Their
Status
Table
3.23
lists
the
management
units,
stocks,
location
and
critical
status
thresholds
utilized
for
1
harvest
management
purposes.
Management
units
are
defined
in
this
plan
as
"
A
stock
or
group
of
stocks
which
are
aggregated
for
the
purpose
of
achieving
a
desired
spawning
escapement
objective".
Stocks,
as
used
in
this
document,
generally
correspond
with
the
definition
for
a
"
stock"
as
used
in
SASSI
uses
the
Ricker
(
1972)
definition
of
population
(
stock):
"
The
fish
[
of
the
same
species]
spawning
in
a
2
particular
lake
or
stream(
s)
at
a
particular
season,
which
fish
to
a
substantial
degree
do
not
interbreed
with
any
group
spawning
in
a
different
place,
or
in
the
same
place
at
a
different
season."
(
WDF
et
al.
1993)

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
279
the
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan,
and
in
the
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
SASSI)(
WDF
et
al.
1993)
.
Conceptually,
the
management
unit
approach
is
designed
to
recognize
2
the
practical
and
biological
limitations
to
how
we
can
manage
fisheries
for
salmon
populations
(
or
meta­
populations,
or
sub­
populations).
Considerations
for
defining
management
units
include:
1)
adequacy
of
information
on
which
to
separate
and
manage
groups
of
fish
on
a
finer
resolution;
2)
similarities
in
life
history
characteristics
(
e.
g.
entry
pattern,
body
size,
genetic
similarity,
etc.);
and
3)
practicality
of
managing
fisheries
separately
for
multiple
populations
or
sub­
populations.

The
current
plan
defines
management
objectives
only
for
extant
populations.
Extinct
populations,
identified
in
section
1.7.2.2,
are
included
in
Table
3.23
only
to
provide
geographical
and
historical
reference
to
the
reader.
Management
will
be
revised
as
necessary
to
address
re­
introductions
by
incorporating
rebuilding
objectives
of
those
programs.

Table
3.23
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
management
units,
stocks
and
Critical
Thresholds.

Management
Unit
Catch
Area
Stocks
Washington
Commercial
Critical
Thresholds
Abundance
Escapement
Sequim
Bay
6B
Jimmmycomelately
<
220
<
200
Discovery
Bay
6B
Snow
Creek/
Salmon
Creek
<
790
<
720
Dungeness
Bay
6D
Dungeness
River
Undetermined
Port
Townsend
9
Chimacum
Creek
Reintroduction
Mainstem
Hood
Lilliwaup
Creek
<
2,980
<
2,660
Canal
Hamma
Hamma
R.
(
Hood
Canal
Bridge
Duckabush
River
to
Ayres
Point)
Dosewallips
River
12/
12B/
12C
Big
Beef
Creek
Reintroduction
Anderson
Creek
Dewatto
Creek
Skokomish
River
Finch
Creek
Extinct
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
12A
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
<
1,260
<
1,110
SE
Hood
Canal
12D
Union
River
<
340
<
300
Tahuya
River
Extinct
Total
ESU
<
5,400
<
4,750
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
280
Figure
3.3.
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
and
Hood
Canal
management
units
and
stocks.

All
of
the
management
units
described
in
this
plan
contain
only
one
stock
(
for
the
extant
summer
chum
stocks
described
in
Part
One),
except
for
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit.
The
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
contains
four
currently
existing
stocks
(
Table
3.23).
Unlike
the
other
management
units,
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
covers
an
area
with
multiple
watersheds
separated
by
a
significant
distance,
and
each
stock
corresponds
with
an
independent
stream
draining
into
the
mainstem
area
of
Hood
Canal
(
Figure
3.3).
These
stocks
have
been
combined
into
a
single
management
unit
because:
1)
there
is
insufficient
confidence
in
our
harvest
and
run
size
information
to
feel
we
can
accurately
manage
each
stock
separately;
2)
while
there
appear
to
be
some
genetic
differences
between
populations,
the
consistency
and
significance
of
these
differences
has
not
been
demonstrated,
and
all
of
these
populations
appear
to
have
similar
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
281
life
history
characteristics;
and
3)
they
all
drain
into
a
single
major
terminal
fishing
area
and
none
have
discrete
terminal
marine
areas
where
they
could
be
harvested
independently.
Concerns
for
obtaining
an
adequate
distribution
of
spawners
across
the
stock
within
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
are
addressed
through
the
Escapement
Distribution
Flags,
which
are
defined
in
section
1.7.3.

When
additional
information
becomes
available,
it
may
become
possible
and
desirable
to
adjust
management
unit
resolution.
This
could
result
in
either
separation
or
combination
of
stocks
into
management
units.
Any
changes
to
management
unit
definition
will
be
based
on
the
considerations
noted
above.
Following
are
descriptions
of
currently
defined
management
units.

Table
3.24
presents
estimates
of
the
average
time
periods
when
10%,
50%
and
90%
of
the
run
entry
to
freshwater
spawning
areas
is
achieved
for
each
summer
chum
salmon
stock.
These
average
values
are
derived
from
selected
spawning
ground
survey
data
from
1974
through
1998,
adjusted
to
reflect
estimated
timing
of
entry
to
freshwater
areas.
Two
different
methodologies
were
used
to
estimate
entry
timing
(
both
presented
in
Table
3.24),
and
showed
similar
results.
There
can
be
significant
annual
variations
from
the
average
run
entry
timing
for
individual
populations,
where
run
entry
can
be
substantially
earlier
or
later
than
average.

Table
3.24.
Summary
of
summer
chum
salmon
average
freshwater
entry
timing
estimates
(
10%,
50%,
and
90%
completion)
derived
with
two
different
methodologies.
See
Appendix
Report
1.2
for
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
methodologies
used.

PNPTC
timing
estimate
WDFW
timing
estimate
Management
Stock
No.
Yrs
10%
50%
90%
No.
Yrs
10%
50%
90%
Unit
(
N)
date
date
date
(
N)
date
date
date
Sequim
Bay
Jimmycomelately
14
9/
12
9/
21
10/
4
15
9/
9
9/
19
10/
5
Discovery
Bay
Snow/
Salmon
20
9/
14
9/
24
10/
8
20
9/
13
9/
24
10/
11
Mainstem
Dosewallips
16
9/
8
9/
20
10/
4
13
9/
7
9/
18
10/
4
Hood
Canal
Duckabush
24
9/
14
9/
23
10/
6
16
9/
12
9/
24
10/
6
Hamma
Hamma
23
9/
12
9/
22
10/
3
21
9/
9
9/
22
10/
5
Lilliwaup
18
9/
10
9/
23
10/
5
13
9/
12
9/
23
10/
5
Quilcene
Bay
Big/
Little
Quilcene
16
9/
7
9/
17
9/
26
17
9/
5
9/
17
9/
30
SE
Hood
Canal
Union
18
9/
1
9/
11
9/
24
16
8/
28
9/
10
9/
25
3.5.2.1
Management
Unit:
Sequim
Bay
Escapement
for
eight
of
the
fifteen
years
included
in
the
average
were
extrapolated
from
Discovery
Bay
system.
3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
282
Stock:
Jimmycomelately
Status:
Critical
Critical
Abundance
Threshold:
220
Critical
Escapement
Threshold:
200
Times
below
critical
abundance
threshold
in
last
4
years:
3
in
last
8
years:
7
Times
below
critical
escapement
threshold
in
last
4
years:
3
in
last
8
years:
6
Summer
chum
spawn
in
the
lower
mile
of
Jimmycomelately
Creek.
Escapements
in
recent
years
(
1995­
1998)
have
been
poor
and
declining,
averaging
103
spawners(
range
=
30­
223)
compared
to
a
1974­
88
average
of
475
(
range=
61­
1326)
.
Production
from
this
system
relies
on
wild
production.
3
Adults
generally
enter
freshwater
from
early
September
through
mid
to
late
October
with
mean
date
of
entry
occurring
in
the
third
week
of
September
(
Table
3.24
and
Appendix
Report
1.2).

3.5.2.2
Management
Unit:
Discovery
Bay
Stock:
Snow
Creek
/
Salmon
Creek
Status:
Depressed
Critical
Abundance
Threshold:
790
Critical
Escapement
Threshold:
720
Times
below
critical
abundance
threshold
in
last
4
years:
1
in
last
8
years:
5
Times
below
critical
escapement
threshold
in
last
4
years:
2
in
last
8
years:
6
These
streams
were
classified
as
a
single
unit
due
to
the
close
proximity
of
the
streams
to
each
other,
the
lack
of
significant
genetic
difference
and
the
fact
that
Snow
Creek
once
flowed
into
Salmon
Creek
before
separation
by
a
man­
made
diversion
early
in
the
twentieth
century.
Summer
chum
adults
spawn
in
the
lower
two
miles
of
Salmon
Creek
and
the
lower
mile
of
Snow
Creek.
Spawner
abundance
has
declined,
averaging
936
fish
(
616­
1172)
from
1995
through
1998,
compared
to
a
1974­
1988
historical
average
of
1,434
spawners
(
range
=
171­
3,783).
The
decline
in
abundance
has
been
primarily
due
to
a
large
decline
in
Snow
Creek,
which
dropped
to
extremely
low
levels
in
the
1980s
and
early
1990s
(
less
than
34
spawners/
year).
Recent
escapement
data
suggests
that
the
stock's
escapement
may
be
increasing
and
Snow
Creek
may
be
beginning
to
recover.
A
supplementation
program
was
started
in
1992
to
boost
natural
production
in
Salmon
Creek
and
use
surplus
in
a
re­
introduction
program
for
Chimacum
Creek.

Adults
enter
freshwater
from
early
September
through
October
with
peak
spawning
occurring
in
late
September
(
Table
3.24).
Entry
timing
is
extremely
variable,
varying
by
several
days
to
two
weeks
from
the
mean
date
of
entry
for
an
individual
year
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).
The
management
actions
described
in
the
following
sections
take
this
variability
into
account
to
provide
adequate
protection
for
this
stock.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
283
3.5.2.3
Management
Unit:
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Status:
Depressed
Critical
Abundance
Threshold:
2,980
Critical
Escapement
Threshold:
2,660
Times
below
critical
abundance
threshold
in
last
4
years:
2
in
last
8
years:
6
Times
below
critical
escapement
threshold
in
last
4
years:
2
in
last
8
years:
6
The
stocks
in
this
management
unit
have
historically
been
and
continue
to
be
the
largest
producers
of
unsupplemented
summer
chum
in
this
region.
Of
the
seven
stocks
historically
comprising
this
management
unit,
four
currently
exist:
Duckabush,
Dosewallips,
Hamma
Hamma,
Lilliwaup.
The
Duckabush,
Dosewallips
and
Hamma
Hamma
stocks
are
considered
depressed.
The
Lilliwaup
stock
is
considered
critical.
A
re­
introduction
program
was
implemented
on
Big
Beef
Creek
beginning
with
brood
year
1994.
The
harvest
management
strategy
described
in
this
plan
(
Tables
3.29­
3.34)
focuses
on
stabilizing
and
rebuilding
the
extant
stocks.
The
strategy
will
be
revised
to
incorporate
objectives
of
re­
introduction
projects
if
it
is
necessary
for
their
success.

Escapements
for
the
extant
populations
fell
from
an
average
of
8,300
in
1974­
82
(
range
=
1,839­
18,626),
to
an
average
of
568
in
1983­
1990
(
range
=
79­
1,873).
Escapements
began
to
increase
in
the
1990s
and
recent
year
(
1995­
98)
escapements
have
averaged
4,012
(
range
=
652­
10,500).
Production
depends
entirely
on
natural
spawners.

Adults
enter
freshwater
from
the
first
week
in
September
through
mid­
October
with
mean
date
of
entry
occurring
in
late
September.
Entry
timing
may
vary
up
to
4
days
from
the
mean
in
any
year
depending
on
the
stock
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).

Stock:
Dosewallips
Summer
chum
adults
spawn
predominately
in
the
lower
mile
of
the
watershed.
The
Dosewallips
summer
chum
population
has
exhibited
the
highest
number
of
spawning
adults
of
any
Hood
Canal
wild
population
in
recent
years.
Recent
escapements
(
1995­
98)
have
averaged
2,537
(
range
=
47­
6,976),
compared
to
a
1974­
81
average
estimated
escapement
of
2,087
(
range
=
63­
3,593)
and
an
1982­
1989
average
of
221
during
the
lowest
period
of
escapements
(
range
=
9­
661).

Adults
enter
freshwater
from
early
September
through
mid­
October
with
the
mean
date
of
entry
occurring
in
late
September
(
Table
3.24).
Entry
is
broad
with
two
apparent
peaks
in
spawning
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).

Stock:
Duckabush
Summer
chum
adults
spawn
predominately
in
the
lower
two
miles
of
the
watershed.
Along
with
the
Hamma
Hamma
and
Dosewallips
stocks,
the
Duckabush
has
historically
been
one
of
the
largest
producers
of
summer
chum.
Escapements
fell
from
an
average
of
2,356
in
1974­
81
(
range
=
557­
6,095),
to
an
average
of
231
in
1982­
1989
(
range
=
12­
690).
Escapements
began
to
increase
in
the
1990s
and
recent
year
(
1995­
98)
escapements
have
averaged
1,044
(
range
=
226­
2,650).
Production
depends
entirely
on
natural
spawners.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
284
Adults
enter
freshwater
from
early
September
through
mid­
October
with
the
mean
date
of
entry
occurring
in
late
September
(
Table
3.24).
Entry
timing
may
vary
by
2­
5
days
in
any
year
with
generally
more
variability
seen
in
the
earlier
portion
of
the
run
(
Appendix
Report
1.2)

Stock:
Hamma
Hamma
This
stock
consists
of
summer
chum
spawning
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
and
a
tributary,
John
Creek.
Returning
adult
summer
chum
spawn
predominately
in
the
lowest
mile
of
the
watershed.
The
amount
of
spawning
in
John
Creek
is
dependent
on
favorable
flow
conditions.
Production
has
depended
entirely
on
natural
spawners,
although
first
generation
adults
from
the
supplementation
program
are
expected
to
contribute
beginning
with
the
2001
return.
Recent
(
1995­
1998)
escapements
have
averaged
374
fish
(
range=
104­
774),
compared
to
a
1974­
81
average
escapement
of
3,960
(
range=
329­
8,215)
and
an
1982­
1989
average
of
256
during
the
period
of
lowest
escapements
(
range=
16­
801).
This
population
is
considered
depressed
in
status
relative
to
historic
levels,
which,
with
the
Duckabush
River,
were
among
the
highest
recorded
for
summer
chum
in
the
region.
The
future
of
a
supplementation
program
initiated
in
1997
using
indigenous
fish
is
conditional
on
the
implementation
of
reliable
methods
of
broodstock
collection
(
see
3.2
Artificial
Production).

Adults
enter
freshwater
from
early
September
through
mid­
October
with
the
mean
date
of
entry
occurring
in
late
September
(
Table
3.24).
Spawning
timing
may
vary
by
up
to
a
week
between
years
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).

Stock:
Lilliwaup
Spawning
of
the
Lilliwaup
Creek
summer
chum
population
is
limited
to
the
lower
0.7
miles
of
the
watershed
by
an
impassable
falls.
Prior
to
1992,
production
depended
entirely
on
natural
spawners.
Recent
year
(
1995­
1998)
escapements
have
averaged
57
fish
(
range
=
24­
100),
compared
to
a
1974­
81
average
escapement
of
674
(
range
=
163­
1,612),
and
an
average
of
104
(
range
=
18­
275)
in
1982­
89.
Because
of
its
status,
a
supplementation
program
was
initiated
in
1992
using
the
indigenous
stock
(
see
section
3.2
Artificial
Production).

Adults
enter
freshwater
from
early
September
through
late
October
with
the
mean
date
of
entry
occurring
in
late
September
(
Table
3.24).
Spawning
timing
is
fairly
stable,
generally
varying
by
only
2­
3
days
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).

3.5.2.4
Management
Unit:
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
Stock:
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
Status:
Critical
Critical
Abundance
Threshold:
1,260
Critical
Escapement
Threshold:
1,110
Times
below
critical
abundance
threshold
in
last
4
years:
0
in
last
8
years:
2
Times
below
critical
escapement
threshold
in
last
4
years:
0
in
last
8
years:
4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
285
Summer
chum
spawn
in
the
lower
mile
of
the
Little
Quilcene
River
and
the
lower
2.8
miles
of
the
Big
Quilcene
River
downstream
of
the
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
(
QNFH).
Because
of
the
proximity
of
the
two
streams
and
the
likelihood
of
mixing
of
spawners,
the
two
streams
have
been
designated
as
a
single
population.
Spawning
abundance
declined
significantly
from
an
annual
average
of
1,780
spawners
(
1974­
1981),
to
the
lowest
average
of
139
fish
in
1982­
1989
(
range
=
2­
297).
Recent
natural
spawner
escapements
to
the
rivers
(
1995­
98)
have
averaged
6,262
(
range
=
3,056­
9,515
fish),
but
many
of
the
returning
adults
in
the
most
recent
four
year
period
may
be
the
result
of
first
generation
returns
from
a
supplementation
program
implemented
at
the
QNFH
in
1992
(
see
3.2
Artificial
Production).

Adults
enter
from
late
August
to
early
September,
through
October
with
mean
date
of
entry
occurring
in
about
the
third
week
of
September
(
Table
3.24).
Entry
timing
may
vary
by
a
few
days
to
a
week
in
any
year
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).

3.5.2.5
Management
Unit:
Southeast
Hood
Canal
Of
the
two
stocks
historically
comprising
this
management
unit
(
Union,
Tahuya),
only
the
Union
River
is
considered
extant.

Stock:
Union
River
Status:
Healthy
Critical
Abundance
Threshold:
340
Critical
Escapement
Threshold:
300
Times
below
critical
abundance
threshold
in
last
four
years:
1
in
the
last
8
years:
4
Times
below
critical
escapement
threshold
in
last
four
years:
1
in
the
last
8
years:
4
Summer
chum
spawn
predominately
in
the
lower
mile
of
the
watershed.
In
contrast
to
other
summer
chum
production
streams
within
the
region,
the
Union
River
summer
chum
escapement
has
been
stable
in
abundance
in
recent
years
relative
to
historical
levels.
The
recent
year
(
1995­
98)
average
escapement
is
462
(
range
=
223­
721),
compared
to
a
1974­
81
average
estimated
escapement
of
92
(
range=
41­
208).
Production
depends
entirely
on
wild
production.
In
the
1970s,
the
Union
River
summer
chum
were
less
abundant
than
in
the
Tahuya,
increasing
in
abundance
as
the
Tahuya
declined.
It
is
unclear
why
the
Union
run
increased
during
the
1980s
and
1990s
while
other
stocks
experienced
significant
declines,
several
becoming
extinct.

Adults
enter
freshwater
from
mid­
August
through
October
with
mean
date
of
entry
occurring
in
mid­
September
(
Table
3.24).
Entry
timing
is
fairly
stable,
generally
varying
only
2­
3
days
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).
Freshwater
entry
is
earlier
than
that
of
stocks
in
other
management
units.
The
entry
pattern
appears
to
be
truncated,
with
a
more
extended
period
of
spawning
in
the
latter
half
than
in
the
first
half.
The
reason
for
the
truncation
is
not
readily
apparent,
however,
it
could
be
that
reduced
flows
in
early
September
have
either
compressed
entry
timing
in
the
earlier
period,
or
extended
entry
in
the
latter
period.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
286
3.5.3
Description
of
Fisheries
A
general
description
of
the
history
and
impacts
of
fisheries
on
summer
chum
is
included
in
the
Part
Two,
Region­
wide
Factors
for
Decline.
Elements
of
that
discussion
are
repeated
in
order
to
describe
the
general
pattern
and
distribution
of
impacts,
and
a
baseline
against
which
to
compare
the
recommended
harvest
management
strategies.
Regulation
summaries
for
both
tribal
and
non­
tribal
commercial
fisheries
are
included
in
Appendix
Report
3.9.

The
entry
pattern
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
overlaps
those
of
chinook,
coho,
sockeye,
and
pink
(
oddnumbered
years)
salmon.
Currently,
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
salmon
are
caught
incidentally
to
harvest
of
these
other
salmon
species.
The
only
fishery
targeted
on
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
occurred
in
1976,
in
Hood
Canal.
In
that
year,
the
recruitment
exceeded
70,000
summer
chum
and
the
survival
was
the
highest
observed.
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
are
harvested
in
pre­
terminal,
terminal
and
extreme
terminal
fisheries.
Pre­
terminal
fisheries
are
those
fishing
areas
where
the
catch
consists
of
fish
originating
from
multiple
geographic
regions,
e.
g.,
Skagit,
Hood
Canal,
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Terminal
fisheries
are
those
fishing
areas
where
fish
originating
from
spawning
streams
or
hatcheries
within
a
discrete
geographic
region
comprise
most
or
all
of
the
catch,
e.
g.,
Hood
Canal.
Extreme
terminal
areas
are
fishing
areas
where
fish
originating
from
individual
management
units
(
spawning
streams
or
river
systems,
or
hatcheries)
within
the
geographic
region
comprise
most
or
all
of
the
catch,
e.
g.,
Quilcene
Bay.

