Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
An
Implementation
Plan
to
Recover
Summer
Chum
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Region
Jim
Ames
Gary
Graves
Chris
Weller
Editors
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Tribes
April
2000
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Contributors
and
Acknowledgments
i
Contributors
This
summer
chum
salmon
conservation
initiative
is
the
result
of
the
collective
efforts
of
a
team
of
fisheries
biologists
representing
tribal
organizations,
and
state
and
federal
agencies.
The
following
individuals
were
instrumental
in
developing
the
technical
analyses
and
written
material
that
make
up
this
recovery
plan.

Washington
Department
Point­
No­
Point
Northwest
Indian
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
Treaty
Tribes
Fisheries
Commission
Jim
Ames
Peter
Bahls
Gary
Graves
Ann
Blakley
Carol
Bernthal
Keith
Lutz
Chris
Byrnes
Marty
Ereth
Tim
Flint
Dave
Herrera
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Jeff
Haymes
Ted
Labbe
Service
Thom
H.
Johnson
Nick
Lampsakis
Tom
Kane
Randy
Johnson
Mike
Reed
Dave
Zajac
Steve
Keller
Byron
Rot
Larry
LeClair
Brad
Sele
National
Marine
Steve
Phelps
Charles
Simenstad
(
UW)
Fisheries
Service
Bruce
Sanford
Chris
Weller
Susan
Bishop
Tim
Tynan
Derek
Poon
Acknowledgments
The
editors
would
like
to
extend
special
thanks
to
Lauren
Munday
(
WDFW),
who
provided
word
processing
support
for
what
turned
out
to
be
a
very
large
and
complex
document,
and
who
with
great
patience
made
order
out
of
chaos.
We
also
thank
the
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council
for
facilitating
a
public
review
of
an
initial
draft
of
the
habitat
section
of
this
plan.
The
recovery
plan
was
improved
throughout
by
the
contributions
of
many
reviewers.
We
thank
the
following
individuals
for
their
time
and
valuable
comments.

Greg
Bargmann
(
WDFW)
­
marine
fish
Robert
Kope
(
NMFS)
­
general
review
Barbara
Cairns
(
LLTK)
­
artificial
production
Nate
Mantua
(
UW)
­
climate
John
Colt
(
NMFS)
­
artificial
production
Robert
Marett
(
WOS)
­
artificial
production
Ken
Currens
(
NWIFC)
­
genetics
Larry
Rutter
(
NMFS)
­
general
review
Mike
Ford
(
NMFS)
­
general
review
Bill
Waknitz
(
NMFS)
­
artificial
production
Jeff
Hard
(
NMFS)
­
artificial
production
Jay
Watson
(
HCCC)
­
habitat
Orlay
Johnson
(
NMFS)
­
general
review
Ulrich
Wilson
(
USFWS)
­
marine
birds
Cover
"
Calico
Salmon"
by
Jim
Ames.
Based
on
a
photograph
of
Big
Quilcene
River
chum
salmon
taken
by
Thom
H.
Johnson.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Report
Availability
ii
REPORT
AVAILABILITY
This
report
is
available
of
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
website
at:
www.
wa.
gov/
wdfw.

In
compliance
with
the
federal
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
this
publication
is
available
in
alternate
formats
to
accommodate
individuals
with
disabilities.
Please
contact
(
360)
902­
2700
or
TDD
(
360)
902­
2207,
or
write
to:

Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
600
Capitol
Way
North
Olympia,
WA
98501­
1091
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Contents
iii
Contents
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
An
Implementation
Plan
to
Recover
Summer
Chum
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Region
Foreword
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Goal
of
the
Initiative
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
Relevant
Standing
Orders
and
Agreements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
Ongoing
Activities,
Initiatives,
and
Processes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
1992
­
Wild
Stock
Restoration
Initiative
(
WSRI)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
1992
­
Artificial
Production
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
1992
­
Harvest
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
1993
­
Wild
Salmonid
Policy
(
WSP)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
1994
­
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
1994
­
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council
(
HCCC)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
1997
­
Governor's
Salmon
Recovery
Office
(
SRO)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
1997
­
Conservation
Commission
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
1997
­
Salmon
Recovery
Lead
Entities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
1999
­
Salmon
Recovery
Funding
Board
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
2000
­
Forest
and
Fish
Report
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Plan
Development
and
Organization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Plan
Development
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
Plan
Organization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
Future
Actions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
Part
One
Life
History
and
Stock
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
1.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
1.2
Background
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
1.3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
1.3.1
Description
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
1.3.1.1
Description
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
1.3.1.2
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
1.3.2
Life
History
Strategy
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
1.3.3
Freshwater
Juvenile
Life
History
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
1.3.3.1
Incubation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
1.3.3.2
Emergence
and
Downstream
Migration
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
1.3.4
Estuarine
and
Marine
Life
History
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
1.3.4.1
Estuarine
Behavior
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
1.3.4.2
Food
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
1.3.4.3
Juvenile
Seaward
Migration
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
1.3.4.4
Ocean
Migration
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
1.3.4.5
Adult
Nearshore
Migration
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Contents
iv
1.3.5
Adult
Freshwater
Migration
and
Spawning
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
1.3.5.1
River
Entry
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
1.3.5.2
Spawning
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
1.4.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
1.4.2
Escapement
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
1.4.2.1
Historical
Estimates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
1.4.2.2
Current
Estimates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
1.4.2.3
Escapement
Timing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
1.4.3
Harvest
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
1.4.4
Run
Size
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
1.4.4.1
Run
Re­
construction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
1.4.4.2
New
Summer
Chum
Run
Re­
construction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
1.4.5
Age
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
1.4.6
Use
of
Stock
Assessment
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
1.4.6.1
Escapement
and
Runsize
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
1.4.6.2
Age
Data
and
Productivity
Estimates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
1.4.6.3
Population
Structure
and
Genetics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
1.5
Period
of
Decline
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
1.5.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
1.5.2
Hood
Canal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
1.5.3
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
1.6
Recent
Abundance
Trends
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
1.7.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
1.7.2
Stock
Definition
and
Status
(
SASSI)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
1.7.2.1
Existing
Stocks
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
1.7.2.2
Recently
Extinct
Stocks
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
1.7.2.3
Possible
Additional
Historic
Distributions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
1.7.3
Annual
Abundance
Evaluation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
1.7.3.1
Management
Units
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
1.7.3.2
Status
of
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
1.7.4
Stock
Extinction
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
1.7.4.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
1.7.4.2
Assessing
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
Part
Two
Region­
wide
Factors
For
Decline
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
2.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
2.2
Negative
Impacts
On
Abundance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2.2.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2.2.2
Climate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
2.2.2.1
Ocean
Effects
(
ENSO
and
PDO)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
2.2.2.2
Estuarine
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
2.2.2.3
Freshwater
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
2.2.2.4
Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Contents
v
2.2.3
Ecological
Interactions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
2.2.3.1
Wild
Fall
Chum
Salmon
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
2.2.3.2
Hatchery
Fall
Chum
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
2.2.3.3
Other
Salmonids
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
2.2.3.4
Marine
Fish
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
2.2.3.5
Birds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
80
2.2.3.6
Marine
Mammals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
2.2.3.7
Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
83
2.2.4
Habitat
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
2.2.4.1
General
Summer
Chum
Habitat
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
2.2.4.2
Historical
Habitat
Impacts
On
Summer
Chum
Salmon
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
2.2.4.3
Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
91
2.2.5
Harvest
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
91
2.2.5.1
Pre­
terminal
Harvest
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
92
2.2.5.2
Terminal
and
Extreme
Terminal
Harvest
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
94
2.2.5.3
Conclusions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
2.3
Rating
of
Factors
For
Decline
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
2.3.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
2.3.2
Ratings
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
2.3.3
Climate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
2.3.4
Ecological
Interactions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
98
2.3.5
Habitat
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
2.3.6
Harvest
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
2.3.7
Cumulative
Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
2.3.7.1
Hood
Canal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
100
2.3.7.2
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
100
2.4
Factors
Affecting
Recovery
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
101
Part
Three
Evaluation
and
Mitigation
of
Factors
for
Decline
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
103
3.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
103
3.2
Artificial
Production
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
105
3.2.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
105
3.2.1.1
Rationale
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
105
3.2.1.2
Intent
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
105
3.2.1.3
Anticipated
Benefits
of
Supplementation
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
106
3.2.1.4
Potential
Hazards
and
Limitations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
107
3.2.1.5
Overview
of
Contents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
107
3.2.2
Supplementation/
Reintroduction
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
108
3.2.2.1
When
to
Supplement
and
When
to
Reintroduce
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
108
3.2.2.2
When
to
Modify
or
Stop
a
Supplementation
or
Reintroduction
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
113
3.2.2.3
How
to
Supplement
­
General
Guiding
Principles
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
116
3.2.2.4
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
126
3.2.2.5
Additional
Research
Needs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
131
3.2.3
Project
Selection
and
Implementation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
132
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Contents
vi
3.2.3.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
132
3.2.3.2
Existing
Supplementation
and
Reintroduction
Activities
.
.
.
.
132
3.2.3.3
Proposed
Supplementation/
Reintroduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
133
3.2.3.4
Implementation
Plans
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
161
3.2.3.5
Specific
Criteria
Guiding
Supplementation
Program
Operations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
170
3.2.4
Funding
Priorities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
171
3.2.4.1
Criteria
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
171
3.2.4.2
Supplementation
Plan
Priorities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
171
3.3
Ecological
Interactions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
173
3.3.1
Impacts
of
Supplemented
Summer
Chum
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
173
3.3.1.1
Predation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
173
3.3.1.2
Competition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
174
3.3.1.3
Disease
Transmission
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
174
3.3.2
Impacts
of
Other
Species
on
Summer
Chum
Salmon
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
175
3.3.2.1
Hatchery
Salmonids
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
175
3.3.2.2
Marine
Mammals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
231
3.4
Habitat
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
233
3.4.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
233
3.4.2
Background
and
Ecological
Context
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
234
3.4.2.1
Freshwater
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
235
3.4.2.2
Subestuarine
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
237
3.4.2.3
Estuarine
Landscape
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
239
3.4.3
Limiting
Factor
Analysis:
Methodology
and
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
240
3.4.3.1
Methodology
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
240
3.4.3.2
Results
of
Limiting
Factor
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
245
3.4.4
Protection/
Restoration
Strategy
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
251
3.4.4.1
Protection/
Restoration
Strategy
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
251
3.4.4.2
Tool
Kit
of
Protection/
Restoration
Strategies
by
Habitat
Parameter
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
253
3.4.4.3
Evaluation
Criteria
for
Proposed
Restoration
Projects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
266
3.4.5
Strategy
for
Monitoring
Population
and
Habitat
Recovery
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
267
3.4.6
Implementation
of
Habitat
Elements
of
Summer
Chum
Recovery
Plan
.
271
3.5
Harvest
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
277
3.5.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
277
3.5.2
Description
of
Management
Units,
Stocks,
and
Their
Status
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
278
3.5.2.1
Management
Unit:
Sequim
Bay
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
282
3.5.2.2
Management
Unit:
Discovery
Bay
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
282
3.5.2.3
Management
Unit:
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
283
3.5.2.4
Management
Unit:
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
284
3.5.2.5
Management
Unit:
Southeast
Hood
Canal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
285
3.5.3
Description
of
Fisheries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
286
3.5.3.1
Canadian
Fisheries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
290
3.5.3.2
Washington
Pre­
terminal
Area
Fisheries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
292
3.5.3.3
Washington
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
297
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Contents
vii
3.5.3.4
Washington
Extreme
Terminal
Area
Fisheries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
298
3.5.4
Relationship
of
Harvest
to
Other
Factors
for
Decline
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
300
3.5.4.1
Climate
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
300
3.5.4.2
Ecological
Interactions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
301
3.5.4.3
Habitat
Degradation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
301
3.5.5
Stock
Assessment
Information
and
Limitations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
302
3.5.5.1
Abundance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
302
3.5.5.2
Productivity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
302
3.5.5.3
Population
Structure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
303
3.5.6
Harvest
Management
Strategies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
303
3.5.6.1
Base
Conservation
Regime
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
304
3.5.6.2
Harvest
Regime
Modification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
315
3.5.6.3
Fishery
Performance
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
316
3.5.7
Implementation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
316
3.5.7.1
Annual
Plan
Implementation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
317
3.5.8
Expected
Regime
Effects
on
Recovery
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
318
3.5.9
Compliance
and
Enforcement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
320
3.5.10
Harvest
Management
Monitoring
and
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
321
3.5.11
Adaptive
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
324
3.5.12
Stock
Assessment
Information
Needs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
325
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
329
3.6.1
Critical
Thresholds
and
Response
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
330
3.6.2
Annual
Plan
Report
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
331
3.6.3
Five
Year
Plan
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
331
3.6.4
Performance
Standards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
333
3.6.4.1
Abundance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
333
3.6.4.2
Productivity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
334
3.6.4.3
Escapement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
334
3.6.4.4
Management
Actions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
334
Part
Four
Summary
of
Plan
Elements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
337
4.1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
337
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
337
4.2.1
Artificial
Production
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
338
4.2.2
Ecological
Interactions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
342
4.2.3
Harvest
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
344
4.2.4
Habitat
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
347
4.2.5
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
366
4.2.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
372
4.3
Accomplishing
Goals
of
Recovery
Plan
and
Meeting
ESA
Objectives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
374
4.3.1
Achieving
the
Recovery
Plan
Goal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
374
4.3.1.1
Artificial
Production
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
374
4.3.1.2
Ecological
Interactions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
375
4.3.1.3
Habitat
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
375
4.3.1.4
Harvest
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
376
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Contents
viii
4.3.1.5
Cumulative
Effects
of
Recovery
Actions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
376
4.3.2
Meeting
ESA
Objectives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
376
4.3.2.1
NMFS
­
Critical
and
Desirable
Elements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
377
4.3.2.2
NMFS
Elements
and
the
Summer
Chum
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
377
4.4
Population­
based
Recovery
Goals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
380
4.5
Plan
Implementation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
381
4.6
Plan
Supplements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
382
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
385
Glossary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
407
Part
One
­
Appendix
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A1.1
Appendix
Figures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A1.3
Appendix
Tables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A1.7
Appendix
Reports
1.1
­
Methodology
for
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Escapement
Estimation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A1.11
1.2
­
Methodology
for
Estimation
of
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Escapement
and
Freshwater
Entry
Timing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A1.17
1.3
­
Methodology
for
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Run
Re­
construction
.
.
.
.
.
.
A1.25
1.4
­
Summary
of
SASSI
Definitions
and
Criteria
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A1.55
1.5
­
Derivation
of
Critical
Abundance
Thresholds
for
Management
Units
and
Escapement
Distribution
and
Minimum
Escapements
Flags
for
Stocks
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A1.67
Part
Two
­
Appendix
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A2.1
Appendix
Figures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A2.3
Appendix
Tables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A2.13
Part
Three
­
Appendix
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.1
Appendix
Reports
3.1
­
Specific
Criteria
Guiding
Supplementation
and
Reintroduction
Program
Operations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.3
3.2
­
Existing
Summer
Chum
Supplementation
and
Reintroduction
Projects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.15
3.3
­
Genetic
Hazards
Discussion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.27
3.4
­
Worksheets
for
Assessment
of
Supplementation
Hazards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.45
3.5
­
Estuarine
Landscape
Impacts
on
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Summer
Chum
Salmon
and
Recommended
Actions
.
.
.
.
.
A3.111
3.6
­
Summer
Chum
Watershed
Narratives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.133
3.7
­
Riparian
Assessment
Methodology
and
Summary
of
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.233
3.8
­
Freshwater
Habitat
Data
Summary
and
Analysis
Criteria
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.239
3.9
­
General
Fishing
Patterns
and
Regulatory
Summary
by
Year,
Fishery,
and
Fleet
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A3.243
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
ix
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Salmon
Co­
managers
The
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Tribes
including:
the
Skokomish
Tribe,
the
Port
Gamble
S'Klallam
Tribe,
The
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
and
the
Lower
Elwha
Klallam
Tribe;
and
the
Washington
State
The
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
Goal
is:

To
protect,
restore
and
enhance
the
productivity,
production
and
diversity
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
and
their
ecosystems
to
provide
surplus
production
sufficient
to
allow
future
directed
and
incidental
harvests
of
summer
chum
salmon.
Executive
Summary
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
An
Implementation
Plan
to
Recover
Summer
Chum
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Region
Foreword
Background
and
Goal
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
experienced
a
severe
drop
in
abundance
in
the
1980s,
and
returns
decreased
to
all
time
lows
in
1989
and
1990
with
less
than
a
thousand
spawners
each
year.
In
response
to
this
alarming
decline,
the
state
and
tribal
comanagers
began
to
implement
harvest
management
actions
in
1992
to
afford
greater
protection
to
summer
chum
in
terminal
area
fisheries
and,
together
with
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
and
citizen
groups,
initiated
three
summer
chum
hatchery
supplementation
programs.
Those
actions
were
expanded
in
subsequent
years
and
led
to
the
development
of
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
­
An
Implementation
Plan
to
Recover
Summer
Chum
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Region.

In
March
of
1999,
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
determined
that
the
summer
chum
originating
from
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
represented
an
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU),
and
formally
listed
these
fish
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)
as
a
threatened
species.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
x
Plan
Development
The
conservation
initiative
(
or
plan)
has
been
developed
and
agreed
upon
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW)
and
the
Point
No
Point
Treaty
(
PNPT)
Tribes
under
their
authority
to
comanage
salmon
pursuant
to
the
rules
and
orders
of
U.
S.
v.
Washington.
The
plan
is
consistent
with
and
fulfills
the
intent
of
section
13
of
the
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan,
which
calls
for
the
development
of
comprehensive
regional
resource
management
plans
for
Puget
Sound
stocks
of
salmon.
In
addition,
the
goal,
direction,
and
provisions
of
the
summer
chum
recovery
initiative
are
consistent
with
the
guidance
within
the
WDFW
Wild
Salmonid
Policy.
The
USFWS
and
NMFS
have
also
participated
in
the
development
of
the
plan
at
the
request
of
the
WDFW
and
the
PNPT
Tribes.

Plan
Organization
Organization
of
the
conservation
initiative
is
in
five
major
parts:
the
Foreword,
which
sets
the
stage;
Part
One
­
Life
History
and
Stock
Assessment,
which
describes
summer
chum
life
history,
discusses
the
available
data,
and
provides
stock
evaluation
tools;
Part
Two
­
Region­
wide
Factors
for
Decline,
which
contains
a
region­
wide
analysis
and
summary
of
those
factors
believed
responsible
for
the
recent
decline
of
summer
chum;
Part
Three
­
Evaluation
and
Mitigation
of
Factors
for
Decline,
which
provides
more
detailed,
location­
specific
analysis
of
factors
affecting
summer
chum
and
presents
strategies
for
their
protection
and
recovery;
and
Part
Four
­
Summary
of
Plan
Elements,
which
contains
a
summary
description
of
the
management
components,
and
also
describes
specific
actions,
evaluation
and
monitoring,
roles
of
the
participating
parties,
and
time
frames.

Future
Actions
It
is
the
intent
of
WDFW
and
the
PNPT
Tribes
to
implement
the
initiative
as
a
comprehensive
regional
management
plan,
as
provided
for
in
the
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan.
The
implementation
of
the
elements
of
the
plan,
that
are
specifically
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
state
and
tribal
co­
managers,
would
then
be
under
a
Federal
court
order.
This
will
provide
certainty
that
the
sections
of
the
plan
dealing
with
the
elements
of
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
and
harvest
management
will
be
carried
out
consistent
with
the
plan.
To
facilitate
an
adaptive
management
approach,
annual
reports
and
five
year
plan
reviews
will
be
conducted
to
measure
overall
progress
toward
recovery
and
to
evaluate
and/
or
revise
the
strategies
and
actions
provided
in
the
plan.

The
habitat
element
assesses
habitat
factors
for
decline
and
recommends
strategies
and
actions
to
sustain
and
rebuild
summer
chum
salmon
in
this
region.
The
authorities
to
implement
these
measures,
however,
are
dispersed
through
a
variety
of
federal,
state
and
local
jurisdictions.
The
parties
to
the
plan
will
continue
to
work
with
the
appropriate
jurisdictions
to
develop
the
implementation
plans
and
actions
for
habitat
protection
and
restoration.
Habitat
implementation
plans
and
actions
developed
by
a
variety
of
agencies
and
processes
are
expected
to
be
consistent
and
integral
to
the
plan
and
are
vital
to
its
success.
Furthermore,
the
plan
provides
critical
guidance
to
the
lead
entities
and
the
Salmon
Recovery
Funding
Board,
helping
to
ensure
that
funded
recovery
projects
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
will
have
a
high
likelihood
of
supporting
summer
chum
recovery.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xi
Part
One
Life
History
and
Stock
Assessment
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
Summer
chum
salmon
are
the
earliest
returning
chum
salmon
stocks
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
HC­
SJF)
region.
These
stocks
have
been
shown
to
be
genetically
distinct
from
fall
and
winter
timed
chum
salmon.
A
total
of
11
streams
in
Hood
Canal
have
been
identified
as
recently
having
indigenous
summer
chum
populations:
Big
Quilcene
River,
Little
Quilcene
River,
Dosewallips
River,
Duckabush
River,
Hamma
Hamma
River,
Lilliwaup
River,
Union
River,
Tahuya
River,
Dewatto
River,
Anderson
Creek,
and
Big
Beef
Creek.
Summer
chum
are
occasionally
observed
in
other
Hood
Canal
drainages,
including
the
Skokomish
River
which
once
supported
a
large
summer
chum
population.
Summer
chum
salmon
populations
in
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
occur
in
Snow
and
Salmon
creeks
in
Discovery
Bay,
in
Jimmycomelately
Creek
in
Sequim
Bay,
and
have
been
reported
in
Chimacum
Creek.
Recent
stock
assessment
data
indicate
that
summer
chum
also
return
to
the
Dungeness
River,
but
the
magnitude
of
returns
is
unknown.

Summer
chum
spawning
occurs
from
late
August
through
late
October,
generally
within
the
lowest
one
to
two
miles
of
the
streams.
Depending
upon
temperature
regimes
in
spawning
streams,
eggs
and
alevins
develop
in
the
redds
for
approximately
18­
20
weeks
before
emerging
as
fry
between
February
and
the
last
week
of
May.
Summer
chum
fry
emerge
from
the
stream
gravels
and
immediately
commence
migration
downstream
to
estuarine
areas,
with
total
brood
year
migration
from
freshwater
ending
within
roughly
30
days
for
smaller
streams
and
rivers.

In
Puget
Sound,
chum
fry
have
been
observed
through
annual
estuarine
area
fry
surveys
to
reside
for
their
first
few
weeks
in
the
top
2­
3
centimeters
of
surface
waters
and
extremely
close
to
the
shoreline.
Chum
fry
maintain
a
nearshore
distribution
until
they
reach
a
size
of
about
45­
50
mm,
at
which
time
they
move
to
deeper
off­
shore
areas.
Upon
reaching
threshold
size
in
the
estuary
summer
chum
are
thought
to
immediately
commence
migration
seaward.

After
two
to
four
years
of
rearing
in
the
northeast
Pacific
Ocean,
maturing
Puget
Sound­
origin
chum
salmon
follow
a
southerly
migration
path
parallel
to
the
coastlines
of
southeast
Alaska
and
British
Columbia.
Summer
chum
mature
primarily
at
3
and
4
years
of
age
with
low
numbers
returning
at
age
5.
They
enter
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
from
the
first
week
of
July
through
September
and
the
Hood
Canal
terminal
marine
area
from
early
August
through
the
end
of
September.
Summer
chum
adults
may
mill
in
front
of
their
stream
of
origin
for
up
to
ten
to
twelve
days
before
entering
freshwater
to
spawn.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xii
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
spawning
escapements,
1974­
98.
Use
of
Stock
Assessment
Data
The
quality
and
quantity
of
the
available
stock
assessment
data
for
summer
chum
salmon
varies
for
individual
parameters.
New
data
will
be
incorporated
into
the
recovery
plan
as
it
becomes
available.
The
following
are
summaries
of
the
utility
of
the
various
types
of
summer
chum
stock
assessment
data.

Escapement
and
Runsize
­
Both
escapement
and
runsize
(
run
re­
construction)
databases
have
been
reviewed
and
substantially
improved
to
provide
the
best
available
information
for
use
in
recovery
planning.
The
summer
chum
salmon
recovery
plan
focuses
on
escapement
and
runsize
information
for
the
1974
through
1998
return
years.

Age
Data
and
Productivity
Estimates
­
Because
of
the
multi­
brood
life
history
pattern,
resulting
in
returns
of
3
to
5
year
old
summer
chum
salmon
each
year,
any
direct
measures
of
their
productivity
necessarily
depends
on
the
availability
of
reliable
age
data.
The
age
data
that
have
been
previously
collected
are
not
of
sufficient
quality
to
meet
this
need.
A
point
that
must
be
emphasized
is
that
because
of
the
lack
of
useable
age
data,
no
estimates
of
summer
chum
productivity
(
brood
return
or
survival
rates)
are
used
in
the
recovery
plan.
The
collection
of
appropriate
age
data
for
deriving
survival
rates
is
a
high
priority
and
is
imperative
to
measure
progress
toward
recovery.