Prior
to
1974,
most
recorded
interceptions
were
in
pre­
terminal
Washington
and
Canadian
fisheries.
This
was
due
to
a
1933
state
law
which
prohibited
commercial
net
fisheries
within
many
of
the
inside
waters
of
Puget
Sound
("
Initiative
77
line").
Prior
to
1933
there
were
commercial
net
fisheries
in
Hood
Canal,
but
adequate
catch
reports
are
not
available.
Beginning
in
1974,
with
implementation
of
U.
S.
v
Washington,
terminal
and
extreme
terminal
fisheries
for
other
species
were
implemented
in
Hood
Canal,
resulting
in
incidental
harvest
of
summer
chum
in
that
area.
Summer
chum
are
caught
incidentally
in
chinook,
pink,
sockeye
and
coho
fisheries
in
pre­
terminal
areas;
and
incidentally
in
coho,
chinook
and
pink
fisheries
in
terminal
areas.
Significant
changes
in
catch
distribution
and
exploitation
rates
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
have
occurred
since
1974
and
have
differed
between
populations
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
those
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
For
instance,
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
there
are
no
fisheries
in
terminal
areas
affecting
summer
chum
salmon,
while
in
Hood
Canal,
fisheries
have
occurred
in
terminal
areas
annually
since
1974.
From
1974­
1998,
harvest
impacts
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
ranged
from
0.6%
to
43.2%
in
Canadian
fisheries,
0.4%
to
10.1%
in
Washington
pre­
terminal
fisheries
and
0.3%
to
51.1%
in
terminal
fisheries
The
distribution
of
exploitation
and
fishery­
related
mortality
by
region
is
outlined
in
Table
3.25.
Annual
exploitation
rates
are
summarized
by
fishery
in
Table
3.26
and
by
management
unit
in
Table
3.27.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
287
Table
3.25.
Four
year
average
Canadian,
and
Washington
pre­
terminal
and
terminal
exploitation
and
escapement
rates
for
HC­
SJF
summer
chum,
1974­
1998.
Percentage
of
harvest
mortality
distribution
is
included
in
parentheses.

Region
Return
Years
Escapement
Terminal
Pre­
terminal
Canadian
Hood
Canal
1974­
77
0.667
0.239
0.033
0.061
1978­
81
0.551
0.321
0.063
0.066
1982­
85
0.319
0.481
0.053
0.148
1986­
89
0.296
0.500
0.039
0.165
1990­
93
0.553
0.205
0.050
0.192
1994­
98
0.934
0.009
0.010
0.044
(
72%)
(
10%)
(
18%)

(
71%)
(
14%)
(
15%)

(
70%)
(
8%)
(
22%)

(
71%)
(
5%)
(
23%)

(
46%)
(
11%)
(
43%)

(
14%)
(
15%)
(
71%)

Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
1974­
77
0.880
0.030
0.029
0.061
1978­
81
0.872
0.000
0.062
0.066
1982­
85
0.800
0.000
0.052
0.148
1986­
89
0.797
0.000
0.039
0.165
1990­
93
0.758
0.000
0.050
0.192
1994­
98
0.943
0.000
0.010
0.044
(
25%)
(
24%)
(
51%)

(
48%)
(
52%)

(
26%)
(
74%)

(
19%)
(
81%)

(
21%)
(
79%)

(
17%)
(
83%)

HC­
SJF
1974­
1998
0.620
0.230
0.040
0.111
(
60.0%)
(
11.0%)
(
29.0%)
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
288
Table
3.26.
Summary
of
harvest
and
exploitation
rates
by
fishery.

Run
Year
Harvest
Total
Run
Run
Year
Escapement
and
Exploitation
Rates
Total
ER
Esc.
Term.

Area
Area
10
Area
9
Fraser
Panel
Areas
Canadian
Area
Sub
Total
Esc.
Term
US
Preterm
CDN
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
14,049
19,678
29,209
12,355
22,789
7,315
8,886
3,258
5,374
2,002
2,993
1,341
3,639
2,748
6,657
986
770
1,054
3,438
1,324
2,601
10,301
21,598
9,933
5,290
381
9,498
37,594
4,435
4,368
1,483
8,149
2,158
3,824
2,409
1,693
1,373
4,446
2,862
2,119
1,583
574
852
222
20
32
31
164
180
36
0
0
968
1
0
2
6
6
0
2
5
2
0
0
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
190
54
1,486
73
167
134
97
63
132
131
3
40
21
0
0
4
0
59
44
45
26
0
23
0
0
188
546
929
711
552
889
474
597
296
146
65
445
146
147
305
421
45
171
84
53
54
68
80
46
41
1,399
1,064
5,705
913
701
591
980
915
2,219
28
314
1,620
796
390
738
2,273
696
483
980
67
451
458
338
198
98
2,158
11,162
46,681
6,134
5,787
3,098
9,706
3,739
6,470
2,716
2,080
3,481
5,410
3,399
3,168
4,281
1,315
1,566
1,331
185
564
557
604
424
176
16,207
30,840
75,891
18,488
28,576
10,413
18,592
6,997
11,845
4,718
5,073
4,822
9,049
6,147
9,825
5,267
2,085
2,620
4,769
1,509
3,165
10,858
22,202
10,357
5,466
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
.867
.638
.385
.668
.797
.702
.478
.466
.454
.424
.590
.278
.402
.447
.678
.187
.369
.402
.721
.877
.822
.949
.973
.959
.968
.024
.308
.495
.240
.153
.142
.438
.308
.323
.511
.334
.285
.491
.466
.216
.300
.275
.325
.046
.013
.010
.003
.007
.017
.007
.023
.019
.045
.042
.025
.098
.031
.095
.036
.059
.014
.101
.018
.024
.032
.081
.022
.088
.027
.065
.026
.006
.005
.004
.008
.086
.034
.075
.049
.025
.057
.053
.131
.187
.006
.062
.336
.088
.063
.075
.432
.334
.185
.206
.044
.142
.042
.015
.019
.018
.133
.362
.615
.332
.203
.298
.522
.534
.546
.576
.410
.722
.598
.553
.322
.813
.631
.598
.279
.123
.178
.051
.027
.041
.032
Avg
SE
.602
.047
.230
.035
.040
.006
.111
.022
.380
.047
Distrib
.514
.133
.352
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
289
Table
3.27
Exploitation
rates
by
management
unit
and
fishery
.

Run
Year
WA
Preterm
(
HC
Units)
CDN20
(
All
Units)
SE
Hood
Canal
Quilcene/
Dabob
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
WA
Preterm
(
SJF
Units)
Discovery
Sequim
Total
ER
Esc
Term
Total
ER
Esc
Term
Total
ER
Esc
Term
Total
ER
Esc
Term
Total
ER
Esc
Term
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
.023
.019
.045
.042
.025
.098
.031
.095
.036
.059
.015
.101
.018
.024
.032
.081
.022
.088
.027
.065
.026
.006
.005
.004
.008
.086
.034
.075
.049
.025
.057
.053
.131
.187
.006
.062
.336
.088
.063
.075
.432
.334
.185
.206
.044
.142
.042
.015
.019
.018
.111
.608
.849
.690
.539
.738
.819
.621
.750
.573
.331
.679
.599
.429
.154
.789
.513
.336
.235
.115
.172
.052
.024
.169
.109
.889
.392
.151
.310
.461
.262
.181
.379
.250
.427
.669
.321
.401
.571
.846
.211
.487
.664
.765
.885
.828
.948
.976
.831
.891
.002
.554
.729
.598
.489
.583
.735
.395
.526
.508
.254
.242
.493
.341
.046
.277
.157
.064
.002
.005
.004
.003
.004
.145
.084
.111
.297
.685
.169
.137
.380
.726
.708
.812
.896
.904
.956
.982
.971
.883
.999
.990
.957
.401
.193
.193
.052
.028
.036
.029
.889
.703
.315
.831
.863
.620
.274
.292
.188
.104
.096
.044
.018
.029
.117
.001
.010
.043
.599
.807
.807
.948
.972
.964
.971
.002
.243
.565
.077
.087
.225
.642
.482
.589
.831
.827
.519
.875
.884
.776
.486
.635
.685
.169
.083
.025
.003
.008
.013
.013
.111
.251
.414
.255
.224
.250
.677
.545
.619
.327
.269
.656
.591
.401
.134
.776
.452
.309
.235
.112
.172
.052
.024
.032
.026
.889
.749
.586
.745
.776
.750
.323
.455
.381
.673
.731
.344
.409
.599
.866
.224
.548
.691
.765
.888
.828
.948
.976
.968
.974
.002
.197
.294
.163
.174
.095
.593
.319
.396
.262
.192
.219
.485
.314
.027
.264
.097
.037
.002
.003
.004
.003
.004
.009
.000
.023
.019
.032
.042
.025
.098
.031
.094
.036
.059
.013
.101
.018
.024
.031
.081
.022
.088
.027
.065
.026
.006
.005
.004
.008
.110
.205
.107
.092
.050
.155
.083
.225
.223
.065
.075
.437
.106
.087
.106
.512
.355
.272
.232
.110
.168
.048
.020
.024
.026
.890
.795
.893
.903
.950
.845
.917
.775
.777
.935
.925
.563
.894
.913
.894
.488
.645
.728
.768
.890
.832
.925
.980
.976
.974
.000
.151
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.110
.054
.107
.092
.050
.155
.083
.225
.223
.065
.075
.437
.106
.087
.106
.512
.355
.272
.232
.110
.168
.048
.020
.024
.026
.890
.946
.893
.908
.950
.845
.917
.775
.777
.935
.925
.563
.894
.913
.894
.488
.645
.728
.768
.890
.832
.952
.980
.976
.974
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
Avg
.040
.111
.440
.560
.290
.540
.460
.389
.317
.683
.166
.039
.156
.844
.006
.150
.850
0.000
These
estimates
are
based
on
run
reconstruction
estimates
derived
from
GSI
data
analysis
applied
to
reported
catches
4
from
Area
20.
Impacts
from
other
Canadian
areas
are
unknown,
but
it
is
assumed
that
no
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
are
harvested
north
of
Vancouver
Island.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
290
Figure
3.4.
Temporal
pattern
of
chum
catch
in
Canadian
Area
20
fishery,
1980­
1996.

Figure
3.5.
Pattern
of
Canadian
exploitation
rates
on
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
3.5.3.1
Canadian
Fisheries
A
significant
proportion
of
the
estimated
harvest
mortality
occurs
outside
U.
S.
waters.
Specifically,
commercial
sockeye
and
pink
fisheries
in
the
Canadian
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
Area
20)
are
estimated
to
take
significant
numbers
of
chum
salmon
during
the
summer
chum
migration
period
(
Figure
3.4)
.
Canadian
harvest
4
from
Area
20
has
accounted
for
1%
­
82%
of
the
annual
harvest
related
mortality
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum,
averaging
56.7%
since
1989,
and
has
comprised
an
increasing
percentage
of
the
catch
as
U.
S.
fisheries
have
been
constrained
in
recent
years
(
Table
3.25).

Estimated
exploitation
rates
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
Canadian
fisheries
during
the
period
1974­
1998
ranged
from
0.6%
to
43.2%
(
Table
3.26,
Figure
3.5
and
Appendix
Report
1.2).
Impacts
in
the
Canadian
Area
20
fishery
were
generally
low
until
the
1980s
when
effort
increased
significantly
due
to
high
sockeye
and
pink
salmon
abundance,
a
low
diversion
rate
(
high
proportion
of
adults
returning
through
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca),
and
a
Canadian
management
policy
to
emphasize
fishing
in
this
area.
The
average
exploitation
rate
in
this
fishery
peaked
in
1989
at
43%,
and
for
the
period
from
1989
through
1992
averaged
29%.
Exploitation
rates
have
declined
from
1989­
92,
to
less
than
5%
since
1994
due
to
a
more
northerly
sockeye
migration
pattern,
and
more
recently,
significant
restrictions
to
the
fishery
to
reduce
the
incidental
take
of
Canadian
coho
and
chinook.
These
restrictions
may
be
anticipated
to
continue
for
the
foreseeable
future
given
the
continued
depressed
status
of
many
Canadian
chinook
and
coho
populations
and
adoption
of
a
more
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
291
Figure
3.6.
Location
of
Canadian
Catch
Area
20.
conservative
approach
to
harvest
management
by
Canada's
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans.
These
are
probably
minimum
exploitation
rate
estimates
since
chum
are
easily
mis­
identified
as
other
salmon
species,
especially
in
sockeye
and
pink
fisheries
where
the
ratio
of
chum
to
other
salmonids
in
the
catch
is
very
low.
At
this
time,
the
level
of
error,
caused
by
mis­
identified
catch
is
unknown,
but
additional
catch
monitoring
could
provide
an
estimate
of
the
bias.

Area
20
fisheries
for
sockeye
and
pink
salmon
begin
in
late
July
or
early
August
and
may
continue
through
mid
September.
Peak
harvest
occurs
in
mid­
late
August.
In
the
past,
coho
fisheries
occurred
after
the
conclusion
of
the
sockeye
and/
or
pink
salmon
season,
through
the
remainder
of
the
month
of
September.
However,
Canadian
coho
fisheries
in
Area
20
have
been
closed
since
1994.
Chum,
including
HC­
SJF
summer
chum,
are
caught
incidentally
in
these
fisheries
(
Figure
3.6).
After
September
15,
it
is
assumed
most
of
the
summer
chum
salmon
populations
have
moved
into
terminal
areas,
and
U.
S.
and
Canadian
fall
chum
runs
begin
to
dominate
the
fisheries.
Fall
chum
fisheries
are
conducted
in
Area
21
(
immediately
west
of
Area
20)
and
in
the
westernmost
portion
of
Area
20,
targeting
fall
chum
runs
returning
to
Nitinat
Lake,
beginning
in
early
October.

Genetic
stock
identification
(
GSI)
data
from
1995­
1997
in
August
and
early
September
indicate
that
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
comprise
14­
68%
(
sd=
7­
12%)
of
the
total
chum
catch
in
Canadian
Area
20
sockeye
and
pink­
directed
purse
seine
fisheries
with
a
higher
proportion
of
the
catch
composed
of
summer
chum
in
mid
to
late
August
(
Table
3.28).
Note
that
while
the
total
chum
catch
increases
significantly
from
July
through
September,
the
proportion
attributed
to
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
declines
rapidly
between
the
end
of
August
and
mid­
September.

Table
3.28.
GSI
estimates
of
the
proportion
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
taken
in
Canadian
Area
20
fisheries.

Year
Sample
Date
Sampled
%
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
sample
period
Number
Area
20
chum
catch
by
1995
8/
22
57
37%
(+
12%)
329
8/
28­
8/
29
76
45%
(+
11%)
352
9/
5­
9/
6
88
14%
(+
7%)
763
All
samples
pooled
221
31%
(+
7%)
1531
1996
8/
14­
8/
15
98
68%
(+
10%)
369
1997
8/
22­
8/
26
80
49%
(+
10%)
265
Troll
fisheries
on
the
west
coast
of
Vancouver
Island
(
WCVI)
have
reported
significant
chum
catches
in
some
years
during
the
period
of
summer
chum
migration.
Catch
sampling
programs
and
tagging
efforts
have
been
insufficient
to
indicate
the
magnitude
of
any
impact
to
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
WCVI
troll
fisheries
begin
in
July
and
continue
through
early
September.
However,
since
1994,
The
only
pre­
terminal
area
for
which
stock
composition
data
is
available
is
Canadian
area
20.
These
stock
5
compositions
have
also
been
applied
to
U.
S.
areas
4B,
5,
6C
and
7
as
they
are
immediately
adjacent
to
area
20
and
are
believed
to
have
similar
stock
compositions.
No
data
exists
for
other
U.
S.
and
Canadian
pre­
terminal
areas
which
may
also
intercept
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
(
e.
g.
Southern
Georgia
Strait
­
U.
S.
area
7A
and
Canadian
area
29),
but
it
was
felt
to
be
inappropriate
to
extrapolate
the
area
20
data
to
these
areas.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
292
Figure
3.7.
Washington
State
Commercial
Catch
Reporting
Areas:
Puget
Sound
Areas
4B­
7A.
WCVI
troll
fisheries
for
coho
salmon
have
been
severely
curtailed.
The
Georgia
and
Johnstone
Strait
areas
have
significant
sockeye
and
pink
fisheries
during
the
time
when
summer
chum
may
be
present
in
these
fisheries.
Again
insufficient
data
exists
to
determine
the
magnitude
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
caught
in
these
fisheries.

3.5.3.2
Washington
Pre­
terminal
Area
Fisheries
Harvest
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
occurs
incidentally
to
the
harvest
of
other
salmon
species
in
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
fisheries
(
Washington
Commercial
Catch
Reporting
Area
(
commercial
areas)
4B­
7,
9
and
10),
Figures
3.7
and
3.1.2).
There
is
currently
no
population
specific
information
on
summer
chum
salmon
caught
incidentally
in
these
fisheries.
Stock
composition
for
Washington
pre­
terminal
fisheries
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
and
San
Juan
Islands
was
assumed
to
be
similar
to
that
in
Canadian
Area
20
since
that
fishery
is
adjacent
to
them
.
5
Commercial
fishery
exploitation
rates
during
the
period
1974­
1998
ranged
from
0.4%
to
10.1%
(
Table
3.26,
Figure
3.8).
Harvest
rates
in
pink
years
were
approximately
twice
that
of
non­
pink
years.
Given
this
fishing
pattern,
rates
remained
relatively
stable
through
1994
(
Figure
3.8).
Exploitation
rates
have
declined
to
less
than
1%
since
1994
due
to
unusually
high
proportions
of
sockeye
adults
returning
through
the
northern
corridor;
generally
lower
treaty
and
non­
treaty
effort;
and
effects
of
shifting
purse
seine
effort
from
Area
7
to
Area
7A,
where
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
catch
is
thought
to
be
negligible
(
Figure
3.9)

Recreational
fisheries
comprised
14%
of
the
1974­
1996
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
harvest
(
Washington
Catch
Record
Card
Areas
(
sport
areas)
5­
7)
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum,
with
an
average
exploitation
rate
of
0.5%.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
293
Figure
3.8.
Pattern
of
U.
S.
exploitation
rates
in
U.
S.
Convention
Waters
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
1974­
97.

Figure
3.9.
Pattern
of
U.
S.
exploitation
rates
in
U.
S.
Convention
Waters
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
and
U.
S.
preterminal
effort,
1989­
1997.
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Tribal
commercial
sockeye
and
pink
fisheries
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
sport
Areas
4B,
5,
6C)
(
Figure
3.7)
normally
start
in
mid­
July
and
may
continue
through
early
September
depending
on
the
abundance
of
different
Fraser
River
and
Puget
Sound
run
components.
Treaty
nearshore
set
gillnet
fisheries
have
traditionally
occurred
in
July
and
August,
but
catch
records
indicate
chum
are
not
caught
in
these
fisheries.
No
drift
gillnet
fisheries
for
chinook
have
occurred
since
the
late
1970s.
With
few
exceptions,
tribal
commercial
coho
fisheries
throughout
the
Strait
have
not
occurred
since
the
mid
to
late
1980s
in
response
to
certain
weak
coho
runs.
Fisheries
directed
at
fall
chum
can
begin
as
early
as
October
10,
but
have
been
delayed
in
recent
years
to
protect
weak
coho
populations.
As
expected,
GSI
analysis
has
detected
no
summer
chum
in
fisheries
directed
at
fall
chum,
because
they
occur
after
most
summer
chum
have
entered
freshwater
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).
Chum
have
averaged
0.21%
(
range
=
0.02­
0.48%)
of
the
total
number
of
salmon
caught
during
the
July
through
September
time
period
from
1985
through
1995.

Both
non­
treaty
commercial
and
sport
fisheries
have
occurred
historically
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
However,
nontreaty
sockeye
and
pink
commercial
fisheries
have
not
occurred
there
since
the
early
1980s.
Nontreaty
recreational
salmon
fisheries
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
operate
predominantly
out
of
Sekiu
and
Port
Angeles,
with
considerably
lesser
amounts
of
effort
originating
from
John
Wayne
Marina
in
Sequim
Bay
and
other
launch
sites.
Interest
is
focused
primarily
toward
coho
and
chinook
salmon
with
minor,
but
increasing,
attention
on
pink
salmon.
Chum
salmon
are
estimated
to
have
accounted
for
less
than
0.16%
of
July
through
September
recreational
angler
salmon
catch
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
commercial
areas
5
and
6,
and
the
maximum
chum
catch
in
any
single
year
has
been
estimated
at
170
fish
for
this
period.
Over
the
24­
year
period,
1974­
1997,
the
average
catch
of
chum
for
both
areas
combined
is
50,
representing
0.05%
of
the
salmon
catch
of
all
species
(
or
1
out
of
every
2,000).
Recreational
effort,
measured
as
angler
trips,
peaked
in
this
area
at
approximately
225,000
angler
trips
annually
during
the
1989­
1991
period,
coinciding
with
the
peak
annual
catch
of
approximately
278,000
salmon
in
1990.
However,
effort
and
catch
levels
have
declined
precipitously
since
that
time
due
to
severe
restrictions
on
fishing
to
protect
coho
and
chinook.
In
the
past,
recreational
fisheries
occurred
year
around.
A
total
closure
was
imposed
in
1994
and
limited
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
294
Figure
3.10.
Temporal
pattern
of
average
Treaty
catch
in
U.
S.
preterminal
fisheries
­
Area
7,
1990­
96.