Period
of
Decline
­
The
summer
chum
salmon
populations
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
are
affected
by
different
environmental
and
harvest
impacts,
and
display
varying
survival
patterns
and
stock
status
trends.
The
summer
chum
stocks
from
both
regions
have
dropped
in
abundance,
but
at
different
times
and
with
different
trends
of
abundance.
While
the
rate
and
pattern
of
decline
varies
by
individual
population,
all
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
populations
(
except
Union
River)
experienced
a
decline
after
1978,
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
populations
dropped
in
abundance
ten
years
later
(
see,
for
example,
figure
above).
Some
improvements
in
total
run
size
and
escapements
for
these
summer
chum
stocks
have
been
noted
in
recent
years,
however,
the
time
frame
is
short,
and
some
individual
populations
are
still
experiencing
very
small
escapements.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xiii
Stock
Evaluations
The
evaluation
tools
that
will
be
used
to
identify
summer
chum
stocks
performing
poorly
and
to
measure
the
success
of
recovery
measures
are
a
major
component
of
the
recovery
plan.
Three
independent
assessment
methods
are
presented
below,
each
serving
a
separate
purpose.

Stock
Definition
and
Status
(
SASSI)
­
The
first
stock
evaluation
approach
reviews
and
updates
the
summer
chum
stock
definitions
and
status
ratings
using
the
SASSI
criteria
for
identifying
stocks
based
on
their
degree
of
reproductive
isolation,
and
rating
the
status
of
stocks
into
the
general
categories
of
healthy,
depressed,
critical,
extinct,
and
unknown.
For
the
recovery
plan,
the
most
recent
information
on
historical
and
current
summer
chum
salmon
distribution
and
on
the
genetic
profiles
of
the
populations
has
been
reviewed.
This
analysis
has
produced
an
updated
list
of
16
summer
chum
stocks,
which
form
the
basic
population
units
used
throughout
the
recovery
plan.
Status
ratings
for
each
stock
are
also
presented,
primarily
for
use
in
various
other
processes
and
evaluations
that
are
based
on
the
SASSI
approach.
The
recovery
plan
does
not
directly
use
these
SASSI
status
ratings,
but
instead
relies
on
the
more
detailed
status
evaluations
below;
which
specifically
focus
on
annual
escapement
numbers
and
extinction
risk
for
summer
chum
salmon.

Known,
recently
extinct
stocks
have
also
been
included
where
there
is
strong
evidence
to
show
that
a
stock
formerly
existed
but
is
now
extirpated
from
its
former
stream.
Of
the
16
stocks
identified
(
see
table
below),
seven
are
recent
extinctions.
The
determination
that
these
are
distinct
stocks
is
based
solely
on
past
distribution
and
presumed
past
reproductive
isolation.

Summary
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
native
summer
chum
salmon
stocks,
including
existing
and
recently
extinct
stocks
and
stock
origin.

Stock
Status
Stock
Status
Union
Healthy
Dungeness
Unknown
Hamma
Hamma
Depressed
Big
Beef
Extinct
Duckabush
Depressed
Anderson
Extinct
Dosewallips
Depressed
Dewatto
Extinct
Big/
Little
Quilcene
Depressed
Tahuya
Extinct
Snow/
Salmon
Critical
Skokomish
Extinct
Lilliwaup
Critical
Finch
Extinct
Jimmycomelately
Critical
Chimacum
Extinct
It
is
likely
that
summer
chum
were
historically
distributed
among
additional
streams
within
the
region.
For
several
streams,
relatively
recent
evidence
indicates
that
summer
chum
were
historically
present.
However,
this
evidence
is
fragmentary
and
judged
insufficient
to
identify
stocks.
A
distinction
is
made
here
between
stock
and
historic
distribution,
where
a
stock
is
defined
under
SASSI
as
being
(
or
formerly
has
been)
selfsustaining
and
reproductively
isolated
from
other
stocks
based
on
available
evidence.
The
assessment
of
the
historic
use
of
these
streams
by
summer
chum
salmon
could
change
as
more
information
becomes
available.

Annual
Abundance
Evaluation
­
The
second
evaluation
approach
compares
spawner
escapements
and
runsizes
to
stock­
specific
critical
abundance
thresholds
(
see
table
below).
This
annual
process
reviews
escapements,
and
identifies
(
flags)
any
stock
that
falls
below
its
threshold.
At
the
end
of
each
season,
all
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xiv
flagged
stocks
will
undergo
an
in­
depth
review
of
stock
performance,
and
possible
causes
of
the
low
escapement
or
runsize
will
be
identified.
If
necessary,
remedial
measures
will
be
incorporated
into
recovery
activities
the
following
year.

Critical
Thresholds
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Management
Units.

Management
Units
Contributing
Stocks
Thresholds
Thresholds
Critical
Escapement
Critical
Runsize
Sequim
Bay
Jimmycomelately
200
220
Discovery
Bay
Snow/
Salmon
850
930
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Lilliwaup
(
Hood
Canal
Bridge
to
Hamma
Hamma
Ayres
Point)
Duckabush
Dosewallips
Total
2,660
3,980
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
Big/
Little
Quilcene
1,110
1,260
SE
Hood
Canal
Union
300
340
Total
4,750
5,400
Stock
Extinction
Risk
­
The
third
procedure
is
used
to
estimate
extinction
risk
based
on
the
numbers
of
effective
spawners
representing
each
summer
chum
stock.
This
evaluation
assesses
extinction
risk
using
an
approach
described
in
the
paper
Prioritizing
Pacific
Salmon
Stocks
for
Conservation,
by
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997).
The
approach
focuses
on
the
minimum
numbers
of
spawners
required
to
have
a
viable
population,
and
estimates
the
risk
of
extinction
for
populations
below
the
viability
threshold.
This
assessment
identifies
two
stocks
that
are
currently
rated
as
having
a
high
risk
of
extinction;
Lilliwaup
and
Jimmycomelately.
A
moderate
risk
of
extinction
rating
is
assigned
to
the
Hamma
Hamma
and
Union
stocks,
and
Dungeness
is
rated
of
special
concern
because
of
the
lack
of
stock
assessment
information.
The
remaining
summer
chum
stocks
currently
have
a
low
risk
of
extinction.

Part
Two
Region­
wide
Factors
For
Decline
Like
all
Pacific
salmon,
summer
chum
salmon
are
influenced
by
a
variety
of
factors,
with
both
positive
and
negative
consequences
for
their
overall
survival.
Part
Two
examines
region­
wide
factors
affecting
production,
both
natural
and
human
caused,
to
identify
those
that
have
been
observed
to
change
in
concert
with
the
recent
summer
chum
salmon
decline.

Those
factors
implicated
in
the
recent
abrupt
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
do
not
necessarily
include
those
effects
that
over
time,
gradually
and
cumulatively
have
impacted
salmon
survivals.
For
example,
many
negative
anthropogenic
habitat­
related
impacts
affecting
salmon
populations
have
occurred
prior
to
the
period
of
recent
decline
addressed
here.
Additionally,
nearly
two
decades
have
passed
since
the
beginning
of
the
recent
decline
of
summer
chum,
and
a
broader
range
of
negative
conditions
now
exist.
All
known
negative
factors
must
be
addressed
to
effect
the
recovery,
stability,
and
sustainability
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
stocks.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xv
Negative
Impacts
On
Abundance
Those
factors
that
can
influence
summer
chum
salmon
abundance
have
been
examined
in
an
attempt
to
identify
specific
sources
of
mortality
that
have
contributed
to
the
declines
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon.
Potential
factors
affecting
production
have
been
examined
individually
in
the
following
four
categories:
1)
climate,
2)
ecological
interactions,
3)
habitat,
and
4)
harvest.

Among
the
factors
for
decline,
only
the
effects
of
harvest
can
be
readily
quantified.
Because
of
this,
the
ranking
of
the
various
factors
for
decline
is
necessarily
a
subjective
process.
The
following
four
categories
are
used
to
rate
the
various
factors
for
decline:
1)
major
impact,
2)
moderate
impact,
3)
low
or
not
likely
impact,
or
4)
undetermined
impact.
The
ratings
of
factors
for
decline
are
presented
in
the
table
below.
Three
primary
factors
have
combined
to
cause
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
both
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams;
habitat
loss,
fishery
exploitation,
and
climate
related
changes
in
stream
flow
patterns.

Ratings
of
region­
wide
factors
for
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams.

Impact
ratings:
U
U
U
Major
U
U
Moderate
U
Low
or
not
likely
?
Undetermined
Factor
Hood
Canal
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Climate
Ocean
conditions
?
?
Estuarine
conditions
?
?
Freshwater
conditions
U
U
U
U
U
Ecological
Interactions
Wild
fall
chum
U
U
Hatchery
fall
chum
U
?
U
Other
salmonids
(
including
hatchery)
U
U
U
Marine
fish
U
U
Birds
U
U
Marine
mammals
U
U
Habitat
Cumulative
impacts
U
U
U
U
U
U
Harvest
Canadian
pre­
terminal
catch
U
U
U
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
catch
U
U
Terminal
catch
U
U
U
U
Factors
Affecting
Recovery
The
general
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
has
focused
specifically
on
changes
in
fish
production
and
potential
survival
factors
that
occurred
twenty
years
ago
in
Hood
Canal
and
ten
years
ago
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Because
of
the
time
that
has
passed
since
the
declines
in
the
two
regions,
recovery
may
not
involve
just
the
factors
that
contributed
to
the
decline.
Some
of
the
factors
discussed
above
may
not
have
had
major,
or
even
moderate
impacts
on
the
declines
of
summer
chum
salmon,
but
now
may
be
factors
that
will
slow
recovery.
Two
examples
of
these
impediments
to
recovery
are
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xvi
"
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
reintroduced
populations,
and
avoiding
genetic
and
ecological
impacts
to
other
populations."
recent
increase
of
the
harbor
seal
population
(
potential
summer
chum
predators)
and
recent
climate
changes
causing
unfavorable
spawning
and
incubation
stream
flows.

There
have
also
been
a
number
of
factors
that
are
positive
for
summer
chum
salmon
recovery.
One
is
the
successful
reduction
of
Hood
Canal
terminal
area
exploitation
rates.
The
average
terminal
area
incidental
harvest
has
been
just
over
1%
during
the
1993­
1997
seasons.
Successful
supplementation
projects
on
two
stocks
are
increasing
the
numbers
of
returning
summer
chum
adults
to
two
streams
(
Quilcene
River
and
Salmon
Creek).
There
have
also
been
meaningful
changes
in
the
management
and
culture
of
hatchery
salmonids
in
the
region,
designed
to
reduce
negative
interactions
with
summer
chum
juveniles.
The
combined
effects
of
these
changes
in
summer
chum
salmon
management
have
contributed
to
the
increased
escapements
in
recent
years.
However,
additional
measures,
particularly
with
respect
to
habitat
protection
and
restoration,
are
required
for
successful
recovery
of
summer
chum.

Part
Three
Evaluation
and
Mitigation
of
Factors
for
Decline
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
actions
to
aid
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
stocks.

Artificial
Production
Goals
and
Objectives
­
The
following
statement
presents
the
goals
for
artificial
production,
which
are
directed
at
only
those
existing
populations
identified
as
at
risk
of
extinction
in
the
plan,
and
also
are
directed
at
selected,
extirpated
populations
within
the
region.

The
co­
manager's
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.

Benefits
and
Risks
­
Implied
within
the
list
of
objectives
is
the
intent
to
consider
potential
benefits
and
risks
associated
with
artificial
production.
Potential
benefits
to
natural
populations
include:
1)
reduction
of
short­
term
extinction
risk,
2)
preservation
of
populations
while
factors
for
decline
are
being
addressed,
3)
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xvii
speeding
recovery,
4)
establishing
a
reserve
population
for
use
if
the
natural
population
suffers
a
catastrophic
loss,
5)
re­
seeding
vacant
habitats
capable
of
supporting
salmon,
and
6)
providing
scientific
information
regarding
the
use
of
supplementation
in
conserving
natural
populations.
Potential
hazards
known
to
be
associated
with
artificial
production
include:
1)
partial
or
total
hatchery
failure
resulting
in
a
loss
of
summer
chum
that
had
been
placed
in
the
hatchery,
2)
ecological
effects
on
natural
populations
from
predation,
competition
or
disease
transfer,
3)
loss
of
genetic
variability
between
or
within
natural
populations,
4)
effects
from
selection
or
reducing
the
population
size
of
donor
stocks,
and
5)
effects
on
other
salmonid
populations
and
species.

Operational
Criteria
and
Adaptive
Management
­
Operational
criteria
are
described
that
provide
guidelines
on
how
to
supplement
and
reintroduce
summer
chum
while
minimizing
risk.
Specific
project
operational
recommendations
are
made
regarding
how
broodstocking,
incubation,
rearing,
and
release
or
planting
of
summer
chum
should
occur.
Adaptive
management
guidelines
are
also
provided
that
describe
when
to
modify
a
project.

Monitoring
and
Evaluation
­
Monitoring
and
evaluating
the
effects
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
on
the
natural
summer
chum
populations,
and
monitoring
the
performance
of
the
programs
in
effecting
the
recovery
of
summer
chum,
are
essential
to
the
successful
use
of
artificial
production.
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
failed,
3)
what
measures
can
be
implemented
to
adjust
a
program
that
is
not
meeting
objectives
set
forth
for
the
project,
and
4)
when
to
stop
a
supplementation
project.
Descriptions
are
provided
of
the
specific
elements
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
actions
consistent
with
this
approach.

Project
Selection
­
To
better
accommodate
realization
of
potential
benefits
and
to
avoid
potential
hazards,
a
selection
process
has
been
applied
to
the
existing
and
recently
extinct
stocks
(
identified
in
Part
One)
to
identify
candidates
for
supplementation
and
reintroduction.
Stocks
with
existing
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
are
included
in
this
selection
process
to
show
how
they
would
fare
in
comparison
to
the
other
streams.

The
first
part
of
the
selection
process
is
a
general
assessment
that
considers
the
need,
urgency,
and
practicality
of
supplementation/
reintroduction
for
each
stock.
The
second
part
of
the
selection
process
subjects
each
candidate
stock
to
an
assessment
focusing
on
potential
risks
from
hatchery
failure,
ecological
hazards,
and
genetic
hazards.
The
results
of
the
selection
process
are
discussed
and
recommendations
are
provided
on
whether
or
not
to
proceed
with
a
supplementation
or
reintroduction
project
(
see
following
table).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xviii
Recommended
summer
chum
salmon
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects.

Existing
Projects
Recommended
to
Continue
Supplementation
Big
Quilcene,
Lilliwaup,
Salmon
Reintroduction
Big
Beef,
Chimacum
Recommended
with
Qualification
Supplementation
Hamma
Hamma
(
requires
effective
broodstocking)

New
Projects
Supplementation
Jimmycomelately
Reintroduction
None
Potential
Future
Supplementation
Union
(
for
developing
as
donor
stock)
Projects
Reintroduction
Tahuya,
Dewatto
Projects
Not
Supplementation
Dungeness,
Dosewallips,
Duckabush
Recommended
at
Reintroduction
Skokomish,
Anderson,
Finch
This
Time
Funding
Priorities
and
Descriptions
of
Existing
Projects
­
Priorities
for
funding
recommended
actions
related
to
supplementation
and
reintroduction
are
described,
including
specific
projects,
monitoring
and
research
activities.
Detailed
descriptions
of
ongoing
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
are
provided
as
an
appendix
report.

Ecological
Interactions
There
are
complex
sets
of
interactions
that
occur
between
organisms
that
share
an
ecosystem,
and
summer
chum
salmon
can
be
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.
This
section
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).

Hatchery
Salmonids
­
The
potential
effects
on
summer
chum
salmon
caused
by
hatchery
production
of
anadromous
salmonids
are
addressed
by
the
following
steps:

1.
Average
annual
salmon
and
steelhead
production
from
the
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
is
summarized
by
program;
including
release
numbers,
size
and
life
stage
at
release,
and
release
timing.
This
information
serves
as
a
basis
for
assessment
of
potential
impacts
and
determination
of
appropriate
mitigation
measures.

2.
An
assessment
of
each
program
(
for
each
hatchery
species)
is
made
that
identifies
program
risks
of
deleterious
effects
to
wild
summer
chum.
The
assessment
is
made
based
on
specific
criteria
that
define
conditions
for
high,
moderate
and
lowrisk
of
impacts
from
hatchery
operations,
predation,
competition,
behavioral
modification,
and
fish
disease
transfer.

3.
Measures
for
risk
aversion,
monitoring,
and
evaluation
are
identified
to
reduce
the
risks
of
hatchery
operational
and
ecological
hazards
to
summer
chum.
The
specific
measures
are
described
within
the
same
categories
used
above
in
assessing
hatchery
impacts
(
i.
e.,
hatchery
operations,
predation,
The
river
deltas
at
the
mouths
of
tributaries
to
Hood
Canal­
SJF,
which
typically
include
a
complex
of
tidal
channel,
1
mudflat,
marsh,
and
eelgrass
meadow
habitats.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xix
competition,
etc.).
Also,
specific
applications
of
the
measures
are
recommended
for
each
hatchery
program
to
mitigate
the
risk
factors
identified
in
the
above
described
program
assessment.

The
intent
of
the
above
described
process
is
to
reduce
all
moderate
and
high
risks
of
hatchery
programs
to
low
risks.
The
co­
managers
are
already
implementing
the
risk
aversion
and
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
recommended
in
this
section
of
the
plan.

Marine
Mammals
­
The
impacts
of
predation
by
two
pinniped
species,
harbor
seal
and
California
sea
lion,
on
summer
chum
salmon
requires
further
study.
NMFS
(
1997b)
has
reported
that
where
existing
information
on
the
seriously
depleted
status
of
many
salmonid
stocks
is
sufficient,
it
may
warrant
actions
to
remove
pinnipeds
in
areas
where
pinnipeds
prey
upon
depressed
salmonid
populations.
Therefore,
if
predation
on
critical
summer
chum
stocks
is
identified
as
substantial,
mitigative
measures
may
be
applied
to
control
the
predation,
including
institution
of
federally
authorized
pinniped
removal
programs.

Habitat
Habitat
is
a
critical
element
in
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
because
without
high­
quality
habitat
there
is
little
likelihood
that
species
recovery
will
be
possible.
This
section
of
the
plan
initiates
the
discussion
of
habitat
issues
by
describing
the
association
between
summer
chum
life
stages
and
their
habitats,
in
the
streams
and
estuaries
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Important
natural
processes
that
maintain
these
habitats
are
also
discussed.
To
develop
watershed­
specific
protection
and
restoration
recommendations,
available
habitat
data
have
been
gathered,
and
aerial
photos
of
streamside
forests
and
subestuaries
have
been
examined.
Habitat
factors
(
stream
flow,
temperature,
1
water
quality,
sediment,
channel
complexity,
streamside
forest
condition,
fish
passage,
and
subestuary
condition)
have
been
rated
by
their
degree
of
degradation
in
individual
watersheds.
Habitat
factor
ratings
have
shaped
the
development
of
watershed­
specific
protection
and
restoration
measures
(
presented
in
an
appendix
report),
and
have
allowed
the
summarization
and
comparison
of
conditions
across
watersheds.

Several
key
habitat
factors
are
degraded
in
nearly
all
watersheds:

1.
Riparian
habitats
along
streams
used
by
summer
chum
are
degraded.
These
stands
are
dominated
by
small
trees
and
deciduous
species,
and
are
frequently
too
narrow
to
provide
fully
functional
habitat
for
summer
chum.
2.
In­
stream
habitat
is
also
degraded.
In
most
watersheds,
stream­
side
development,
water
withdrawal,
and
channel
manipulations
(
removal
of
large
wood,
dredging,
bank
armoring)
have
severely
damaged
salmon
habitat.
3.
Floodplains
have
been
diked
for
residences
and
businesses
and
converted
for
agriculture.
This
has
reduced
the
storage
area
of
floodwaters.
Habitat
is
degraded
in
the
diked
portions
of
the
channel
that
is
not
allowed
to
meander
naturally
across
the
floodplain.
4.
Most
subestuaries
have
been
developed
for
human
use,
which
has
resulted
in
loss
or
degradation
of
summer
chum
rearing
habitat.
Road
and
dike
construction,
ditching,
dredging,
filling,
and
other
A
management
unit
is
defined
as
"
A
stock
or
group
of
stocks
which
are
aggregated
for
the
purposes
of
achieving
2
a
desired
spawning
objective".
Conceptually,
the
management
unit
approach
is
designed
to
recognize
the
practical
and
biological
limitations
to
how
we
can
manage
fisheries
for
salmon
populations.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xx
modifications
have
all
taken
their
toll.
In
spite
of
their
importance
to
salmon,
these
habitats
have
received
only
limited
conservation
attention
to
date.

While
the
evaluation
of
nearshore
estuarine
habitat
impacts
to
summer
chum
have
not
been
done
in
detail,
available
information
suggests
that
shoreline
development
(
bulkhead
and
dock
construction)
threatens
summer
chum
habitat
at
the
scale
of
the
entire
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region.
This
suggests
that
estuarine
habitat
recovery
planning
and
implementation
must
be
coordinated
regionally.

Protection
and
restoration
strategies
for
each
habitat
factor
limiting
to
salmon
recovery
are
described
in
the
plan.
In
most
cases
protection
strategies
are
needed
throughout
entire
watersheds
(
not
just
the
portion
of
the
channel
used
by
summer
chum).
Restoration
options
appropriate
to
a
particular
habitat
factor
are
also
outlined.
The
plan
recommendations
stress
the
need
for
protection
and
re­
establishment
of
natural
watershed,
estuarine,
and
nearshore
processes
that
are
critical
to
the
maintenance
of
summer
chum
habitat.
The
plan
provides
guidance
to
focus
local
recovery
activities
on
the
key
limiting
factors
in
individual
watersheds,
to
help
prioritize
restoration
funding
to
make
the
most
efficient
use
of
limited
resources.

Both
protection
and
restoration
measures
will
have
to
be
fully
integrated
into
a
coordinated
recovery
strategy
involving
landowners,
community
groups,
the
tribes,
and
government
agencies.
Habitat
monitoring
is
discussed
in
this
section
of
the
plan,
which
stresses
the
need
for
a
long­
term
focus
and
periodic
evaluation
so
that
learning
can
occur
from
successes
and
failures
during
recovery
plan
implementation.
Finally,
this
section
of
the
plan
identifies
key
federal,
state,
and
tribal
government
entities,
and
links
their
mandates
and
responsibilities
with
actions
needed
to
fully
recover
summer
chum
habitat.
Current
institutional
impediments,
enforcement
problems,
and
oversight
limitations
that
will
need
to
be
overcome
are
also
identified,
and
potential
pathways
to
achievement
of
full
recovery
are
provided.

Harvest
Management
The
short­
term
goal
of
the
harvest
strategies
outlined
in
the
plan
is
to
protect
the
summer
chum
populations
within
Hood
Canal
and
Eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
from
further
decline
by
minimizing
the
effect
of
harvest
as
a
major
factor
for
decline.
The
long­
term
goal
of
these
strategies
is
to
assist
in
the
restoration
and
maintenance
of
self­
sustaining
summer
chum
populations
while
maintaining
harvest
opportunities
on
co­
mingled
salmon
of
other
species.

Recommended
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.
Furthermore,
the
measures
will
apportion
harvest
impacts
between
or
within
management
units
based
on
population
status
and
individual
population
2
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
region.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xxi
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
abundance
and
incidental
fishery
exploitation
rates.
Harvest
Management
Strategies
­
Base
Conservation
Regime
­
The
harvest
management
strategies
described
in
the
plan
are
expected
to
result
in
significant
reductions
of
total
exploitation
rates
on
HC­
SJF
region
summer
chum,
compared
to
those
observed
in
the
period
from
1975
to
1992.
The
plan
accomplishes
that
by
establishing
an
annual
fishing
regime
(
called
the
Base
Conservation
Regime)
for
Washington
pre­
terminal,
and
Washington
terminal
area
fisheries,
and
recommends
harvest
rates
for
Canadian
fisheries.
These
fishing
plans
are
designed
to
minimize
incidental
impacts
to
summer
chum
salmon,
while
providing
opportunity
for
fisheries
conducted
for
the
harvest
of
other
species.
The
fishery
specific
management
measures
comprising
this
regime
are
outlined
in
tabular
form
in
the
plan.
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,
chum
nonretention
in
fisheries
directed
at
other
species,
and
area
closures
around
freshwater
spawning
tributaries.
The
expected
reduction
in
incidental
interceptions,
relative
to
the
high
rates
observed
during
previous
years
is
approximately78%
for
Canadian
fisheries,
65%
for
U.
S.
pre­
terminal,
and
92%
for
Washington
terminal
area
fisheries.
The
Base
Conservation
Regime
will
conserve,
and
not
appreciably
reduce
the
likelihood
of
survival
and
recovery
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
in
the
wild.
Many
of
the
harvest
restrictions
incorporated
in
the
Base
Conservation
Regime
have
been
initiated
in
recent
years.
The
result
has
been
a
major
reduction
in
exploitation
rates
and
harvest
of
summer
chum
salmon
(
see
figure).

Exploitation
Rate
Expectations
­
The
management
actions
described
in
the
Base
Conservation
Regime
are
expected
to
result
in,
on
the
average,
a
10.9%
total
(
range
=
3.3­
15.3%)
incidental
exploitation
rate
on
the
Hood
Canal
management
units
and
8.8%
(
range=
2.8­
11.8%)
incidental
exploitation
rate
on
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
management
units
(
see
table).

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.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xxii
Harvest
Regime
Modification
­
If
incidental
exploitation
rates
are
higher
than
expected,
or
the
critical
thresholds
for
abundance
or
escapement
(
described
in
Part
One)
are
not
met,
the
co­
managers
will
investigate
whether
or
not
to
implement
additional
harvest
management
measures
(
as
provided
for
in
the
plan),
which
may
be
necessary
to
assist
in
restoring
the
management
unit
or
stock
to
non­
critical
status.
When
exploitation
rates
are
less
than
expected,
or
population­
based
recovery
goals
are
exceeded,
then
the
possibility
of
liberalizing
the
harvest
regime
may
be
considered.
However,
the
co­
managers
still
must
develop
and
achieve
the
population­
based
recovery
goals
and
determine
how
to
structure
a
recovery
harvest
regime
before
directed
harvest
would
be
considered.