Figure
3.11.
Temporal
pattern
average
non­
Treaty
catch
in
U.
S.
preterminal
fisheries
­
Area
7,
1980­
96.
seasons
of
between
20
and
38
days
long
have
been
enacted
since.
This
has
limited
total
annual
salmon
catch
to
about
55,000
or
less,
which
is
only
25
percent
of
peak
level
of
the
early
1990s.
Efforts
to
maintain
or
restore
sport
salmon
fishing
opportunities
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
will
be
contingent
upon
development
and
implementation
of
selective
fishing
measures.
Beginning
in
1998,
the
retention
of
chum
salmon
is
not
permitted
by
recreational
fisheries
during
the
period
July
through
September
in
commercial
areas
5
and
6.

San
Juans
Both
treaty
Indian
and
non­
treaty
commercial
fisheries
occur
in
the
San
Juans
(
commercial
Areas
6,
7
and
7A
)
4
(
Figure
3.7).
Commercial
sockeye
and
pink
fisheries
begin
as
early
as
mid­
July
and
continue
as
late
as
mid
to
late
September.
No
commercial
fisheries
for
chinook
have
operated
in
these
areas
since
the
late
1970s.
In
the
past,
commercial
coho
fisheries
have
occurred
from
mid­
September
through
early
October,
but
with
minor
exceptions,
they
have
not
occurred
since
the
early
1980s,
both
in
an
effort
to
protect
weak
coho
populations,
and,
in
some
years,
as
part
of
an
agreement
with
Canada
under
the
Pacific
Salmon
Treaty.
Fisheries
directed
at
fall
chum
may
begin
in
early
October,
but
have
been
delayed
until
mid­
October
in
recent
years
to
protect
weak
coho
populations.
Chum
catches
increase
substantially
after
October
1,
reflecting
the
entry
of
fall
chum
into
the
area
(
Figures
3.10
and
3.11).
Chum
have
averaged
0.06%
(
range
=
0.001­
0.44%)
of
the
total
number
of
salmon
caught
during
the
July
through
September
time
period
from
1980­
1995.
GSI
analysis
has
detected
no
summer
chum
in
fisheries
on
fall
chum
as
would
be
expected
since
they
occur
after
summer
chum
have
entered
freshwater
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).

The
recreational
salmon
fishery
in
the
San
Juan
Islands
sport
area
7
is
of
lesser
magnitude
than
that
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
with
total
annual
salmon
catch
ranging
from
a
low
of
12,500
salmon
in
1992
to
an
all­
time
peak
catch
of
55,000
fish
in
1973.
Effort,
expressed
as
angler
trips,
peaked
in
1970
with
approximately
103,000
trips,
but
has
declined
throughout
the
1980s
and
has
remained
below
45,000
trips
per
year
during
the
1990s.
Like
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
the
sport
fishery
in
the
San
Juan
Islands
is
directed
primarily
on
chinook
and
coho
salmon
with
lesser
catches
(
2,000­
9,000)
of
pink
salmon
in
odd
numbered
years.
Chum
are
rarely
taken
in
the
San
Juans.
Since
1967,
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
295
Figure
3.12.
Washington
State
Commercial
Catch
Reporting
Areas:
Puget
Sound
Areas
6B­
13B.
chum
have
been
recorded
during
the
July
through
September
time
period
in
only
5
years
and,
in
all
cases
except
one,
accounted
for
less
than
0.25
percent
of
the
sport
salmon
catch.
An
unusually
high
number
of
chum
(
166)
were
estimated
to
have
been
caught
in
1991;
the
next
highest
year
was
less
than
half
that
number.
Area
7
had
year­
round
salmon
seasons
until
1998
when
significant
area
and
time
period
closures
were
imposed
to
protect
domestic
chinook
and
Canadian
coho
populations.
The
continued
need
to
protect
chinook
populations
will
remain
a
management
factor
for
San
Juan
Islands
recreational
salmon
fisheries.

Admiralty
Inlet
Prior
to
1975,
when
commercial
fisheries
in
more
terminal
areas
were
prohibited,
significant
chinook,
coho
and
fall
chum
fisheries
occurred
regularly
in
commercial
areas
6B
and
9
(
Figure
3.12).
Fisheries
in
these
areas,
in
the
vicinity
of
Port
Townsend
diminished
between
1975
and
the
early
1980s.
No
non­
treaty
or
treaty
commercial
fisheries
have
been
conducted
since
the
early
1980s
during
the
period
when
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
are
present,
and
this
pattern
is
expected
to
continue
given
intertribal
agreements
and
recent
court
stipulated
changes
in
tribal
fishing
patterns,
and
mixed
population
management
issues
associated
with
commercial
fisheries
in
the
area.
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
have
been
less
than
one
percent
of
the
total
number
of
salmon
caught
commercially
during
the
July
through
September
time
period.

The
recreational
salmon
fishery
in
Admiralty
Inlet,
sport
Area
9,
has
been
directed
toward
coho
and
chinook
and,
in
odd
numbered
years,
pink
salmon.
Historically
the
coho
catch
has
been
approximately
twice
the
chinook
catch,
and
four
times
that
of
pink.
The
1974­
1997
exploitation
rate
averaged
0.7%
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
this
area.
Chum
have
been
a
very
small
component
of
the
July
through
September
salmon
catch
averaging
0.23
percent
(
range
0.0­
0.68%)
of
the
total
salmon
catch
during
this
period.
The
24­
year
average
(
1974­
1997)
chum
salmon
catch
for
this
area
is
50
fish
(
range
0­
201).
Area
9
has
a
decade
long
trend
of
increasing
recreational
fishery
restrictions
focused
on
the
July
through
September
period
and
designed
to
protect
depressed
coho
and
chinook
populations.
These
regulatory
restrictions
have
resulted
in
a
decreasing
trend
in
both
salmon
catch
and
angler
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
296
effort.
Catch
and
effort
peaked
in
the
early
1980s
when
up
to
160,000
angler
trips
during
the
July
though
September
period
resulted
in
total
salmon
catch
of
approximately
60,000
salmon.
During
the
1990s
catch
and
effort
plummeted
and
bottomed
out
in
1994
when
the
entire
area
was
closed
during
the
July
through
September
period.
Annual
catch
levels
have
remained
below
14,000
in
recent
years
with
a
correspondingly
low
effort
level
of
28,000
or
less
angler
trips.
Since
Admiralty
Inlet
is
a
passage
corridor
for
mixed
populations
of
chinook
and
coho,
its
future
will
be
tied
to
the
conservation
needs
of
these
two
species
and
the
course
of
selective
fishing
methods.
Since
1998,
retention
of
chum
salmon
has
not
been
permitted
during
the
July
through
September
time
period
in
this
area.

No
population­
specific
information
exists
on
impacts
of
these
fisheries
to
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
Based
on
run
reconstruction
assumptions,
impacts
to
summer
chum
in
past
Admiralty
Inlet
commercial
fisheries
have
ranged
from
0­
3%
over
the
entire
1974­
1997
period,
and
averaged
less
than
1%
since
1994
(
calculated
from
Table
3.26).

Seattle
(
Commercial
Area
10)

HC­
SJF
summer
chum
salmon
are
not
believed
to
be
present
in
this
area
in
significant
numbers,
after
the
first
few
days
in
September.
Prior
to
that
time,
they
could
be
intercepted
during
recreational
and
commercial
fisheries
directed
at
chinook
salmon.
However,
no
commercial
chinook
fisheries
have
occurred
in
commercial
area
10
(
Figure
3.12)
since
the
late
1970s
except
in
extreme
terminal
areas
where
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
are
not
believed
to
be
present.
Commercial
fisheries
for
coho
and
fall
chum
occur
from
the
second
week
in
September
through
November.
A
small
test
fishery
for
South
Puget
Sound
coho
generally
occurs
during
the
first
week
of
September
to
update
the
run
size
and
refine
the
Area
10/
11
fishing
schedule
agreed
to
preseason.
Based
on
run
reconstruction
assumptions,
exploitation
rates
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
have
been
essentially
0%
(
estimated
catch=
0­
6
fish/
yr),
with
the
exception
of
1976,
when
the
survival
rate
and
return
rate
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
were
high.
In
that
year
the
estimated
incidental
exploitation
in
this
fishery
was
1.3%.

Treaty
Indian
fisheries
directed
at
coho
salmon
in
commercial
area
10
occur
in
mid­
late
September
and
have
been
limited
since
1993.
Non­
treaty
commercial
coho
fisheries
have
been
severely
restricted
since
1992
and
were
eliminated
in
1994
due
to
concerns
over
depressed
coho
populations
and
mixed
population
management
issues
associated
with
commercial
fisheries
in
the
area.
Both
treaty
and
non­
treaty
fall
chum
fisheries
still
occur
from
mid­
October
through
November.

Recreational
fisheries
were
open
year
around
until
1994
when
salmon
fishing
was
limited
to
small
portions
of
the
area.
This
region
experienced
severe
restriction
again
in
1995
and
1996.
Restrictions
in
1997
and
1998
were
focused
especially
on
the
northern
portion
of
sport
Area
10
and
on
Elliott
and
Shilshole
bays.
These
restrictions
have
contributed
to
a
severe
reduction
in
total
salmon
catch
and
recreation
effort.
Chum
salmon
typically
contribute
fewer
than
100
fish
to
the
July
through
September
recreational
salmon
catch
in
this
area.
Many
of
these
are
summer
chum
returning
to
South
Puget
Sound
streams
and
migrate
through
this
area
to
reach
their
spawning
grounds.

Limited
population­
specific
information
exists
on
the
specific
impacts
of
these
fisheries
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
salmon.
GSI
samples
taken
from
test
fisheries
on
coho
and
fall
chum
and
fall
chum
fisheries
confirmed
that
they
are
not
present
from
late
September
on.
Based
on
this
information,
impacts
to
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
past
commercial
fisheries
are
estimated
to
have
been
insignificant
even
in
years
of
extensive
coho
fisheries
in
this
area.
However,
many
references
in
this
document
to
`
terminal'
harvest
or
exploitation
rates
include
both
the
Hood
Canal
6
mainstem
and
other,
more
extreme
terminal
areas.
The
extreme
terminal
areas
are
described
in
the
following
section
3.5.3.4.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
297
3.5.3.3
Washington
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
Terminal
areas
are
those
fishing
areas
where
fish
originating
from
spawning
streams
or
hatcheries
from
more
than
one
management
unit,
but
within
a
discrete
geographic
area,
comprise
most
or
all
of
the
catch.
The
only
terminal
area
in
Hood
Canal
or
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
is
the
Hood
Canal
mainstem
area
(
commercial
Areas
12,12B,
12C)
(
Figure
3.12)
From
1974­
1998,
estimated
6
exploitation
rates
have
ranged
from
0%
to
61%
on
the
summer
chum
management
units
passing
through
this
area,
averaging
16.8%.
They
have
been
<
1%
since
1992
because
fisheries
directed
at
commingled
species
have
been
restricted.
Commercial
fisheries
occurring
in
these
areas
from
early
July
through
September
target
primarily
coho
and
chinook.
From
1978­
1998,
chum
averaged
<
6.5%
(
range
=
0.0­
29%)
of
the
total
number
of
salmon
caught
in
the
mainstem
fishery
during
the
July
through
September
time
period.
Exploitation
rates
in
terminal
recreational
fisheries
ranged
from
0.0­
3.1%
in
1974­
1997
(
excluding
1989),
averaging
0.33%
over
the
same
period.

Treaty
fisheries
for
chinook
occur
in
early
July
through
early
September
in
the
north,
and
late
September
in
the
south.
Treaty
fisheries
for
coho
salmon
have
also
occurred
annually
in
these
areas
all
years
except
for
1988
and
1992­
1996.
These
fisheries
start
in
early
September
in
the
north
and
extend
to
mid­
October.
In
the
south
they
start
in
mid­
September
and
extend
through
the
end
of
October.
Fisheries
in
these
areas
used
set
and
drift
gillnet
gear
exclusively
until
1996
when
beach
seine
gear
use
became
significant.
In
1976,
a
treaty
fishery
was
directed
at
summer
chum
in
what
is
now
commercial
Areas
12B
and
12C.
That
was
the
only
year
since
1974
that
such
a
fishery
occurred.
Closures
around
stream
mouths
have
been
in
effect
since
the
mid­
1970s
to
avoid
concentrated
harvest
on
salmon
milling
in
the
vicinity.

Non­
treaty
commercial
fisheries
for
chinook
occurred
annually
until
the
late
1980s.
No
non­
treaty
fisheries
are
expected
for
chinook
in
the
near
future
(
Table
3.32
and
3.34).
Non­
treaty
coho
fisheries
have
followed
the
same
pattern
as
treaty
fisheries
in
the
northern
mainstem
using
drift
gillnets
and
purse
seines,
but
have
not
occurred
in
the
southern
area
(
12C)
since
the
late
1980s.

Recreational
fisheries
operated
year­
round
in
Hood
Canal
through
1990.
From
1991
through
1996
(
excluding
1993),
seasonal
block
restrictions
became
a
part
of
annual
management
plans
to
protect
depressed
coho
populations.
Beginning
in
1992,
fishing
for
chum
salmon
has
been
restricted
for
some,
or
all,
of
the
July
through
September
period,
and
chum
catch
estimates
for
the
period
have
been
zero
in
all
years
except
1996.
In
that
year
an
estimated
92
chum
were
harvested
in
September
and
only
Quilcene
Bay
was
open
to
recreational
salmon
angling
during
the
period
of
concern.
Beginning
in
1998,
retention
of
chum
salmon
is
not
permitted
in
recreational
fisheries
from
July
1
through
October
15.

The
peak
year
for
chum
salmon
shown
in
the
recreational
catch
data
base
was
1989
when
sport
anglers
were
reported
to
have
taken
an
estimated
917
chum
representing
35%
of
the
total
estimated
salmon
catch
for
the
July
through
September
period.
However,
a
review
of
the
original
fishery
sampling
data
for
Hood
Canal
found
that
no
chum
were
observed
during
this
time
period.
Excluding
this
aberrant
data
point,
estimated
chum
catch
averaged
54
fish
(
range
0­
293)
for
the
July­
September
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
298
Figure
3.13.
Hood
Canal
commercial
catch
reporting
areas.
period
(
1974­
1993,
excluding
1989).
This
represents
1.3%
(
range
0­
13.0%)
of
the
recreational
salmon
catch
for
sport
area
12
during
this
time
period.

3.5.3.4
Washington
Extreme
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
Extreme
terminal
areas
are
fishing
areas
where
fish
originating
from
spawning
streams
or
hatcheries
within
the
geographic
area
described
by
a
single
management
unit
comprise
most
or
all
of
the
catch:
Sequim
Bay,
Discovery
Bay,
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bay,
southeast
Hood
Canal
and
all
freshwater
areas
where
summer
chum
are
present
(
Figure
3.13).

In
Sequim
Bay,
no
commercial
fisheries
have
occurred
in
the
1974­
98
period.
Recreational
fisheries
management
in
these
areas
has
followed
that
of
sport
area
6
with
added
restrictions
beginning
in
1987
(
see
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
in
section
3.5.3.2).

In
Discovery
Bay,
no
non­
treaty
commercial
fisheries
have
occurred
in
the
1974­
98
period,
and
treaty
fisheries
have
not
occurred
since
1978,
as
a
result
of
the
establishment
of
a
research
preserve
at
Snow
Creek,
and
the
nearby
marine
area.
Recreational
fisheries
management
in
these
areas
has
followed
that
of
the
sport
area
6
with
added
restrictions
beginning
in
1987
(
see
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
in
section
3.5.3.2).

In
the
Quilcene/
Dabob
area,
treaty
commercial
fisheries
occur
in
September
for
coho.
In
the
past,
treaty
fisheries
used
set
and
drift
gillnets
but
gear
has
largely
been
restricted
to
beach
seines
since
1992
with
a
requirement
to
release
chum,
as
part
of
an
overall
package
of
measures
designed
to
rebuild
summer
chum
salmon
in
this
management
unit.
The
result
has
been
a
dramatic
reduction
in
fishing
effort.
Limited
Treaty
Indian
gillnet
openings
have
occurred
in
recent
years
to
harvest
surplus
coho,
particularly
when
supplemented
summer
chum
have
been
abundant.

A
limited
(
five
permits)
non­
treaty
beach
seine
fishery
for
hatchery
coho
has
occurred
annually
in
Quilcene
Bay
(
north
of
Fishermans
Point/
Point
Whitney
line)
near
the
mouth
of
the
Big
Quilcene
River,
beginning
in
1996.
The
fishery
occurs
during
September
under
restrictive
conditions,
that
include
a
requirement
for
release
of
chum
salmon.
Coho
catch
averaged
a
bit
over
600
fish
per
year
for
the
first
three
years
of
beach
seine
operations,
but
catch
and
interest
fell
off
sharply
in
1999,
with
only
43
coho
being
landed.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
299
All
citizen
(
non­
treaty)
commercial
salmon
fishing
within
Commercial
Area
12A
was
closed
prior
to
October
throughout
the
period
1978
through
1983.
From
1984
through
1991,
coho
directed
commercial
fishing
openings
for
gill
net
and
purse
seine
gear
occurred
annually
in
Commercial
Area
12A
during
September,
with
established
closure
zones
in
effect
northerly
of
a
line
from
Fishermans
Point
to
the
Quilcene
Boat
Haven
in
Quilcene
Bay,
and
north
of
a
line
drawn
due
east
from
Broad
Spit
in
upper
Dabob
Bay.
The
number
of
days
open
to
commercial
fishing
during
September
over
the
span
of
years
1984
through
1991
averaged
11
days
a
year,
but
interest
in
the
fishery
was
very
low.
Landings
typically
numbered
10
or
fewer
in
a
year.
Closures
prior
to
October
were
again
in
place
during
the
1992,
1993,
and
1995
seasons.
A
special
skiff
gill
net
fishery
was
open
for
six
days
in
September
1994,
and
five
landings
produced
a
catch
of
52
coho.
Restrictions
for
the
1994
skiff
gill
net
fishery
required
release
of
any
chum
encountered
by
cutting
the
mesh(
es)
that
ensnared
them.
Since
that
time,
the
only
non­
treaty
commercial
fishing
has
been
the
limited
beach
seine
fishery
referenced
above.

Recreational
fisheries
are
managed
under
sport
area
12
regulations
(
see
3.5.3.3
Terminal
Area
discussion
above).

In
southeast
Hood
Canal
(
Area
12D),
no
commercial
fisheries
have
occurred
since
the
late
1970s
except
for
a
small
area
adjacent
to
Area
12C,
opened
occasionally
to
provide
harvest
opportunity
on
coho
and
hatchery
chinook
in
late
August
and
early
September.

Recreational
catch
of
chum
salmon
is
not
specifically
estimated
for
the
rivers
draining
into
Hood
Canal.
Catch
estimates
of
"
other"
and
"
unknown"
salmon
are
made,
and
these
categories,
even
when
combined,
do
not
account
for
more
than
57
fish
during
the
July
through
October
period,
and
generally
represent
less
than
4%
of
the
freshwater
salmon
catch
and
less
than
0.2%
exploitation
rate.
Two
exceptions
are
the
1976
catch
of
51
unknown
salmon
which
represented
12.5
percent
of
the
total
salmon
catch
of
only
409
fish,
and
1992
when
34
other
or
unknown
category
salmon
represented
about
8.75
per
cent
of
the
378
salmon
harvested
in
freshwater.
These
percentages
are
probably
an
artifact
of
the
small
total
salmon
catch.
In
any
event,
it
is
unlikely
that
all
the
fish
in
the
"
unknown"
and
"
other"
categories
were
chum
salmon,
thus
these
figures
may
overestimate
the
chum
component
of
Hood
Canal
freshwater
salmon
catch.
Chum
salmon
retention
has
not
been
allowed
in
any
Hood
Canal
tributaries
during
the
July
through
October
time
period
in
recent
years
and
this
requirement
is
expected
to
continue
(
Tables
3.29
and
3.30).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
300
Figure
3.14.
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
abundance
and
incidental
fishing
exploitation
rates.
3.5.4
Relationship
of
Harvest
to
Other
Factors
for
Decline
Although
harvest
is
thought
to
have
been
a
factor
in
the
historical
decline
of
summer
chum
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
it
should
not
be
viewed
in
isolation
of
the
other
factors
for
decline
discussed
in
Part
Two
and
other
sections
of
Part
Three.
The
synergistic
effects
of
dramatically
reduced
productivity
and
high
harvest
rates
may
have
resulted
in
reduced
abundance
for
some
management
units.

3.5.4.1
Climate
Abundance
declined
beginning
in
1979,
probably
as
a
result
of
low
productivity
caused
in
part
by
increased
winter
flows
effecting
incubating
eggs
beginning
in
1977,
and
increased
exploitation
rates
in
both
terminal
and
pre­
terminal
areas
(
Figure
3.14).
As
productivity
improved
in
the
early
1980s,
the
sustained
increase
in
harvest
rates
may
have
hindered
the
ability
of
the
populations
to
rebuild.
Productivity
again
declined
with
the
significant
decrease
in
mean
spawning
flows
(
September­
October),
beginning
in
1986.
This
decline
corresponded
with
the
period
of
highest
total
exploitation
rates
and
lowest
abundances
in
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
region
(
1989­
92).
Increases
in
exploitation
rates
during
this
time
were
primarily
due
to
increased
exploitation
in
Canadian
fisheries.
Both
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
and
terminal
fishery
exploitation
rates
had
begun
to
decline
from
their
peaks
in
the
early
to
mid­
1980s.
The
combined
effects
of
high
preterminal
exploitation
rates
and
unfavorable
spawning
conditions
may
have
also
impeded
recovery.
Terminal
area
exploitation
rates
did
not
increase,
and
in
fact
declined
for
most
management
units,
after
the
decrease
in
spawning
flows
in
1986
(
see
Part
One).