Fishery
Performance
Standards
­
By
achieving
fishery
performance
standards,
the
harvest
element
will
contribute
to
the
stability
and
recovery
of
the
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.
The
following
fishery
performance
standards
will
be
used
to
assess
whether
the
harvest
management
strategy
is
being
successfully
implemented.

Compliance
­
Regulations
are
adopted
and
implemented
consistent
with
the
plan's
management
actions,
and
enforcement
patrols
indicate
a
high
level
of
compliance
with
regulations
adopted
consistent
with
the
plan.

Exploitation
Rates
­
Exploitation
rates
are
within
the
identified
range
in
any
year.
At
the
time
of
5­
year
plan
review
the
expected
rates
are
within
the
established
range
and
are
not
clustered
toward
either
extreme
of
the
range.

Preseason
Forecasts
­
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.

Compliance
and
Enforcement
­
"
Compliance"
is
adherence,
by
each
of
the
parties,
to
the
guidelines,
mandates
and
performance
standards
of
the
plan,
including
adoption
of
any
necessary
regulations
to
implement
their
responsibilities
under
the
plan.
Compliance
certainty
shall
be
assured
through
the
application
of
U.
S.
v
Washington
rules
and
procedures.
"
Enforcement"
shall
mean
the
efforts
of
each
party
to
implement
the
guidelines,
measures
and
standards
of
the
plan,
including
the
enforcement
of
rules
and
regulations
adopted
to
implement
the
guidelines,
measures
and
standards.

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.
Escapement
and
harvest
monitoring
form
the
core
elements
of
the
monitoring
program.
These
core
elements
are
stable
and
will
continue
at
or
above
current
levels.
Information
gained
from
the
other
suggested
monitoring
activities
would
improve
management,
but
additional
funding
and
resources
will
be
required
for
implementation.
The
co­
managers
have
designed
the
management
actions
in
this
plan
to
provide
sufficient
protection
for
summer
chum
populations
at
the
current
levels
of
monitoring.
The
co­
managers
commit
to
maintaining
the
core
elements
of
the
monitoring
programs,
and
recognize
that
the
additional
monitoring
activities
are
important
over
the
long
term
and
funding
support
will
be
sought
for
them.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xxiii
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
The
summer
chum
salmon
conservation
initiative
is
intended
to
be
an
integrated
plan,
with
each
element
contributing
in
concert
with
the
other
elements,
leading
to
a
successful
outcome
in
restoring
these
summer
chum
populations.
Each
of
the
preceding
sections
of
Part
Three
addresses
a
specific
element
of
the
plan
and
defines
how
the
performance
(
compliance
and
effectiveness)
of
the
specific
strategies
and
actions
relevant
to
that
element
will
be
evaluated.
However,
the
success
of
the
overall
plan
can
only
be
measured
by
how
well
the
populations
of
summer
chum
respond.
The
following
section
describes
the
measures
that
will
be
used
to
evaluate
the
performance
of
the
plan
relative
to
specific
population
criteria.

Critical
Threshold
Response
­
If
any
management
unit
or
stock
falls
below
its
critical
abundance
or
escapement
threshold,
the
co­
managers
will:
1)
promptly
identify
any
emergency
actions
that
can
be
taken
immediately
to
respond
to
the
critical
condition,
and
2)
within
six
months,
prepare
an
assessment
of
the
factors
resulting
in
this
failure
to
determine
if
actions
and
modifications
to
the
plan
are
necessary
to
promptly
restore
the
management
unit
or
stock
to
non­
critical
status.
The
emergency
response
will
include
any
actions
that
can
be
implemented
to
avoid
further
declines
in
abundance
while
the
causes
for
the
failure
are
being
evaluated
and
corrective
actions
developed.

Annual
Plan
Report
­
Annually,
management
actions
and
their
results
are
assessed
for
compliance
with
the
specific
plan
provisions,
including
the
determination
if
any
critical
population
thresholds
have
been
triggered.
In
the
preceding
sections
on
Artificial
Production,
Ecological
Interactions,
and
Harvest
Management,
there
are
descriptions
of
annual
actions
that
must
be
taken
to
assess
compliance
with
and
effectiveness
of
the
plan
provisions.
By
June
of
each
year
the
co­
managers
will
compile
the
annual
assessments
required
in
Part
Three
of
the
plan
into
an
annual
plan
progress
report.

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
strategies
and
actions.
As
stocks
within
management
units
are
rebuilt,
the
plan
review
will
determine
if
the
conservation
and
recovery
criteria
are
being
met,
and
will
incorporate
the
results
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
studies.

Population­
Based
Performance
Standards
­
Specific
population­
based
performance
standard
criteria
are
provided
for
the
following
categories.
The
measurement
of
several
of
the
following
standards
(
e.
g.
productivity)
is
dependent
on
the
collection
of
representative
age
data.

Abundance
­
As
used
in
the
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
by
the
performance
of
natural­
origin
recruits
(
NOR)
of
each
management
unit
and
the
stock(
s)
within
them.
The
abundance
standards
are:
1)
annual
post
season
estimated
abundance
must
be
equal
to,
or
greater
than
that
of
the
parent
brood
abundance;
2)
it
should
be
stable
or
increasing
and
5­
year
average
abundance
must
be
higher
than
the
critical
threshold;
and
3)
annual
estimated
abundances
shall
not
fall
below
the
critical
threshold
in
more
than
two
of
five
years.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xxiv
Productivity
­
As
used
in
the
plan,
productivity
refers
to
the
ratio
of
maturing
recruits
per
parent
brood
spawner.
The
standards
are:
1)
five
year
mean
estimated
productivity
shall
be
greater
than
1.2
recruits
per
spawner,
and
2)
the
number
of
recruits
per
spawner
when
management
units
are
at
or
near
critical
thresholds
must
be
stable
or
increasing.

Escapement
­
Annual
NOR
escapements
shall
be:
1)
stable
or
increasing,
and
2)
5­
year
average
escapements
must
be
higher
than
the
critical
thresholds
(
see
table,
page
xiv).
Information
concerning
the
productivity
and
productive
capacity
of
the
stock(
s)
shall
be
used
to
further
refine
the
thresholds
themselves.

Management
Actions
­
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.
Strategies
and
actions
directed
at
management
units
or
stocks
whose
abundance
is
below
their
currently
estimated
thresholds,
will
be
considered
successful
if
they
stop
and
reverse
the
decline
in
productivity
and/
or
abundance.

Part
Four
Summary
of
Plan
Elements
Part
Four
provides
tabular
summaries
to
show
what
and
where
specific
objectives,
strategies,
and
actions
are
to
be
applied,
and
by
whom,
to
meet
the
plan's
goal
of
protecting
and
restoring
the
summer
chum
runs.
Additionally,
this
part
of
the
plan
discusses
how
the
plan
goal
and
ESA
objectives
are
being
addressed,
the
development
of
population­
based
recovery
goals,
and
implementation
of
the
plan.

Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Plan
objectives,
strategies,
and
actions
are
summarized
in
tabular
descriptions
of
Artificial
Production,
Ecological
Interactions,
Harvest
Management,
Habitat,
Monitoring
and
Evaluation,
and
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management.
For
each
objective,
one
or
more
actions/
strategies
are
described:
including
the
participants
with
jurisdiction/
authority,
additional
partners,
status
of
available
resources/
funding,
and
time
frame.
These
summaries
are
intended
to
provide
quick
reference
to
the
elements
of
this
initiative.

Accomplishing
Goals
of
the
Recovery
Plan
and
Meeting
ESA
Objectives
Achieving
the
Recovery
Plan
Goal
­
Recovery
activities
for
summer
chum
salmon
were
begun
by
the
co­
managers
in
1992.
The
recovery
goal
was,
and
still
is,
to
return
summer
chum
salmon
to
full
health
and
to
allow
future
harvests
(
see
definition
in
Foreword
section).
The
recovery
objectives
and
actions
identified
for
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
and
harvest
management
will
be
immediately
implemented
by
the
co­
managers
(
most
are
already
underway).
The
implementation
of
strategies
for
habitat
recovery
is
necessarily
an
activity
that
is
longer
term
and
will
involve
participants
other
than
just
the
co­
managers.

In
summary,
the
following
results
from
implementation
of
the
initiative
are
expected.
No
further
extinctions
will
occur.
Re­
introductions
of
summer
chum
to
currently
unpopulated
streams
will
occur
through
time.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Executive
Summary
xxv
The
past
negative
consequences
potentially
resulting
from
hatchery
fish
interactions
will
be
largely
eliminated
as
a
precautionary
measure.
The
impacts
of
incidental
fishery
harvests
on
summer
chum
stocks
will
be
minimized.
Habitat,
both
freshwater
and
estuarine,
will
be
gradually
returned
to
a
more
productive
state.
Annual
monitoring,
evaluation,
and
adaptive
management
will
assure
that
recovery
objectives
are
achieved.
Ultimately,
the
combined
effects
of
these
actions
will
recover
summer
chum
salmon.

Meeting
ESA
Objectives
­
In
1996,
NMFS
published
a
document
titled
"
Coastal
Salmon
Conservation:
Working
Guidance
for
Comprehensive
Salmon
Restoration
Initiatives
on
the
Pacific
Coast".
The
purpose
of
this
guidance
is
to
identify
the
elements
that
would
constitute
a
successful
salmon
recovery
plan.
NMFS
described
three
major
criteria
to
be
met
by
a
conservation
plan:
1)
the
plan
must
have
substance;
that
is,
it
includes
measures
that
will
effect
recovery;
2)
there
must
be
certainty
that
the
measures
will
be
undertaken
by
the
parties
with
the
authority
and
means
to
implement
recovery
actions;
and
3)
the
plan
must
include
monitoring
and
assessment
that
will
lead
to
effective
adaptive
management
and
help
determine
what
recovery
is
and
when
it
occurs.
This
recovery
plan
provides
the
basis
for
addressing
all
three
criteria.

Population­
Based
Recovery
Goals
Specific
quantitative,
population­
based
recovery
goals
are
needed
to
determine
when
recovery
has
been
achieved.
These
goals
should
define
recovery
in
terms
of
population
abundance,
productivity,
and
diversity.
The
co­
managers
are
developing
a
comprehensive
set
of
population­
based
recovery
goals
that
are
scheduled
for
completion
in
spring
2000,
and
will
be
made
available
in
a
supplement
to
the
this
recovery
plan.

Plan
Implementation
The
plan
is
a
comprehensive
document
that
addresses
all
the
components
for
protection
and
recovery
of
summer
chum
and
provides
a
scientific
basis
for
recommending
actions/
strategies.
The
fisheries
comanagers
WDFW
and
PNPT
Tribes,
are
committed
to
carrying
out
those
provisions
of
the
plan
for
which
they
have
the
authority
(
measures
addressing
harvest
management,
artificial
production
and
ecological
interactions).
However,
particularly
with
respect
to
summer
chum
habitat,
the
plan
is
only
the
first
step
to
a
larger
planning
and
implementation
effort
that
must
continue
if
recovery
of
the
summer
chum
is
to
succeed.
Counties
and
other
agencies,
who
have
not
participated
in
the
development
of
the
plan
but
have
provided
review
comments
during
its
development,
are
encouraged
to
address
the
recommended
strategies
and
actions
that
fall
under
their
jurisdiction
or
authority.
This
will
lead
to
additional
planning,
that
will
result
in
definition
and
execution
of
specific
protection
and
recovery
actions.
The
support
of
landowners,
private
non­
profit
organizations,
volunteer
groups,
and
local
citizens
is
also
important
if
these
efforts
are
to
succeed.
The
co­
managers
will
offer
technical
support
in
how
to
interpret
and
apply
the
recommendations
of
the
plan.

It
is
expected
that
many
measures
identified
in
the
plan
will
subsequently
be
developed
further
based
on
recommendations
contained
in
the
plan.
These
should
be
incorporated
into
the
ESA
permitting
process,
which
has
been
in
development
during
the
same
time
frame
as
the
plan.
There
may
be
a
need
to
adapt
or
modify
measures
within
the
plan
in
response
to
the
permitting
requirements
(
i.
e.,
under
ESA
sections
4
(
d),
7
or
10).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
1
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Salmon
Co­
managers
The
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Tribes
including:
the
Skokomish
Tribe,
the
Port
Gamble
S'Klallam
Tribe,
The
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
and
the
Lower
Elwha
Klallam
Tribe;
and
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
Foreword
Introduction
In
recent
years,
it
has
become
apparent
that
many
wild
salmon
populations
in
the
northwest
have
experienced
serious
declines
in
abundance
due
to
a
variety
of
factors
negatively
influencing
the
salmon
and
their
environment
imposed
by
our
modern
society.
In
some
cases
these
wild
salmon
populations
have
declined
to
the
point
where
they
face
immediate
risks
of
permanent
harm
or
even
extinction.

In
response
to
these
declines
in
wild
salmon
populations,
the
tribes
in
western
Washington
and
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW),
in
1991,
began
a
broad
and
ambitious
effort
to
halt
the
decline
and
restore
these
populations,
referred
to
as
the
Wild
Stock
Restoration
Initiative
(
WSRI).
The
first
step
in
the
WSRI
was
to
inventory
the
status
of
all
wild
salmonid
populations.
This
task,
the
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
SASSI),
was
completed
in
1993
and
identified
a
number
of
populations
that
were
believed
to
be
in
critical
condition.
A
critical
rating
meant
that
the
biologists
reviewing
the
status
of
the
populations
felt
that
the
stock
of
fish
was
"
experiencing
production
levels
that
were
so
low
that
permanent
damage
to
the
stock
is
likely
or
has
already
occurred".
The
inventory
identified
most
of
the
summer
chum
originating
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
as
being
in
critical
condition.

Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
experienced
a
severe
drop
in
abundance
in
the
1980s,
along
with
other
chum
salmon
throughout
the
Puget
Sound
region.
The
summer
chum
remained
at
very
low
levels
even
though
other
chum
stocks
rebounded
by
the
mid
to
late
1980s.
The
region's
summer
chum
returns
hit
all
time
lows
in
1989
and
1990
with
less
than
a
thousand
spawners
in
total.
In
response
to
this
alarming
decline
and
consistent
with
the
WSRI
and
the
critical
status
identified
in
SASSI,
the
state
and
tribal
co­
managers
implemented
actions
in
1992
to
afford
greater
protection
of
summer
chum
in
terminal
area
fisheries
and,
together
with
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
and
citizen
groups
initiated
hatchery
supplementation
programs
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
2
The
goal
of
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
is:

To
protect,
restore
and
enhance
the
productivity,
production
and
diversity
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
and
their
ecosystems
to
provide
surplus
production
sufficient
to
allow
future
directed
and
incidental
harvests
of
summer
chum
salmon.

Parties
to
the
Recovery
Plan
The
co­
managers
(
the
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Tribes
and
WDFW)
along
with
USFWS,
and
NMFS
are
"
parties"
to
the
recovery
plan.
on
two
summer
chum
stocks
utilizing
native
brood
stocks.
Those
actions
have
been
expanded
in
subsequent
years
and
have
resulted
in
this
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
(
also
referred
to
in
the
document
as
the
"
recovery
plan",
or
simply
"
the
plan").

In
addition
to
the
concerns
of
the
tribal
and
state
co­
managers,
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
initiated
coast­
wide
status
reviews
for
all
west
coast
salmon
species
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)
in
1994.
The
NMFS
review
of
chum
salmon
found
that
the
summer
chum
originating
from
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
represented
an
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU).
They
further
found
in
their
review
that
this
ESU
was
at
some
risk
of
extinction
and
in
March
of
1999
the
summer
chum
salmon
were
listed
under
the
ESA
as
a
threatened
species.

Goal
of
the
Initiative
This
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
is
intended
to
formalize
and
expand
on
the
recovery
efforts
already
initiated
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon,
such
that
there
will
be
a
comprehensive
and
cohesive
strategy
or
plan
for
the
recovery
and
restoration
of
these
populations.

The
recovery
plan
applies
to
all
summer­
timed
chum
salmon
returning
to
streams
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
including
populations
that
may
have
been
extirpated.
This
is
consistent
with
the
scope
of
the
ESU
defined
by
NMFS
for
ESA
purposes.
The
agencies
involved
with
the
development
of
this
plan
and
committed
to
ensuring
it
is
implemented,
include
the
Skokomish
Tribe,
the
Port
Gamble
S'Klallam
Tribe,
the
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
and
the
Lower
Elwha
Klallam
Tribe;
the
WDFW;
USFWS;
and
the
NMFS.

The
recovery
plan
has
both
short­
term
and
long­
term
objectives.
Some
actions
and
measures
will
be
implemented
immediately
(
or
have
already
been
implemented)
to
stabilize
these
populations
and
increase
their
abundance,
while
others
will
be
implemented
over
a
longer
time
frame
to
effect
the
broader
recovery
and
restoration
of
the
populations
and
the
fisheries
that
depend
on
them.
It
is
the
intent
of
the
agencies
that
developed
the
plan
that
it
be
an
adaptive
plan
that
will
encourage
collection
of
new
information
on
these
populations
and
will
be
modified
and
adapted
as
we
learn
what
works
and
what
doesn't
in
meeting
the
overall
plan
goal.
Thus,
there
are
many
actions
and
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
3
measures
still
to
be
developed
based
on
the
results
of
further
assessments.
The
success
of
the
recovery
plan
will
determined
by
how
well
the
specific
objectives
are
achieved
in
each
of
the
functional
elements
of
the
plan
and
how
well
the
overall
goal
is
achieved.

Relevant
Standing
Orders
and
Agreements
The
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan
(
PSSMP)
and
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Management
Plan
(
HCSMP)
are
federal
court
orders
that
currently
control
both
the
harvest
management
rules
and
production
schedules
for
salmon
in
Hood
Canal.
The
parties
recognize
that
it
may
be
necessary
to
modify
these
plans
in
order
to
implement
the
recommendations
that
will
result
from
this
summer
chum
plan.
However,
the
provisions
of
the
PSSMP
and
HCSMP
will
remain
in
effect
until
modified
through
court
order
by
mutual
agreement.

Previous
agreements
between
the
state
and
the
tribes
that
may
have
a
bearing
on
this
plan
include
the
Hood
Canal
Production
and
Evaluation
Program
(
HCPEP)
and
the
Hood
Canal
Wild
Coho
Salmon
Evaluation
and
Rehabilitation
Program
(
HCWCP).
The
HCPEP
was
implemented
in
1989,
outlining
a
six
year
study
plan
to
evaluate
new
salmon
production
alternatives.
The
results
of
the
HCPEP
may
be
used
to
guide
activities
included
within
this
plan.

The
HCWCP
carries
the
objective
of
rebuilding
the
Hood
Canal
wild
coho
salmon
stocks.
Management
measures
outlined
in
the
HCWCP
that
are
designed
to
facilitate
rehabilitation
of
Hood
Canal
wild
coho
stocks
must
also
address
management
of
summer
chum
that
commingle
with
coho.
Sections
included
within
the
HCWCP
regarding
development
of
a
comprehensive
approach
for
protection
and
rehabilitation
of
Hood
Canal
salmon
habitat
should
also
benefit
summer
chum
production.
To
the
extent
practicable,
efforts
directed
towards
the
rehabilitation
of
Hood
Canal
wild
coho
will
be
designed
to
benefit
summer
chum
as
well.

When
agreed
to
by
the
co­
managers,
modification
of
the
above
plans
will
be
accomplished
as
necessary
as
part
of
the
implementation
phase
of
the
summer
chum
recovery
plan.

Ongoing
Activities,
Initiatives,
and
Processes
The
following
is
a
chronological
list
of
major
efforts
directed
at
or
contributing
to
the
recovery
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon.

1992
­
Wild
Stock
Restoration
Initiative
(
WSRI)

In
1992,
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
the
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes
(
WWTIT)
began
a
process
to
develop
the
Washington
State
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Wild
Stock
Restoration
Initiative.
The
Initiative's
goal
is
"
to
maintain
and
restore
healthy
wild
salmon
and
steelhead
stocks
and
their
habitats
in
order
to
support
the
region's
fisheries,
economies,
and
other
societal
values"
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
4
An
initial
task
under
this
initiative
was
to
develop
a
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
SASSI).
The
State
fisheries
agencies
and
the
WWTIT
reviewed
the
salmonid
stocks
and
reported
on
their
status
(
WDF
et
al..
1993,
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994).
Completion
of
this
inventory
was
the
first
step
in
a
statewide
effort
to
maintain
and
restore
wild
salmon
and
steelhead
stocks
and
fisheries.
The
inventory
represents
the
starting
point
to
address
the
objective
of
restoring
stocks
identified
as
"
depressed"
and
"
critical".
All
but
one
of
the
identified
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
stocks
were
classified
critical
or
depressed
in
the
inventory.

1992
­
Artificial
Production
Summer
chum
supplementation
projects
were
begun
in
1992
on
the
Big
Quilcene
River,
Lilliwaup
Creek
and
Salmon
Creek.
The
recent
project
on
the
Big
Quilcene
River
is
a
joint
effort
by
the
WDFW,
Point
No
Point
Treaty
(
PNPT)
Tribes
and
USFWS,
that
was
initiated
because
the
summer
chum
population
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
was
depressed
to
the
point
that
immediate
intervention
was
necessary
and
because
the
habitat
in
the
lower
river
was
extremely
degraded.
The
agencies
and
PNPT
Tribes
began
this
program
to
rebuild
and
protect
the
summer
chum
run
until
the
habitat
was
recovered
and
able
to
support
natural
production.
The
project
included
modification
of
Tribal
fisheries
to
minimize
summer
chum
interceptions
and
help
collect
brood
stock.
Eggs
were
taken
to
the
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
on
the
river
where
they
were
hatched,
reared
and
released.
The
project
continues
to
the
present
day;
its
initial
success
in
rebuilding
the
run
indicated
by
the
high
returns
in
recent
years.

A
supplementation
project
was
also
begun
in
1992
on
Lilliwaup
Creek
with
the
objective
of
rebuilding
the
summer
chum
run
of
that
stream.
The
project
is
operated
by
Long
Live
the
Kings,
a
non­
profit
salmon
conservation
group,
under
the
supervision
of
WDFW.
Eggs
are
collected
and,
after
hatching
and
early
rearing,
the
summer
chum
fry
are
released
back
into
the
stream.
The
desire
to
minimize
impacts
on
natural
spawning
in
the
creek
and
difficulties
encountered
in
collecting
brood
stock
have
resulted,
so
far,
in
this
being
an
intermittent,
low
production
project.

A
citizen
volunteer
conservation
group,
Wild
Olympic
Salmon,
began
a
cooperative
effort
with
WDFW
to
supplement
summer
chum
salmon
in
Salmon
Creek
in
1992.
This
project
is
similar
in
operation
to
the
other
two,
except
that
final
rearing
before
release
of
the
fry
occurs
in
a
saltwater
net
pen
near
the
mouth
of
Salmon
Creek.
The
initial
success
of
the
project
is
indicated
by
escapement
levels
approaching
900
fish
in
recent
years.

The
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group
began
a
cooperative
project
with
WDFW
in
1997
to
rebuild
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
River.
Operations
are
similar
to
the
other
supplementation
projects.
However,
there
were
problems
collecting
brood
stock
in
the
first
years
of
the
project.

In
1996,
two
projects
were
begun
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
into
streams
where
they
had
been
extirpated,
Big
Beef
Creek
and
Chimacum
Creek.
The
donor
population
for
the
Big
Beef
project
was
the
Quilcene
River
brood
stock,
where
a
surplus
of
eggs
was
available.
Similarly,
surplus
eggs
were
made
available
for
the
Chimacum
project
from
the
Salmon
Creek
project.
The
project
operations
include
the
hatching,
early
rearing
and
release
of
juvenile
summer
chum.
WDFW
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
5
participates
with
the
University
of
Washington
(
at
its
research
station)
and
another
citizen
volunteer
organization,
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group,
in
operating
the
Big
Beef
project.
Wild
Olympic
Salmon
is
the
cooperator
with
WDFW
on
the
Chimacum
project.

These
summer
chum
salmon
recovery
efforts
are
described
in
more
detail
in
Part
Three
­
3.2
Artificial
Production.

1992
­
Harvest
Management
Summer
chum
are
subject
to
fisheries
harvest
in
mixed
stock
areas,
terminal
marine
areas
and
freshwater
areas.
Beginning
in
1992,
the
co­
managers
substantially
reduced
the
harvests
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
terminal
marine
and
freshwater
fishing
areas.

The
terminal
marine
areas
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
are
Sequim
Bay,
Discovery
Bay,
and
Dungeness
Bay,
along
with
all
marine
areas
in
Hood
Canal
south
of
the
Hood
Canal
Bridge.
No
commercial
harvest
has
been
allowed
for
any
salmonid
species
in
either
Sequim
or
Discovery
bays
since
1976.
Within
Hood
Canal
proper,
there
has
been
a
directed
fishery
at
summer
chum
within
the
terminal
marine
areas
only
in
1976,
when
an
unusually
high
return
of
summer
chum
was
observed.
All
other
catches
of
summer
chum
have
been
the
result
of
fisheries
directed
at
chinook
and
coho
salmon.
Since
1992,
tribal,
commercial,
and
sport
fisheries
have
been
substantially
modified
to
minimize
summer
chum
interceptions.