Beginning
with
the
1979
return,
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
escapements
reflected
an
increased
variability
due
to
the
higher
pre­
terminal
harvest
rates
in
pink
years
but
remained
fairly
robust.
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
abundance
and
subsequent
escapements
were
depressed
beginning
with
the
returns
from
the
broods
experiencing
reduced
spawning
flows
that
began
in
1986.
The
total
abundance
was
the
lowest
up
to
that
time
and
the
increased
exploitation
rates
in
Canadian
fisheries
depressed
escapements
even
further.
Since
then,
exploitation
rates
have
been
significantly
reduced.
In
recent
years,
Discovery
Bay
Management
Unit
escapements
may
have
shown
some
favorable
response
to
decreased
exploitation
rates,
returning
at
levels
within
the
range
observed
prior
to
1989.
However,
the
increased
abundance
may
also
be
attributed
in
large
part
to
the
supplementation
program
operating
on
Salmon
Creek
since
1992.
Sequim
Bay
Management
Unit
escapements
have
remained
depressed
at
levels
even
lower
than
those
of
the
1989­
92
period.
Although
these
management
units
appeared
to
be
robust
to
the
1976
regime
shift
in
incubation
flows
which
affected
management
units
in
the
Hood
Canal
region,
the
added
decrease
in
productivity
brought
on
by
the
1986
shift
in
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
301
spawning
flows
coupled
with
the
increased
pre­
terminal
fishery
exploitation
probably
severely
impacted
abundance
in
this
region.

Unlike
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
Hood
Canal
populations
experienced
their
period
of
highest
sustained
exploitation
rates
coincident
with
the
first
returns
from
the
broods
impacted
by
the
climate
shift
in
1976,
and
continued
through
the
mid­
1980s.
Rates
on
the
Area
12D
Management
Unit
increased
even
earlier,
beginning
in
1975
with
implementation
of
the
Boldt
Decision.
More
than
70%
of
the
harvest
on
the
Area
12D
Management
Unit
and
60%
or
more
of
the
harvest
on
the
Area
12/
12B/
12C
Management
Unit
during
this
time
was
from
terminal
harvest.
Although
exploitation
in
terminal
areas
declined
substantially
beginning
in
1988,
overall
rates
did
not
immediately
decrease
due
to
increased
exploitation
in
Canadian
fisheries.
In
summary,
high
exploitation
rates
continued
despite
the
decreased
production
of
the
Hood
Canal
Management
Units
that
resulted
from
the
climate
regime
shifts
of
the
mid­
1970s
and
1980s.
The
combination
of
the
two
was
a
major
factor
leading
to
depressed
abundance
and
escapements.
The
exception
has
been
the
Area
12D
Management
Unit
where
since
the
mid­
1980s
abundances
and
escapements
have
been
above
those
of
the
late
1970s
and
early
1980s.

3.5.4.2
Ecological
Interactions
Some
scientists
and
members
of
the
public
have
speculated
that
incidental
harvest
of
summer
chum
has
increased
as
a
result
of
increasing
survival
and
production
of
wild
and
hatchery
fall
chum.
Although
there
may
be
summer
chum
caught
in
fisheries
targeted
on
fall
chums,
the
harvest
is
probably
very
low
given
that
the
difference
in
peak
entry
timing
between
summer
and
fall
chum
varies
by
a
month
or
more.
In
addition,
GSI
sampling
of
commercial
fall
chum
fisheries
in
Hood
Canal
and
South
Puget
Sound
indicate
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
are
not
present
at
detectable
levels
during
fall
chum
fisheries.

Another
theory
for
a
contributor
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
has
been
predation
and
competition
from
both
conspecific
fall
chum
and
other
species.
Both
the
numbers
and
timing
of
both
wild
and
hatchery­
produced
chum
fry
entering
Hood
Canal
in
recent
years,
and
the
indirect
effects
of
overlapping
spawning
areas
between
the
two
races
suggest
the
possibility
of
negative
competitive
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon
populations.
Hatchery
programs
for
other
species
of
salmonids
have
in
some
cases
been
intensive,
and
the
potential
for
both
competitive
and
predatory
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon
juveniles
has
been
identified
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Johnson
et
al.
1997,
Tynan
1998).
Although
the
evidence
is
not
conclusive,
the
recent
improvements
in
summer
chum
abundance
suggest
that
these
have
not
been
significant
contributors
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
(
see
section
2.2.3).
However,
what
competitive
and
predation
effects
do
exist
may
aggravate
declines
in
freshwater
productivity
in
those
systems
already
impacted
by
the
climatic
regime
shifts
and
habitat
degradation.

3.5.4.3
Habitat
Degradation
The
reduction
of
stream
and
estuarine
productivity
and
capacity
caused
by
habitat
degradation
is
accumulative
with
the
negative
effects
of
climate
and
excessive
fishery
exploitation.
The
effects
of
habitat
degradation
likely
contributed
to
the
decline
in
productivity
in
systems
with
summer
chum,
impacted
by
the
regime
shifts
in
1976
and
1986.
Some
populations
appear
to
have
responded
positively
from
the
reduction
in
harvest
rates
and
added
supplementation.
However,
improved
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
302
habitat
conditions,
coupled
with
these
other
management
actions,
will
be
essential
to
the
ability
of
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
to
recover.

3.5.5
Stock
Assessment
Information
and
Limitations
The
quality
and
quantity
of
data
varies
depending
on
the
parameter.
Little
information
is
available
regarding
individual
stocks.
Additional
information
will
be
assessed
and
incorporated
as
it
becomes
available.

3.5.5.1
Abundance
Abundance
estimates
for
the
past
twenty­
five
year
period
are
considered
to
be
reliable.
Abundance
estimates
for
each
management
unit
were
re­
examined
and
the
historical
record
of
spawner
surveys
and
spawning
abundance
estimates
for
each
stock
has
been
re­
evaluated,
as
part
of
this
planning
effort.
These
improved
estimates
of
abundance
and
escapements
have
been
used
to
form
the
basis
for
further
analysis.
Details
of
the
escapement
estimation
approach
and
procedures
used
can
be
found
in
Appendix
Report
1.1.

Evaluation
of
the
spawning
data
indicates
that:
1)
Revised
annual
spawning
escapement
estimates
for
most
stocks
have
not
changed
dramatically
from
those
previously
derived;
2)
Estimates
prior
to
1974
are
generally
not
reliable,
primarily
because
of
the
lack
of
survey
data,
as
well
as
the
quality
of
the
available
data;
and
3)
More
information
is
needed
regarding
spawner
separation
in
October,
as
well
as
regarding
fishery
contributions
from
late
September
through
early
October,
in
order
to
distinguish
summer
chum
from
fall
chum
and
facilitate
improved
recruit
assessment
and
abundance
estimates.

Total
abundance
estimates
represent
a
significant
improvement
over
previous
estimates
for
the
following
reasons:
1)
Genetic
stock
identification
(
GSI)
data
and
entry­
pattern
analysis
has
been
used
to
provide
population­
specific
estimates
of
harvest
and
to
better
differentiate
between
fall
and
summer
chum;
2)
harvest
in
Canadian
fisheries
was
included
in
the
estimates,
and;
3)
harvest
from
recreational
gear
was
included
in
the
estimates.
Even
though
abundance
estimates
have
been
improved,
there
are
still
further
improvements
that
could
be
made:
1)
additional
GSI
information
from
terminal
fisheries
to
estimate
the
contribution
of
summer
versus
fall
chum
populations;
2)
improved
catch
reporting/
estimation
in
some
areas;
and
3)
additional
GSI
information
in
both
terminal
and
pre­
terminal
areas
to
better
estimate
the
contribution
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
to
fisheries
and
to
better
describe
passage
through
these
areas.

3.5.5.2
Productivity
Information
on
productivity
is
extremely
limited
and
no
population
specific
information
exists
(
see
section
1.4.6.2).
Data
on
age
at
maturity,
sex
ratio
at
maturity
and
habitat
capacity,
are
essential
in
order
to
obtain
estimates
of
recruits­
per­
spawner
and
production
potential.
Such
information
would
allow
us
to
develop
Maximum
Sustained
Yield
(
MSY)
estimates
and
better
define
limiting
factors
on
a
production
or
management
unit­
specific
basis.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
303
3.5.5.3
Population
Structure
Spawning
generally
occurs
within
the
lower
2
miles
of
all
the
rivers
to
which
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
return.
Information
on
spawner
run
timing
has
been
collected
for
the
past
thirty
years
and
has
been
found
to
be
similar
in
most
systems
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).
No
significant
differences
in
body
size
have
been
observed
but
better
information
is
needed.
As
discussed
above,
age
structure
and
sex
ratio
data
is
extremely
limited
or
non­
existent.
No
other
significant
dissimilarities
among
life­
history
traits
have
been
detected
among
the
management
units
or
stocks
to
date.
The
available
genetic
data
describing
population
structure
is
summarized
in
Part
One
(
section
1.7.2.1).

3.5.6
Harvest
Management
Strategies
Given
the
current
lack
of
reliable
information
on
which
to
base
MSY
estimates
of
appropriate
escapement
ranges
or
exploitation
rates,
interim
management
objectives
have
been
defined,
which
seek
to
minimize
incidental
impacts
to
summer
chum,
during
fisheries
for
other
species.
These
shall
be
modified
in
response
to
new
information
as
it
becomes
available.
The
harvest
strategy
described
in
the
following
sections
forms
the
foundation
of
the
Base
Conservation
Regime
(
BCR).
Harvest
activities
conducted
in
accordance
with
this
regime
are
expected
not
to
appreciably
reduce
the
likelihood
of
survival
and
recovery
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
the
wild
and
are
expected
to
contribute
to
their
recovery.
Designing
generic
fishery
regimes
for
the
harvest
of
target
species
(
coho,
chinook,
pinks,
fall
chum)
based
on
both
the
biological
requirements
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
and
the
target
species,
is
expected
to
result
in
stable,
reduced
exploitation
rates
on
co­
mingled
summer
chum
salmon,
when
fisheries
for
those
target
species
occur.
When
additional
fishery
restrictions
are
implemented
to
protect
those
target
species,
it
is
expected
to
also
result
in
further
protection
for
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.

This
BCR
is
comprised
of
a
conservative
four­
way
control
mechanism:

1.
A
base
set
of
fishery­
specific
management
actions
for
fisheries
in
pre­
terminal
(
Canadian,
U.
S.),
Washington
terminal
and
Washington
extreme
terminal
areas
(
section
3.5.6.1,
Tables
3.29­
3.34);

2.
Management
unit
and
stock
abundance
and
escapement
thresholds
that
trigger
review
of
and
possible
adjustment
of
the
management
actions
(
section
1.7.3,
Appendix
Report
1.5);

3.
Expected
fishery
specific
exploitation
rate
targets
and
ranges
based
on
the
application
of
the
BCR
on
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
management
units
(
section
3.5.6.1);
and
4.
Overall
management
performance
standards
based
on
natural
production
against
which
to
assess
success
of
the
regime
and
make
necessary
adjustments
(
section
3.5.6.3).
The
actions
required
depend
both
on
the
status
of
the
management
unit
and
the
stocks
within
them,
with
the
most
conservative
controls
prevailing.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
304
Additional
management
actions
will
be
taken
as
necessary
should
a
management
unit
or
stock
fall
below
the
escapement
and
abundance
thresholds
defined
by
the
BCR.
Although
specific
critical
regime
responses
have
not
been
defined
at
this
time,
the
procedures
for
addressing
such
circumstances
are
addressed
in
sections
3.5.6.2
and
3.6.1.

Harvest
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
occurs
incidentally
in
fisheries
directed
at
other
species.
Therefore
management
actions
to
protect
summer
chum
involve
the
shaping
and
regulation
of
fisheries
for
these
other
target
species.
During
the
initial
years
of
implementation,
while
information
is
being
gathered
to
assess
the
productivity
and
MSY
of
summer
chum
populations,
exploitation
rate
expectations
are
set
for
three
fishery
groups:
Canadian,
Washington
Pre­
terminal
and
Washington
Terminal.
Management
actions
in
addition
to
those
described
below
will
be
implemented
if
necessary
to
meet
exploitation
rate
and
escapement
objectives
described
in
Tables
1.9,
1.10
and
3.35.
These
additional
measures
may
include
net
length
and
mesh
size
restrictions,
limited
soak
times
and
gillnet
live
release
of
chum,
and
additional
time,
area
or
gear
restrictions.
On­
board
live
boxes
may
be
used
to
monitor
and
estimate
mortality
associated
with
experimental
actions
such
as
selective
fishing.
If
inseason
conditions
deviate
significantly
from
the
preseason
expectations,
the
parties
will
meet
prior
to
implementation
of
additional
fisheries
to
reach
agreement
on
an
appropriate
management
strategy.

The
BCR
prescribes
management
actions
across
all
fisheries
thought
to
impact
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum,
including
Canadian
fisheries.
Authority
to
implement
those
actions
is
limited
for
fisheries
outside
the
jurisdiction
of
Washington
tribal
and
state
managers.
However,
successful
implementation
of
the
BCR
requires
the
parties
and
the
U.
S.
government
to
actively
pursue
these
recommendations
with
Canada.
In
1999,
the
parties
sought,
through
the
Pacific
Salmon
Treaty
(
PST)
process,
to
highlight
the
potential
impacts
of
Canadian
fisheries
on
depressed
U.
S.
summer
chum
populations,
and
requested
that
by­
catch
reduction
measures
be
implemented
for
those
fisheries.
As
a
result,
Canada
agreed
to
include
most
of
the
actions
recommended
for
Canadian
fisheries
in
this
plan
in
the
1999
chum
PST
agreement,
which
is
in
effect
through
2008.
The
parties
will
continue
to
seek
additional
protection
from
Canadian
fisheries
on
depressed
U.
S.
summer
chum
populations
as
necessary.
Recent
actions
by
Canada
in
response
to
coho,
chinook
and
steelhead
conservation
concerns,
and
a
high
rate
of
northern
migration
of
Canadian
pink
and
sockeye
salmon
populations,
have
led
to
significantly
reduced
exploitation
rates
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
Continuation
of
these
measures
are
expected
to
result
in
savings
beyond
those
anticipated
from
the
actions
described
in
the
PST
chum
agreement.
Integration
of
U.
S.
and
Canadian
management
for
the
fisheries
that
impact
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
is
important
in
achieving
the
exploitation
objectives
described
herein.
For
example,
Canadian
catch
is
estimated
to
be
79­
83%
of
the
harvest
mortality
on
summer
chum
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
in
recent
years
(
Table
3.25).

3.5.6.1
Base
Conservation
Regime
The
intent
of
this
regime
is
to
initiate
rebuilding
by
providing
incremental
increases
in
escapement
over
time,
while
allowing
a
limited
opportunity
to
harvest
other
species.
Commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
shall
be
conducted
under
this
regime
when
abundance
and
escapements
are
above
the
critical
thresholds
as
described
here.
The
fishery
specific
management
measures
comprising
this
regime
are
outlined
in
Tables
3.29­
3.34.
Actions
include
closure
of
summer
chumdirected
fisheries,
delayed
or
truncated
fishery
openings
for
other
salmonid
species
designed
to
protect
approximately
90%
or
more
of
the
run
of
each
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
management
unit,
In
evaluating
impact
savings,
no
release
related
mortality
was
assumed
since
prior
observations
appear
to
indicate
7
that
release
mortality
for
chum
salmon,
in
general
is
very
low
(
Eames
et
al.
1983).
However,
this
assumption
needs
to
be
tested
more
thoroughly.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
305
chum
non­
retention
in
fisheries
directed
at
other
species,
and
area
closures
around
freshwater
spawning
tributaries.

In
order
to
control
impacts
to
summer
chum
salmon,
as
well
as
preserve
opportunities
to
harvest
other
species,
Management
actions
under
the
BCR
(
Tables
3.29­
3.34)
were
designed
as
follows:

1.
Measures
which
are
not
expected
to
affect
opportunity
to
harvest
other
species.
These
require
the
release
of
all
chum
in
commercial
and
recreational
hook­
and­
line
(
troll,
recreational
and
subsistence)
fisheries,
in
times
and
places
where
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
salmon
are
likely
to
be
present
.
This
measure
has
been
proposed
to
be
implemented
in
all
impacting
Washington
7
fisheries
and
is
included
as
part
of
the
PST
agreement
for
Canadian
fisheries
of
concern.

2.
Measures
which
may
have
a
small
effect
on
the
opportunity
to
harvest
other
species.
These
measures
require
the
release
of
all
chum
salmon
in
commercial
net
fisheries,
capable
of
releasing
them
with
a
very
high
level
of
survival,
in
times
and
places
where
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
are
likely
to
be
present
and
closures
of
freshwater
spawning
grounds
where
HC­
SJF
7
summer
chum
are
present
to
protect
spawning
adults.
Some
impact
to
these
fisheries
is
expected
because
of
handling
the
catch
in
the
process
of
selecting,
brailing,
and
releasing
chum
salmon
will
entail
additional
delays
and
costs
which
will
have
an
effect
on
the
fishing
opportunity.
Closures
in
some
freshwater
areas
will
limit
access
to
some
commingled
species
in
the
vicinity
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
spawning
areas.
This
measure
has
been
proposed
to
be
implemented
in
all
impacting
Washington
fisheries
and
is
included
as
part
of
the
PST
agreement
for
Canadian
fisheries
of
concern.

3.
Measures
which
will
result
in
significant
reduction
in
opportunity
to
harvest
other
species.
These
are
comprised
of
time­
area
closures
of
fisheries
which
are
not
normally
capable
of
releasing
salmon
with
a
high
degree
of
survival,
i.
e.,
gillnet
fisheries.
Application
of
these
measures
is
implemented,
under
the
BCR,
in
terminal
and
extreme
terminal
U.
S.
fisheries
(
Hood
Canal
mainstem,
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
and
southeast
Hood
Canal).
This
maximizes
the
potential
savings
to
individual
management
units
since
these
actions
are
taken
where
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
are
most
concentrated
and
maximizes
harvest
opportunity
in
preterminal
fisheries
where
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
are
co­
mingled
with
abundant
runs
of
species
returning
to
other
terminal
areas.
The
potential
savings
may
also
be
significant
enough
to
offset
the
potential
loss
of
harvest
opportunity
for
other
species
returning
to
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.

Research
activities
are
not
restricted
by
the
times,
locations
and
actions
described
in
Tables
3.29­
3.34
if
those
restrictions
would
compromise
the
purpose
of
the
research
activity.
However,
research
activities
will
be
designed
to
minimize
the
take
of
summer
chum
as
much
as
possible
while
gathering
the
necessary
information.
Mortality
resulting
from
fishing
related
research
activities
will
be
included
when
evaluating
the
observed
exploitation
rates
against
the
exploitation
rate
targets
and
ranges
in
Table
3.35.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
306
Table
3.29.
Base
Conservation
Regime
harvest
management
actions1
TREATY
Hook
and
Line
Fisheries
(
Troll,
Recreational,
Subsistence)

Mixed
Population
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance)

Start
Date
End
Date
Action
Canadian
Areas
20­
1,
3,
4,
5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
29­
2......
29­
7
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
18­
1,
2,
4,
5,
9,
11,
&
19­
3,
4,
5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
WA
Ocean
(
Area
4)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
WA
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
4B,
5,
6,
6A,
6B
,
6C
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
2
WA
San
Juans
(
7,
7A)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Admiralty
Inlet
(
9
)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
3
4
4
4
4
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
Hood
Canal
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Seattle
Area
(
10)
August
1
September
7
Release
all
chum
salmon
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12,
12B,
12C)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Skokomish
Delta
to
SR
106
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Port
Gamble
(
9A)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
4
Extreme
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
effects
single
MUs
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
Bay
(
6D)
to
schoolhouse
Bridge
August
1
September
20
Closed
Sequim
Bay
August
1
October
15
Closed
Discovery
Bay
August
1
October
15
Closed
Port
Townsend
Bay
August
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
August
1
August
20
Closed
SE
Hood
Canal
(
12D)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
September
21
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
August
21
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Freshwater
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
stocks
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
River
(
above
Schoolhouse
Bridge)
August
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Jimmycomelately
Creek
September
1
October
15
Closed
Salmon
Creek
September
1
October
15
Closed
Snow
Creek
September
1
October
15
Closed
Chimicum
Creek
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Big
Beef
Creek
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Little
Quilcene
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Big
Quilcene
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon,

Dosewallips
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Duckabush
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Hamma
Hamma
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Lilliwaup
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Skokomish
River
(
above
SR106
bridge)
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Dewatto
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Tahuya
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Union
River
August
16
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
closed
below
Rogers
St.