Treaty
fisheries,
within
freshwater
areas
and
during
the
times
summer
chum
may
be
present,
have
in
recent
years
only
been
conducted
within
the
Big
Quilcene
and
Skokomish
rivers.
Since
1990
there
have
been
no
treaty
net
fisheries
in
the
Quilcene
River.

Mixed
stock
fisheries
interceptions
(
as
by­
catch
of
fisheries
directed
at
other
species
or
runs)
can
occur
in
Canadian
fishing
areas
and
in
Washington
pre­
terminal
areas,
including
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
San
Juan
Islands,
Admiralty
Inlet
and
central
Puget
Sound.
The
impact
on
summer
chum
salmon
has
been
estimated
for
these
fisheries,
and
harvest
management
actions
are
being
taken
to
protect
summer
chum.
Overall,
the
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
bycatch
of
these
fisheries
can
be
significant.
The
co­
managers
intend
to
continue
to
obtain
genetic
samples
to
refine
the
relative
estimates
of
impacts
on
Hood
Canal
summer
chum.

For
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
management
of
fisheries
affecting
summer
chum
salmon,
see
Part
Three
­
3.5
Harvest
Management.

1993
­
Wild
Salmonid
Policy
(
WSP)

In
1993,
the
Washington
State
Legislature
passed
EHB
1309
that
directed
WDFW
to
develop
a
wild
salmonid
policy
that
"
shall
ensure
the
department
actions
and
programs
are
consistent
with
the
goals
of
rebuilding
wild
stock
populations
to
levels
that
permit
commercial
and
recreational
fishing
opportunities."
Prior
to
the
legislative
initiative,
the
state
and
the
tribes
were
working
towards
maintaining
and
achieving
healthy
native
populations.
The
WDFW
Commission
adopted
a
wild
salmonid
policy
in
December
1997.
Presently,
WDFW
is
bound
by
the
provisions
of
the
policy.
The
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
6
goal,
direction,
and
provisions
of
the
summer
chum
recovery
initiative
are
consistent
with
the
guidance
within
the
WDFW
Wild
Salmonid
Policy.

1994
­
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)

In
1994
the
Northwest
Region
of
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
received
three
petitions
for
the
listing
of
distinct
populations
of
chum
salmon
from
Puget
Sound
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
including
Hood
Canal
summer
chum).
In
response
to
these
petitions,
NMFS
reviewed
the
status
of
chum
salmon.
As
a
result,
a
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
ESU
was
defined
and
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
were
formally
listed
as
a
threatened
species
under
ESA
in
March
of
1999.
The
Hood
Canal
Summer
Chum
Initiative
is
meant
to
complement
ESA
activities
and
to
provide
the
basis
for
additional
planning
to
recover
these
summer
chum
stocks.

Several
recent
planning
processes
and
documents
have
been
developed
to
guide
management
of
atrisk
salmonid
populations.
These
efforts
have
a
bearing
on
the
present
initiative
in
that
they
reflect
the
current
thinking
and
direction
of
planning
for
salmonid
protection
and
recovery.
The
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
initiative
has
been
prepared
in
full
cognizance
of
the
following
documents.

Coastal
Salmon
Conservation:
Working
Guidance
for
Comprehensive
Salmon
Restoration
Initiatives
on
the
Pacific
Coast
(
NMFS
1996a).

Status
review
of
chum
salmon
from
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.,
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
32.
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).

1994
­
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council
(
HCCC)

The
HCCC
is
a
council
of
governments
formed
under
Washington
State
RCW
29.34
consisting
of
Jefferson,
Kitsap
and
Mason
counties,
Port
Gamble
S'Klallam
and
Skokomish
tribes,
and
with
the
support
of
federal
and
state
agencies.
Its
mission
is
to
coordinate
actions
that
protect
and
restore
the
environment
and
natural
resources
of
the
Hood
Canal
basin.
It
also
provides
educational
services
to
local
communities.
The
Council
began
to
consider
responses
to
summer
chum
needs
following
the
initiation
of
the
NMFS
chum
status
review
in
1994.

1997
­
Governor's
Salmon
Recovery
Office
(
SRO)

The
Governor's
Salmon
Recovery
Office
was
legislatively
created
(
ESHB
2496)
to
provide
overall
coordination
for
the
state's
salmon
recovery
and
ESA
response.
The
SRO
works
with
the
Joint
Cabinet
and
its
member
natural
resource
agencies
to
develop
the
Statewide
Salmon
Recovery
Strategy,
along
with
an
implementation
plan
with
performance
measures
to
monitor
progress.
The
SRO
also
works
with
regional
and
sub­
regional
salmon
recovery
entities
and
lead
entities
to
develop
salmon
recovery
plans
and
ESA
responses.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
7
1997
­
Conservation
Commission
The
Washington
State
Legislature
tasked
the
Conservation
Commission,
under
ESHB
2496,
to
oversee
the
development
of
a
state­
wide
habitat
related
limiting
factors
analysis
for
salmon
recovery
(
in
consultation
with
technical
advisory
groups).

1997
­
Salmon
Recovery
Lead
Entities
Also
under
ESHB
2496,
the
legislature
authorized
the
formation
of
"
Lead
Entities"
from
local
groups
or
governments.
Lead
Entities
are
empowered
to
solicit
and
prioritize
salmon
habitat
restoration
projects,
and
to
seek
funding
from
Salmon
Recovery
Funding
Board.
Where
available,
the
Lead
Entities
are
mandated
to
use
the
Limiting
Factors
Analysis,
produced
by
the
Conservation
Commission,
as
a
basis
for
project
prioritization.

1999
­
Salmon
Recovery
Funding
Board
The
Salmon
Recovery
Funding
Board
provides
support
to
Lead
Entities
for
salmon
recovery
by
funding
habitat
protection
and
restoration
projects
that
produce
sustainable
and
measurable
benefits
for
wild
salmon
and
their
habitat.
Established
under
SB
5595,
the
Salmon
Recovery
Funding
Board
disperses
state
and
federal
monies
through
a
scientific
review
process
to
ensure
a
coordinated
and
consistent
accounting
of
funding
appropriated
for
salmon
recovery.

2000
­
Forest
and
Fish
Report
The
Forest
and
Fish
Report
and
associated
WACs
(
under
ESHB
2091)
represent
the
development
and
implementation
of
emergency
rules
and
programs
for
non­
federal
forest
practice
activities,
and
are
designed
to
achieve
the
following
goals:
1)
to
provide
compliance
with
the
Endangered
Species
Act
for
aquatic
and
riparian­
dependent
species
on
non­
federal
forest
lands;
2)
to
restore
and
maintain
riparian
habitat
on
non­
federal
forest
lands
to
support
a
harvestable
supply
of
fish;
3)
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
for
water
quality
on
non­
federal
forest
lands;
and
4)
to
keep
the
timber
industry
economically
viable
in
the
State
of
Washington.
The
emergency
rules
remain
in
effect
until
June
30,
2001,
or
until
permanent
rules
are
adopted
by
the
Forest
Practices
Board.

Plan
Development
and
Organization
Staff
of
the
PNPT
Tribes,
WDFW,
NWIFC,
USFWS
and
NMFS
have
participated
in
development
of
this
conservation
initiative
(
or
plan)
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum.
This
has
been
a
technical
process
that
has
included
analysis
and
summarization
of
existing
data
and
the
formulation
of
a
management
process
for
protection,
recovery
and
restoration
of
the
summer
chum.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
8
United
States
v.
Washington
More
commonly
referred
to
as
the
"
Boldt
Decision",
U.
S.
v.
Wash.
is
the
1974
Federal
Court
Decision
(
and
subsequent
orders)
that
affirmed
the
fishing
rights
of
western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes.
Plan
Development
This
conservation
initiative
(
or
plan)
has
been
developed
and
agreed
upon
by
the
WDFW
and
the
PNPT
Tribes
under
their
authority
to
co­
manage
these
salmon
populations
pursuant
to
the
rules
and
orders
of
U.
S.
v.
Washington
(
1974).
This
plan
is
consistent
with
and
fulfills
the
intent
of
section
13
of
the
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan
(
1985),
which
calls
for
the
development
of
comprehensive
regional
resource
management
plans
for
Puget
Sound
stocks
of
salmon.
The
USFWS
and
NMFS
have
also
participated
in
the
development
of
this
plan
at
the
request
of
the
WDFW
and
the
PNPT
Tribes.
The
USFWS
participated
largely
because
of
their
involvement
with
artificial
production
in
the
region
and
their
general
background
in
providing
technical
support
for
tribal/
state
fisheries
management
programs.
The
NMFS
participated
to
assist
the
co­
managers
develop
a
plan
which
will
also
satisfy
NMFS's
concerns
and
criteria
for
recovery
under
the
ESA,
and
to
fulfill
their
trust
obligations
to
the
tribes
to
provide
technical
support.

A
rough
draft
of
the
plan
was
prepared
in
January
1997.
This
initial
draft
was
incomplete;
a
number
of
harvest
management
issues
had
not
yet
been
resolved,
supplementation
planning
required
refinement,
and
the
habitat
protection
and
recovery
component
had
not
yet
been
developed.
Still,
the
draft
was
submitted
to
NMFS
to
inform
them
of
the
status
of
the
planning
effort.
Comments
were
subsequently
received
from
NMFS
that
encouraged
the
parties
to
proceed
with
the
full
development
of
the
plan.

The
planning
effort
was
renewed
in
the
summer
of
1997
with
the
objectives
of
providing
direction
for
the
management
and
recovery
of
summer
chum.
NMFS
advised
the
co­
managers
that
to
be
successful
the
initiative
must:
1)
include
substantive
management
provisions
with
measurable
performance
standards,
2)
incorporate
participation
of
all
parties
possessing
the
management
authority
necessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions,
3)
provide
for
effective
monitoring
and
evaluation
to
determine
whether
performance
standards
are
being
met,
and
4)
be
adaptive
to
changing
circumstances
and
knowledge
gained
over
time.
Agency
and
tribal
staff
have
worked
to
meet
these
criteria
in
preparing
the
conservation
initiative.
Personnel
from
NMFS
have
participated
in
planning
meetings
and
work
sessions
to
facilitate
communication
with
that
agency,
a
need
made
more
apparent
by
the
official
listing
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
as
a
threatened
species
in
March
1999.

Plan
Organization
Organization
of
the
conservation
initiative
is
in
five
major
parts:
Foreword,
which
sets
the
stage;
Part
One
­
Life
History
and
Stock
Assessment,
which
describes
summer
chum
life
history,
and
discusses
the
available
data
and
provides
stock
evaluation
tools;
Part
Two
­
Region­
wide
Factors
for
Decline,
which
provides
a
region­
wide
analysis
and
summary
of
those
factors
believed
responsible
for
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
9
recent
decline
of
summer
chum;
Part
Three
­
Evaluation
and
Mitigation
of
Factors
for
Decline,
which
provides
more
detailed,
location­
specific
analysis
of
factors
affecting
summer
chum
and
presents
strategies
for
their
protection
and
recovery;
and
Part
Four
­
Summary
of
Plan
Elements,
which
provides
a
comprehensive
description
of
the
management
components,
and
also
describes
specific
actions,
evaluation
and
monitoring,
roles
of
the
participating
parties,
and
time
frames.

Four
workgroups
of
technical
staff
were
formed
to
perform
technical
analyses
and
prepare
individual
sections
of
the
initiative.
A
general
organizational
workgroup
was
responsible
for
developing
Parts
One,
Two,
and
Four,
and
for
editing
and
assembling
the
final
document.
The
three
other
workgroups
performed
technical
analyses
and
addressed
management
strategies
pertaining
to
1)
habitat
protection
and
recovery,
2)
harvest
management,
and
3)
supplementation,
reintroduction,
and
ecological
interactions.
The
products
of
these
latter
three
workgroups
are
presented
in
Part
Three
and
are
summarized
in
Part
Four
of
the
initiative.

This
document
is
organized
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
co­
managers
in
terms
of
clearly
laying
out
the
problems
that
exist,
actions
that
will
be
taken,
and
the
goals
and
objectives
to
be
achieved.
It
is
also
designed
to
address
the
issues
raised
in
the
NMFS
status
review
for
chum
salmon
and
to
address
their
needs
for
a
recovery
plan
under
the
ESA.
Part
One
of
the
plan
clearly
lays
out
the
status
of
the
region's
summer
chum
populations
as
we
understand
them
with
our
current
knowledge
and
also
identifies
what
we
don't
know
and
need
to
know
for
the
plan
to
be
effective.
There
are
substantial
discussions
of
the
factors
for
decline
(
Parts
Two
and
Three),
which
are
pivotal
components
of
the
recovery
plan
for
setting
priorities
and
tying
action
strategies
back
to
specific
problems
they
are
designed
to
correct.
Part
Three
contains
four
sections
that
deal
with
the
broad
categories
of
recovery
under
Artificial
Production,
Ecological
Interactions,
Habitat,
and
Harvest
Management,
and
these
sections
contain
both
evaluations
of
factors
for
decline
and
the
substance
and
details
of
the
specific
recovery
assessments,
strategies
and
actions.
Also
Part
Three
includes
the
section,
Plan
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management,
that
describes
management
responses
to
populations
at
critical
threshold,
outlines
procedures
for
reviewing
and
modifying
the
plan,
and
presents
performance
standards.
Finally,
Part
Four
discusses
what
recovery
and
restoration
means
in
the
context
of
the
plan,
summarizes
objectives,
strategies,
and
actions
in
each
recovery
category,
and
discusses
plan
implementation.

Future
Actions
It
is
the
intent
of
WDFW
and
the
PNPT
Tribes
to
implement
this
initiative
as
a
comprehensive
regional
management
plan,
as
provided
for
in
the
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan.
Some
elements
of
the
plan
require
agreement
from
tribes
other
than
PNPT
Tribes.
Upon
gaining
their
concurrence,
the
plan
will
be
adopted
as
an
agreed
plan
in
the
U.
S.
v.
Wash.
proceeding.
The
implementation
of
the
elements
of
the
plan,
that
are
specifically
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
state
and
tribal
co­
managers,
would
then
be
under
a
Federal
court
order.
This
will
provide
certainty
that
the
sections
of
the
plan
dealing
with
the
fishery
management
elements
of
harvest
and
artificial
production
will
be
carried
out
consistent
with
the
plan.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Foreword
Page
10
The
implementation
of
the
habitat
element
of
this
plan
will
involve
a
continuing
and
evolving
process.
The
habitat
element
assesses
habitat
factors
for
decline
and
recommends
strategies
and
actions
to
sustain
and
rebuild
summer
chum
salmon
in
this
region.
However,
the
authorities
to
implement
these
measures
is
dispersed
through
a
variety
of
federal,
state
and
local
jurisdictions.
The
parties
to
this
plan
will
continue
to
work
with
the
appropriate
jurisdictions
on
developing
the
implementation
plans
for
habitat
protection
and
restoration.
This
will
include
working
with
the
lead
entities,
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council
and
local
governments,
the
Governor's
Salmon
Recovery
Office,
the
Salmon
Recovery
Funding
Board,
U.
S.
Forest
Service,
etc.
Implementation
plans
developed
by
these
agencies
and
processes
are
expected
to
be
consistent
and
integral
to
this
plan
and
are
vital
to
its
success.

The
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
provides
specific
actions
to
be
taken
to
lead
to
the
recovery
of
the
region's
summer
chum
salmon.
It
is
anticipated
that
management
of
all
elements
of
the
plan
will
periodically
be
evaluated
and
reshaped
if
necessary
to
achieve
plan
objectives.
To
facilitate
this
adaptive
management
approach,
annual
reports
will
be
prepared
to
gage
progress
and
assess
the
effectiveness
of
actions
taken.
In
addition,
five
year
plan
reviews
will
be
conducted
to
measure
overall
progress
toward
recovery
and
evaluate
and/
or
revise
the
strategies
and
actions
provided
in
this
plan.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
Page
11
Part
One
Life
History
and
Stock
Assessment
1.1
Introduction
This
chapter
provides
a
summary
of
summer
chum
salmon
life
history,
an
overview
of
summer
chum
current
status,
a
review
and
recalculation
of
escapement
and
run
size
data,
and
formal
evaluations
of
current
status
and
risk
for
summer
chum
stocks.
Because
having
the
best
possible
summer
chum
salmon
data
is
critical
for
all
elements
of
this
recovery
plan,
the
existing
escapement,
run
size,
and
age
data
for
summer
chum
salmon
are
reviewed
below,
and
newly
up­
dated
escapement
and
run
size
data
bases
are
provided.
The
status
review
provides
new
assessments
of
summer
chum
stocks
and
their
current
status
at
the
time
of
publication.
This
stock
information
will
be
used
in
the
initiative
to
identify
the
population
units
that
will
form
the
basis
of
recovery
planning.
Two
separate
approaches
are
included
for
assessing
risk,
and
these
evaluations
will
be
used
throughout
the
process
to
help
prioritize
recovery
actions.

1.2
Background
The
following
is
a
brief
overview
of
the
current
status
of
summer
chum
salmon.
More
detailed
discussions
of
summer
chum
status
are
provided
in
the
following
sections
of
this
chapter.

Summer
chum
of
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
are
defined
as
those
fish
that
have
an
average
peak
of
spawning
before
November
1.
These
fish
have
declined
in
the
recent
past
to
critically
low
total
adult
return
and
escapement
levels.
Although
the
area
and
timing
of
spawning
ground
surveys
has
varied,
particularly
in
the
early
survey
years,
it
is
evident
that
spawner
returns
to
production
streams
have
fallen
from
combined
escapements
of
up
to
tens
of
thousands
to
less
than
a
thousand,
with
a
low
of
770
spawners
in
1990.
Over
the
last
few
years,
however,
there
has
been
an
increasing
trend
in
overall
escapement.

The
1992
Washington
State
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
WDF
et
al.
1993)
describes
the
majority
of
the
populations
of
summer
chum
in
the
Hood
Canal/
SJF
region
as
being
of
critical
status;
that
is,
"
experiencing
production
levels
that
are
so
low
that
permanent
damage
to
the
stock
is
likely
or
has
already
occurred".
Chronically
low
escapements
are
the
reason
for
the
critical
status
ranking.
Two
populations
are
not
described
as
critical;
the
Union
River
population,
which
is
rated
healthy,
and
the
Jimmycomelately
Creek
population
which
is
described
as
depressed.
The
Dungeness
River
is
not
included
in
the
1993
inventory
as
currently
supporting
a
summer
chum
population,
however,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
Page
12
Summer
Chum
Salmon
The
earliest
returning
chum
salmon
(
Onchorynchus
keta)
stocks
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region.
Summer
chum
salmon
return
from
the
ocean
from
mid­
August
through
October,
and
spawn
predominately
in
September
and
October.
These
stocks
have
been
shown
to
be
genetically
distinct
from
fall
and
winter
timed
chum
salmon.
a
subsequent
analysis
of
spawning
ground
counts
indicates
that
summer
chum
may
be
present
in
the
river.

The
generally
critical
status
of
the
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
is
heightened
by
the
recent
loss
of
populations
in
a
number
of
production
streams
historically
utilized
for
spawning.
Of
at
least
fifteen
streams
that
have
historically
produced
annual
returns
of
summer
chum,
seven
are
now
considered
to
no
longer
support
summer
chum
salmon.

The
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
listed
summer
chum
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)
as
a
threatened
species
in
March
of
1999.

1.3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
While
much
of
the
following
life
history
summary
is
based
on
specific
information
about
summer
chum
salmon,
some
of
the
descriptive
material
is
derived
from
observations
made
on
fall
chum
salmon.

1.3.1
Description
and
Distribution
1.3.1.1
Description
Adult
chum
salmon
and
sockeye
salmon
are
distinguished
from
other
Pacific
salmon
by
a
lack
of
distinct
black
spots
on
the
back
and
caudal
fin.
The
19
or
20
short,
stout
gill
rakers
on
the
first
arch
of
the
chum
salmon
distinguish
it
from
sockeye,
which
have
28
to
40
long,
slender
gillrakers
(
Wydoski
and
Whitney
1979).
Juvenile
chum
salmon
are
distinguished
by
parr
marks
of
relatively
regular
height
that
are
smaller
than
the
vertical
diameter
of
the
eye,
and
that
are
faint
or
absent
below
the
lateral
line
(
McConnell
and
Snyder,
undated).
When
in
spawning
condition,
adult
chum
salmon
have
greenish
to
dusky
mottling
on
the
sides,
with
males
exhibiting
distinctive
reddishpurple
vertical
barring.
Adult
chum
in
Puget
Sound
range
in
size
from
17
to
38
inches,
with
an
average
weight
of
9
to
11
pounds.

One
distinguishing
characteristic
of
this
group
of
summer
chum
populations
is
an
early
nearshore
marine
area,
adult
run
timing
(
early
August
into
October).
This
early
timing
creates
a
temporal
separation
from
the
more
abundant
indigenous
fall
chum
stocks
which
spawn
in
the
same
area,
allowing
for
reproductive
isolation
between
summer
and
fall
chum
stocks
in
the
region
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
The
distance
between
summer
chum
spawning
tributaries
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
Page
13
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
and
the
rest
of
the
Puget
Sound
streams,
creates
a
geographical
separation
among
the
stocks.

Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations
are
one
of
three
genetically
distinct
lineages
of
chum
salmon
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
region
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
WDFW
has
concluded
that
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
comprise
a
distinct
major
ancestral
lineage,
defined
as
stocks
whose
shared
genetic
characteristics
suggest
a
distant
common
ancestry,
and
substantial
reproductive
isolation
from
other
chum
lineages
(
Phelps
et
al.
1995,
WDFW
1995).
NMFS
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997)
has
designated
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
as
an
evolutionarily
significant
unit,
based
upon
distinctive
life
history
and
genetic
traits.
Genetic
differences
between
summer
chum
and
all
other
chum
stocks
in
the
U.
S.
and
British
Columbia
are
a
result
of
long­
standing
reproductive
isolation
of
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations
(
Tynan
1992).
This
isolation
has
been
afforded
by
a
significantly
different
migration
and
escapement
timing,
and
geographic
separation
from
other
chum
stocks
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
(
Tynan
1992,
Johnson
et
al.
1997).

1.3.1.2
Distribution
A
total
of
11
streams
in
Hood
Canal
have
been
identified
as
recently
having
indigenous
summer
chum
populations
:
Big
Quilcene
River,
Little
Quilcene
River,
Dosewallips
River,
Duckabush
River,
Hamma
Hamma
River,
Lilliwaup
River,
Union
River,
Tahuya
River,
Dewatto
River,
Anderson
Creek,
and
Big
Beef
Creek
(
Tynan
1992).
Summer
chum
are
occasionally
observed
in
other
Hood
Canal
drainages,
including
the
Skokomish
River
which
was
once
a
major
summer
chum
stream.
SASSI
(
WDF
et
al.
1993)
lists
two,
distinct
summer
chum
populations
in
Hood
Canal
­
the
Union
River
population
and
a
group
including
all
other
Hood
Canal
summer
production
streams,
but
this
assessment
has
been
modified
for
this
recovery
plan
(
see
1.7.2
Stock
Definition
and
Status
below).

Summer
chum
salmon
populations
in
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
occur
in
Snow
and
Salmon
creeks
in
Discovery
Bay
and
Jimmycomelately
Creek
in
Sequim
Bay
and
have
been
reported
in
Chimacum
Creek,
located
near
Port
Hadlock
in
Admiralty
Inlet
(
WDF
et
al.
1993,
Sele
1995).
Recent
stock
assessment
data
indicate
that
summer
chum
also
return
to
the
Dungeness
River,
but
the
magnitude
of
returns
is
unknown
(
Sele
1995).

Summer
chum
in
the
region
use
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
estuarine
and
marine
areas
for
rearing
and
seaward
migration
as
juveniles.
The
fish
spend
two
to
four
years
in
northeast
Pacific
Ocean
feeding
areas
prior
to
migrating
southward
during
the
summer
months
as
maturing
adults
along
the
coasts
of
Alaska
and
British
Columbia
in
returning
to
their
natal
streams.
Adults
may
delay
migration
in
extreme
terminal
marine
areas
for
up
to
several
weeks
before
entering
the
streams
to
spawn.
Spawning
occurs
in
the
lower
reaches
of
each
summer
chum
stream.

1.3.2
Life
History
Strategy
Summer
chum
have
evolved
to
exploit
freshwater
and
estuarine
habitats
during
periods,
and
for
durations,
when
interaction
with
other
Pacific
salmon
species
and
races
is
minimized.
The
uniqueness
of
summer
chum
is
best
characterized
by
their
late
summer
entry
into
freshwater
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
Page
14
spawning
areas,
and
their
late
winter/
early
spring
arrival
in
the
estuaries
as
seaward­
migrating
juveniles.

Summer
chum
spawning
occurs
from
late
August
through
late
October,
generally
within
the
lowest
one
to
two
miles
of
the
tributaries.
Depending
upon
temperature
regimes
in
spawning
streams,
eggs
reach
the
eyed
stage
after
approximately
4­
6
weeks
of
incubation
in
the
redds,
and
hatching
occurs
approximately
8
weeks
after
spawning
(
L.
Telles,
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery,
Quilcene,
WA,
pers.
comm.,
1996).
Alevins
develop
in
the
redds
for
additional
10­
12
weeks
before
emerging
as
fry
between
February
and
the
last
week
of
May.
Estimated
peak
emergence
timings
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations
are
March
22
and
April
4
respectively.
By
contrast,
indigenous
fall
chum
stocks
spawn
in
Hood
Canal
streams
predominately
in
November
and
December,
and
the
resulting
fry
emerge
from
the
spawning
gravels
approximately
one
month
later
than
summer
chum
salmon,
between
late
April
and
mid­
May
(
Koski
1975,
Tynan
1997).
Chum
fry
recovered
in
Hood
Canal
marine
areas
during
the
summer
chum
emergence
period
range
in
size
from
35­
44
mm.

1.3.3
Freshwater
Juvenile
Life
History
1.3.3.1
Incubation
Developing
chum
salmon
incubate
as
eggs
or
sac
fry
in
the
gravel
for
five
or
six
months
after
fertilization,
a
time
period
determined
mainly
by
ambient
temperature
regimes
characteristic
of
Pacific
Northwest
streams
(
Bakkala
1970,
Koski
1975,
Schreiner
1977,
Salo
1991).
Stream
flow,
dissolved
oxygen
levels,
gravel
composition,
spawning
time,
spawning
density
and
genetic
characteristics
also
affect
the
rate
of
egg/
alevin
development,
and
hence
gravel
residence
time
(
Bakkala
1970,
Koski
1975,
Schroder
1981,
Salo
1991).
The
earliest
eggs
deposited
enter
the
tender
stage
starting
the
first
week
in
September,
with
the
majority
of
incubating
eggs
reaching
the
eyed
stage
by
November
3.
Bakkala
(
1970)
reports
total
gravel
residence
times
for
chum
ranging
from
78
to
183
days
across
the
range
of
chum
salmon
distribution,
dependent
on
stream
temperature.
Koski
(
1975)
has
documented
an
average
gravel
residence
time
from
spawning
to
50%
(
peak)
population
emergence
for
Big
Beef
Creek
summer
chum
of
166
days,
with
95
%
emergence
after
177
days.
Telles
(
1996)
reports
100
%
emergence
(
swim­
up)
of
1994
brood
Big
Quilcene
River
summer
chum
111
days
after
fertilization
at
QNFH.

1.3.3.2
Emergence
and
Downstream
Migration
Summer
chum
fry
emergence
timing
in
Hood
Canal
can
range
from
the
first
week
in
February
("
warm"
years
and/
or
earlier
spawn
date
years)
through
the
second
week
in
April
(
colder
and/
or
later
spawn
date
years).
The
10
%,
50
%
and
90
%
average
emergence
dates
across
years
reported
for
Big
Beef
Creek
summer
chum
are
March
13,
March
18,
and
March
27,
respectively
(
Tynan
1997).
The
10
%
to
90
%
emergence
range
observed
across
years
is
February
7
through
April
14.
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
generally
emerge
later
than
Hood
Canal
summers
due
to
colder
stream
incubation
temperatures.
Estimated,
average
10%,
50%,
and
90%
emergence
dates
for
Strait
of
Juan
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
Page
15
de
Fuca
summer
chum
are
March
6,
April
4,
and
April
26,
respectively.
The
10%
to
90%
emergence
range
estimated
across
years
for
Strait
chum
is
February
15
through
May
26
(
Tynan
1997).

Fry
emerge
with
darkness,
and
immediately
commence
migration
downstream
to
estuarine
areas
(
Bakkala
1970,
Koski
1975,
Schreiner
1977,
Koski
1981,
Salo
1991),
with
total
brood
year
migration
from
freshwater
ending
within
30
days
for
smaller
streams
and
rivers
(
Salo
1991).
Emerging
chum
fry
have
been
shown
to
become
very
active
with
darkness
(
Hoar
1951),
preferring
the
swiftest
areas
of
downstream
flow
and
exhibiting
strong
negative
rheotaxis,
often
swimming
more
rapidly
than
the
current
(
Hoar
1951,
Neave
1955).

1.3.4
Estuarine
and
Marine
Life
History
1.3.4.1
Estuarine
Behavior
Upon
arrival
in
the
estuary,
chum
salmon
fry
inhabit
nearshore
areas
(
Schreiner
1977,
Bax
1982,
Bax
1983,
Whitmus
1985).
Chum
fry
have
a
preferred
depth
of
between
1.5­
5.0
meters
at
this
time
(
Allen
1974)
and
are
thought
to
be
concentrated
in
the
top
few
meters
of
the
water
column
both
day
and
night
(
Bax
1983b).
In
Puget
Sound,
chum
fry
have
been
observed
through
annual
estuarine
area
fry
surveys
to
reside
for
their
first
few
weeks
in
the
top
2­
3
centimeters
of
surface
waters
and
extremely
close
to
the
shoreline
(
Ron
Egan,
WDFW,
Olympia,
WA,
pers.
comm.).
Iwata
(
1982)
reports
that,
in
Japan,
chum
are
located
in
stratified
surface
waters
(
20­
100
cm
depth)
upon
arrival
in
the
estuary,
showing
a
very
strong
preference
for
lower
salinity
water
(
10
to
14
ppt)
found
above
the
freshwater/
saltwater
interface,
perhaps
as
a
seawater
acclimation
mechanism.
This
nearshore
and
surface
behavior
could
also
be
linked
to
survival,
as
small
size
exposes
youngest
fry
to
heavy
predation.
Onshore
location
may
protect
the
fry
from
larger
fish
(
Gerke
and
Kaczynski
1972,
Schreiner
1977)
and
schooling
behavior
may
be
an
adaptation
to
predator
avoidance
(
Feller
1974).

Chum
fry
arriving
in
the
Hood
Canal
estuary
are
initially
widely
dispersed
(
Bax
1982),
but
form
loose
aggregations
oriented
to
the
shoreline
within
a
few
days
(
Schreiner
1977,
Bax
1983,
Whitmus,
1985).
These
aggregations
occur
in
daylight
hours
only,
and
tend
to
break
up
after
dark
(
Feller
1974),
regrouping
nearshore
at
dawn
the
following
morning
(
Schreiner
1977,
Bax
1983).
Bax
et
al.
(
1978)
report
that
chum
fry
at
this
initial
stage
of
out­
migration
use
areas
predominately
close
to
shore.
"
Early
run"
chum
fry
in
Hood
Canal
(
defined
as
chum
juveniles
migrating
during
February
and
March)
usually
occupy
sublittoral
seagrass
beds
with
residence
time
of
about
one
week
(
Wissmar
and
Simenstad
1980).
Schreiner
(
1977)
reports
that
Hood
Canal
chum
maintain
a
nearshore
distribution
until
they
reach
a
size
of
45­
50
mm,
at
which
time
they
move
to
deeper
offshore
areas.

1.3.4.2
Food
Chum
fry
captured
in
nearshore
environments
during
out­
migration
in
upper
Hood
Canal
are
found
to
prey
predominantly
on
epibenthic
organisms,
mainly
harpacticoid
copepods
and
gammarid
amphipods
(
Bax
et
al.
1978,
Simenstad
et
al.
1980).
Diet
changes
to
predominantly
pelagic
organisms
in
early
May
for
fry
migrating
in
off­
shore
areas.
Dabob
Bay
chum
fry
are
reported
to
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
Page
16
feed
continuously
(
day
and
night)
in
using
nearshore
areas
as
a
source
of
food
(
Feller
1974).
Feller
(
1974)
and
Gerke
and
Kaczynski
(
1972)
have
documented
initial
preference
(
and
predominance
in
the
diet)
of
epibenthic
prey
by
chum
fry
in
Dabob
Bay,
followed
by
a
gradual
switch
to
pelagic
prey
as
time
progressed.
Several
researchers
have
documented
a
reliance
on
drift
insects
by
migrating
chum
fry
in
British
Columbia
(
Mason
1974)
and
in
Dabob
Bay,
Hood
Canal
(
Gerke
and
Kaczynski
1972).
Hatchery­
released
chum
fry
in
southern
Hood
Canal
are
found
initially
to
prey
almost
exclusively
on
terrestrial
insects,
likely
made
available
as
drift
from
the
Skokomish
River
(
Whitmus
1985).
Faster­
migrating
fry
that
have
moved
further
north
of
the
Skokomish
delta
are
found
to
feed
entirely
on
neritic
and
epibenthic
organisms.
Simenstad
et
al.
(
1980)
show
a
gradual
decrease
in
the
epibenthic
fraction
of
stomach
contents
as
the
chum
increase
in
size.
Migration
off­
shore
could
result
from
opportunistic
movement
of
fry
to
take
advantage
of
larger,
more
prevalent
prey
organisms
in
the
neritic
environment
(
Bax
1983).

1.3.4.3
Juvenile
Seaward
Migration
Upon
reaching
a
threshold
size
(~
50
mm),
summer
chum
entering
the
estuary
are
thought
to
immediately
commence
migration
seaward,
migrating
at
a
rate
of
7
­
14
km/
day
(
Tynan
1997).
Rapid
seaward
movement
may
reflect
either
"
active"
migration
in
response
to
low
food
availability
or
predator
avoidance,
or
"
passive"
migration,
brought
on
by
strong,
prevailing
south/
southwest
weather
systems
that
accelerate
surface
flows
and
move
migrating
fry
northward
(
Bax
et
al.
1978,
Simenstad
et
al.
1980,
Bax
1982,
Bax
1983).
Assuming
a
migration
speed
of
7
km/
day,
the
southernmost
out­
migrating
fry
population
in
Hood
Canal
would
exit
the
Canal
14
days
after
entering
seawater,
with
90
%
of
the
annual
population
exiting
by
April
28
each
year,
on
average.
Applying
the
same
migration
speed,
summer
chum
fry
originating
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
would
exit
the
Discovery
Bay
region
13
days
after
entering
seawater,
or
by
June
8
each
year
(
90
%
completion).

1.3.4.4
Ocean
Migration
After
two
to
four
years
of
rearing
in
the
northeast
Pacific
Ocean,
maturing
Puget
Sound­
origin
chum
salmon
follow
a
southerly
migration
path
parallel
to
the
coastlines
of
southeast
Alaska
and
British
Columbia
(
Neave
et
al.
1976,
Salo
1991,
Myers
1993).
The
precise
timing
of
this
migration
from
Gulf
of
Alaska
waters
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
is
unknown.
Genetic
stock
identification
data
collected
from
Canadian
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
commercial
net
fisheries
(
LeClair
1995,
1996),
Canadian
fishery
recoveries
in
1995
of
coded
wire
tagged
Big
Quilcene
summers
(
PSMFC
data,
August
14,
1996)
and
a
single
recovery
in
Big
Beef
Creek
of
a
summer
chum
tagged
in
a
southeast
Alaska
ocean
fishery
study
(
Koski
1975),
suggest
that
the
southerly
ocean
migration
down
the
Pacific
Northwest
coast
and
into
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
likely
commences
in
mid­
July,
and
continues
through
at
least
early
September.
Migrational
timing
of
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
into
Washington
marine
waters
appears
earlier
than
arrival
timing
observed
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum.
The
stocks
in
this
region
enter
the
terminal
area
(
the
Strait)
from
the
first
week
of
July
through
September
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994).
GSI
data
collected
from
Canadian
net
fisheries
at
the
entrance
to
the
Strait
suggests
that
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
are
present
through
August
and
into
early
September
(
LeClair
1995,
1996).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.3
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Life
History
Page
17
1.3.4.5
Adult
Nearshore
Migration
Summer
chum
mature
primarily
at
3
and
4
years
of
age
with
low
numbers
returning
at
age
5
(
there
are
rare
observations
of
age
2­
and
6­
year
fish).
They
enter
the
Hood
Canal
terminal
area
from
early
August
through
the
end
of
September
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994).
Entry
pattern
data
for
Quilcene
Bay
provided
by
Lampsakis
(
1994)
suggest
that
summer
chum
enter
extreme
terminal
marine
areas
adjacent
to
natal
streams
from
the
third
week
in
August,
through
the
first
week
in
October,
with
a
central
80%
run
timing
of
August
30
through
September
28,
and
a
peak
on
September
16.

Comparison
of
extreme
terminal
area
entry
timing
in
Quilcene
Bay
with
spawning
ground
timing
estimates
developed
from
Big
Quilcene
River
data,
suggests
that
summer
chum
may
mill
in
front
of
their
stream
of
origin
for
up
to
ten
to
twelve
days
before
entering
freshwater
(
with
shorter
milling
times
later
in
the
run).
Thus,
it
is
assumed
that
summer
chum
observed
on
spawning
grounds
entered
the
river
five
days
earlier,
based
on
a
ten
day
average
survey
life
(
Appendix
Report
1.2).
This
behavior
is
likely
related
to
the
amount
of
time
required
for
the
chum
to
complete
maturation
and
to
acclimate
to
freshwater,
but
is
also
affected
by
available
stream
flows.

1.3.5
Adult
Freshwater
Migration
and
Spawning
1.3.5.1
River
Entry
Spawning
ground
entry
timing
in
Hood
Canal
ranges
from
late
August
through
mid­
October.
Lampsakis
(
1994)
reports
a
central
80
%
spawning
ground
timing
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
of
September
11
through
October
14,
with
a
peak
on
or
about
September
28,
based
on
22
years
of
spawning
ground
survey
data.
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
begin
spawning
during
the
first
week
of
September,
reaching
completion
in
mid­
October
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994).
Time
density
analysis
of
Snow,
Salmon
and
Jimmycomelately
creeks'
spawner
survey
data
for
the
lower
portions
of
the
drainages
indicates
a
central
80
%
spawning
ground
timing
of
September
16
through
October
20,
with
an
average
peak
on
October
2
(
Lampsakis
1994).
For
more
detailed
discussion
of
timing
see
Appendix
Report
1.2.

1.3.5.2
Spawning
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
typically
spawn
soon
after
entering
freshwater
in
the
lowest
reaches
of
natal
streams
(
Koski
1975,
Schroder
1977,
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
This
characteristic
may
reflect
an
adaptation
to
low
flows
present
during
their
late
summer/
early
fall
spawning
ground
migration
timing,
which
confine
spawning
to
areas
with
sufficient
water
volume.
Spawning
in
lower
river
reaches
during
low
flows,
however,
confines
incubating
eggs
to
center
channel
areas,
exposing
the
eggs
to
increased
risk
of
egg
pocket
scouring
during
freshets.
Koski
(
1975)
notes
that
Big
Beef
Creek
summer
chum
spawning
takes
place
predominantly
in
the
lower
0.8
km
of
stream.
Cederholm
(
1972)
reports
that
100
%
of
the
summer
chum
run
to
Big
Beef
Creek
in
1966
and
1967
spawned
in
the
lower
0.6
km
of
the
creek.
WDFW
documentation
of
summer
chum
spawning
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
indicates
that
90%
of
spawning
occurs
in
the
lower
mile
of
the
2.2
miles
of
river
accessible
to
salmonids.
Summer
chum
spawn
in
the
lower
mile
of
Salmon
Creek
and
in
the
lower
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
Page
18
Escapement
The
number
of
adult
fish
returning
to
a
stream
that
escape
mortality
from
harvest
and
natural
attrition,
and
comprise
a
spawning
population.
one­
half
mile
of
Snow
and
Jimmycomelately
creeks
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994).
As
with
Hood
Canal
summer
chum,
low
summer­
time
flows
likely
have
acted
to
confine
summer
chum
spawning
in
this
region
to
the
lowest
reaches
of
each
production
stream.

1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
1.4.1
Introduction
The
overall
quality
of
the
data
available
to
evaluate
the
possible
factors
responsible
for
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
will
impose
limitations
on
the
ability
to
understand
the
exact
nature
of
the
problem.
Ideally,
survival
data
for
individual
broods
and
individual
spawning
populations
would
be
used
to
measure
the
impacts
of
potential
factors
limiting
production.
In
the
case
of
these
summer
chum
stocks,
however,
some
of
the
data
needed
to
calculate
survival
rates
is
either
missing
or
is
only
sporadically
available.

1.4.2
Escapement
Data
An
important
source
of
information
for
the
management
of
summer
chum
salmon
(
or
any
other
salmon
species)
is
the
numbers
of
mature
fish
escaping
all
sources
of
prior
mortality
to
successfully
spawn
in
their
natal
streams.
The
numbers
of
spawning
fish
provide:
1)
a
measure
of
the
status
of
populations,
2)
a
way
to
determine
the
impacts
of
fisheries
and
other
mortality
agents,
and
3)
a
primary
element
used
in
predicting
future
run
sizes.
The
quality
of
summer
chum
salmon
escapement
estimates
has
varied
over
the
years,
primarily
because
of
changes
in
the
amount
of
effort
expended
to
count
spawners.

1.4.2.1
Historical
Estimates
Spawning
ground
counts
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
were
conducted
at
least
since
1943,
when
0.8
stream
miles
were
surveyed
during
the
time
of
year
when
summer
chum
spawn.
Since
then,
survey
effort
increased
in
several
stages,
driven
by
the
increasing
need
for
better
management
information.
Only
a
handful
of
counts
were
made
up
to
1952,
when
a
system
of
standardized
index
areas
was
implemented
by
WDF
to
monitor
the
escapement
of
all
species
of
salmon
in
Puget
Sound
streams.
Summer
chum
salmon
spawner
survey
effort
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
averaged
a
modest
seven
miles
per
year
between
1952
and
1963.
An
increased
emphasis
was
placed
on
monitoring
both
pink
and
chum
salmon
in
the
mid­
1960s,
with
the
result
that
summer
chum
surveys
in
the
region
doubled
for
the
1964­
1973
period,
to
an
average
of
14
miles
surveyed
per
year.
During
these
early
years
of
counts
in
index
streams
(
1952­
1973),
escapements
were
evaluated
by
comparing
the
relative
annual
changes
in
peak
live
and
dead
spawner
abundance
(
WDF
et
al.
1974).
This
approach
to
monitoring
escapements
did
not
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
Page
19
require
an
intensive
survey
schedule;
usually
the
peak
abundance
was
counted
with
between
one
and
three
surveys
of
each
stream.
One
negative
result
of
this
survey
methodology
was
that
not
all
summer
chum
spawning
streams
were
surveyed
every
year.

The
1974
Boldt
Decision
imposed
the
need
for
more
accurate
escapement
numbers.
There
was
an
immediate
increase
in
count
frequency,
and
survey
effort
was
expanded
to
include
all
summer
chum
salmon
streams.
Between
1974
and
1980,
survey
effort
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
averaged
65
miles
per
year.
Technical
staff
of
USFWS
and
treaty
tribes
began
to
make
counts,
which
also
added
to
the
total
miles
surveyed.
In
1978,
the
methodology
for
estimating
south
Puget
Sound,
Hood
Canal,
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
chum
salmon
escapements
was
changed
to
a
spawner
curve
approach,
which
required
that
serial
surveys
be
conducted
on
each
stream
at
seven
to
ten
day
intervals
throughout
the
spawning
season
(
Ames
1984).
Survey
effort
scaled
up
in
1981
to
support
this
new
escapement
approach,
and
between
1981
and
1997
survey
effort
averaged
107
miles
per
year
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon.

Concurrent
with
the
1978
change
in
the
Puget
Sound
chum
salmon
escapement
methodology,
it
was
decided
to
recalculate
chum
escapements
back
to
the
1968
return
year
using
the
spawner
curve
method.
This
decision
was
made
based
on
a
substantial
increase
in
total
Puget
Sound
chum
salmon
spawner
survey
effort
in
1968.
That
year,
over
3,800
fall
chum
salmon
were
tagged
in
the
waters
of
Admiralty
Inlet
between
October
7
and
November
25
(
Fiscus
1968).
Because
of
tag
recovery
efforts
in
south
Puget
Sound
and
Hood
Canal
streams,
the
total
Puget
Sound
chum
salmon
survey
effort
jumped
from
a
pre­
1968
average
of
about
90
miles
per
year
to
437
miles
in
1968
(
Egan
1978).
After
1968,
survey
effort
stayed
at
a
higher
level,
averaging
219
miles
per
year
between
1969
and
1973,
and
then
increased
to
over
1,000
miles
per
year
after
the
1974
Boldt
Decision.

The
decision
to
extend
the
total
Puget
Sound
chum
escapement
data
base
back
to
1968
is
based
on
the
improved
survey
data
for
fall
chum
stocks
for
the
years
following
the
tagging
study.
However,
as
discussed
earlier,
the
increase
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
index
mileage
did
not
occur
until
1974.
For
the
six
year
period
of
1968
to
1973,
summer
chum
escapement
estimates
are
often
based
on
limited
data
and
resultant
estimates
are
subject
to
question.
This
topic
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Appendix
Report
1.1.

1.4.2.2
Current
Estimates
Since
the
summer
chum
salmon
escapement
estimates
are
an
integral
element
of
the
recovery
process,
all
spawner
counts
have
been
reexamined
by
the
co­
managers
as
a
part
of
the
development
of
this
plan
and
updated
estimates
of
escapements
have
been
generated.
The
primary
objectives
for
reevaluating
the
escapement
numbers
are;
1)
to
be
sure
that
all
available
count
data
were
included
in
the
analysis,
and
2)
to
ensure
that
the
escapement
estimates
were
made
in
a
consistent
manner
for
all
years
and
all
streams.

Spawning
escapement
estimates
are
annually
derived
by
WDFW
for
all
of
the
currently
recognized,
non­
extirpated
summer
chum
populations
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
Table
1.1).
WDFW
has
attempted
to
derive
quantitative
point
estimates
of
escapement
for
most
Washington
chum
populations
since
approximately
1968.
However,
both
the
field
data
collection
and
data
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
Page
20
"...
all
summer
chum
escapement
estimates
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
summer
chum
from
1968
to
1996
have
been
recalculated,
to
produce
a
historical
summary
of
escapements
with
generally
higher
precision
and
accuracy."
analysis
methods
have
an
"
adaptive
learning"
characteristic
to
them
that
has
resulted
in
the
expectation
that
the
newer
escapement
estimates
are
generally
considered
to
be
of
higher
precision
and
accuracy
than
many
of
the
older
ones,
due
to
1)
improvements
in
the
understanding
of
the
location,
number
and
timing
of
field
surveys
required,
and
2)
increased
knowledge
of
the
fish
entry
pattern
characteristics
allowing
more
appropriate
and
consistent
data
analysis
to
account
for
the
inevitable
gaps
and
defects
in
the
field
survey
observations
due
to
environmental
and/
or
personnel
problems.
Because
of
this,
all
summer
chum
escapement
estimates
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
summer
chum
from
1968
to
1996
have
been
recalculated,
to
produce
a
historical
summary
of
escapements
with
generally
higher
precision
and
accuracy.

Escapement
estimates
for
most
Puget
Sound
chum
populations
are
based
upon
the
collection
and
analysis
of
multiple
live
and
dead
fish
counts
made
in
each
stream
throughout
the
spawning
season.
Table
1.1
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
1
directed
chum
survey
effort
is
continued
into
the
fall
chum
run
period.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
Page
21
An
estimate
of
the
total
abundance
of
chums
in
each
stream
from
this
data
is
made
by
use
of
an
"
area­
under­
the­
curve"
(
AUC)
methodology
(
Ames
1984).
The
AUC
escapement
methodology
is
based
upon
the
principle
that
each
species
of
salmon
has
an
average
stream
residence
life
that
can
be
used
to
convert
a
series
of
instantaneous
estimates
of
live
fish,
collected
through
the
spawning
season,
into
an
estimate
of
total
spawning
escapement
for
the
surveyed
stream.
Other
methods,
such
as
rack
and
redd
counts
are
also
used
where
available
and/
or
appropriate.
Table
1.2
presents
updated
total
escapement
estimates,
and
Appendix
Report
1.1
and
Haymes
(
2000)
contain
detailed
discussions
of
the
procedures
used
in
reassessing
summer
chum
escapements.

Table
1.2.
Total
escapements
for
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
stocks
(
1974­
1998).

Return
Hood
Canal
St.
Juan
de
Fuca
HC/
SJF
year
escapement
escapement
combined
1974
12,281
1,768
14,049
1975
18,248
1,430
19,678
1976
27,715
1,494
29,209
1977
10,711
1,644
12,355
1978
19,710
3,080
22,789
1979
6,554
761
7,315
1980
3,777
5,109
8,886
1981
2,374
884
3,258
1982
2,623
2,751
5,374
1983
863
1,139
2,002
1984
1,414
1,579
2,993
1985
1,109
232
1,341
1986
2,552
1,087
3,639
1987
757
1,991
2,748
1988
2,967
3,690
6,657
1989
598
388
986
1990
429
341
770
1991
745
309
1,054
1992
2,368
1,070
3,438
1993
751
573
1,324
1994
2,423
178
2,601
1995
9,462
839
10,301
1996
20,514
1,084
21,598
1997
8,971
962
9,933
1998
4,020
1,270
5,290
1.4.2.3
Escapement
Timing
Table
1.3
presents
estimates
of
the
average
time
periods
when
10%,
50%,
and
90%
of
the
escapement
for
each
summer
chum
salmon
stock
are
achieved.
These
average
values
are
derived
from
selected
spawning
ground
survey
data
for
the
1974
to
1998
period.
Two
different
methodologies
have
been
used
to
estimate
spawner
timing
(
both
are
presented
in
Table
1.3),
and
show
similar
results.
There
can
be
significant
annual
variations
from
the
average
timing
of
spawning
for
individual
populations,
where
spawning
timing
can
be
substantially
earlier
or
later
than
average.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
Page
22
Such
annual
differences
in
spawning
timing
may
be
influenced
by
environmental
factors
(
e.
g.,
water
temperature,
flow
regime),
and/
or
harvest
impacts.
A
more
detailed
description
of
the
data
used,
derivation
methods,
and
results
of
the
analysis
is
presented
in
Appendix
Report
1.2.