Stream
mouths
closed
to
troll
gear
within
1,000'
marine
area
radius
from
each
stream
mouth
when
that
stream
1
is
closed
to
fishing.
Outside
Sequim
and
Discovery
bays.
2
Outside
Commercial
Area
9A
and
Port
Townsend
Bay/
Kilisut
Harbor.
3
Under
discussion
with
affected
tribes.
4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
307
Table
3.30.
Base
Conservation
Regime
harvest
management
actions
NON­
TREATY
Hook
and
Line
Fisheries
(
Troll,
Recreational)
1
Mixed
Population
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance)

Start
Date
End
Date
Action
Canadian
Areas
20­
1,3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
29­
2.....
29­
7
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
18­
1,2,4,5,9,11&
19­
3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
WA
Ocean
(
Area
4)
Sport
and
Troll
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
WA
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
5,6)
Sport
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
WA
San
Juans
(
7)
Sport
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Admiralty
Inlet
(
9)
Sport
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
Hood
Canal
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Seattle
Area
(
10)
Sport
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12)
Sport
August
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Freshwater
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
stocks
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
River
August
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Jimmycomelately
Creek
September
1
October
31
Closed
Salmon
Creek
September
1
October
31
Closed
Snow
Creek
September
1
October
31
Closed
Chimacum
Creek
September
1
October
31
Closed
below
Ness'
Corner
Big
Beef
Creek
September
1
October
31
Closed
mouth
to
outlet
of
Little
Quilcene
River
September
1
October
31
Closed
below
Hwy.
101
Brdg,

Big
Quilcene
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
below
Rogers
St.,

Dosewallips
River
September
1
October
31
Release
all
chum
salmon,

Duckabush
River
September
1
October
31
Release
all
chum
salmon,

Hamma
Hamma
River
September
1
October
31
Release
all
chum
salmon,

Lilliwaup
River
September
1
October
31
Closed
Skokomish
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Dewatto
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Tahuya
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Union
River
August
16
October
31
Closed
to
salmon
Rd,
closed
for
salmon
above
Ness'
Corner
Rd.

Lake
Symington
closed
for
salmon
above
Hwy.
101
bridge
release
chum
above
Rogers
St.

closed
mouth
to
powerline
crossing
closed
mouth
to
powerline
crossing
Closed
mouth
to
falls
Non­
treaty
troll
gear
used
only
in
Washington
Catch
Areas
1­
4.
1
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
308
Table
3.31.
Base
Conservation
Regime
harvest
management
actions1
TREATY
Purse
Seine,
Beach
Seine,
Reef
Net,
Roundhaul/
Lampara,
Traps,
Weirs,
Dipnets
Mixed
Population
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance)
Start
Date
End
Date
Action
Canadian
Areas
20­
1,3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
29­
2.....
29­
7
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
18­
1,2,4,5,9,11&
19­
3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
WA
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca(
4B,
5,6,6A,
6B
,6C)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
2
WA
San
Juans
(
7,
7A)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Admiralty
Inlet
(
9
)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
3
4
4
4
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
Hood
Canal
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Seattle
Area
(
10)
August
1
September
7
Release
req.
under
discussion
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12,12B)
August
1
August
20
Release
all
chum
salmon
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12C)
August
1
August
31
Release
all
chum
salmon
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12B,
12C)
October
1
October
10
Rel.
all
chum,
caught
within
5
Skokomish
Delta
to
SR106
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Port
Gamble
(
9A)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
August
21
September
15
Closed
September
16
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
September
1
September
20
Closed
September
21
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
500'
from
w.
shore
Extreme
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
MUs
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
Bay
(
6D)
to
Schoolhouse
Bridge
August
1
September
20
Closed
Sequim
Bay
August
1
October
15
Closed
Discovery
Bay
August
1
October
15
Closed
Port
Townsend
Bay
August
1
October
15
Closed
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
August
1
August
20
Closed
SE
Hood
Canal
(
12D)
August
1
September
30
Closed
September
21
October
10
Release
all
chum
salmon
August
21
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Freshwater
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
stocks
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
River
(
above
Schoolhouse
Bridge)
August
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Jimmycomelately
Creek
September
1
October
15
Closed
Salmon
Creek
September
1
October
15
Closed
Snow
Creek
September
1
October
15
Closed
Chimicum
Creek
September
1
October
15
Closed
Big
Beef
Creek
September
1
October
15
Closed
Little
Quilcene
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
Big
Quilcene
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon,

Dosewallips
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Duckabush
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Hamma
Hamma
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Lilliwaup
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
Skokomish
River
(
above
SR106
bridge)
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Dewatto
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Tahuya
River
September
1
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Union
River
August
16
October
15
Closed
closed
below
Rogers
St.

Stream
mouths
closed
to
net
gear
except
dipnets
within
1,000'
marine
area
radius
from
each
stream
mouth
when
that
stream
1
is
closed
to
fishing.
Outside
Sequim
and
Discovery
bays.
2
Outside
Commercial
Area
9A
and
Port
Townsend
Bay/
Kilisut
Harbor.
3
Under
discussion
with
affected
tribes.
4
500'
offshore
closure
along
west
shore
of
Area
12B
and
12C,
south,
to
a
point
2,000'
south
of
Lilliwaup.
5
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
309
Table
3.32.
Base
Conservation
Regime
harvest
management
actions1
NON­
TREATY
Purse
Seine,
Beach
Seine,
Reef
Net,
Roundhaul/
Lampara,
Traps,
Weirs,
Dipnets
Mixed
Population
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance)
Start
Date
End
Date
Action
Canadian
Areas
20­
1,3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
29­
2.....
29­
7
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
18­
1,2,4,5,9,11&
19­
3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
WA
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
4B,
5,6,6A,
6C)
August
1
September
30
Closed
WA
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
6B
)
August
1
October
15
Closed
2
WA
San
Juans
(
7,
7A)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
Admiralty
Inlet
(
9
)
August
1
September
30
Closed
3
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
Hood
Canal
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Seattle
Area
(
10)
August
1
September
7
Closed
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12)
August
1
October
10
Release
all
chum
salmon
4
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12B/
12C)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
4
Port
Gamble
(
9A)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
October
1
October
10
Release
chum;
closed
within
1,000'
of
western
shore
Extreme
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
MUs
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
Bay
(
6D)
August
1
September
20
Closed
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
(
12A)
August
1
August
20
Closed
SE
Hood
Canal
(
12D)
August
1
October
15
Closed
September
21
October
10
Release
all
chum
salmon;
1500'

August
22
October
10
Release
all
chum
salmon,
except
closure
around
Dung.
R.
mouth
broodstock
collection
Freshwater
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
stocks
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
River
Closed;
these
gears
not
used
Jimmycomelately
Creek
here
Salmon
Creek
Snow
Creek
Chimicum
Creek
Big
Beef
Creek
Little
Quilcene
River
Big
Quilcene
River
Dosewallips
River
Duckabush
River
Hamma
Hamma
River
Lilliwaup
River
Skokomish
River
(
above
SR106
bridge)
Tahuya
River
Union
River
General
stream
mouth
closure
is
within
1,000'
marine
area
radius
from
each
stream
mouth.
1
Includes
Sequim
and
Discovery
bays.
2
Includes
Port
Townsend
Bay/
Kilisut
Harbor.
3
Purse
seines
and
gillnets
closed
within
1000'
of
eastern
shore
at
all
times.
4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
310
Table
3.33.
Base
Conservation
Regime
harvest
management
actions1
TREATY
Drift
Gillnets,
Set
Gillnets,
Skiff
Gillnets
Mixed
Population
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance)
Start
Date
End
Date
Action
Canadian
Areas
20­
1,3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Time
and
possible
gear
mod.
Canadian
Areas
29­
2.....
29­
7
August
1
September
15
Time
and
possible
gear
mod.
Canadian
Areas
18­
1,2,4,5,9,11&
19­
3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Time
and
possible
gear
mod.
4
4
4
WA
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
4B,
5,6,6A,
6B
,6C)
August
1
September
30
Time
and
possible
gear
mod.
2
WA
San
Juans
(
7,
7A)
August
1
September
30
Time
and
possible
gear
mod.
Admiralty
Inlet
(
9
)
August
1
September
30
Time
and
possible
gear
mod.
3
4
4
4
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
Hood
Canal
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Seattle
Area
(
10)
August
1
September
7
Actions
under
discussion
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12)
August
1
September
24
Closed
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12B)
August
1
September
30
Closed
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12C)
August
1
August
24
7"
minimum
mesh
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12B,
12C)
October
1
October
10
Closed
500'
from
west
shore
5
Skokomish
Delta
to
SR106
August
1
September
30
Closed
Port
Gamble
(
9A)
August
1
September
30
No
regime
based
regulation
August
25
September
30
Closed
Extreme
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
MUs
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
Bay
(
6D)
to
Schoolhouse
Bridge
August
1
September
20
Closed
Sequim
Bay
August
1
October
15
Closed
Discovery
Bay
August
1
October
15
Closed
Port
Townsend
Bay
August
1
October
15
Closed
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
August
1
August
31
Closed
6
SE
Hood
Canal
(
12D)
August
1
September
30
September
21
October
10
Release
all
chum
salmon
September
1
September
30
1d/
wk
if
1500<
esc<
2500,
[
close
if
esc<
1500],
2
d/
wk
if
2500<
esc<[
3500]
(
this
rule
continues
through
Oct.
7
west
of
a
line
from
Point
Whitney
to
the
southern
point
of
the
Bolton
Peninsula).
Closed
Freshwater
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
stocks
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
River
August
16
October
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Jimmycomelately
Creek
Closed
(
this
gear
not
used
here)
Salmon
Creek
Closed
(
this
gear
not
used
here)
Snow
Creek
Closed
(
this
gear
not
used
here)
Chmicum
Creek
Closed
(
this
gear
not
used
here)
Big
Beef
Creek
Closed
(
this
gear
not
used
here)
Little
Quilcene
Rvier
Closed
(
this
gear
not
used
here)
Big
Quilcene
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
Dosewallips
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
Duckabush
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
Hamma
Hamma
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
Lilliwaup
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
Skokomish
River
(
above
SR
106
bridge)
No
regime
based
regulation
Dewatto
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
Tahuya
River
September
1
October
15
Closed
Union
River
August
16
October
15
Closed
General
stream
mouth
closure
is
1,000'
marine
area
radius
from
each
stream
mouth.
1
Outside
Sequim
and
Discovery
bays.
2
Outside
Commercial
Area
9A
and
Port
Townsend
Bay/
Kilisut
Harbor.
3
Pursue
within
PSC
process
4
500'
offshore
closure
along
west
shore
of
Area
12B
and
12C,
south,
to
a
point
2,000'
south
of
Lilliwaup.
5
Closed
south
of
a
line
from
Point
Whitney
to
Tabook
Point.
6
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
311
Table
3.34.
Base
Conservation
Regime
harvest
management
actions1
NON­
TREATY
Drift
Gillnets
and
Skiff
Gillnets
Mixed
Population
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance)
Start
Date
End
Date
Action
Canadian
Areas
20­
1,3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
29­
2.....
29­
7
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
Canadian
Areas
18­
1,2,4,5,9,11&
19­
3,4,5
August
1
September
15
Release
all
chum
salmon
WA
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
4B,
5,6,6A,
6C)
August
1
September
30
Closed
WA
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
6B
)
August
1
October
15
Closed
2
WA
San
Juans
(
7,
7A)
August
1
September
30
Possible
gear
mod.
Admiralty
Inlet
(
9
)
August
1
September
30
Closed
3
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
when
one
or
more
Hood
Canal
MUs
are
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Seattle
Area
(
10)
August
1
September
7
Closed
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12)
August
1
September
24
Closed
4
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12B)
August
1
September
30
Closed
4
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
12C)
August
1
September
30
Closed
unless
Treaty
opening
4
Port
Gamble
(
9A)
August
1
September
30
Release
all
chum
salmon
September
25
October
10
Closed
unless
Treaty
opening
October
1
October
10
Closed
w/
in
1000'
of
west
shore
October
1
October
10
Closed
w/
in
1000'
of
west
shore
5
5
6
Extreme
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
MUs
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
Bay
(
6D)
August
1
September
20
Closed
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
(
12A)
August
1
August
31
Closed
7
SE
Hood
Canal
(
12D)
August
1
October
15
Closed
September
21
October
15
No
drift
gillnets;
1500'
closure
September
1
October
7
Closed
unless
Treaty
opening
around
Dung.
R.
mouth;
skiff
gillnets
use
min.
mesh
size
of
5
½
"
and
90
meshes
deep,
7am­
7pm
only;
actively
tend
gear
and
release
chum6
6
Freshwater
Fisheries
(
Regime
is
applied
and
affects
single
stocks
when
at
Conservation
Level
abundance
Dungeness
River
Closed;
these
gears
not
used
Jimmycomelately
Creek
here
Salmon
and
Snow
Creeks
Chimicum
Creek
Big
Beef
Creek
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
Rivers
Dosewallips
River
Duckabush
River
Hamma
Hamma
River
Lilliwaup
River
Skokomish
River
Tahuya
River/
Dewatto
River
Union
River
General
stream
mouth
closure
is
1,000'
marine
area
radius
from
each
stream
mouth.
1
Includes
Sequim
and
Discovery
bays.
2
Includes
Port
Townsend
Bay/
Kilisut
Harbor.
3
Gillnets
closed
within
1000'
of
eastern
shore
at
all
times.
4
Gillnets
may
be
used
during
this
period
if
treaty
gillnet
gear
is
used
and
total
non­
treaty
fishery
impacts
are
expected
to
be
5
less
than
5%
of
the
Washington
run
size.
Use
of
gillnets
would
include
mesh
restrictions,
active
tending
of
gear
and
chum
release.
Chum
must
be
removed
from
net
by
cutting
the
meshes
ensnaring
fish.
6
Closed
south
of
a
line
from
Point
Whitney
to
Tabook
Point.
7
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
312
Exploitation
Rate
Expectations
In
total,
these
actions
are
expected
to
result
in,
on
the
average,
a
10.9%
total
(
range
=
3.3­
15.3%)
exploitation
rate
on
the
Hood
Canal
management
units
and
8.8%
(
range=
2.8­
11.8%)
exploitation
rate
on
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
management
units
(
Table
3.35).
The
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bay
Management
Unit
will
be
managed
for
a
stepped
exploitation
rate
based
on
escapement
thresholds.
(
The
parties
will
review
these
exploitation
objectives
and
may
make
adjustments
as
provided
in
the
periodic
plan
reviews
in
section
3.6.)

As
well
as
the
overall
exploitation
rate,
exploitation
rates
are
defined
for
each
of
three
fishery
aggregates:

Table
3.35.
Expected
exploitation
rates
and
ranges
by
fisheries
and
regions.

Fishery
Lower
Bound
Average
Upper
Bound
of
Range
Expected
of
Range
Exploitation
Rate
Canadian
2.3%
6.3
%
8.3%
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
0.5%
2.5%
3.5%
Terminal
0.5%
2.1%
3.5%

Regional
Totals
Total
Hood
Canal
3.3%
10.9%
15.3%
1
Total
SJF
2.8%
8.8%
11.8%
2
Total
of
Canadian,
U.
S.
pre­
terminal,
and
Hood
Canal
terminal
exploitation
rates.
1
Hood
Canal
terminal
rates
apply
to
Areas
12,
12B,
12C,
and
12D.
The
extreme
terminal
Quilcene
Bay
Area
(
12A)
is
expected
to
have
an
additional
5%
exploitation
rate.
Total
of
Canadian
and
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
exploitation
rates.
There
is
no
terminal
area
2
harvest
of
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stocks.

These
estimates
were
derived
from
years
when
there
was
full
treaty
and
non­
treaty
participation
in
fisheries
for
all
species
using
historical
information
on
reported
catches
for
each
fishery
grouping.
Current
fisheries
are
not
reflective
of
the
pattern
in
the
early
years
used
to
estimate
the
BCR
target
rates,
and
it
is
likely
that
effort
will
be
substantially
lower,
based
on
observations
in
recent
years
(
1994­
1998).
If
so,
the
actual
impacts
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
under
this
regime
will
be
even
lower
than
anticipated.

Fishing
pattern
assumptions
will
be
re­
examined
as
part
of
the
Five
Year
Plan
Review
(
section
3.6.3).

Canadian
Fisheries:
These
fisheries
are
outside
the
control
of
co­
managers
but
are
subject
to
the
framework
of
the
Pacific
Salmon
Treaty.
As
discussed
in
a
previous
section
(
section
3.5.3),
impacts
occur
incidentally
to
the
harvest
of
other
species
and
are
distributed
across
all
management
units.
Estimated
exploitation
rates
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
have
ranged
from
approximately
0%
to
43%
(
Table
3.26).
The
higher
rates
were
observed
during
1985
and
1989­
92
when
Canada
fished
aggressively
for
sockeye
and
pink
salmon.
Generally,
however,
rates
have
been
less
than
15%.
As
a
result
of
the
new
PST
agreement
(
specifically
the
by­
catch
controls
of
the
chum
annex,
and
continued
actions
by
Canada
in
response
to
coho,
chinook
and
steelhead
conservation
concerns),
Canadian
fisheries
are
expected
to
be
successfully
managed
for
an
exploitation
rate
that
averages
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
313
Figure
3.15.
Timing
of
actions
to
protect
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
the
Canadian
Area
20
fishery
compared
with
timing
of
1980­
1996
average
chum
catch.

Figure
3.16.
Timing
of
actions
to
protect
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
U.
S.
preterminal
Treaty
fisheries
­
Area
7
compared
with
timing
of
1980­
96
average
chum
catch.

Figure
3.17.
Timing
of
actions
to
protect
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
U.
S.
preterminal
non­
treaty
fisheries
­
Area
7
compared
with
timing
of
1980­
96
average
chum
catch.
approximately
6.3%
over
four
years
and
annually
to
fall
within
a
range
of
2.3­
8.3%.
Figure
3.15
illustrates
the
time
period
during
which
actions
will
be
taken
to
protect
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
If
exploitation
rates
deviate
from
expectations,
the
co­
managers
will
consult
with
Canada
on
taking
management
actions
to
bring
exploitation
rates
within
the
expected
range
as
soon
as
those
deviations
are
detected.

Washington
Pre­
terminal
Fisheries:
These
fisheries
are
under
the
control
of
the
comanagers
with
pink
and
sockeye
fisheries
subject
to
the
framework
of
the
Pacific
Salmon
Treaty.
Impacts
occur
incidentally
to
the
harvest
of
other
species
and
generally
affect
all
management
units
within
the
HCSJF
summer
chum
region.
Exploitation
rates
on
summer
chum
have
ranged
from
0.4%
to
10.1%.
Exploitation
rates
in
years
of
Fraser
pink
fisheries
have
averaged
5.7%
(
range
=
0.4­
10.1%)
and
generally,
are
slightly
more
than
double
those
of
non­
pink
years
which
have
averaged
2.4%
(
range
=
0.5­
4.4%)
(
Table
3.26).
With
more
emphasis
on
the
avoidance
of
impacts
to
summer
chum
from
both
recreational
and
commercial
fisheries,
i.
e.,
release
requirements,
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
fisheries
will
be
managed
for
an
exploitation
rate
that
averages
approximately
2.5%
over
four
years
and
annually
to
fall
within
a
range
of
0.5­
3.5%.
Figures
3.16
and
3.17
illustrate
the
time
period
during
which
actions
will
be
taken
to
protect
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
If
exploitation
rates
deviate
from
the
expectations
in
Table
3.35,
the
co­
managers
will
take
management
actions
to
bring
exploitation
rates
within
the
expected
range
as
soon
as
those
deviations
are
detected.

Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Terminal
Fisheries:
These
fisheries
are
under
the
control
of
the
co­
managers
and
affect
the
Sequim
Bay
and
Discovery
Bay
management
units.
In
recent
years,
Escapements
were
less
than
2,500
in
all
but
two
of
the
historically
documented
levels
in
unsupplemented
years.
8
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
314
minimal
incidental
harvests
have
occurred
and
fisheries
likely
to
impact
summer
chum
will
remain
closed
in
most
areas.
Fishers
in
Dungeness
Bay
will
be
required
to
release
chum
salmon
when
summer
chum
are
expected
to
be
present.

Hood
Canal
Terminal
Fisheries:
These
fisheries
are
under
the
control
of
the
co­
managers
and
effect
only
the
management
units
of
the
Hood
Canal
region.

Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Fisheries:
During
the
1974­
1998
period,
when
fisheries
for
chinook
and
coho
salmon
occurred
in
the
Hood
Canal
mainstem,
the
average
summer
chum
exploitation
rate
in
the
Area
12/
12B/
12C
fishery
was
24.1%
(
range
=
0.2­
59.3%)
(
Table
3.27).
Fisheries
in
the
years
used
to
derive
the
expected
exploitation
rate
for
this
fishery
aggregate
were
relatively
unrestricted
and
therefore
the
exploitation
rate
expected
for
this
fishery
is
probably
higher
than
will
be
observed.
Reduction
in
fleet
size,
participation
and
restrictions
on
other
species
are
anticipated
to
lower
impacts
even
further.
This
regime
is
designed
to
provide
limited
fishing
opportunity
on
other
salmonid
species.
However,
the
opportunity
to
harvest
other
species
is
restricted
in
order
to
result
in
94%
or
greater
reduction
in
the
summer
chum
exploitation
rate
observed
in
years
when
fisheries
were
fully
open
on
other
species.
If
exploitation
rates
deviate
from
the
expectations
in
Table
3.35,
the
co­
managers
will
take
management
actions
to
bring
exploitation
rates
within
the
expected
range
as
soon
as
those
deviations
are
detected.

Quilcene
Bay
Fishery:
During
the
1974­
1998
period,
when
fisheries
directed
at
coho
salmon
occurred
on
the
Quilcene
Bay
Management
Unit,
the
average
summer
chum
exploitation
rate
in
the
terminal
area
was
38.9%
(
range
0.2­
88.4%).
Incidental
harvests
of
summer
chum
salmon,
in
this
extreme
terminal
fishery
occur
during
the
fishery
for
coho
salmon
returning
to
the
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
(
QNFH)
and
the
Quilcene
Bay
Pens.
Only
the
Quilcene
Bay
Management
Unit
is
directly
affected
by
this
fishery.
A
supplementation
program
is
on­
going
at
the
QNFH,
in
an
effort
to
support
the
restoration
of
this
management
unit.