Table
1.3.
Summary
of
summer
chum
salmon
average
escapement
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/
17
9/
26
10/
9
15
9/
14
9/
24
10/
10
Discovery
Bay
Snow/
Salmon
20
9/
19
9/
29
10/
13
20
9/
18
9/
29
10/
16
Mainstem
Dosewallips
16
9/
13
9/
25
10/
9
13
9/
12
9/
23
10/
9
Hood
Canal
Duckabush
24
9/
19
9/
28
10/
11
16
9/
17
9/
29
10/
11
Hamma
Hamma
23
9/
17
9/
27
10/
8
21
9/
14
9/
27
10/
10
Lilliwaup
18
9/
15
9/
28
10/
10
13
9/
17
9/
28
10/
10
Quilcene
Bay
Big/
Little
Quilcene
16
9/
12
9/
22
10/
1
17
9/
10
9/
22
10/
5
SE
Hood
Canal
Union
18
9/
6
9/
16
9/
29
16
9/
3
9/
15
9/
30
1.4.3
Harvest
Data
The
changing
nature
of
the
harvest
of
summer
chum
salmon
during
the
last
three
decades
created
consistency
problems
with
catch
data.
Prior
to
the
1974
Boldt
Decision,
Hood
Canal,
Sequim
Bay,
and
the
southern
half
of
Discovery
Bay
were
designated
as
salmon
preserves,
in
which
no
commercial
fishing
was
allowed
(
WDF
et
al.
1974).
The
Puget
Sound
salmon
preserve
system
was
established
between
1921
and
1934.
The
harvest
of
summer
chum
outside
of
these
salmon
preserves
was
affected
by
the
passage
of
Initiative
77
in
1934,
which
closed
portions
of
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
and
all
of
inner
Puget
Sound
to
fishing
with
purse
seines
prior
to
October
5th,
and
traps,
set
nets,
and
fish
wheels
throughout
the
year.
The
purse
seine
prohibition
was
amended
in
1949
by
the
State
Legislature
to
allow
fishing
on
odd­
numbered
years
for
pink
salmon
from
August
1
through
September
1
in
the
eastern
Strait
and
northern
portion
of
Admiralty
Inlet.
Gill
net
fisheries
during
this
period
operated
throughout
Puget
Sound
waters,
outside
of
the
salmon
preserves
(
WDF
et
al.
1974).

The
purse
seine
regulations
prior
to
1974
provided
some
protection
to
summer
chum
salmon
on
nonpink
years;
with
October
5th
openings
most
summer
chum
presumably
passed
into
terminal
area
salmon
preserves.
On
the
odd­
numbered
pink
salmon
years,
all
Puget
Sound
summer
chum
stocks
likely
were
subjected
to
harvest
by
purse
seines
during
the
months
of
August
and
September.
Gillnet
fisheries
did
not
have
variable
seasons
and
areas,
and
likely
had
a
more
uniform
harvest
impact
on
summer
chum
salmon
stocks.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
Page
23
Run
Re­
construction
A
post
season
accounting
of
all
salmon
harvest
and
escapement
for
each
individual
stock
or
management
unit.
The
1974
Boldt
Decision
resulted
in
a
number
of
changes
in
the
conduct
of
net
fisheries,
including
the
elimination
of
most
salmon
preserves,
the
movement
of
fisheries
to
more
terminal
areas,
and
the
splitting
of
harvest
management
areas
into
smaller,
more
discrete
management
units.
This
allowed
a
finer
resolution
of
the
contribution
of
various
stocks
to
each
area's
harvest.
For
example,
since
a
higher
proportion
of
the
harvest
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
occurring
in
U.
S.
waters
now
takes
place
within
the
Canal,
those
catches
can
be
allocated
to
Hood
Canal
stocks
without
the
fear
of
a
serious
mis­
allocation
of
south
Puget
Sound­
origin
fish
to
Hood
Canal
stocks.
When
major
summer
chum
harvests
occurred
in
northern
Admiralty
Inlet,
there
was
significant
uncertainty
about
the
origin
of
the
fish
harvested.
Due
to
more
consistent
fishing
patterns
and
increased
efforts
to
collect
harvest
data
since
1974,
summer
chum
salmon
harvest
estimates
are
now
more
representative
of
local
stocks.

There
were
also
some
harvests
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
freshwater
areas.
There
were
recreational
fisheries
in
selected
streams
throughout
this
period,
and
in
some
cases,
freshwater
Treaty
Indian
fisheries
also
occurred.
In
both
cases,
no
reliable
records
were
kept,
however,
the
harvests
in
freshwater
areas
were
of
limited
magnitude.

1.4.4
Run
Size
1.4.4.1
Run
Re­
construction
To
determine
the
total
numbers
of
salmon
returning
to
specific
production
areas,
fish
that
are
harvested
in
mixed
stock
and
terminal
fisheries
must
be
allocated
to
the
streams
from
which
they
originated.
This
allocation
is
done
through
a
post­
season
process
called
"
run
reconstruction
which
splits
the
harvests
in
each
catch
area
into
the
numbers
of
fish
that
likely
are
contributed
by
the
individual
stocks
or
management
units
thought
to
be
transiting
the
area.
A
management
unit
is
a
stock
or
group
of
stocks
which
are
aggregated
for
the
purpose
of
achieving
a
desired
spawning
escapement
objective.
All
estimated
harvests
for
each
stock
or
management
unit
are
added
to
the
escapement
for
that
grouping
to
derive
the
estimated
total
return
for
each
year.

The
former
Puget
Sound
salmon
run
re­
construction
models
attempt
to
allocate
salmon
harvests
by
run
or
stock,
and
require
many
assumptions
on
migration
routes
and
timing.
When
two
salmon
runs
overlap
in
timing
in
a
mixed
stock
harvest
area,
an
allocation
date
splitting
the
two
runs
is
selected
even
though
it
is
known
that
some
fish
would
be
mis­
allocated.
When
there
are
great
differences
in
abundance
levels
between
two
runs,
the
harvest
and
run
size
of
the
smaller
run
could
potentially
be
substantially
overestimated.
In
the
case
of
Hood
Canal,
as
the
summer
chum
salmon
returns
have
declined,
the
hatchery
fall
chum
salmon
program
have
increased,
creating
the
potential
for
significant
mis­
allocation
of
fall
fish
to
the
summer
chum
run
size
estimates.
Mis­
allocation
of
this
type
would
potentially
be
the
most
serious
at
the
end
of
the
summer
chum
salmon
harvest
allocation
period
(
July
1
to
October
11),
when
the
earliest
portion
of
the
fall
chum
return
may
be
beginning
to
contribute
to
catches.
The
result
of
this
type
of
mis­
allocation
is
that
the
proportional
impacting
activities
are
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
Page
24
greatest
when
summer
chum
salmon
populations
are
lowest.
Attempts
have
been
made
to
use
the
traditional
run
reconstruction
estimates
to
calculate
recruit
per
spawner
rates
for
individual
streams
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997),
which
can
compound
the
error
because
the
mis­
allocated
fish
are
included
with
some
extremely
small
numbers
of
wild
fish.

1.4.4.2
New
Summer
Chum
Run
Re­
construction
As
discussed
above,
the
mis­
allocation
of
early
returning
fish
from
the
abundant
fall
chum
runs
in
Hood
Canal
had
potentially
inflated
the
estimates
of
summer
chum
salmon
run
sizes.
For
this
restoration
planning
effort,
a
different
version
of
run­
reconstruction
was
developed
to
try
to
remove
most
of
the
fall
chum
salmon
catch
from
summer
chum
run
sizes.
Within
Hood
Canal,
this
was
accomplished
by
using
earlier
cut­
off
dates
for
catches
to
be
allocated
to
summer
chum
stocks:
Areas
9A
and
12
­
September
27,
Area
12A
­
October
5,
and
Areas
12B,
12C,
12D
­
September
30.

While
this
approach
presumably
reduces
the
mis­
allocation
of
fall
chum
salmon,
it
also
possibly
omits
the
catches
of
later
returning
summer
chum
from
the
run­
reconstruction.
Because
of
this,
the
potential
for
small
under­
or
over­
estimation
biases
for
summer
chum
salmon
run
sizes
may
still
exist.
Another
feature
of
the
current
run­
reconstruction
is
the
inclusion
of
Washington
recreational
and
Canadian
Area
20
commercial
catches,
which
provides
a
more
complete
view
of
total
harvest
impacts.
Table
1.4
presents
the
run
size
estimates
resulting
from
the
new
run­
reconstruction,
and
a
more
detailed
discussion
and
tables
are
provided
in
Appendix
Report
1.3.

Table
1.4.
Total
runsizes
for
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
stocks
(
1974­
1998).

Return
Hood
Canal
St.
Juan
De
HC/
SJF
year
runsize
Fuca
runsize
combined
1974
14,222
1,985
16,207
1975
29,112
1,728
30,840
1976
74,218
1,673
75,891
1977
16,679
1,810
18,488
1978
25,336
3,240
28,576
1979
9,513
900
10,413
1980
13,018
5,574
18,592
1981
5,857
1,140
6,997
1982
8,302
3,543
11,845
1983
3,500
1,218
4,718
1984
3,365
1,708
5,073
1985
4,411
412
4,822
1986
7,832
1,217
9,049
1987
3,965
2,181
6,147
1988
5,696
4,128
9,825
1989
4,472
795
5,267
1990
1,556
529
2,085
1991
2,195
425
2,620
1992
3,375
1,394
4,769
1993
866
644
1,509
1994
2,951
214
3,165
1995
9,977
882
10,858
1996
21,097
1,106
22,202
1997
9,372
985
10,357
1998
4,162
1,303
5,466
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
Page
25
1.4.5
Age
Data
Summer
chum
salmon
in
the
region
mature
and
return
to
their
spawning
streams
primarily
as
3­
and
4­
year
old
fish,
plus
relatively
minor
numbers
of
5­
year
fish.
To
calculate
survival
rates
for
chum
salmon,
the
number
of
recruits
(
returning
fish)
that
are
produced
by
each
year's
spawning
population
must
be
determined.
To
accomplish
this,
it
is
necessary
to
measure
the
age
composition
for
each
year's
return;
to
ascertain
how
many
fish
returned
from
the
three
parent
years
that
make
up
each
return
(
e.
g.
the
1998
returns
will
be
made
up
of
3­,
4­,
and
5­
year
old
fish
from
spawning
in
1993,
1994,
and
1995).
The
numbers
of
fish
in
each
age
category
are
assigned
to
their
parent
spawning
escapement,
and
the
total
brood
return
for
each
spawning
year
is
determined.

Aging
of
returning
chum
salmon
is
typically
accomplished
by
analyzing
scales
or
otoliths
collected
from
fish
caught
in
fisheries
operating
specifically
on
the
stocks
to
be
aged.
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks
have
not
historically
been
subjected
to
directed
fisheries,
which
has
limited
access
to
harvested
fish
for
sampling
purposes.
The
majority
of
summer
chum
salmon
scale
samples
collected
in
the
past
20
years
have
come
from
fish
caught
during
fisheries
conducted
for
other
salmon
species,
primarily
coho
salmon.
Since
these
fisheries
are
dependent
on
the
abundance,
location,
and
timing
of
different
species
of
salmon,
opportunities
to
sample
summer
chum
salmon
are
often
sporadic
and
not
representative
of
all
populations.
A
complicating
factor
is
that
prior
to
the
Boldt
Decision
of
1974,
Hood
Canal
was
a
commercial
fishing
preserve
and
marine
area
net
fisheries
did
not
occur
in
this
region
for
any
salmon.
The
only
summer
chum
salmon
age
data
available
prior
to
1976
are
from
sampling
at
the
UW
Big
Beef
Creek
weir,
and
those
data
are
useful
only
for
that
specific
population
(
now
extirpated).
The
low
numbers
of
returning
fish,
coupled
in
recent
years
with
protective
harvest
regulations,
has
minimized
the
numbers
of
summer
chum
salmon
caught
in
local
fisheries,
which
has
virtually
eliminated
the
opportunity
to
sample
scales
in
mixed
stock
fisheries
at
acceptable
levels
for
age
determinations.
Age
data
are
now
being
collected
for
fish
returning
to
the
National
Fish
Hatchery
on
the
Big
Quilcene
River
(
see
Appendix
Table
1.2)
and
to
the
Salmon
Creek
weir,
and
some
sporadic
age
data
have
been
collected
from
spawners
in
various
streams
during
stock
identification
sampling.

The
available
age
data
for
the
combined
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
returns
are
summarized
in
Appendix
Table
1.3.
Only
ten
of
29
data
base
years
(
1968­
1996)
had
sample
sizes
of
greater
than
100
fish
(
77­
82,
85­
87,
and
92),
and
only
six
years
had
sample
sizes
in
excess
of
200
fish.
No
long
term
age
data
base
exists
for
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stocks
because
there
have
been
no
fishery
sampling
opportunities
owing
to
the
lack
of
directed
fisheries
on
these
fish.
In
recent
years,
age
samples
have
been
collected
from
a
supplemented
summer
chum
population
in
Discovery
Bay
(
Salmon
Creek).
The
incomplete
nature
of
the
available
age
data
prohibits
the
development
of
meaningful
total
brood
return
information
for
Hood
Canal
or
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon;
either
as
individual
or
combined
populations.
The
lack
of
useful
brood
data
further
translates
into
a
lack
of
estimates
of
survival,
e.
g.
recruit
per
spawner
rates.

The
available
summer
chum
age
data
can
provide
a
general
estimate
of
the
average
age
at
return
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon.
From
1977
to
1982
the
Hood
Canal
sample
sizes
ranged
from
102
to
1,201
fish
per
year
(
Appendix
Table
1.3).
These
ages
are
representative
only
of
the
combined
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
return,
and
constitute
too
short
a
period
to
construct
meaningful
estimates
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Data
Page
26
"...
because
of
the
lack
of
useable
age
data,
no
estimates
of
summer
chum
productivity
(
brood
return
or
survival
rates)
are
used
in
this
recovery
plan."
of
brood
returns.
Average
age
composition
for
this
six
year
period
was
43.3%
age­
3,
54.6%
age­
4,
and
2.1%
age­
5
fish.
Based
on
these
age
compositions,
the
average
age
at
return
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
would
be
3.59
years.
Four
other
years,
1985­
1987
and
1992,
had
more
than
100
fish
sampled,
which
provide
limited
measures
of
return
year
age
compositions.
The
average
return
age
of
3.6
years
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
is
used
for
risk
assessments
in
this
recovery
plan.

1.4.6
Use
of
Stock
Assessment
Data
The
quality
and
quantity
of
the
available
stock
assessment
data
for
summer
chum
salmon
varies
for
individual
parameters.
New
data
will
be
incorporated
into
this
recovery
plan
as
it
becomes
available.
The
following
are
summaries
of
the
utility
of
the
various
types
of
summer
chum
stock
assessment
data.

1.4.6.1
Escapement
and
Runsize
Both
escapement
and
runsize
(
run
re­
construction)
databases
have
been
reviewed
and
substantially
improved
to
provide
the
best
available
information
for
use
in
recovery
planning.
The
summer
chum
salmon
recovery
plan
focuses
on
escapement
and
runsize
information
for
the
1974
through
1998
return
years.
While
these
estimates
can
be
improved
through
the
collection
of
additional
data,
the
summer
chum
escapement
and
runsize
numbers
over
this
range
of
years
are
thought
to
be
of
sufficient
reliability
to
meet
most
of
the
needs
of
the
recovery
plan.
The
disqualification
of
the
1968
through
1973
years
is
based
on
the
limited
utility
of
both
escapement
and
harvest
data
for
those
years
as
discussed
above.
These
early
years
should
not
be
totally
discounted,
however,
because
various
spawner
counts
may
provide
a
sense
of
the
prior
magnitude
of
summer
chum
salmon
escapements
in
some
streams
(
see
Appendix
Report
1.1).

1.4.6.2
Age
Data
and
Productivity
Estimates
Because
of
the
multi­
brood
life
history
pattern
of
summer
chum
salmon,
any
direct
measures
of
their
productivity
necessarily
depends
on
the
availability
of
reliable
age
data.
The
age
data
that
have
been
previously
collected
are
not
of
sufficient
quality
to
meet
this
need.
A
point
that
must
be
emphasized
is
that
because
of
the
lack
of
useable
age
data,
no
estimates
of
summer
chum
productivity
(
brood
return
or
survival
rates)
are
used
in
this
recovery
plan.
The
collection
of
appropriate
age
data
for
deriving
survival
rates
is
a
high
priority
of
this
plan
and
is
imperative
to
measure
progress
toward
recovery.
The
limited
extant
age
data
are
considered
only
in
a
general
manner
in
the
recovery
plan.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.5
Periods
of
Decline
Page
27
1.4.6.3
Population
Structure
and
Genetics
Genetic
stock
identification
data
have
been
collected
for
all
current
summer
chum
salmon
stocks
except
for
Dungeness.
As
with
all
stock
assessment
data,
the
information
from
GSI
analyses
can
be
improved
through
the
collection
of
additional
genetic
data.
A
significant
short­
coming
is
the
lack
of
specific
stock
contribution
information
for
various
marine
area
fisheries,
by
time
and
location.
There
is
also
a
lack
of
data
relating
to
various
biological
traits,
like
age
(
discussed
above),
sex
ratios,
body
size,
etc.

1.5
Period
of
Decline
1.5.1
Introduction
The
summer
chum
salmon
populations
of
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
are
affected
by
different
environmental
and
harvest
impacts,
and
display
varying
survival
patterns
and
stock
status
trends.
The
summer
chum
stocks
from
both
regions
have
dropped
in
abundance,
but
at
different
times
and
with
different
trends
of
abundance.
While
the
rate
and
pattern
of
decline
varies
by
individual
population,
all
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
populations
(
except
Union
River)
experienced
a
decline
after
1978,
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
populations
dropped
in
abundance
ten
years
later.

1.5.2
Hood
Canal
The
escapement
and
overall
abundance
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
have
declined
abruptly,
beginning
with
the
1979
return
year.
In
that
year,
the
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
run
dropped
to
a
total
return
of
9,513
and
an
escapement
of
6,554
spawners.
Both
of
these
numbers
are
substantially
lower
than
the
previous
low
values;
14,222
runsize
in
1974
and
10,711
fish
escaping
in
1977
(
see
Tables
1.2
and
1.4).
The
1979
return
is
made
up
predominately
of
1976
brood
age­
3
fish
(
34.7%)
and
1975
brood
age­
4
fish
(
61.1%)(
see
Appendix
Table
1.3).
This
age
composition
falls
within
the
expected
range
for
summer
chum
salmon,
and
indicates
that
the
low
return
in
1979
is
not
the
result
of
a
failure
of
just
one
of
the
two
brood
years.
Parent
year
escapements
are
strong
for
the
1975
and
1976
broods
(
18,248
and
27,715
spawners
respectively),
and
it
seems
probable
that
reduced
survivals
for
both
the
1975
and
1976
broods
have
contributed
to
the
decline
in
the
1979
return.

The
magnitude
of
the
decline
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
can
be
demonstrated
by
examining
average
escapements
and
runsizes
before
and
after
the
decline.
Table
1.5
presents
the
five
year
average
escapements
and
runsizes
from
1974
through
1998.
The
average
escapement
of
summer
chum
salmon
for
the
1979­
1983
return
years
(
3,238
spawners)
represents
a
greater
than
five­
fold
drop
from
the
average
escapement
of
the
previous
five
years
(
17,733
spawners).
The
decline
continues
through
the
1980s
and
early
1990s,
with
five
year
average
escapements
dropping
to
a
low
of
978
spawners
for
the
1989­
1993
period.
The
lowest
single
escapement
was
observed
during
this
period,
with
only
429
spawners
estimated
in
1990
(
Table
1.2).
Runsizes
for
Hood
Canal
stocks
display
a
similar,
but
somewhat
less
abrupt
rate
of
decline
(
Table
1.5).
The
fact
that
runsize
drops
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.5
Periods
of
Decline
Page
28
coincident
to
escapement
is
evidence
that
a
reduction
in
the
production
(
total
survival)
rate
has
been
a
significant
contributor
to
the
decline.

One
of
the
12
summer
chum
salmon
streams
in
Hood
Canal,
the
Union
River,
does
not
follow
the
declining
trend.
Union
River
summer
chum
escapements
are
low
prior
to
1980,
but
then
increase
substantially
and
have
apparently
stabilized
at
escapement
levels
that
are
approximately
3
to
4
times
pre­
1979
levels
(
see
Appendix
Table
1.1).

Table
1.5.
Five
year
average
runsizes
and
escapements
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
stocks,
1974
to
1998.

Return
Hood
Canal
Hood
Canal
Years
runsize
escapement
1974­
78
31,913
17,733
1979­
83
8,038
3,238
1984­
88
5,054
1,760
1989­
93
2,493
978
1994­
98
9,512
9,078
1.5.3
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
The
drop
in
summer
chum
salmon
escapements
and
runsizes
for
the
stocks
in
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
occurred
in
1989,
a
decade
after
the
decline
in
Hood
Canal.
Escapements
dropped
three­
fold,
from
a
1984
to
1988
average
of
1,716
spawners
(
Table
1.6),
to
only
388
spawners
in
1989.
Escapements
stabilized
at
this
low
level,
averaging
536
spawners
for
the
1989
through
1993
period.
The
streams
of
this
region
also
experienced
low
escapements
in
1979
(
761
spawners),
but
in
contrast
to
Hood
Canal,
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
escapements
immediately
rebounded
in
1980
(
5,109
spawners),
and
continued
to
be
strong
until
the
drop
in
1989
(
Table
1.2).
As
with
Hood
Canal
stocks,
the
runsizes
of
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks
declined
for
the
same
return
years
as
escapements
(
Table
1.6),
indicating
that
an
overall
drop
in
total
production
was
a
major
contributor
to
the
observed
decline.

Table
1.6.
Five
year
average
runsizes
and
escapements
for
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks,
1974
to
1998.

Return
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
years
runsizes
escapements
1974­
78
2,087
1,883
1979­
83
2,475
2,129
1984­
88
1,929
1,716
1989­
93
757
536
1994­
98
898
867
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.6
Recent
Abundance
Trends
Page
29
1.6
Recent
Abundance
Trends
The
abundance
of
the
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
has
shown
improvement
for
the
1995
through
1998
return
years,
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
have
experienced
more
modest
increases
during
the
same
years
(
Table
1.2).
In
recognition
of
the
critical
status
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum,
actions
to
protect
returning
spawners
in
terminal
area
fisheries
were
initiated
in
1992,
and
continued
through
the
present
year.
Supplementation
programs
on
the
Big
Quilcene
River,
Lilliwaup
River
and
Salmon
Creek
were
begun
in
1992,
with
the
goal
of
rebuilding
depressed
summer
chum
stocks
in
those
drainages.
Projects
were
also
begun
in
1996
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
into
Chimacum
and
Big
Beef
creeks
where
they
had
been
extirpated.
These
actions
are
addressed
in
more
detail
in
section
3.2
Artificial
Production.

Affected
at
least
in
part
by
the
above
actions
and
programs,
average
total
run
size
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
in
the
most
recent
five
years
(
1994­
1998)
is
substantially
higher
than
observed
over
the
previous
14
years
(
Table
1.4),
and
the
total
escapements
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
during
the
most
recent
four
years
(
1995
­
1998)
are
substantially
higher
than
annual
totals
observed
for
the
previous
14
years
(
Table
1.2).
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
escapements
have
averaged
9,078
spawners
over
the
last
five
years
(
2,423
­
20,514
range),
which
represents
a
substantial
increase
over
the
average
escapement
for
the
preceeding
five
years
(
Table
1.5).
Escapements
to
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
have
averaged
867
spawners
for
1994
through
1998,
a
62%
increase
over
the
536
fish
post­
decline
average
(
1989­
1993)
(
Table
1.6).
While
the
improvements
in
total
run
size
and
escapements
for
these
summer
chum
stocks
are
encouraging,
the
time
frame
is
short,
and
some
individual
populations
are
still
experiencing
very
small
escapements.

The
estimated
natural
spawning
summer
chum
escapement
in
1995
was
10,301
(
9,462
in
Hood
Canal
tributaries
and
839
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
tributaries).
The
1995
escapement
to
the
Big
Quilcene
was
the
highest
observed
in
the
24
year
database
record
to
date
(
4,520
fish).
Improved
escapements
over
recent
years
were
also
noted
on
most
of
the
streams
entering
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal,
with
476
in
the
Hamma
Hamma
River,
825
in
the
Duckabush
River,
and
2,787
in
the
Dosewallips
River.
There
were
poor
returns
to
the
Lilliwaup
River
and
Little
Quilcene
River
(
79
and
54
fish
respectively).
No
fish
were
observed
in
the
streams
entering
the
east
side
of
Hood
Canal
(
Big
Beef
Creek,
Dewatto
River,
Anderson
Creek,
and
Tahuya
River).
The
Union
River
had
a
good
escapement
of
721
fish.
In
the
Strait
of
Juan
De
Fuca,
Salmon
Creek
and
Jimmycomelately
Creek
experienced
fairly
good
escapements
(
591
and
223
fish
respectively),
but
the
Snow
Creek
escapement
was
again
extremely
poor
(
25
fish),
continuing
a
trend.

The
estimated
natural
spawning
summer
chum
escapement
in
1996
was
21,598
fish
(
20,514
in
Hood
Canal
tributaries
and
1,084
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
tributaries).
The
overall
upward
trend
in
escapement
from
recent
years
was
primarily
carried
by
the
major
streams
entering
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal.
A
new
record
chum
escapement
was
observed
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
(
9,250
fish).
However,
this
return
originated
from
a
mix
of
natural
and
hatchery
produced
fish,
and
it
is
assumed
a
significant
portion
of
the
spawners
were
progeny
of
the
artificial
production
program.
The
Dosewallips
River
also
had
a
record
escapement
of
6,976
chum,
all
of
wild
origin.
The
Hamma
Hamma
and
Duckabush
River
had
good
returns
also
(
774
and
2,650
fish
respectively).
On
a
down
note,
in
this
region
Lilliwaup
Creek
had
another
poor
escapement
of
100
fish
and
the
eastern
Hood
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.6
Recent
Abundance
Trends
Page
30
Canal
streams
again
showed
no
evidence
of
any
significant
returns.
The
Union
River
escapement
was
fair
(
494
fish).
In
the
Strait
of
Juan
De
Fuca,
Salmon
Creek
experienced
a
fairly
good
escapement
of
785
fish
(
progeny
of
natural
spawning
and
an
on­
going
enhancement
program),
but
Snow
Creek
and
Jimmycomelately
escapements
were
poor(
160
and
30
fish
respectively).