This
fishery
consists
primarily
of
the
use
of
hook
and
line,
gillnet,
and
beach
seine
gear.
No
fisheryspecific
exploitation
rate
is
defined
for
this
fishery.
Instead,
management
relies
on
a
stepped
fishing
schedule
based
on
an
inseason
assessment
of
natural
escapement.
During
each
season,
the
escapement
of
both
coho
and
summer
chum
salmon
shall
be
assessed
on
a
weekly
basis,
from
the
last
week
in
the
month
of
August
through
the
first
week
in
October.
On
or
about
September
10,
an
assessment
of
the
natural
summer
chum
escapement
shall
be
made.
If
the
escapement
is
projected
to
be
below
1,500
then
Gillnet
gear
will
not
be
permited.
One
day
per
week
of
fishing
with
the
use
of
gillnet
gear
is
allowed
for
escapements
between
1,500
and
2,500.
If
the
escapement
is
projected
to
exceed
2,500
,
a
decision
will
be
made
whether
one
or
more
additional
days
per
week
of
gillnet
8
fishing
is
necessary
to
provide
sufficient
opportunity
to
harvest
returning
coho
salmon.
This
schedule
regulates
only
the
use
of
gillnet
gear.
Regulation
of
selective
gears
such
as
beach
seine,
dip
nets
and
hook
and
line
are
described
in
Tables
3.29­
3.32.

Southeast
Hood
Canal
Fishery:
Under
the
BCR,
during
the
time
that
summer
chum
are
present,
area
12D
is
closed
to
commercial
fishing
and
requires
release
of
chum
when
using
hook­
and­
line
gear.
During
the
1974­
1998
period,
when
fisheries
for
chinook
and
coho
salmon
occurred
in
the
Hood
Canal
mainstem,
the
average
summer
chum
exploitation
rate
on
the
Area
12D
Management
Unit
was
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
315
40.9%
(
range
=
0.2­
73.5%)
(
Table
3.27).
Under
this
regime,
the
extreme
terminal
fishery
in
Southeast
Hood
Canal
is
expected
to
have
no
effect
on
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
(
i.
e.
near
zero
exploitation
rate).
If
exploitation
rates
deviate
from
this
the
co­
managers
will
take
corrective
management
actions.

Freshwater
Fisheries:
Impacts
on
summer
chum
in
these
areas
have
been
minimal
in
recent
years.
Under
this
regime,
impacts
to
summer
chum
will
continue
to
be
minimized
through
the
use
of
selective
gear,
chum
non­
retention
regulations,
and
area
closures.

3.5.6.2
Harvest
Regime
Modification
In
any
given
year,
the
BCR
will
be
applied
except
where
additional
harvest
management
measures
are
needed
to
respond
to
a
critical
situation
affecting
a
management
unit
or
stock,
or
where
recovery
of
the
populations
merits
a
liberalization
of
harvest
meaures.

Critical
Response
If
a
management
unit
should
fall
below
its
Critical
Abundance
or
Critical
Escapement
threshold
in
the
previous
year,
is
forecast
to
fall
below
these
thresholds
in
the
upcoming
year,
falls
below
the
thresholds
in
the
parent
brood
years:
OR
if
a
stock
fails
to
meet
its
Critical
Escapement
Distribution
Flag
or
Minimum
Escapement
Flag
in
the
previous
return
year,
as
provided
in
section
1.7.3
and
Tables
1.9
and
1.10,
the
co­
managers
will
investigate
any
additional
harvest
management
measures,
as
provided
for
in
section
3.6.1,
which
may
be
necessary
to
assist
in
restoring
the
management
unit
or
stock
to
non­
critical
status.
If
there
are
modifications
to
the
BCR,
they
will
be
referred
to
as
the
Critical
harvest
response.

Recovered
Response
The
goal
for
recovered
status
for
summer
chum
salmon
is
to
achieve
self­
sustaining,
harvestable
run
sizes
on
a
regular
basis.
This
will
provide
the
fishery
managers
greater
management
flexibility
and
will
allow
them
to
relax
restrictions
imposed
in
the
BCR,
including
expanded
fishing
opportunity
for
other
species
and
in
some
cases
directed
harvest
for
summer
chum.

Given
current
levels
of
escapement
and
run
size,
recovery
is
not
expected
to
occur
for
a
number
of
years.
In
addition,
the
existing
stock
assessment
data
are
limited,
making
it
difficult
to
determine
with
reasonable
surety
when
recovery
is
achieved.
Because
of
these
current
data
limitations
and
the
extended
time
frame
that
will
be
required
to
achieve
recovered
status,
this
plan
does
not
at
this
time
include
specific
population
recovery
goals.
However,
the
co­
managers
are
in
the
process
of
developing
interim
recovery
goals
which
will
likely
be
added
to
the
plan
as
an
addendum
during
2000.
All
state
and
tribal
fisheries
will
operate
in
compliance
with
the
BCR,
and
with
any
modifications
made
in
response
to
detecting
critical
status
for
one
or
more
management
units
or
stocks,
until
such
time
as
the
co­
managers
have
determined
how
to
incorporate
the
population
recovery
goals
into
the
management
structure
and
will
discuss
what
terms
of
the
existing
plan
will
continue.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
316
3.5.6.3
Fishery
Performance
Standards
By
achieving
the
fishery
performance
standards
described
in
this
plan,
the
harvest
element
of
this
plan
will
contribute
to
the
stability
and
recovery
of
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
To
fully
meet
these
standards,
assessments
must
be
performed
with
a
high
degree
of
confidence.
Evaluation
each
year
will
assess
compliance
with
the
regulations
and
management
strategy
described
above,
effectiveness
of
the
implementation
of
that
strategy
and
whether
the
data
demonstrates
that
the
assumptions
made
in
developing
the
plan
were
reasonable
and
supported
by
field
data.
The
following
performance
standards
will
be
used
to
assess
whether
the
harvest
management
strategy
is
being
successfully
implemented.
In
addition
to
these
harvest
management
performance
standards,
population
performance
standards
are
provided
in
section
3.6.4,
upon
which
this
entire
recovery
plan
will
be
evaluated
and
modified,
as
appropriate.

Compliance
1.
Regulations
were
adopted
consistent
with
the
management
actions
described
in
Tables
3.29
­
3.34
or
as
modified
per
section
3.5.6.2.

2.
Enforcement
patrols
indicate
a
high
level
of
compliance
with
regulations
adopted
consistent
with
this
plan.
For
example,
weekly
or
daily
reports
indicate
no
fishing
occurring
inside
stream
mouth
closures.

Exploitation
Rates
Exploitation
rates
must
have
been
within
the
identified
range
in
any
year.
At
the
time
of
plan
review,
the
expected
rates
must
be
within
the
established
range
and
are
not
clustered
toward
either
extreme
of
the
range
(
see
Table
3.35).

Preseason
Forecasts
1.
Annual
run
size
forecasts
are
a
component
of
our
performance
standards
for
harvest
regime
assessment
and
modification,
and
efforts
should
be
made
to
ensure
they
are
as
precise
and
accurate
as
possible.
Forecasts
should
be
accurate
and
precise
enough
to
ensure
that
the
correct
management
regime
is
applied
80%
of
the
time.

2.
Forecasts
of
abundance
should
be
unbiased
relative
to
the
post­
season
estimates.
Any
identified
bias
will
be
corrected
or
management
actions
adjusted
to
account
for
it,
unless
it
is
shown
not
to
effect
achievement
of
exploitation
rates,
escapement
or
abundance
management
targets.

3.5.7
Implementation
Efficient
and
effective
plan
implementation
requires
the
tasks
and
process
for
review
to
be
clearly
described.
This
section
describes
the
annual
plan
implementation,
defines
the
responsible
agencies
for
specific
stock
assessment,
harvest
management
planning,
regulations
and
tasks,
and
includes
a
schedule
for
annual
plan
implementation,
review
and
evaluation.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
317
Figure
3.19.
Comparison
of
proposed
Hood
Canal
terminal
exploitation
rate
with
observed
rates
in
1989­
1998.
3.5.7.1
Annual
Plan
Implementation
The
following
are
the
tasks
required
for
annual
implementation
of
the
harvest
plan.
The
comanagers
shall:

1.
Develop
preliminary
estimates
and
analyses
of
escapement,
catch
and
catch
distribution,
recruit
abundance
(
run
reconstruction),
and
exploitation
rates
for
the
previous
year's
summer
chum
return.
These
estimates
should
be
made
by
fishery
aggregate,
management
unit
and
stock,
as
appropriate,
no
later
than
January
15
of
each
year.
When
age
composition
information
becomes
available,
it
will
be
provided
along
with
estimates
of
brood
survival,
when
sufficient
age
data
exists
to
make
these
estimates.

2.
Evaluate
the
exploitation
rates
in
each
of
the
three
fishery
aggregates
to
evaluate
whether
any
of
them
has
exceeded
its
expected
exploitation
rate
range
for
that
fishery.
For
the
Quilcene/
Dabob
Management
Unit
this
would
involve
an
assessment
of
whether
the
escapement
corresponding
to
the
stepped
fishery
regime
had
been
met
or
exceeded.
If,
for
whatever
reasons,
these
management
objectives
were
not
met,
the
Parties
will
identify
the
causes
for
the
deviation
and
take
such
harvest
management
measures
necessary
to
maintain
exploitation
rate(
s)
within
the
expected
range(
s).
When
this
involves
the
conduct
of
intercepting
fisheries
in
Canadian
areas,
the
co­
managers
shall
work
in
cooperation
with
the
members
of
the
PSC
,
beginning
with
the
January
PSC
meeting,
to
take
the
necessary
harvest
management
measures
to
bring
that
fishery
back
within
the
expected
range.

3.
Complete
preseason
forecasts
for
each
management
unit
by
February
15
of
each
year
and
note
whether
any
management
unit's
recruitment
is
projected
to
fall
below
its
Critical
Threshold,
and
those
management
units
where
the
parental
broods
were
below
the
Critical
Threshold.
In
those
cases,
the
co­
managers
will
implement
any
additional
necessary
harvest
management
measures
as
described
in
section
3.6.1.
In
preparing
preseason
forecasts,
managers
will
use
conservative
methods.
For
example,
until
age
data
are
available
on
which
to
make
recruit/
spawner
estimates,
no
forecasted
returns
from
parent
broods
which
fell
below
their
Critical
Thresholds
may
exceed
a
recruit/
spawner
ratio
of
1.2.
Similar
management
considerations
will
be
defined
for
abundances
above
the
Recovered
Thresholds
as
those
are
developed.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
318
Figure
3.18.
Comparison
of
Hood
Canal
coho
abundance
with
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
terminal
exploitation
rates.
4.
Review
by
March
1
the
pre­
season
forecasts
for
the
current
year,
and
the
analysis
of
escapements
and
management
performance
of
the
previous
year
(
post­
season
review),
and
parental
brood
escapements.
Based
on
this
information,
the
co­
managers
shall
determine
the
appropriate
fishing
regime
for
the
upcoming
year.
The
management
recommendations
shall
include
any
appropriate
regime
adjustments
as
well
as
regime
modifications
from
the
latest
Five
Year
Review
Report.

5.
Adopt
by
April
15,
an
annual
harvest
management
regime,
as
modified
in
number
4
above,
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
defined
in
the
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan
(
PSSMP)
and
through
those
forums
involved
with
management
of
fisheries
impacting
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
such
as
the
North
of
Falcon
and
Pacific
Fisheries
Management
Council
forums.

6.
Finalize
by
May
31
details
of
monitoring,
supplementation,
and
information
gathering
programs
for
the
subsequent
season,
in
cooperation
with,
and
as
appropriate,
with
the
assistance
of
all
Parties,
using
the
procedures
and
requirements
of
this
plan,
as
well
as
the
PSSMP
and
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Management
Plan.

7.
Coordinate
and
communicate
with
the
NMFS
during
the
conduct
of
the
above
activities
to
confirm
that
the
regime
will
meet
the
requirements
of
this
plan
and
satisfy
NMFS'
ESA
obligations.
The
Parties
will
share
documentation
and
data
used
in
development
and
evaluation
of
the
annual
harvest
regime.
This
should
occur
prior
to
May
31.
As
necessary,
the
co­
managers
will
request
assistance
from
NMFS
and
USFWS
in
carrying
out
the
tasks
described
above.

8.
Conduct
inseason
management
activities
relating
to
management,
regulation
filing
and
enforcement
in
accordance
with
the
PSSMP
and
other
relevant
orders
of
the
U.
S.
District
Court.

3.5.8
Expected
Regime
Effects
on
Recovery
The
harvest
management
strategies
described
in
this
section
are
expected
to
result
in
significant
reductions
from
total
exploitation
rates
on
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
observed
in
the
period
from
the
1975
to
1992
which
were
the
result
of
fisheries
targeted
at
other
species
(
Figure
3.14).
This
plan
changes
that
by
establishing
annual
fishing
regimes
for
Canadian,
Washington
pre­
terminal,
and
Washington
terminal
area
fisheries,
designed
to
minimize
incidental
impacts
to
summer
chum
salmon,
while
providing
opportunity
for
fisheries
conducted
for
the
harvest
of
other
species
(
Figures
3.18
and
3.19).
The
expected
reduction
in
incidental
interceptions,
relative
to
the
high
rates
observed
during
previous
years
is
approximately
78%
for
Canadian
fisheries
(
1989­
92),
65%
for
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
(
1976­
93,
odd
years
only),
and
92%
for
Washington
terminal
area
fisheries
(
1975;
1977­
87;
1989­
90).
The
BCR
is
based
on
a
series
of
management
measures,
which
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
319
Figure
3.20.
Simulated
escapements
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
with
varying
exploitation
rates
for
the
years
1978­
1994.
are
expected
to
effectively
and
substantially
reduce
incidental
impacts,
in
order
to
conserve,
and
not
appreciably
reduce
the
likelihood
of
survival
and
recovery
of
this
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
the
wild.

At
present,
given
the
limited
data
on
summer
chum
productivity,
it
is
not
possible
to
construct
a
regime
based
on
more
technically
sophisticated
objectives
such
as
MSY.
The
combination
of
specific
management
actions
and
fishery
specific
exploitation
rate
targets
comprising
the
BCR
is
based
on
a
conservative
integration
of
the
existing
data
and
management
experience.
However,
the
plan
is
designed
to
be
responsive
to
feedback
mechanisms,
in
order
to
provide
for
adaptive
management
towards
meeting
the
goals
of
protection
of
summer
chum,
while
maintaining
harvest
opportunities.
The
regime
has
built
in
adaptive
response
mechanisms
to
respond
to
a
management
unit
not
meeting
a
critical
abundance
threshold,
or
an
individual
stock
not
meeting
its
escapement
distribution
flag
(
see
3.5.6.2).

The
BCR
has
been
constructed
using
a
conservative
approach
that
would
pass
through
to
spawning
escapement
on
average,
in
excess
of
95%
of
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
recruitment
to
U.
S.
waters,
and
nearly
90%
of
the
total
recruitment
of
the
run
of
each
management
unit.
At
the
exploitation
rates
provided
for
in
this
harvest
strategy,
spawner
replacement
would
be
assured
in
each
subsequent
generation,
if
the
average
recruits­
per­
spawner
ratio
was
at
least
1.2:
1
(
replacement
with
an
approximately
15%
exploitation
rate,
the
upper
end
of
the
BCR
exploitation
rate
range).
At
this
very
restrictive
maximum
exploitation
rate,
harvest
exerts
very
little
effect
on
recovery
of
the
populations.
At
recruits­
per­
spawner
of
less
than
1.0,
the
population
will
decline
regardless
of
harvest.
At
recruits­
per­
spawner
greater
than
1.2,
the
populations
will
increase
regardless
of
harvest.

While
the
conservation
regime
is
in
place,
forecasts
for
individual
management
units
will
be
constrained
by
the
assumption
that
the
recruit/
spawner
ratio
from
parental
brood
escapements
below
the
Critical
Threshold,
is
no
greater
than
1.2:
1.
This
constrains
the
forecast
to
be
within
the
assumptions
used
in
the
development
of
the
BCR,
minimizes
the
effects
of
forecast
and
modeling
error,
and
ensures
that
the
regime
remains
conservative
until
predictions
of
sufficient
abundance
are
confirmed.
If
average
recruitment
rates
were
found
to
be
lower
than
this
value,
it
would
be
an
indication
of
severe
productivity
and
productive
capacity
problems
which
cannot
be
remedied
through
harvest
management
actions.

Another
way
to
look
at
the
effect
of
the
expected
exploitation
rates
is
through
a
simulation
of
what
might
have
happened
to
summer
chum
populations
and
spawning
escapement
if
these
rates
had
been
in
effect
in
past
years.
While
we
do
not
have
adequate
age
data
from
all
years
to
allow
estimation
of
the
actual
productivities
that
occurred
in
past
years,
we
can
use
age
data
for
the
years
they
exist
and
the
average
age
for
all
other
years
to
create
a
set
of
productivities
that
can
be
used
in
a
simulation
for
illustration
purposes.
Figure
3.20
shows
the
results
of
such
a
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
320
simulation.
Starting
with
a
given
year's
abundance,
different
exploitation
rates
are
applied
resulting
in
varying
escapement
levels.
The
simulated
productivities
are
applied
to
these
new
escapements
to
arrive
at
new
recruit
abundances,
and
the
process
is
repeated.
The
actual
exploitation
rate
(
ER)
escapement
is
derived
using
the
same
simulation
approach,
but
with
the
actual
observed
exploitation
rates
applied
instead
of
a
constant
exploitation
rate.
What
this
set
of
simulations
demonstrate
is
that,
at
the
exploitation
rates
expected
through
this
plan's
harvest
strategy
(
10.9%
average;
15.3%
maximum),
there
is
very
little
difference
in
the
realized
adult
spawning
escapement
whether
these
limited
exploitation
rates
are
applied
or
there
is
no
harvest
at
all.
Also,
significantly,
there
is
essentially
no
difference
in
the
frequency
of
escapements
below
the
critical
abundance
levels.

3.5.9
Compliance
and
Enforcement
In
the
context
of
this
recovery
plan,
"
compliance"
is
intended
to
mean
adherence,
by
each
of
the
parties,
to
the
guidelines,
mandates
and
performance
standards
of
the
plan,
including
adoption
of
any
necessary
rules
to
implement
their
responsibilities
under
the
plan.

Compliance
certainty
shall
be
assured
through
the
application
of
U.
S.
v
Washington
rules
and
procedures.

The
annual
and
five
year
review
processes,
described
in
section
3.5.7.1
and
sections
3.6.2
and
3.6.3,
respectively,
shall
include
a
review
of
the
level
of
compliance
by
each
of
the
parties,
and
recommendations
may
be
made
as
necessary
for
improvements
in
the
level
of
compliance,
to
ensure
the
successful
implementation
of
the
plan.

In
the
context
of
this
recovery
plan,
"
enforcement"
shall
mean
the
efforts
and
means
of
each
party
to
implement
the
guidelines,
measures
and
standards
of
this
plan,
including
the
enforcement
of
rules
and
regulations
adopted
to
implement
the
guidelines,
measures
and
standards.

Guidelines
and
actions
are
generally
detailed
in
the
harvest
BCR
(
Tables
3.29­
3.34).
Parties
responsible
for
implementation
of
the
BCR
include
the
co­
managers,
and
for
international
and
ocean
fisheries,
NMFS.

For
fisheries
outlined
in
the
BCR,
the
co­
managers
and
NMFS
shall
ensure
that,
at
least,
current
levels
of
fishery
monitoring
and
on­
the­
water
enforcement
of
fishing
regulations
shall
be
maintained.
Additional
monitoring
may
be
necessary,
however,
its
implementation
may
depend
on
the
availability
of
sufficient
funds.

The
co­
managers'
and
federal
court
systems
are
currently
sufficient
to
ensure
that
enforcement
is
followed
through
with
appropriate
prosecution
of
violators.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
321
3.5.10
Harvest
Management
Monitoring
and
Assessment
Specific,
integrated
monitoring
programs
shall
be
established
to
improve
stock
assessment
methodologies
as
well
as
effectiveness
of
harvest
management
actions
and
objectives.
These
programs
should
include,
at
least:

1.
consistent
escapement
monitoring
methods;
2.
identification
and
quantification
of
harvest
contributions;
3.
assessment
of
survival
rates
to
recruitment
by
age;
and
4.
assessment
of
stock
productivity
and
productive
capacity.

The
first
two
are
critical
to
implementation
of
the
plan,
at
its
initial
phase.
The
third
and
fourth
are
necessary
to
provide
information
that
would
allow
managers
to
tailor
harvest,
supplementation,
and
habitat
planning
guidelines
and
actions,
to
the
extent
necessary
to
determine
with
acceptable
accuracy
the
necessary
steps,
time
horizon
and
likelihood
of
restoration.
The
fourth
monitoring
provision
will
also
allow
managers
to
better
define
survival
parameters,
thus,
allowing
us
to
better
define
recovery;
what
can
be
sustained
over
the
long­
term,
and
how
to
maximize
benefits
by
stabilizing
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
resource.
This
information
will
also
be
essential
to
the
integration
and
effectiveness
of
habitat
and
harvest
management
strategies
by
keying
production
to
current
estimates
of
habitat
capacity
and
productivity.
Current
survey
and
monitoring
programs
are
limited
to
quantitative
monitoring
of
escapement
and
harvest.
The
others
are
included
under
research
needs.
As
funding
becomes
available,
monitoring
must
be
expanded
to
include
them.

Escapement
and
harvest
monitoring
form
the
core
elements
of
the
monitoring
program.
These
programs
are
stable
and
will
continue
at
or
above
current
levels.
Although
information
gained
from
the
other
suggested
monitoring
activities
would
improve
management,
the
funding
and
resources
to
implement
them
is
not
currently
available.
The
co­
managers,
therefore,
have
designed
the
management
actions
in
this
plan
to
provide
sufficient
protection
for
summer
chum
populations
without
them.
The
co­
managers
commit
to
maintain
programs
identified
as
core
elements
of
the
monitoring
program
at
or
above
current
levels,
and
recognize
that
additional
monitoring
programs
are
important
over
the
long
term
and
funding
will
be
sought
to
support
them.

Escapement
Spawning
ground
surveys
will
be
conducted
in
established
index
areas
from
mid­
August
through
late
October
in
systems
comprising
the
known
spawning
distribution
of
current
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
populations.
In
addition
to
spawner
counts,
carcasses
will
be
sampled
for
marks
and
scales
or
otoliths
will
be
taken
to
determine
age
structure
where
possible.
At
a
minimum,
monitoring
will
be
maintained
at
current
levels
(
Appendix
Report
1.1
and
Table
3.36).
Currently
spawning
ground
surveys
cover
90%
or
more
of
the
temporal
and
spatial
distribution
of
summer
chum.
Additional
surveys
are
conducted
in
less
utilized
areas.
These
surveys
will
occur
at
7­
10
day
intervals
to
maintain
the
current
level
of
sampling,
unless
weather
or
water
conditions
interfere.
This
level
of
sampling
has
been
determined
to
be
necessary
to
provide
reliable
escapement
and
spawn
timing
estimation.
Surveys
shall
be
expanded
as
necessary
to
refine
or
develop
additional
standards
for
determining
the
present
and
future
abundance
status
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum.
Spot
surveys
will
be
continued
each
year
in
extirpated
systems
to
assess
potential
natural
straying.
These
programs
will
evolve
into
standard
surveys
as
re­
introduction
programs
come
on
line.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
322
Table
3.36.
Spawning
survey
index
reaches
for
summer
chum
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
De
Fuca1
WRIA
Stream
name
WRIA
river
Comments
miles
15.0389
Big
Beef
Cr.
0.0­
1.7
Fixed
rack
passage
­
operated
late
summer
to
late
fall.

15.0412
Anderson
Cr.
0.0­
1.0
15.0420
Dewatto
R.
0.3­
1.8
15.0446
Tahuya
R.
0.0­
2.6
15.0495
Big
Mission
Cr.
0.0­
1.6
Early
fall
run
(
peaks
late
Oct.,
early
Nov.).

15.0503
Union
R.
0.3­
2.1
16.0001
Skokomish
R
9.0­
13.3
Summer
chum
data
collected
incidentally
during
chinook
(
mainstem
and
SF)
surveys.

16.0230
Lilliwaup
R.
0.0­
0.7
16.0251
Hamma
Hamma
R.
0.3­
1.8
16.0253
John
Cr.
0.0­
1.6
16.0351
Duckabush
R.
0.0­
2.3
16.0442
Dosewallips
R.
0.02.3
17.0012
Big
Quilcene
R.
0.0­
2.8
17.0076
Little
Quilcene
R.
0.0­
1.8
17.0219
Snow
Cr.
0.0­
1.5
17.0245
Salmon
Cr.
0.0­
0.8
Includes
rack
counts.

17.0285
Jimmycomelately
Cr.
0.0­
1.5
18.0018
Dungeness
R.
0.0­
18.9
Pink
and
chinook
surveys.

18
0048
Greywolf
R.
0.0­
5.1
Surveys
conducted
late
August
to
late
October.
On
all
streams
except
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
tributaries
directed
1
chum
survey
effort
is
continued
into
the
fall
chum
run
period.

Fishery
Sampling
Canadian
Commercial
Fisheries
(
July
through
September)

The
co­
managers
will
work
with
the
Pacific
Salmon
Commission
and
Canadian
Department
of
Fish
and
Oceans
to
implement
monitoring
programs
to
collect
data
on
landed
catch,
species
and
stock
composition,
biological
traits
(
sex,
age,
size),
encounter
rates
and
non­
landed
mortality
of
chum
caught
in
fisheries
in
at
least
Canadian
Areas
18,
19,
20
and
29
during
the
July
through
September
time
period.

Washington
Pre­
terminal
Commercial
Fisheries
(
July
through
mid­
September)

1.
Landed
catch
ticket
information
will
be
the
primary
source
for
catch
and
species
composition
data
from
chinook,
coho,
sockeye
and
pink
fisheries.
Shore­
based
sampling,
will
be
included
as
part
of
catch
sampling
to
verify
fish
ticket
information.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
323
2.
In
fisheries
utilizing
non­
retention
strategies,
data
will
be
collected
on
the
number
of
encounters
and
species
composition.
Monitoring
will
include
logbooks
and
on­
the­
water
observation
of
encounters
and
releases.

3.
A
target
of
200
chum
per
stratum
will
be
sampled
for
biological
data
such
as
sex,
size,
and
age
structure
both
as
a
component
of
the
catch
sampling
and
as
part
of
genetic
stock
identification
(
GSI)
sampling
described
below.
Given
the
small
numbers
of
summer
chum
present
it
may
be
unrealistic
to
obtain
this
sample
in
all
desired
strata,
in
which
case
the
intent
is
to
get
the
greatest
sample
size
possible.
The
sample
design
and
stratification
will
depend
on
the
resolution
of
management
action
needed
but
will
be
no
greater
than
a
catch
area.
Where
the
sampling
target
is
not
met,
samples
may
be
pooled,
but
this
may
limit
the
development
of
fine
resolution
management
strategies.
This
type
of
information
is
an
important
element
in
assessing
exploitation
rates
and
entry
pattern
analysis,
and
is
essential
to
better
estimates
of
recruit
abundance.

Recreational
Fisheries
(
Sport
Areas
5,6,7,(
July­
September)
9
(
July
­
September)
and
12;
(
July
­
mid­
October))

1.
Shore­
based
sampling
will
be
maintained
at
or
above
1998
levels.
Biological
information
such
as
age,
sex
and
size
will
be
collected
as
part
of
the
shore­
based
sampling
programs.
Encounter
rate
data
on
all
species
will
be
collected
from
angler
interviews
and
logbook
programs.
On­
the­
water
monitoring
programs
will
be
implemented
as
necessary
to
verify
the
logbook
and
interview
data.

2.
Where
non­
retention
strategies
are
implemented,
data
will
be
collected
on
the
number
of
encounters
and
species
composition.
Monitoring
will
include
logbooks
and
on­
the­
water
observation
of
encounters
and
releases.

Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Extreme
Terminal
and
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
(
August
through
mid­
October)

1.
Commercial
and
recreational
salmon
harvests
will
be
sampled
annually
at
a
minimum
of
20%
for
species
composition
to
obtain
statistically
valid
estimates
of
species
composition.
Landed
catch
ticket
information
will
be
the
primary
source
for
commercial
catch
and
species
composition
data
in
chinook,
coho,
sockeye
and
pink
fisheries.
Shore­
based
sampling,
will
be
included
as
part
of
catch
sampling
to
verify
fish
ticket
information.

2.
In
fisheries
utilizing
non­
retention
strategies,
data
will
be
collected
on
the
number
of
encounters
and
species
composition.
Monitoring
will
include
logbooks
and
on­
the­
water
observation
of
encounters
and
releases.
3.
A
target
of
200
chum
per
stratum
will
be
sampled
for
biological
data
such
as
sex,
size,
and
age
structure
both
as
a
component
of
the
catch
sampling
and
as
part
of
the
GSI
sampling
described
below
(
M.
Alexandersdottir,
NWIFC,
pers.
comm.
1996).
Given
the
low
numbers
of
summer
chum
present
in
some
strata,
the
intent
will
be
to
collect
as
many
samples
as
possible.
The
sample
design
and
stratification
will
depend
on
the
resolution
of
management
action
needed
but
will
be
no
greater
than
a
catch
area.
Where
the
sampling
target
is
not
met,
samples
may
be
pooled,
but
this
may
limit
its
use
in
developing
fine
resolution
management
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
324
strategies.
This
type
of
information
is
an
important
element
in
assessing
exploitation
rates
and
entry
pattern
analysis,
and
is
essential
to
better
estimates
of
recruit
abundance.

Catch
Reporting
Commercial
fish
ticket
and
Ceremonial
and
Subsistence
reporting
systems
and
databases
will
be
maintained
at
current
levels.
Recreational
punch
card
and
creel
census
reporting
systems
will
be
maintained
at
current
levels.
These
will
be
the
primary
sources
of
catch
information
used
to
assess
landed
catch
mortality.

Stock
Composition
Genetic
stock
identification
baselines
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stocks
will
be
completed
prior
to
the
first
Five
Year
Plan
Review.
Subject
to
available
funding,
GSI
sampling
programs
will
be
conducted
annually
in
Puget
Sound
fisheries
at
times
when
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
are
likely
to
be
present.
Initial
efforts
should
be
focused
in
commercial
areas
5,6C,
6,
7,
7A,
9,
and
12­
12C
in
order
to
improve
impact
assessment
and
cohort
reconstruction
data.
Ideally,
samples
should
be
taken
throughout
the
time
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
would
reasonably
be
expected
to
be
in
the
area.
U.
S.
managers
will
coordinate
with
the
Canadian
Department
of
Fish
and
Oceans
to
continue
GSI
sampling
the
Canadian
Catch
Areas
18,19,
20
and
29
during
sockeye
and
pink
salmon
fisheries.
Sampling
design
shall
conform
with
the
requirements
of
the
PSC
Chum
Technical
Committee
recommendations.

A
DNA
baseline
should
be
established
and
fin
tissue
collected
from
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
as
an
alternative
to
lethal
sampling
for
stock
composition
information.

If
targets
are
not
met,
samples
will
be
pooled
for
analysis,
but
pooling
samples
may
limit
development
of
fine
resolution
management
strategies.
At
such
time
as
sufficient
data
is
available
to
detect
patterns
in
stock
composition
in
these
fisheries,
sampling
may
be
discontinued,
although
sampling
should
be
conducted
occasionally
to
validate
the
assumptions.

3.5.11
Adaptive
Management
As
more
information
is
collected
and
becomes
available,
harvest
management
strategies
will
be
coordinated
with
habitat
and
hatchery
strategies,
with
the
intent
to
incrementally
increase
abundance
and
spawning
escapements
above
recovered
levels.
These
recovered
levels
represent
the
level
at
which
management
units
are
relatively
stable
and
productive
and
pose
little
or
no
foreseeable
risk
of
extinction
to
the
populations
(
see
Part
One,
section
1.7.4
Stock
Extinction
Risk).
Recovery
goals
for
each
management
unit
will
be
developed
in
2000,
and
the
parties
will
subsequently
determine
how
to
incorporate
the
recovery
goals
into
the
management
structure.
In
addition,
fishery
performance
criteria
will
be
revised
to
include
the
new
information.
As
reintroduction
programs
are
implemented
and
become
effective,
fishery
performance
criteria
will
be
expanded
to
include
the
additional
management
targets
if
it
is
found
that
the
current
targets
are
insufficient
to
provide
the
necessary
protection.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
325
3.5.12
Stock
Assessment
Information
Needs
Success
of
this
management
plan
is
dependent
on
application
of
the
best
current
data
and
data
analysis
to
the
management
of
the
summer
chum
salmon
resource.
The
harvest
management
strategies
described
in
this
plan
have
been
designed
with
the
intent
to
provide
sufficient
protection
to
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
populations
given
current
data
limitations.
However,
better
information
and
analyses
will
be
necessary
to
make
significant
improvements
to
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative.
The
co­
managers
will
include
projects
focused
on
gathering
this
information
in
their
fishery
management
programs
to
the
extent
possible
and
will
seek
necessary
funding
for
projects
not
currently
a
part
of
the
agencies
standard
operations.
The
following
outline
of
information
gathering
activities
will
be
updated
as
needs
are
identified
and
as
part
of
the
Five
Year
Plan
Review.
Research
programs
should
be
designed
to
provide
new
information
in
time
for
the
Review.

Improvement
of
Sub­
Populations
Definitions
The
management
units
and
stocks
form
the
basis
of
the
harvest
management
strategies
and
recovery
objectives
described
in
this
plan.
The
definitions
are
based
on
what
we
currently
know
about
the
similarities
and
differences
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
populations,
and
the
level
of
management
resolution
the
limitations
of
that
information
allow.
Research
programs
should
be
designed
to
gather
more
definitive
information
on
the
structure
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
populations
in
order
to
simplify
management
where
a
single
management
strategy
can
meet
the
needs
of
multiple
populations,
to
structure
harvest
opportunity,
and
to
understand
the
contribution
of
each
population
to
the
overall
health
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.

Age­
Composition
and
Structure
Development
of
estimates
of
age­
specific
return
information
will
provide
important
information
about
the
degree
to
which
escapement
targets
are
providing
sufficient
production
to
protect
and
rebuild
summer
chum
populations,
and
would
allow
reliance
on
better
management
techniques
such
as
MSY
exploitation
rates
for
which
we
currently
lack
data.
Consequently,
it
could
allow
the
managers
a
greater
ability
to
integrate
conservation
and
harvest
opportunity
objectives.
Collection
of
this
information
would
lead
to
significant
improvements
to
the
current
plan.

The
success
of
harvest
guidelines
rely
on
accurate
information
regarding
annual
recruitment
to
each
management
unit
(
particularly
when
the
recruitment
may
lie
near
the
Critical
Abundance
Threshold)
and,
accurate
estimates
of
mortality
rates
associated
with
those
harvest
regimes,
and
the
escapement
levels
needed
to
sustain
or
rebuild
the
populations.
Research
and
monitoring
projects
will
be
designed
to
obtain
annual
estimates
of
age­
composition
in
the
escapement
for
each
management
unit
and
stock
using
scales
and/
or
otoliths.
Fishery
sampling
programs
will
also
include
the
collection
of
age­
composition
data.

Implementation
of
an
exploitation
rate
based
management
strategy
will
depend
on
the
availability
of
age­
data
to
accurately
assess
brood
specific
contributions,
and
to
relate
the
impacts
of
annual
chum
returns
to
the
brood
year
production
of
management
units
and
stocks.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
326
Improvement
of
Escapement
Estimates
Methodology:
The
annual
assessment
of
the
number
and
distribution
of
fish
that
escape
to
spawn
is
the
most
important
means
of
evaluating
the
progress
and
success
of
this
plan.
It
is
critical
to
forecasts
and
the
choice
of
the
appropriate
management
regime.
It
is
also
critical
in
assessing
whether
habitat
management
strategies
are
successful
in
maintaining
or
increasing
natural
production.
Therefore,
a
critical
area
of
research
will
be
to
review,
and
revise
where
necessary,
escapement
estimation
methodologies
in
order
to
improve
estimates
for
each
management
unit
and
stock.

Survey
frequency:
In
order
to
reduce
data
induced
inaccuracies
to
our
estimates
of
escapement,
and
entry
pattern
definition,
surveys
should
be
conducted
on
a
weekly
basis,
throughout
the
expected
entry
period,
plus
at
least
a
week
before
the
start
of
the
expected
entry,
and
a
week
after
its
expected
end.
Current
estimates
for
numerous
years
are
inadequate
in
this
respect.

Summer
chum
definition:
Current
surveys
use
a
cutoff
date,
and
it
is
left
to
further
data
analysis
to
determine
whether
some
early
entering
fall
chum
have
been
included.
Surveys,
after
October
15,
should
provide
field
estimates
of
the
proportion
or
numbers
of
spawners
who
appear
to
be
recent
entrants.
This
information
is
not
available
at
this
time.

Age
composition:
Since
the
capture
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
fisheries
during
the
restoration
period,
is
expected
to
be
minimal,
scales
should
be
collected
from
spawned
out
chum
in
order
to
gain
the
information
critical
to
estimation
of
survival
rates
from
each
brood.
Such
collections
should
be
representative
of
the
entire
escapement,
at
least
in
each
management
unit,
although
samples
sufficient
to
assess
each
stock
would
be
preferable.
This
information
is
not
available
at
this
time.

Sex
composition/
distribution:
At
each
survey,
an
estimate
of
the
sex
ratio
of
the
enumerated
spawners
should
be
made.
The
need
for
this
is
twofold:
to
determine
potential
egg
deposition,
as
well
as
to
determine
whether
females
enter
the
systems
at
different
times
than
males,
and
therefore
assess
the
need
for
customized
protective
measures.
This
information
is
not
available
at
this
time.

Stray
rates
and
supplementation
contribution:
As
re­
introduction
and
supplementation
programs
are
implemented,
another
critical
component
of
the
spawning
escapement
estimate
will
be
to
determine
what
portion
of
the
spawning
escapement
was
naturally
produced
and
what
portion
was
derived
from
supplemented
production.
This
will
provide
valuable
information
on
both
the
success
of
the
supplementation
programs
and
the
response
of
the
natural
production.
Marking
programs
are
already
in
place
to
provide
information
for
use
in
evaluation
of
the
success
and
contribution
of
summer
chum
produced
from
the
supplementation
projects
currently
being
implemented.
This
is
an
essential
task,
in
order
to
determine
the
contribution,
distribution
and
survival
of
supplementation
fish.
(
If
adipose
fin
clips
are
used
as
external
marks,
additional
effort
should
be
expended
to
assess
the
level
of
any
additional
mis­
identification
caused
by
the
mark,
during
selective
fisheries.)
Currently,
sampling
for
marks
on
the
spawning
grounds
only
occurs
for
the
Quilcene
and
Salmon
Creek
supplementation
projects.
Resources
for
sampling
other
supplementation
projects
are
not
currently
available.
The
intent
is
to
seek
funding
to
expand
escapement
surveys
for
mark
sampling.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
327
Improvement
of
Productivity
and
Productive
Capacity
Estimates
Minimum
population
sizes,
escapement
and
exploitation
rate
targets
that
form
the
basis
for
harvest
management
in
this
plan,
critically
depend
on
estimates
of
productivity
and
production
capacity.
This
information
is
critical
not
only
for
evaluation
of
harvest
management
activities
and
stock
status,
but
also
for
evaluation
of
habitat
management
and
supplementation
strategies.
This
information
is
currently
lacking
for
all
areas
and
so
the
interim
harvest
management
targets
are
based
on
expert
professional
interpretation
and
extrapolation
of
historical
escapement
and
abundance
patterns.
Research
programs
should
be
developed
to
estimate
current
productivity
and
production
capacity,
as
well
as
potential
productivity
and
capacity,
on
the
stock
level.

Non­
landed
Mortality
Management
actions
under
some
regimes
described
in
this
plan,
propose
significant
use
of
live
release
or
selective
gears.
Information
on
the
mortality
associated
with
releasing
chum
is
important
in
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
the
fishing
regime
and
in
assessing
total
recruitment
available
to
recreational
and
commercial
users.
Some
studies
have
indicated
that
significant
mortality
may
occur
over
an
extended
time
after
release
in
non­
retention
fisheries
(
PSC
1997).
Although
several
studies
have
been
conducted
to
estimate
release
mortality
within
several
hours
of
release
(
NRC
1994),
studies
on
the
magnitude
of
delayed
mortality
are
rare
and
none
have
been
conducted
on
Puget
Sound
chum.
Research
should
be
conducted
to
improve
estimates
of
the
non­
landed
mortality
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
salmon
as
a
mortality­
rate­
per­
fish­
encountered
such
that
the
rate
for
each
gear
type
is
estimated
with
sufficient
precision
to
meet
the
overall
goals
for
precision
of
exploitation
rate
estimates
and
management
action
effectiveness.
In
some
cases,
estimates
may
differ
for
a
single
gear
type.
For
example,
hook­
and­
release
mortality
rates
may
be
different
for
marine
waters,
estuaries
and
freshwater.
Funding
should
be
made
available
for
studies
to
determine
delayed
mortality
on
released
chum
salmon.

Catch
Sampling
Accuracy
of
estimates:
The
scope
of
coverage
and
percentage
of
catch
sampled
for
species
and
stock
composition
should
be
increased
in
both
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
in
order
to
increase
the
accuracy
of
by­
catch
estimates
and
catch
distribution.
Ideally,
sampling
protocols
would
be
designed
to
achieve
an
precision
in
the
catch
estimate
of
+/­
5%
of
the
true
catch
number.
However,
in
most
cases,
this
is
beyond
the
current
level
of
resources.
The
co­
managers
will
continue
to
seek
the
level
of
funding
necessary
to
implement
the
appropriate
protocols
that
would
increase
the
accuracy
of
catch
estimates.