The
estimated
natural
spawning
summer
chum
escapement
in
1997
was
9,933
fish
(
8,971
in
Hood
Canal
tributaries
and
962
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
tributaries),
a
declining
trend
from
the
previous
two
relatively
strong
years.
Again,
the
majority
of
escapement
occurred
in
the
major
streams
entering
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal.
The
Big
Quilcene
River
again
experienced
a
good
spawning
run
(
7,339
fish).
As
in
1996,
this
return
originated
from
a
mix
of
natural
and
enhancement
program
produced
fish,
and
it
is
assumed
a
significant
portion
of
the
spawners
were
progeny
of
the
artificial
enhancement
program.
The
Hamma
Hamma,
Dosewallips
and
Duckabush
rivers
had
radical
declines
in
spawner
abundance
from
the
previous
two
years
(
104,
47,
and
475
fish
respectively).
Lilliwaup
Creek
and
the
Little
Quilcene
continued
to
be
weak,
with
26
and
29
natural
spawners
estimated
respectively.
The
eastern
Hood
Canal
streams
again
showed
no
evidence
of
any
significant
returns.
Six
fish
were
observed
in
the
Dewatto,
however.
The
Union
River
escapement
was
again
fair
(
410
fish).
In
the
Strait
of
Juan
De
Fuca,
Salmon
Creek
experienced
a
fairly
good
escapement
of
834
fish
(
progeny
of
natural
spawning
and
an
on­
going
enhancement
program),
but
Snow
Creek
and
Jimmycomelately
escapements
were
again
poor
(
67
and
61
fish
respectively).

The
estimated
natural
spawning
summer
chum
escapement
in
1998
was
5,290
fish
(
4,020
in
Hood
Canal
tributaries
and
1,270
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
tributaries),
continuing
a
declining
trend
from
the
strong
years
in
1995
and
96.
Again,
the
majority
of
escapement
occurred
in
the
major
streams
entering
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal.
The
Big
Quilcene
River
again
experienced
a
good
natural
spawning
run
(
2,244
fish).
As
in
1996
and
97,
this
return
originated
from
a
mix
of
natural
and
enhancement
program
produced
fish,
and
it
is
assumed
a
significant
portion
of
the
spawners
were
progeny
of
the
artificial
enhancement
program.
The
Hamma
Hamma,
Dosewallips
and,
Duckabush
rivers
had
poor
to
fair
spawner
abundance
(
143,
336
and
226
fish
respectively).
Lilliwaup
Creek
continued
to
be
weak,
with
24
fish.
The
Little
Quilcene
River
re­
bounded
a
little,
with
a
265
fish
escapement.
The
eastern
Hood
Canal
streams
again
showed
no
evidence
of
any
significant
returns.
However,
twelve
fish
were
observed
in
the
Dewatto.
The
Union
River's
escapement
was
again
fair,
but
down
from
last
year
(
223
fish).
In
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
Salmon
Creek
experienced
a
good
escapement
of
1,144
fish
(
progeny
of
natural
spawning
and
an
on­
going
enhancement
program),
but
the
Snow
Creek
and
Jimmycomelately
1998
escapements
were
again
poor
(
28
and
98
fish
respectively).

The
1989­
93
period
represents
the
years
of
lowest
escapements,
an
average
of
only
1,514
total
summer
chum
escaping
to
the
region
(
Tables
1.5
and
1.6).
By
comparing
the
mean
escapement
of
that
five
year
period
to
the
most
recent
five
year
mean
escapement,
a
substantial
improvement
in
escapements
is
apparent;
increases
of
928%
in
Hood
Canal,
162%
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
and
up
657%
for
the
region
as
a
whole.
The
results
in
Hood
Canal
have
been
enhanced
by
the
strong
returns
to
the
supplementation
program
at
Big
Quilcene.
However,
if
the
Quilcene
fish
are
removed
from
recent
average
escapements,
the
remaining
Hood
Canal
streams
averaged
793
spawners
for
1989­
93
and
3,416
spawners
for
1994­
98,
a
431%
increase.
The
improved
escapements
to
wild
production
streams
combined
with
the
success
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
31
"
This
analysis
has
resulted
in
an
updated
list
of
16
summer
chum
stocks,
which
form
the
basic
population
units
used
throughout
this
recovery
plan."
of
supplementation
on
selected
streams
has
substantially
lowered
the
extinction
risk
for
this
region.
For
descriptions
of
the
recent
performances
of
individual
stocks,
see
the
following
stock
evaluations.

1.7
Stock
Evaluations
1.7.1
Introduction
The
evaluation
tools
that
will
be
used
to
identify
summer
chum
stocks
performing
poorly
and
to
measure
the
success
of
recovery
measures
are
a
major
component
of
this
recovery
plan.
Three
approaches
used
to
evaluate
summer
chum
stocks
are
described
in
the
following
sections:
1.7.2
­
Stock
Definition
and
Status
(
SASSI),
1.7.3
­
Annual
Abundance
Evaluation,
and
1.7.4
­
Stock
Extinction
Risk.
These
are
independent
assessment,
each
serving
a
separate
purpose.

The
first
stock
evaluation
approach
reviews
and
updates
the
summer
chum
stock
definitions
and
status
ratings
originally
reported
in
the
1992
Washington
State
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
This
inventory,
also
known
as
SASSI,
presents
criteria
for
identifying
stocks
based
on
their
degree
of
reproductive
isolation,
and
rates
the
status
of
each
stock
into
the
general
categories
of
healthy,
depressed,
critical,
extinct,
and
unknown.
For
this
recovery
plan,
the
most
recent
information
on
historical
and
current
summer
chum
salmon
distribution
and
on
the
genetic
profiles
of
the
populations
has
been
reviewed.
This
analysis
has
resulted
in
an
updated
list
of
16
summer
chum
stocks,
which
form
the
basic
population
units
used
throughout
this
recovery
plan.
Status
ratings
for
each
stock
are
also
presented,
primarily
for
use
in
various
other
processes
and
evaluations
that
are
based
on
the
SASSI
approach.
This
recovery
plan
does
not
directly
use
these
SASSI
status
ratings,
but
instead
relies
on
the
more
detailed
status
evaluations
below;
which
specifically
focus
on
annual
escapement
numbers
and
extinction
risk
for
summer
chum
salmon.

The
second
evaluation
approach
compares
spawner
escapements
to
stock­
specific
critical
abundance
thresholds.
This
annual
process
reviews
escapements,
and
identifies
(
flags)
any
stock
that
falls
below
its
threshold.
At
the
end
of
each
season,
all
flagged
stocks
will
undergo
an
in­
depth
review
of
stock
performance,
and
possible
causes
of
the
low
escapement
will
be
identified.
If
necessary,
remedial
measures
will
be
incorporated
into
recovery
activities
the
following
year.

The
third
procedure
is
used
to
estimate
extinction
risk
based
on
the
numbers
of
effective
spawners
representing
each
summer
chum
stock.
This
evaluation
assesses
extinction
risk
using
an
approach
described
in
the
paper
Prioritizing
Pacific
Salmon
Stocks
for
Conservation,
by
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997).
The
approach
focuses
on
the
minimum
numbers
of
spawners
required
to
have
a
viable
population,
and
estimates
the
risk
of
extinction
for
populations
below
the
viability
threshold.
Other
sources
of
risk
are
acknowledged
(
e.
g.
habitat
loss
and
climate
change),
but
no
attempt
has
been
made
to
incorporate
these
additional
risks.
While
it
is
clear
that
salmonids
are
affected
by
an
extensive
range
of
risk
factors,
we
do
not
have
the
data
or
the
knowledge
to
conduct
complete
risk
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
32
SASSI
Stock
Definition
The
fish
spawning
in
a
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.
assessments
for
any
of
our
summer
chum
populations.
That
does
not
mean,
however,
that
we
should
not
attempt
to
estimate
risk,
and
minimum
population
size
criteria
(
as
recommended
by
Allendorf
et
al.)
can
serve
to
guide
the
conservation
of
summer
chum
stocks
while
the
science
of
risk
assessment
develops.

1.7.2
Stock
Definition
and
Status
(
SASSI)

The
status
of
summer
chum
stocks
in
the
Hood
Canal
region
has
been
reevaluated
as
part
of
the
development
of
this
comprehensive
recovery
plan
for
the
summer
chum.
The
evaluation
generally
follows
protocols
established
by
the
WDFW
and
Treaty
Tribes
in
preparing
the
1992
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
SASSI)
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).
Newly
available
information
has
been
reviewed
in
making
the
evaluation.
Results
of
the
evaluation
include:

°
A
revised
description
of
the
summer
chum
stocks.
Revisions
are
based
on
review
of
existing
and
new
stock
assessment
data
(
including
genetic
stock
identification
data,
and
adult
escapement
and
catch
data).
The
description
includes
existing
stocks,
documents
recent
extinctions,
and
identifies
possible
former
summer
chum
distributions
based
on
limited
available
evidence.

°
A
revised
description
of
the
status
of
the
stocks
following
the
descriptive
protocol
of
SASSI
(
e.
g.,
healthy,
depressed,
critical
or
unknown
status).

The
SASSI
process
inventories
naturally
reproducing
stocks
of
salmon
and
steelhead
regardless
of
origin
(
including
native,
nonnative
and
mixed
parentage).
It
is
a
two
stage
approach
which
first
identifies
individual
stocks,
and
then
determines
their
current
status.
The
factors
contributing
to
the
current
status
of
summer
chum
stocks
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Parts
Two
and
Three.

The
primary
criterion
used
to
distinguish
stocks
is
that
there
is
evidence
of
substantial
reproductive
isolation,
either
temporally
or
spatially,
that
over
time
leads
to
local
adaptation
of
individual
stocks.
While
run
timing
and
spawning
distributions
are
the
most
common
stock
determinants,
documented
genetic
differentiation
is
also
evidence
of
reproductive
isolation,
and
is
also
used
to
identify
stocks.

In
this
stock
assessment,
the
current
status
of
each
of
the
identified
stocks
has
been
rated
primarily
based
on
trends
in
survival
rates
or
population
size,
but
the
process
does
not
focus
directly
on
possible
future
risks
to
the
stocks
or
causative
factors.
Stocks
with
escapement,
run­
size,
and
survival
levels
within
normal
ranges
given
available
habitat,
and
not
displaying
a
pattern
of
chronically
low
abundance,
are
rated
as
healthy
stocks.
Those
stocks
that
currently
display
low
production
or
survival
values
are
assigned
to
one
of
two
separate
rating
categories:
depressed
stocks
or
critical
stocks,
depending
on
the
current
condition
of
the
stock.
Stocks
are
also
rated
as
unknown
stocks
when
data
limitations
do
not
allow
assessments
of
current
status.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
33
SASSI
Status
Definitions
Healthy
Stock:
A
stock
of
fish
experiencing
production
levels
consistent
with
its
available
habitat
and
within
the
natural
variations
in
survival
for
the
stock.
Depressed
Stock:
A
stock
of
fish
whose
production
is
below
expected
levels
based
on
available
habitat
and
natural
variations
in
survival
rates,
but
above
the
level
where
permanent
damage
to
the
stock
is
likely.
Critical
Stock:
A
stock
of
fish
experiencing
production
levels
that
are
so
low
that
permanent
damage
to
the
stock
is
likely
or
has
already
occurred.
Unknown
Stock:
There
is
insufficient
information
to
rate
stock
status.
Extinct
Stock:
A
stock
of
fish
that
is
no
longer
present
in
its
original
range,
or
as
a
distinct
stock
elsewhere.
Individuals
of
the
same
species
may
be
observed
in
very
low
numbers,
consistent
with
straying
from
other
stocks.

The
rating
category
for
stocks
in
the
extinct
category
is
for
stocks
whose
recent
extinctions
are
documented
in
current
stock
assessment
data
bases.
Past
extinctions
are
not
included
because
SASSI
is
a
current
resource
inventory
and
the
historic
information
on
lost
stocks
is
incomplete
and
often
anecdotal.
A
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
SASSI
definitions
is
provided
in
the
Appendix
Report
1.4.

The
following
are
individual
stock
discussions
that
review
the
stock
definitions
and
status
ratings
for
existing
stocks,
recently
extinct
stocks,
and
possible
historic
distributions
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams.

1.7.2.1
Existing
Stocks
The
1993
salmon
and
steelhead
inventory
identified
two
summer
chum
salmon
stocks
in
the
streams
of
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca;
a
stock
in
Discovery
Bay,
and
another
stock
in
Sequim
Bay.
In
Hood
Canal,
Union
River
was
designated
as
a
separate
stock,
and
the
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
in
all
other
streams
were
designated
as
a
single
stock
because
of
a
lack
of
genetic
data
for
individual
spawning
groups.
At
the
time
it
was
recognized
that
there
may
be
more
summer
chum
stocks
in
the
region:
"
Preliminary
results
from
ongoing
genetic
studies
indicate
that
there
may
be
more
than
two
summer
stocks
in
Hood
Canal"
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994).
The
following
stock
status
ratings
were
assigned
in
the
1993
inventory
to
the
four
stocks:
Hood
Canal,
critical;
Union
River,
healthy;
Discovery
Bay,
critical;
and
Sequim
Bay,
depressed.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
34
Genetic
Stock
Identification
(
GSI)

A
method
that
can
be
used
to
characterize
populations
of
organisms
based
on
the
genetic
profiles
of
individuals.
The
GSI
process
consists
of
a
series
of
steps:
1)
collect
selected
tissues
from
a
representative
sample
of
individuals
from
the
population(
s)
under
investigation;
2)
develop
genetic
profiles
for
the
individuals
in
each
population
by
conducting
starch­
gel
electrophoresis
and
histo­
chemical
staining
using
tissue
extracts;
3)
characterize
each
population
by
aggregating
the
individual
genetic
profiles
and
computing
allele
frequency
distributions;
and
4)
conduct
statistical
tests
using
the
allele
counts
characterizing
each
population
to
identify
significantly
different
populations.
Existing
stocks
are
those
stocks
for
which
there
is
good
information
that
they
continue
to
exist
and
are
likely
to
be
sustainable.
Spawner
count
data
for
each
stream
that
currently
supports
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
have
been
reexamined
for
evidence
of
temporal
or
spacial
overlap
of
spawning
populations.
There
is
strong
temporal
separation
between
summer
and
fall
chum
stocks
in
the
region,
with
the
exception
of
Big
and
Little
Mission
creeks
which
are
an
early
fall
stock
(
see
discussion
below).
Because
of
the
geographic
separation
of
the
majority
of
summer
chum
spawning
streams,
substantial
spacial
overlap
of
spawners
is
judged
to
be
unlikely,
except
in
Snow
and
Salmon
creeks
(
Discovery
Bay)
and
in
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
creeks.
Genetic
differentiation
has
been
examined
for
ten
spawning
populations
using
the
results
of
a
new
Genetic
Stock
Identification
(
GSI)
study.
Most
spawning
populations
have
been
found
to
display
significant
genetic
differentiation
(
Table
1.7,
see
also
Appendix
Figures
1.1
and
1.2).

Based
on
the
standard
of
substantial
reproductive
isolation
(
indicated
by
distributional
and
genetic
differences),
nine
existing
summer
chum
stocks
have
been
identified,
three
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
and
six
in
Hood
Canal
streams
(
Table
1.8).
Details
regarding
the
categories
and
status
of
the
individual
summer
chum
stocks
are
discussed
below.

Union
River
Stock
Definition
­
The
Union
River
enters
Lynch
Cove
at
the
far
end
of
the
hook
in
south
Hood
Canal
and
is
relatively
far
removed
from
the
other
known
populations
of
summer
chum.
Results
of
genetic
analysis
show
the
Union
River
population
is
significantly
different
from
the
other
populations.
Also,
the
summer
chum
of
Union
River
show
earlier
run
timing,
measured
by
appearance
in
spawner
surveys,
than
summer
chum
of
other
streams
in
the
region.
For
all
these
reasons,
the
Union
River
is
categorized
as
a
separate
native
summer
chum
stock
Stock
Status
­
The
records
show
annual
escapement
estimates
of
100
or
less
spawners
during
the
1970s
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).
Since
that
time,
the
estimates
have
been
considerably
higher
most
years,
with
the
highest
estimate
being
almost
1,900
spawners
in
1986.
The
Union
River
is
the
only
non­
supplemented
summer
chum
population
that
has
increased
since
the
1970s.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Healthy.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
35
Table
1.7.
Results
of
log­
likelihood
G­
tests
(
Sokal
and
Rohlf,
1981)
between
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
populations
using
only
loci
that
were
variable
in
at
least
one
of
the
two
collections
in
each
comparison.
N
=
sample
size,
NS
=
not
significant
(
P
>
0.05),
*
=
0.05
>
P
>
0.01,
**
=
0.01
>
P
>
0.001,
***
=
P
<
0.001.

Population
Population
(
years
sampled)
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1)
Snow
Cr.
('
86)
50
2)
Salmon
Cr.
('
86,'
97)
150
NS
3)
Jimmycomelately
Cr.
('
86)
100
**
***
4)
Duckabush
R.
('
85,'
86,'
92)
124
***
***
***
5)
Quilcene
Bay/
NFH
('
97)
58
***
***
***
*
6)
Hamma
Hamma
R.
('
85,'
86,'
94,'
95,'
97)
101
***
***
***
NS
**
7)
Quilcene
Bay
&
R.
('
92,'
93,'
94)
262
***
***
***
***
**
NS
8)
Union
R.
('
85,'
86,'
92,'
93,'
97)
152
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
9)
Lilliwaup
Cr.
('
85,'
86,'
92,'
93,'
97)
268
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
10)
Dosewallips
R.
('
86,'
92)
102
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***

Lilliwaup
Creek
Stock
Definition
­
The
native
summer
chum
of
Lilliwaup
Creek
are
shown
to
be
significantly
different
from
other
summer
chum
populations
in
Hood
Canal
based
on
analysis
of
genetic
samples
(
Table
1.7).
This
genetic
data
and
the
geographic
separation
from
the
other
populations
lead
to
Lilliwaup
being
categorized
as
a
separate
stock.

Stock
Status
­
Prior
to
1979,
estimated
annual
escapements
have
ranged
from
several
hundred
to
over
one
thousand
spawners.
Since
that
time
no
single
year's
estimated
escapement
has
exceeded
300
spawners
and
for
the
majority
of
years
has
been
less
than
100
spawners.
The
short­
term
severe
decline
after
1978,
followed
by
chronically
low
escapements
since,
indicates
the
stock
status
is
critical.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Critical
based
on
chronically
low
escapements.

Hamma
Hamma
Stock
Definition
­
Genetic
analysis
shows
samples
from
native
summer
chum
of
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
to
be
significantly
different
from
samples
of
other
Hood
Canal
areas,
except
for
Quilcene
Bay/
River
(
Table
1.7).
The
relatively
large
geographic
distance
between
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
and
Quilcene
Bay
(
with
both
the
Dosewallips
and
Duckabush
rivers
located
in
between)
argues
against
the
possibility
of
the
Hamma
Hamma
and
the
Quilcene
Bay
populations
being
a
single
stock.

Stock
Status
­
Before
1980,
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
has
had
annual
escapements
in
the
1,000s
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).
Beginning
in
1980,
the
numbers
have
declined
to
the
100s
per
year.
During
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
36
the
1990s,
the
annual
numbers
of
estimated
spawners
have
fluctuated
from
below
100
to
several
hundred.
The
most
recent
5
years
of
escapements
have
averaged
less
than
10%
of
the
escapements
of
the
1970s,
and
this
stock
is
considered
to
be
depressed.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Depressed
due
to
chronically
low
escapements.

Duckabush
Stock
Definition
­
An
examination
of
genetic
information
for
the
native
Duckabush
summer
chum
stock
indicates
it
is
significantly
different
from
other
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
populations
except
for
the
Hamma
Hamma
(
Table
1.7).
The
finding
of
no
significant
difference
does
not
necessarily
mean
these
two
populations
are
of
the
same
stock.
There
may
be
significant
differences
not
detectable
at
the
loci
examined.
Genetic
results
tend
to
be
more
definitive
in
confirming
differences
between
samples
(
e.
g.,
the
finding
of
a
significant
difference
based
on
results
showing
95%
probability
that
the
samples
are
not
from
the
same
randomly
sampled
population),
as
opposed
to
indicating
they
are
from
the
same
population.
If
no
difference
is
indicated
by
these
analyses,
it
is
not
necessarily
appropriate
to
assume
the
tested
groups
are
from
the
same
population.
It
is
only
an
indication
that
they
might
be
from
the
same
population.
In
these
cases,
other
factors
are
also
considered
in
making
a
determination
of
whether
or
not
the
two
sampled
groups
are
of
the
same
stock.
In
the
case
of
Duckabush,
geographic
distance
between
the
Duckabush
and
the
Hamma
Hamma,
and
between
the
Duckabush
and
other
summer
chum
populations,
appears
sufficient
to
categorize
Duckabush
as
a
separate
stock.
The
geographic
differences
between
the
Duckabush
and
other
summer
chum
streams
appear
sufficient
when
comparisons
are
made
with
geographic
distances
between
other
stocks
identified
as
significantly
different
by
genetic
analysis
(
e.
g.,
between
the
Dosewallips
and
the
Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
stocks).

Stock
Status
­
The
record
of
escapement
estimates
(
Appendix
Table
1.1)
shows
the
Duckabush
falling
from
escapements
in
the
thousands
during
the
1970s
to
less
than
one
hundred
spawners
in
the
late
1980s.
In
the
1990s,
the
escapement
estimates
have
increased
into
the
low
hundreds
of
spawners,
but
are
still
substantially
less
than
what
has
been
estimated
for
the
1970s.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Depressed
due
to
chronically
low
escapements.

Dosewallips
Stock
Definition
­
Analysis
of
genetic
sampling
data
shows
Dosewallips
to
be
significantly
different
from
other
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
populations,
including
the
two
most
proximal
populations
on
the
west
side
of
Hood
Canal;
that
is,
Quilcene
to
the
north
and
Duckabush
to
the
south
(
Table
1.7).
Dosewallips
is
categorized
as
a
separate
native
stock
for
this
reason
and
because
of
the
geographic
separation
from
these
other
populations..

Stock
Status
­
Escapement
estimates
for
Dosewallips
(
Appendix
Table
1.1)
have
decreased
in
the
1980s
to
less
than
100
spawners
in
some
years
and
several
hundred
in
other
years.
During
the
1970s,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
37
most
escapements
are
over
1,000
spawners,
extending
up
to
over
3,000.
Escapements
appear
to
be
rebounding
in
the
1990s
with
the
highest
escapement
on
record
of
almost
7,000
spawners
in
1996.
However,
the
1997
escapement
is
only
47
spawners,
lower
than
expected
given
the
apparent
increasing
trend.
This
one
year's
severely
low
escapement
could
be
an
aberration
in
the
pattern
of
recovery.
Resolution
of
what
is
happening
with
this
stock
should
be
forthcoming
as
escapements
continue
to
be
monitored.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Depressed
due
to
chronically
low
escapements.

Big
Quilcene/
Little
Quilcene
Stock
Definition
­
The
Big
Quilcene
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers
enter
salt
water
close
to
each
other
at
the
extreme
northern
end
of
Quilcene
Bay.
No
genetic
analysis
of
the
spawning
population
in
the
Little
Quilcene
River
has
been
conducted.
Only
the
bay
and
Big
Quilcene
River
have
been
adequately
sampled,
and
the
bay
genetic
samples
may
have
included
native
chum
from
Little
Quilcene
as
well
as
Big
Quilcene
river
­
the
only
two
summer
chum
streams
in
the
bay.
No
assessment
of
potential
genetic
differences
between
populations
of
the
two
streams
is
possible
with
the
current
data.
Because
of
the
close
proximity
of
the
two
streams
and
the
likelihood
of
mixing
of
spawners,
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
summer
chum
salmon
are
designated
as
a
single
native
stock.

Stock
Status
­
While
estimated
escapements
initially
drop
beginning
in
1979,
an
even
more
substantial
drop
occurs
in
both
Big
Quilcene
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers
during
the
middle
1980s
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).
By
the
early
1990s,
escapement
estimates
are
in
single
digits
in
both
streams.
The
numbers
of
spawners
subsequently
improve
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
probably
due
at
least
in
part
to
harvest
management
protection
measures.
The
Big
Quilcene
River
population
substantially
rebounds
beginning
in
1995
as
a
result
of
the
supplementation
project
begun
in
1992.
The
escapement
levels
remain
extremely
low
from
1989
through
1994
in
the
Little
Quilcene
River,
with
a
high
annual
estimate
of
12
spawners
and
with
estimates
of
one
or
no
spawners
in
four
of
these
years.
More
recently
the
escapement
numbers
in
the
Little
Quilcene
River
have
begun
to
rise,
but
are
still
low
compared
to
the
historical
numbers.

The
recent
escapement
numbers
for
this
stock
are
high
relative
to
documented
historical
numbers,
but
1)
because
these
high
numbers
likely
are
primarily
the
result
of
supplementation
releases
rather
than
natural
production
and
2)
because
the
Little
Quilcene
River
escapements
are
still
low,
and
finally
3),
because
habitat
conditions
are
poor
and
may
constrain
natural
production
in
both
rivers,
the
status
of
the
stock
is
judged
to
be
depressed.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
composite
production.
Status
­
Depressed.