Species
mis­
identification:
Focused
surveys
of
the
landed
catch,
from
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
where
summer
chum
salmon
form
a
very
low
proportion
of
the
landings,
is
needed
to
estimate
the
proportion
of
summer
chum
which
may
be
mis­
identified.
These
are
primarily
fisheries
directed
at
sockeye
and
pink
salmon
in
the
San
Juan
Islands
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
This
information
is
currently
unavailable,
and
is
necessary
in
order
to
obtain
increasingly
accurate
estimates
of
catch,
fishing
mortality
rates,
and
recruit
abundance
(
via
reconstruction).
Mark
sampling,
to
estimate
the
relative
contribution
of
marked
supplementation
fish
is
also
necessary
in
order
to
increase
the
accuracy
of
survival
estimates.
Because
the
bycatch
of
summer
chum
in
these
fisheries
is
very
small
and
the
Base
Conservation
Regime
further
constrains
these
fisheries,
it
may
take
many
years
to
collect
sufficient
samples.
Samples
will
likely
have
to
be
pooled
across
years
or
time
strata.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.5
Harvest
Management
Page
328
Species
composition:
GSI
samples
should
be
obtained
on
a
weekly
basis
in
Areas
5,
7,
and
7A;
as
well
as
Canadian
areas
18,19,
20
and
29.
Current
samples
indicating
the
presence
and
relative
contribution
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
salmon,
are
based
on
a
handful
of
samples
obtained
over
a
short
period
of
years.
Increased
accuracy
in
this
estimate
is
essential
in
order
to
estimate
the
catch,
exploitation
rate,
as
well
as
annual
recruitment
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
Additionally,
this
information
can
be
used
to
improve
historical
estimates.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
Page
329
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
This
summer
chum
salmon
conservation
initiative
is
intended
to
be
an
integrated
plan,
with
each
element
contributing
in
concert
with
the
other
elements,
and
leading
to
a
successful
outcome
in
restoring
these
summer
chum
populations.
In
developing
the
plan
elements,
and
the
strategies
and
specific
actions
that
put
the
plan
into
effect,
the
parties
to
this
plan
specifically
considered
how
these
plan
elements
would
work
together.
Each
individual
element
­
Habitat,
Harvest,
Artificial
Production,
Ecological
Interactions
­
will
not
be
successful
alone
in
rebuilding
summer
chum.

Each
of
the
preceding
sections
of
Part
Three
presents
one
of
the
elements
of
the
plan.
Each
section's
specific
actions
and
contributions
to
recovery
are
presented
separately,
and
compliance
with
those
actions
is
evaluated
separately.
However,
it
is
the
combination
of
strategies
and
actions
across
all
elements
that
provides
the
confidence
that
this
is
a
substantive
and
robust
recovery
plan
with
a
high
probability
of
success.
The
habitat
element
describes
what
conditions
will
allow
the
populations
of
summer
chum
to
be
productive.
If
the
habitat
strategies
are
implemented
by
those
managers
with
the
appropriate
jurisdiction,
we
will
see
production
from
these
populations
which
will
allow
recovery.
The
harvest
element
of
the
plan
initially
reduces
harvest
impacts
to
very
low
levels
that
clearly
will
not
impede
recovery,
and
will
be
maintained
at
these
low
levels
or
at
higher
levels
which
are
consistent
with
the
productivity
of
the
populations.
The
ecological
interactions
element
is
designed
to
further
examine
the
complex
relationships
between
summer
chum
salmon
and
other
species
which
share
the
same
habitats,
and
to
reduce
or
control
those
interactions
which
may
be
limiting
recovery.
These
three
elements,
taken
together,
and
properly
implemented,
should
provide
the
conditions
necessary
for
a
diverse
set
of
summer
chum
populations
to
be
productive
and
to
grow
in
abundance
to
levels
where
they
are
no
longer
at
risk
of
extinction
and
can
support
healthy
fisheries.
Lastly,
the
artificial
production
element
provides
for
carefully
controlled
supplementation
that
acts
as
a
fail­
safe
mechanism
for
very
small
and/
or
unstable
populations
that
are
at
a
high
risk
of
extinction,
and
as
a
boost
to
recovery
for
populations
that
have
a
long
way
to
go.

Despite
the
efforts
of
the
parties
to
integrate
the
strategies
and
actions
included
in
this
plan,
full
integration
of
the
plan
elements
will
only
occur
as
a
result
of
assessing
the
results
of
the
plan
implementation
and
modifying
the
plan
through
adaptive
management
approaches.
There
is
much
we
don't
know
about
summer
chum
salmon
and
adaptive
management
is
a
critically
important
feature
of
this
plan.
The
parties
believe
that
this
plan
is
well
thought
out
and
addresses
all
likely
factors
for
the
decline
of
summer
chum,
but
it
is
critically
important
that
the
plan's
performance
be
carefully
and
promptly
evaluated
and
that
there
is
a
quick
response
to
any
signs
of
failure.

Each
of
the
preceding
sections
of
Part
Three
addresses
a
specific
element
of
the
plan
and
defines
how
we
will
evaluate
the
performance
(
compliance
and
effectiveness)
of
the
specific
strategies
and
actions
relevant
to
that
element.
However,
the
success
of
the
overall
plan
can
only
be
measured
by
how
well
the
populations
of
summer
chum
respond.
We
can
fully
implement
all
of
the
actions
defined
in
the
elements
and
still
fail
to
recover
these
fish
if
our
understandings
and
assumptions
about
the
factors
limiting
recovery
are
incorrect.
Ultimately
the
plan
must
be
evaluated
as
to
whether
it
meets
the
overall
goal
"
to
protect,
restore
and
enhance
the
productivity,
production,
and
diversity
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
and
their
ecosystems
to
provide
surplus
production
sufficient
to
allow
future
directed
and
incidental
harvests
of
summer
chum
salmon".
1
Note
that
"
critical
status"
in
the
context
used
here
has
a
different
definition
(
described
in
section
1.7.3
and
Appendix
Report
1.5)
than
the
critical
definition
for
SASSI
stocks
(
shown
in
section
1.7.2).

2
Actions
taken
will
depend
on
the
specific
situation.
In
some
cases,
a
management
unit
or
stock
may
fall
below
a
threshold
but
demonstrate
that
a
declining
trend
has
stopped
or
a
recovery
trend
has
begun,
indicating
that
present
management
actions
are
currently
sufficient.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
Page
330
The
following
describes
the
measures
that
will
be
used
to
evaluate
the
performance
of
the
plan
relative
to
specific
population
criteria.
It
includes
thresholds
that
would
trigger
immediate
additional
actions
to
protect
specific
management
units
and
populations,
describes
periodic
plan
reviews
with
specific
performance
requirements,
defines
the
process
for
responding
to
performance
failures
(
adaptive
management)
and
defines
how
we
will
assess
success
in
meeting
recovery.

3.6.1
Critical
Thresholds
and
Response
Typically
a
resource
management
plan
such
as
this
would
be
evaluated
after
it
has
been
in
place
for
a
number
of
years
and
there
is
an
accumulation
of
data
upon
which
to
assess
performance.
It
is
reasonable
to
observe
some
variation
in
expected
outcomes
from
the
specific
strategies
and
actions
and
an
evaluation
across
years
to
assess
average
performance
and
the
degree
of
variation
provides
the
best
assessment
of
performance
and
a
basis
upon
which
to
make
plan
modifications.
Procedures
for
conducting
this
type
of
evaluation
are
provided
in
the
following
sections.

However,
when
dealing
with
populations
that
are
at
very
low
abundance
and
at
considerable
risk
of
extinction
it
is
appropriate
to
provide
some
annual
checks
on
total
abundance
and/
or
spawner
abundance
which
will
detect
any
significant
problems
with
the
recovery
strategy,
and
allow
immediate
emergency
actions
to
be
taken
to
avoid
possible
damage
or
extinction
of
populations.
Section
1.7.3
provides
annual
abundance
thresholds
and
spawning
escapement
distribution
flags
that
will
be
used
to
identify
management
units
or
stocks
that
are
in
a
critical
status
.
1
If
any
management
unit
falls
below
its
critical
abundance
or
escapement
threshold,
or
if
an
escapement
distribution
flag
is
triggered
for
a
Mainstem
Management
Unit
stock,
the
co­
managers
will:
1)
promptly
identify
any
emergency
actions
that
can
be
taken
immediately
to
respond
to
the
critical
condition
,
and
2)
within
6
months,
prepare
an
assessment
of
the
factors
resulting
in
this
2
failure
and
provide
comprehensive
recommended
actions
and
modifications
to
the
plan
to
promptly
restore
the
management
unit
or
stock
to
non­
critical
status.
The
assessment
will
also
include
an
examination
of
stock
extinction
risk,
as
described
in
section
1.7.4,
and
utilized
in
section
3.2,
to
assist
in
developing
recommended
actions.

The
emergency
actions
will
include
any
actions
that
can
be
expected
to
have
an
immediate,
short
term
effect
on
either
productivity
or
mortality
of
the
critical
management
unit
or
stock.
They
will
be
designed
to
avoid
further
declines
in
abundance
while
the
causes
for
the
failure
are
being
evaluated
and
corrective
actions
developed.
Actions
might
include
additional
harvest
management
actions
to
reduce
fishing
mortality.
These
should
be
designed
to
specifically
benefit
the
management
unit
or
stock
that
is
in
the
critical
condition
(
e.
g.
additional
restrictions
in
the
extreme
terminal
area
for
that
management
unit).
Actions
might
include
immediate
response
to
a
critical
habitat
problem
through
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
Page
331
a
habitat
restoration
project
where
the
benefits
can
be
expected
to
accrue
to
the
current
or
next
year's
spawners
and
their
progeny.
This
will
likely
be
a
response
to
a
specific
event
that
may
be
having
a
dramatic
effect
on
the
success
of
the
population
(
e.
g.
a
landslide
that
is
blocking
access
or
radically
degrading
substrate
conditions).
Emergency
collection
of
broodstock
for
supplementation
purposes
may
be
necessary
when
populations
are
at
critically
low
abundance
to
provide
a
higher
level
of
survival
for
the
offspring
of
the
few
spawners
available.
Actions
might
also
include
emergency
efforts
to
reduce
predation
effects
of
marine
mammals
such
as
removal
of
problem
animals
or
taking
measures
to
limit
their
access
to
the
critical
populations.

The
assessment
to
be
conducted
within
6
months
will
attempt
to
assess
the
specific
causes
for
the
management
unit
or
stock
falling
to
or
remaining
at
critical
abundance
levels,
using
the
best
available
data.
Recommended
actions
from
the
assessment
will
include
any
modifications
to
the
emergency
actions
taken
when
the
critical
status
was
identified
and
any
additional
actions
deemed
necessary
to
quickly
restore
the
abundance
of
the
critical
management
unit
or
stock
to
non­
critical
status.
The
assessments
and
recommendations
will
specifically
address
productivity
and
habitat
conditions,
harvest
and
supplementation
impacts
and
supplementation
opportunities.

The
assessment
and
recommended
actions
will
also
include
an
identification
of
conditions
and
criteria
for
the
management
unit
or
stock
by
which
it
will
no
longer
be
considered
to
be
in
critical
status,
and
will
define
when
the
additional
actions
are
no
longer
necessary.
Curtailment
or
relaxation
of
actions
will
vary
depending
on
the
kind
of
actions
that
are
recommended.
For
example,
harvest
actions
may
be
relaxed
once
significant
improvement
in
management
unit
or
stock
status
is
observed,
while
commitments
to
supplementation
or
habitat
improvements
may
require
a
longer
term.

3.6.2
Annual
Plan
Report
Annually,
the
plan
is
assessed
for
compliance
with
the
specific
plan
provisions
and
to
determine
if
any
critical
thresholds
or
escapement
distribution
flags
have
been
triggered.
In
each
of
the
preceding
sections
on
Artificial
Production
(
3.2),
Ecological
Interactions
(
3.3),
and
Harvest
Management
(
3.5),
there
is
a
description
of
annual
actions
that
must
be
taken
to
assess
compliance
with
and
effectiveness
of
the
plan
provisions.
Sections
1.7.3,
3.5.7.1
and
3.6.1
describe
the
critical
thresholds
and
escapement
distribution
flags
and
the
actions
to
be
taken,
on
an
annual
basis,
when
these
thresholds
are
triggered.

By
June
of
each
year
the
co­
managers
will
compile
all
of
the
annual
assessments
required
in
Part
Three
of
this
plan
into
an
Annual
Plan
Progress
Report.
This
report
is
intended
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
plan's
performance
and
may
consist
only
of
a
summary
of
the
actions
and
assessments
conducted
in
the
preceding
calendar
year.
The
Annual
Plan
Progress
Report
will
be
provided
to
all
of
the
parties
to
the
plan.

3.6.3
Five
Year
Plan
Review
A
five
year
plan
review
will
assess
whether
progress
towards
recovery
is
being
achieved
and
whether
the
results
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
studies
indicate
a
need
to
revise
assumptions
and/
or
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
Page
332
strategies
and
actions.
As
management
units
are
rebuilt,
the
plan
review
will
assess
whether
the
conservation
and
recovery
criteria
are
being
maintained,
as
well
as
incorporating
the
results
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
studies.
At
the
time
of
the
review,
results
from
the
monitoring
and
evaluation
studies
will
be
used
to
modify
the
specific
actions
and
strategies
(
harvest
regime,
supplementation
projects,
habitat
restoration
strategies,
etc),
modify
the
monitoring
and
evaluation
programs,
make
recommendations
for
further
research
and
provide
guidance
on
other
aspects
of
the
plan.
Strategies
and
actions
described
in
this
plan
will
be
assessed,
to
the
extent
possible,
at
both
the
management
unit
and
stock
levels.
The
WDFW
and
tribes
will
conduct
a
plan
review
every
five
years
and
generate
a
report
of
the
findings
to
be
complete
and
available
to
state,
tribal
and
federal
agencies
within
one
year
of
the
review.
The
first
review
will
occur
in
2004
(
to
cover
the
five
year
period
1999­
2003),
with
a
report
available
by
February
of
2005
(
subsequent
reviews
will
occur
every
fifth
year
(
i.
e.,
2009,
2014,
etc.).
However,
this
should
not
constrain
the
managers
from
introducing
substantive
new
information
for
discussion
and
possible
incorporation
at
any
time.

The
following
are
the
steps
required
to
complete
review
of
the
plan.

1.
Review
and
describe
performance
of
each
element
of
the
plan
in
meeting
their
specific
compliance
and
effectiveness
standards,
as
provided
in
previous
sections
(
sections
3.2
­
3.5),
by
management
unit
and
stock,
since
the
last
review
period
and
since
adoption
of
the
plan.

2.
Evaluate
management
unit
and
stock
performance
relative
to
the
standards
provided
in
section
3.6.4.

3.
Determine
which
strategies
and
actions
and
conservation
objectives
were
most
effective
and
least
effective
and
which
management
unit
and
stock
did
or
did
not
see
the
desired
improvement.
Document
the
findings
by
management
unit
and
stock
and
at
the
region­
wide
level,
i.
e.,
were
successes
concentrated
geographically
or
were
certain
units
chronically
falling
short
of
objectives.

4.
Identify
causes
of
successes
and
failures
and
categorize
them
according
to
type:

Compliance:
Actions
were
not
implemented
correctly
or
had
a
significant
degree
of
noncompliance
by
user
groups
or
governments.

Effectiveness:
Actions
were
implemented
correctly
and
had
high
degrees
of
compliance
but
did
not
have
the
intended
effect(
s).

Assumptions:
Assessment
methods
or
parameters
were
accurately
or
inaccurately
estimated
and
applied.

5.
Make
adjustments
to
plan
elements
as
provided
in
sections
3.2
­
3.5.
Co­
managers
will
incorporate
new
information
from
monitoring,
evaluation
and
research
studies
in
making
adjustments
as
prescribed.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
Page
333
6.
Make
recommendations
for
plan
changes
or
amendments.
This
information
should
be
as
specific
as
possible,
including
the
watersheds,
river
systems,
estuaries,
management
units,
stocks,
programs
or
projects,
and
fisheries
affected,
the
type
of
suggested
change
and
the
time
frame
over
which
it
should
be
implemented.

3.6.4
Performance
Standards
By
achieving
the
management
unit
and
stock
performance
standards
described
in
this
plan,
the
elements
of
this
plan
will
contribute
to
the
stability
and
recovery
of
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
To
fully
meet
these
standards,
assessments
must
be
performed
with
a
high
degree
of
confidence.
The
measurement
of
several
of
the
following
standards
(
e.
g.
productivity)
is
dependent
on
the
collection
of
representative
age
data.

As
more
information
is
gathered
that
effects
our
assessments
of
escapement
and
abundance,
the
following
performance
standards
will
be
revised
to
include
the
new
information.
As
reintroduction
programs
are
implemented
and
become
effective,
the
performance
standards
will
be
expanded
to
include
additional
criteria
for
those
populations
if
it
is
found
that
the
current
criteria
are
insufficient
to
provide
the
necessary
protection.

The
following
performance
standards
are
meant
to
provide
immediate
criteria
upon
which
to
measure
progress
toward
recovery
of
summer
chum
salmon
populations.
In
addition,
the
comanagers
are
working
on
developing
a
set
of
population­
based
recovery
goals
that
can
be
used
to
determine
when
full
recovery
is
achieved.
These
recovery
goals
will
address
levels
of
abundance,
productivity
and
diversity
of
summer
chum
populations
that
will
achieve
self­
sustaining,
harvestable
run
sizes
on
a
regular
basis.
These
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
recovery
goals
are
scheduled
for
completion
in
spring
2000
and
will
be
distributed
as
a
supplement
to
this
initiative
(
see
also
sections
4.4
and
4.6).

3.6.4.1
Abundance
As
used
in
this
plan,
abundance
refers
to
the
annual
total
number
of
adult
recruits
or
the
adult
run
size
prior
to
any
fishing
related
mortality.
Escapement
refers
to
the
portion
of
the
abundance
that
has
"
escaped"
through
the
various
fisheries
and
arrived
on
the
spawning
grounds.

Progress
toward
recovery
of
abundance
and
escapement
will
be
measured
relative
to
the
performance
of
natural­
origin
recruits
(
NOR)
of
each
management
unit
and
stock(
s)
within
them.
Such
assessments
will
be
made
using
post­
season
information
for
each
stock.
The
following
standards
shall
be
used
to
evaluate
the
progress
of
harvest,
artificial
production,
ecological
interaction,
and
habitat
management
measures
in
recovering
Hood
Canal/
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum:

1.
Annual
post
season
estimated
abundance
must
be
equal
to,
or
greater
than
that
of
the
parent
brood
abundance.
When
this
is
not
the
case,
an
investigation
of
the
causes
shall
be
made
and
remedial
measures
shall
be
formulated,
when
appropriate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
Page
334
2.
Annual
abundance
should
be
stable
or
increasing
the
5­
year
and
average
abundance
must
be
higher
than
the
critical
threshold.
Annual
abundances
shall
not
fall
below
the
critical
threshold
in
more
than
two
out
of
five
consecutive
years.
Information
concerning
the
productivity
and
productive
capacity
of
the
stock(
s)
shall
be
pursued
to
further
refine
the
thresholds
themselves.

3.
Liberalization
of
actions
under
the
Base
Conservation
Regime
shall
not
be
considered
unless
number
2
above
is
met.

3.6.4.2
Productivity
As
used
in
this
plan,
productivity
refers
to
the
ratio
of
maturing
recruits
per
parent
brood
spawner.
This
ratio
shall
initially
be
specific
to
each
management
unit,
however
it
is
the
co­
managers
intent
to
obtain
information
necessary
to
estimate
this
quantity
for
individual
stocks
within
management
units
as
well.

Since
the
number
of
recruits
produced
by
each
spawner
is
affected
by
both
density­
dependent
(
biological)
and
density­
independent
(
physical
habitat)
factors,
the
following
elements
shall
be
used
to
evaluate
the
progress
of
harvest,
supplementation,
and
habitat
management
measures:

1.
Five­
year
estimated
mean
productivity
shall
be
greater
than
1.2
recruits
per
spawner.

2.
The
number
of
recruits
per
spawner
when
management
units
are
at
or
near
critical
threshold
abundances,
must
be
stable
or
increasing.

3.6.4.3
Escapement
1.
The
annual
post
season
estimated
NOR
escapement
rate
of
each
run
must
be
within
or
above
the
range
specified
by
the
Base
Conservation
Regime.

2.
Annual
NOR
escapements
shall
be
stable
or
increasing
and
5­
year
average
escapements
must
be
higher
than
the
critical
thresholds.
Information
concerning
the
productivity
and
productive
capacity
of
the
stock(
s)
shall
be
used
to
further
refine
the
thresholds
themselves.

3.
Expected
escapement
rates
are
based
on
numerous
assumptions
made
during
the
formulation
of
the
Base
Conservation
Regime.
Annually
estimated
rates,
for
the
period
being
evaluated,
must
be
normally
distributed
across
the
Base
Conservation
Regime's
anticipated
range.
If
this
does
not
occur,
the
Base
Conservation
Regime,
its
underlying
assumptions,
and
the
application
of
the
Regime
shall
be
re­
evaluated
and
remedial
measures
shall
be
formulated.

3.6.4.4
Management
Actions
1.
At
a
minimum,
the
plan
strategies
and
actions
shall
result
in
stable
recruit
abundances
at
current
levels,
while
ensuring
that
escapement
rates
are
high.
The
plan's
strategies
shall
be
considered
successful
if
progress
toward
recovery
is
demonstrated
by
positive
trends
in
NOR
abundance.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
Page
335
2.
Strategies
and
actions
directed
at
management
units
or
stocks,
whose
abundance
is
below
their
currently
estimated
critical
thresholds,
will
be
considered
successful
if
they
stop
and
reverse
the
decline
in
productivity
and/
or
abundance.

3.
Plan
strategies
and
actions
shall
be
considered
successful
when
all
management
units
are
maintained,
on
average,
above
their
critical
abundance
and
escapement
thresholds.