Snow/
Salmon
Stock
Definition
­
Salmon
and
Snow
creeks
are
located
at
the
northern
end
of
Discovery
Bay
on
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
The
mouths
of
the
creeks
are
close
to
each
other
and
at
one
time
Snow
Creek
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
38
flowed
into
Salmon
Creek
before
it
entered
the
bay.
The
streams
were
separated
by
a
man­
made
diversion
early
in
the
twentieth
century.
Results
of
genetic
sampling
(
log­
likelihood
G­
tests)
from
analysis
of
summer
chum
protein
samples
(
Table
1.7),
do
not
show
a
significant
difference
between
Snow
and
Salmon
creeks.
The
close
proximity
of
the
two
streams,
the
absence
of
an
indicated
difference
from
the
genetic
sampling
results,
and
the
streams'
geographic
history
support
categorizing
the
Snow
Creek
and
Salmon
Creek
populations
as
a
single
native
stock.

Stock
Status
­
The
historical
escapement
record
(
Appendix
Table
1.1)
shows
Salmon
Creek
to
be
fairly
stable
over
the
last
nine
years
and
within
the
approximate
historical
range.
On
the
other
hand,
Snow
creek
escapements
have
dropped
to
extremely
low
levels
in
the
late
1980s
and
early
1990s,
with
33
or
fewer
spawners
per
year
from
1989
through
1995.
In
each
of
the
last
two
years
(
1996
and
1997),
escapements
of
approximately
150
spawners
have
been
estimated
for
Snow
Creek,
perhaps
due
at
least
in
part
to
spawners
returning
from
the
Salmon
Creek
supplementation
project
(
summer
chum
fry
are
released
from
net
pens
in
the
bay).
The
escapement
data
suggest
that
the
stock
is
fairly
stable,
at
least
in
Salmon
Creek
and
may
be
beginning
to
recover
in
Snow
Creek.
However,
the
returns
to
Snow
Creek
are
far
below
the
historical
escapement
estimates
(
Appendix
Table
1.1).

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
composite
production.
Status
­
Depressed
due
to
chronically
low
escapements.

Jimmycomelately
Stock
Definition
­
Genetic
analysis
indicates
that
summer
chum
of
Jimmycomelately
Creek
are
significantly
different
from
the
Snow/
Salmon
summer
chum
stock
(
Table
1.7).
Jimmycomelately
Creek
is
located
in
a
separate
bay
where
no
other
summer
chum
populations
are
known
to
have
existed.
The
geographic
isolation
and
genetic
results
support
categorizing
Jimmycomelately
as
a
separate
native
stock.

Stock
Status
­
The
record
of
escapement
estimates
(
Appendix
Table
1.1)
shows
Jimmycomelately
to
have
escapements
fluctuating
from
several
hundred
to
1,000
in
the
1980s,
with
only
one
year
below
100
total
spawners.
However,
in
the
1990s,
the
escapement
numbers
have
generally
dropped
with
three
of
the
last
five
years
(
1994­
1998)
having
escapement
estimates
of
61
or
less.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Critical
based
a
short
term
severe
decline
in
escapements.

Dungeness
Stock
Definition
­
Summer
chum
have
been
periodically
observed
during
the
months
of
September
and
October
in
the
Dungeness
River
in
the
course
of
monitoring
and
collecting
chinook
and
pink
salmon
data.
No
escapement
estimates
for
Dungeness
summer
chum
have
been
made
but
indications
are
that
a
modest
sized,
self­
sustaining
run
is
present
in
the
system.
The
Dungeness
River
appears
sufficiently
separated
geographically
from
the
closest
known
population
of
summer
chum
(
Jimmycomelately
in
Sequim
Bay)
to
be
categorized
as
a
separate
native
stock.
For
a
more
detailed
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
39
discussion
of
the
evidence
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
Dungeness
River,
see
Appendix
Report
1.1
and
Plan
Supplemental
Report
No.
1
(
Haymes
2000).

Stock
Status
­
Spawning
ground
survey
effort
in
the
Dungeness
in
September
and
October
is
focused
on
chinook
and
pink
(
odd­
years
only)
salmon.
Summer­
timed
chum
salmon
are
consistently
seen
during
surveys
of
the
lower
Dungeness
River
mainstem.
The
highest
count
representing
summer
chum
salmon
is
199
fish
observed
in
the
lower
3.2
miles
of
the
river
on
September
22,
1976.
Survey
conditions
are
typically
rated
as
poor
to
fair
during
these
surveys
and
the
emphasis
on
other
species
sometimes
results
in
incomplete
coverage
of
potential
summer
chum
holding
and
spawning
areas.
Since
1987,
however,
summer­
timed
chum
salmon
have
been
observed
in
the
Dungeness
River
every
year,
with
partial
peak
counts
ranging
between
1
and
60
fish.
The
incomplete
nature
of
the
existing
count
data
prohibits
the
development
of
total
escapement
estimates,
however,
the
data
do
indicate
the
presence
of
a
small
self­
sustaining
stock
of
unknown
status.
A
high
priority
should
be
placed
on
additional
spawning
ground
surveys
on
the
lower
Dungeness
River
during
the
months
of
September
and
October
to
determine
the
status
of
summer
chum
salmon.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Unknown.

1.7.2.2
Recently
Extinct
Stocks
Known,
recently
extinct
stocks
are
those
stocks
where
there
is
strong
evidence
to
show
that
a
stock
formerly
existed
but
has
now
been
extirpated
from
its
former
stream.
Of
the
16
stocks
identified
(
Table
1.8),
seven
are
recent
extinctions.
The
determination
that
these
were
distinct
stocks
is
based
solely
on
past
distribution
and
presumed
past
reproductive
isolation.
Four
of
the
seven
extinctions
occurred
in
Kitsap
Peninsula
streams.

Big
Beef
Stock
Definition
­
Geographic
distance
from
other
stocks
is
the
basis
for
separating
this
recently
extinct
native
stock.

Stock
Status
­
The
record
(
Appendix
Table
1.1)
shows
Big
Beef
escapement
estimates
exceeding
1,000
spawners
in
1975
and
1976,
though
in
most
years
immediately
before
and
after,
the
escapements
appear
far
less
and
generally
in
the
low
hundreds.
Summer
chum
all
but
disappear
after
1981
and
except
for
an
estimated
22
spawners
in
1984,
zero
spawners
have
been
estimated
in
all
years
since.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Extinct.

Anderson
Stock
Definition
­
Geographic
distance
from
other
stocks
is
the
basis
for
separating
this
recently
extinct
native
stock.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
40
Stock
Status
­
Estimated
escapements
for
Anderson
Creek
(
Appendix
Table
1.1)
show
a
small
population
of
just
over
200
spawners
occurring
in
the
1970s.
That
population
does
not
appear
to
have
been
stable,
with
estimates
of
0
and
16
spawners
during
1974
and
1978
respectively.
Estimated
escapement
drops
to
zero
in
the
early
1980s
and
the
stock
has
ceased
to
exist.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Extinct.

Dewatto
Stock
Definition
­
Geographic
distance
from
other
stocks
is
the
basis
for
separating
this
recently
extinct
native
stock.

Stock
Status
­
Estimated
escapements
for
the
Dewatto
River
(
Appendix
Table
1.1)
show
a
gradual
reduction
of
spawners
over
time,
from
escapements
of
more
than
a
thousand
in
the
early
1970s,
to
hundreds
in
the
later
1970s,
to
less
than
100
in
the
1980s,
and
finally,
to
zero
or
near
zero
in
the
1990s.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Extinct.

Tahuya
Stock
Definition
­
Geographic
distance
from
other
stocks
is
the
basis
for
separating
this
recently
extinct
native
stock.

Stock
Status
­
The
record
(
Appendix
Table
1.1)
shows
escapements
of
Tahuya
River
summer
chum
spawners
have
dropped
from
estimates
ranging
between
the
high
hundreds
and
thousands
during
the
1970s,
down
to
below
two
hundred
during
the
1980s.
Beginning
in
the
early
1990s,
the
estimates
have
been
essentially
zero.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Extinct.

Skokomish
River
Stock
Definition
­
No
escapement
estimates
exist
for
the
Skokomish
River.
Spawner
surveys
generally
have
not
been
specifically
directed
at
native
summer
chum
in
this
river
system
until
recently.
However,
surveys
for
other
species,
notably
chinook,
would
be
expected
to
have
reported
any
observations
of
summer
chum
and,
in
fact,
reports
of
summer
chum
in
late
September
and
in
early
to
mid
October
do
exist
in
the
historical
spawner
survey
record.
The
tribal
fishery
catches
recorded
for
the
Skokomish
River
are
within
the
expected
time
frame
for
the
summer
run
(
i.
e.,
prior
to
October
15);
however,
in
recent
years
the
numbers
have
been
very
low.
Currently,
only
small,
occasional
numbers
of
summer
chum,
and
not
a
sustainable
population,
are
believed
to
occur
in
the
Skokomish
River.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
41
Stock
Status
­
A
number
of
factors
have
likely
contributed
to
the
demise
of
summer
chum.
Summer
chum
habitat
has
been
severely
degraded
by
human
developments
in
the
Skokomish
River
watershed.
The
summer
chum
population
may
also
have
been
impacted
by
local
commercial
fisheries,
though
the
fisheries
have
been
primarily
directed
at
other
species.
Even
though
documentation
of
summer
chum
occurrence
in
the
Skokomish
River
is
sparse,
the
size
of
the
river,
and
likelihood
that
natural
habitat
conditions
would
have
supported
summer
chum,
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
summer
chum
have
been
eradicated
as
a
result
of
human
activities.
It
appears
reasonable
that
a
population
of
summer
chum
in
the
Skokomish
River
would
have
been
a
separate
stock,
at
least
based
on
geographic
separation
from
other
stocks.
The
Skokomish
is
therefore
judged
to
be
a
recently
extinct
stock.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Extinct.

Finch
Creek
Stock
Definition
­
Geographic
distance
from
other
stocks
is
the
basis
for
separating
this
recently
extinct
native
stock.

Stock
Status
­
The
Hoodsport
Salmon
Hatchery
began
trapping
chum
salmon
at
Finch
Creek
in
1953.
Rack
counts
show
a
bimodal
chum
run
in
the
creek
during
the
1950s
and
1960s,
with
the
first
peak
occurring
in
early
October.
Since
this
timing
is
consistent
with
summer
chum
spawning,
it
is
reasonable
to
conclude
that
Finch
Creek
supported
a
modest
summer
chum
run.
By
1970,
this
summer
spawning
stock
had
been
extirpated
in
Finch
Creek.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Extinct.

Chimacum
Stock
Definition
­
Geographic
distance
from
other
stocks
is
the
basis
for
identifying
this
recently
extinct
native
population
as
a
separate
stock.

Stock
Status
­
No
escapement
estimates
exist
for
Chimacum
Creek
and
few
spawner
surveys
by
WDFW
or
tribal
staffs
have
occurred
until
recent
years;
however,
several
surveys
that
have
been
made
during
early
October
in
the
middle
1970s
and
early
1980s
have
reported
small
numbers
of
summer
chum.
Summer
chum
surveys
also
have
been
made
in
the
1970s
as
part
of
a
local
high
school
project
sponsored
by
teacher
Ray
Lowrie.
Summer
chum
counts
of
over
100
have
been
made
in
several
years
but
there
are
no
escapement
estimates
(
Ray
Lowrie,
pers.
comm.)
The
summer
chum
run
disappeared
by
the
middle
1980s.
The
run's
demise
is
believed
due
to
a
combination
of
habitat
degradation
and
poaching.

Origin
and
Type
­
A
native
stock
with
wild
production.
Status
­
Extinct.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
42
Table
1.8.
Summary
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
stocks,
including
existing
and
recently
extinct
stocks
and
stock
origin
Stock
Status
Origin
Big
Beef
Extinct
Native
Anderson
Extinct
Native
Dewatto
Extinct
Native
Tahuya
Extinct
Native
Union
Healthy
Native
Skokomish
Extinct
Native
Finch
Extinct
Native
Lilliwaup
Critical
Native
Hamma
Hamma
Depressed
Native
Duckabush
Depressed
Native
Dosewallips
Depressed
Native
Big/
Little
Quilcene
Depressed
Native
Chimacum
Extinct
Native
Snow/
Salmon
Depressed
Native
Jimmycomelately
Critical
Native
Dungeness
Unknown
Native
1.7.2.3
Possible
Additional
Historic
Distributions
A
"
possible
historic
distribution"
category
is
used
for
groups
of
fish
where
there
is
some
evidence
of
former
summer
chum
occurrence
in
a
stream
but
the
evidence
is
insufficient
to
determine
whether
or
not
there
was
a
distinct
stock.
A
distinction
is
made
here
between
stock
and
historic
distribution,
where
a
stock
is
defined
under
SASSI
as
being
(
or
formerly
has
been)
self­
sustaining
and
reproductively
isolated
from
other
stocks
based
on
available
evidence.

The
determinations
of
existing
and
extinct
stocks
have
been
made
based
upon
relatively
strong
evidence
that
the
stocks
either
currently
exist
or
previously
had
existed.
It
is
likely
that
summer
chum
were
historically
distributed
among
additional
streams
within
the
region.
For
several
streams,
relatively
recent
evidence
indicates
that
summer
chum
were
historically
present.
However,
this
evidence
is
fragmentary
and
judged
insufficient
to
identify
stocks.
For
example,
one
survey
in
Eagle
Creek
on
September
25,
1952,
reports
a
total
of
112
chum
counted
in
the
lower
0.7
mile
of
the
stream.
Escapement
surveys
during
the
summer
chum
spawning
period
were
not
conducted
again
in
Eagle
Creek
until
1978.
Since
1978,
numerous
surveys
during
September
and
October
have
found
no
evidence
of
a
summer
chum
salmon
population.

Another
example
is
Stavis
Creek,
where
a
survey
count
of
45
live
and
30
dead
chum
salmon
was
made
October
18,
1972.
Were
these
fish
(
at
least
a
portion
of
them)
summer
chum,
or
early
returns
of
the
fall
run?
In
the
same
stream,
over
several
later
years
(
1977,
1981,
1983),
a
few
summer
chum
(
counts
of
four
or
less)
were
observed
in
late
September
and
early
October.
It
is
not
known
whether
these
fish
represent
the
last
of
a
summer
population
that
formerly
existed,
are
strays
from
another
stream,
or
possibly
are
early
returns
of
fall
run
fish.
Similar
kinds
of
observation
also
exist
for
Little
Note
that
"
critical
status"
in
the
context
of
annual
abundance
evaluation
is
a
different
definition
and
application
1
(
as
described)
than
the
definition
and
application
for
SASSI
stocks
shown
in
section
1.7.2.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
43
Lilliwaup
and
Fulton
creeks
in
Hood
Canal,
and
Morse
and
Johnson
creeks
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.

The
identification
of
the
above
streams
as
possibly
being
part
of
the
historic
distribution
of
summer
chum
salmon
is
based
on
limited
information
that
happened
to
be
collected
for
these
streams.
Other
streams
that
were
not
surveyed
may
also
have
supported
summer
chum
at
one
time;
e.
g.
Seabeck
Creek.
Absent
the
evidence,
the
specific
possible
historic
distributions
noted
here,
as
well
as
any
additional
distributions
that
might
be
suggested
for
other
streams,
must
fall
into
the
category
of
unknown,
but
possible,
former
occurrences
of
summer
chum
salmon.
The
assessment
of
the
historic
use
of
these
streams
by
summer
chum
salmon
could
change
as
more
information
becomes
available.

The
question
of
summer
chum
having
existed
in
Big
and
Little
Mission
creeks
has
been
reexamined
during
this
process.
In
both
streams,
and
particularly
in
Big
Mission
Creek,
chum
salmon
have
been
observed
in
early
to
mid
October
and
even
in
late
September.
The
numbers
in
Big
Mission
appear
relatively
large
with
counts
in
the
tens
and
even
over
one
hundred
by
mid
October
in
some
years.
However,
a
fairly
large
"
early
fall
run"
(
as
categorized
by
WDFW)
exists
in
these
two
streams,
with
peak
spawner
abundance
typically
observed
in
early
November.
The
annual
survey
counts
of
live
chum
typically
rise
steadily
over
the
course
of
the
season
from
the
initial
observations
of
fish
entry
in
late
September
to
mid­
October,
until
the
early
November
peak
spawning
activity
period.
There
is
no
"
bi­
modality"
in
the
survey
counts
through
time
that
would
indicate
the
possible
existence
of
a
discrete
"
summer
timed"
spawning
population
in
these
streams
prior
to
the
November
peak
timed
spawning
population.
Genetic
sampling
indicates
these
populations
are
most
closely
associated
with
Hood
Canal
fall
chum
stocks.

1.7.3
Annual
Abundance
Evaluation
Annual
abundance
evaluations
will
be
performed
for
both
management
units
and
stocks.
Management
units
are
made
up
of
one
or
more
stocks
that
are
aggregated
in
recognition
of
practical
and
biological
limitations
to
available
data
and
how
fisheries
can
be
effectively
managed
(
see
section
3.5.2).
In
the
case
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum,
all
of
the
management
units
contain
only
one
stock
except
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit.

Critical
status
thresholds
are
defined
for
management
units,
for
both
total
run
size
and
spawning
1
escapement,
and
critical
status
flags
are
defined
for
the
stocks
within
the
Mainstem
Management
Unit
(
Tables
1.9
and
1.10)
below
which
additional
actions
will
be
taken
as
necessary
(
see
sections
3.6.1
and
3.5.6.2).
A
description
of
the
derivation
of
these
thresholds
is
included
in
Appendix
Report
1.5.

1.7.3.1
Management
Units
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
44
Numerical
abundance
and
escapement
thresholds
have
been
derived
for
each
management
unit
against
which
the
post­
season
estimates
of
run
size
and
escapement
and
the
pre­
season
forecast
parameters
will
be
compared
in
annually
assessing
plan
performance
(
Table
1.9).
A
management
unit
is
considered
to
be
in
critical
status
when
its
abundance
or
escapement
in
the
most
recent
past
return
year
is
less,
or
its
forecast
run
size
for
the
coming
return
year
(
or
that
of
one
of
the
parental
broods)
is
projected
to
be
less
than
the
appropriate
threshold
value.

Table
1.9.
Critical
Thresholds
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Management
Units.

Management
Units
Contributing
Stocks
Thresholds
Thresholds
Critical
Escapement
Critical
Runsize
Sequim
Bay
Jimmycomelately
200
220
Discovery
Bay
Snow/
Salmon
850
930
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
(
Hood
Canal
Bridge
to
Ayres
Point)
Lilliwaup
Hamma
Hamma
Duckabush
Dosewallips
Total
2,660
3,980
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bays
Big/
Little
Quilcene
1,110
1,260
SE
Hood
Canal
Union
300
340
Total
4,750
5,400
1.7.3.2
Status
of
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
Escapement
Distribution
and
Minimum
Escapements
Flags
for
each
of
the
stocks
within
the
Mainstem
Management
Unit
have
been
derived
which
are
designed
to
protect
the
population
structure
within
this
management
unit
(
Table
1.10).
The
Escapement
Distribution
Flags
(
EDF)
are
mean
historical
threshold
proportions
of
the
Mainstem
escapement,
attributed
to
each
of
the
contributing
stocks.
The
Minimum
Escapement
Flags
(
MEF)
have
been
calculated
by
multiplying
the
Critical
Escapement
Threshold
for
the
Mainstem
Management
Unit
by
the
EDF
for
each
of
the
stocks.
These
flags
are
useful
benchmarks
to
check
for
poor
performance
of
any
one
stock's
escapement
based
on
historical
distribution
of
stock
escapements
within
the
Mainstem
Management
Unit.
This
is
necessary
for
years
when
the
overall
management
unit
abundance
is
sufficiently
high
that
the
Critical
Abundance
Threshold
would
not
be
triggered
but
escapement
of
one
or
more
individual
stocks
may
be
extremely
low.
If
a
given
stock's
proportion
of
the
Mainstem
Management
Unit
escapement
or
the
stock's
actual
estimated
escapement
fall
below
the
values
in
Table
1.10,
a
review
of
the
stock's
status
will
be
conducted.
The
conclusions
from
the
review
will
be
documented
and
its
recommended
actions
will
be
implemented
as
described
in
section
3.6.1.
An
example
of
how
the
Mainstem
Management
Unit
threshold
and
escapement
flags
function
when
they
are
applied
to
abundances
of
past
years
is
shown
in
Appendix
Report
1.5.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
45
Table
1.10.
Critical
Status
Flags
for
stocks
making
up
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit.

Escapement
Distribution
Mean
Distribution
Proportion
1
Standard
Min.
Escape.
of
MU
total
Deviation
Flag
(
Mean­
1
SD)
Flag
Dosewallips
0.277
0.130
0.147
736
Duckabush
0.263
0.083
0.180
700
Hamma
Hamma
0.392
0.199
0.193
1,042
Lilliwaup
0.069
0.026
0.043
182
1.7.4
Stock
Extinction
Risk
1.7.4.1
Introduction
The
level
of
extinction
risk
of
summer
chum
populations
(
assuming
no
intervention)
can
be
a
primary
factor
for
determining
priorities
for
recovery
planning.
Unfortunately,
there
is
not
consensus
on
how
to
conduct
a
risk
assessment,
or
on
an
easy
way
to
calculate
a
threshold
abundance
level
that
should
trigger
certain
levels
of
recovery
effort.
Ideally,
a
risk
assessment
would
consider
all
factors
that
potentially
could
lead
to
the
loss
of
a
stock
or
a
group
of
stocks.
For
example,
a
recent
paper
by
Lee
and
Rieman
(
1997)
lists
eleven
different
factors
used
to
develop
a
viability
assessment
procedure.
These
are:
number
of
eggs
per
adult
female,
spawning
and
incubating
success,
fry
survival
at
low
density,
asymptotic
parr
capacity,
juvenile
survival,
adult
survival
rate,
age
at
maturity,
coefficient
of
variation
in
fry
survival,
mean
immigrants
per
generation,
initial
number
of
adult
females,
and
expected
time
between
catastrophes.
Most
of
these
factors
have
not
been
quantified
for
summer
chum
salmon,
or
most
other
wild
salmon
populations.
Given
the
lack
of
consensus
on
levels
for
extinction
risk,
many
assessment
approaches
use
a
judgement
on
whether
or
not
the
population
is
likely
to
recover
without
intervention.
This
has
been
the
approach
used
by
NMFS
in
the
chum
status
review
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).

A
threshold
number
for
extinction
risk
has
been
presented
by
Nehlsen
et
al.
(
1991).
They
consider
a
population
under
200
(
or
if
abundance
has
declined
and
is
continuing
to
decline)
to
be
at
high
risk
of
extinction.
NMFS,
in
the
chum
status
review,
does
not
present
any
specific
threshold
numbers,
but
relies
on
abundance
trends
and
abundance
relative
to
historical
levels.
Allendorf
and
Ryman
(
1987)
recommend
that
at
least
100
of
each
sex
be
used
to
maintain
a
hatchery
strain
(
again,
a
200
fish
value).

Two
measurements
of
population
size
that
are
used
to
consider
extinction
risk
are
total
population
size
(
N)
and
effective
population
size
(
N
).
Total
population
size
is
the
number
of
spawners
e
cumulated
over
a
number
of
years
equivalent
to
one
generation
(
3.6
years
for
summer
chum
salmon).
The
effective
population
size
is
a
lower
value
that
provides
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
spawners
that
represent
successful
reproduction
and
considers
such
factors
as;
sex
ratios,
prespawning
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
46
Measurements
of
Population
Size
Total
population
Size
(
N):
The
total
population
size
for
summer
chum
can
be
calculated;
N
=
Average
escapement
times
3.6
(
generation
length),
where
3.6
is
the
average
age
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon.
Effective
Population
Size
(
N
):
The
effective
population
size
per
generation
is
e
equivalent
to
the
effective
number
of
breeders
per
year
times
the
generation
length
(
from
Waples
1990).
This
can
be
calculated;
N
=
Average
escapement
times
3.6
e
(
generation
length)
times
0.2
(
N
/
N).
e
mortality,
fertility
rates,
etc.
Effective
population
size
is
equivalent
to
the
total
population
size
times
a
factor
representing
the
ratio
between
effective
(
N
)
and
total
(
N)
population
size.
There
has
been
e
much
discussion
about
the
relationship
of
the
total
population
size
to
the
realized
effective
population
size
(
N
/
N).
Pacific
salmon
effective
population
size
has
been
variously
estimated
to
be
e
from
10%
to
25%
of
total
population
size.
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997)
assume
a
N
/
N
value
of
20%
for
e
wild
Pacific
salmon
populations,
based
on
the
authors'
personal
communications
with
Robin
Waples
(
NMFS).

Effective
population
values
of
50
and
500
fish
have
been
suggested
as
threshold
criteria
for
extinction
risk.
Allendorf
and
Ryman
(
1987)
report
that
less
than
1
%
of
the
genetic
variation
is
lost
each
generation
if
N
is
greater
than
50.
That
is
because
the
rate
of
loss
of
genetic
variation
is
equal
e
to
the
inverse
of
2
times
N
.
It
has
also
been
suggested
that
the
long­
term
adaptive
potential
of
an
e
isolated
population
(
without
migration
into
it)
is
conserved
when
N
is
on
the
order
of
500
e
individuals
(
FAO
­
UN
1981,
Nelson
and
Soule
1987).

Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997)
present
a
set
of
procedures
for
rating
extinction
risk
and
for
providing
an
estimation
of
the
possible
consequences
of
extinction
for
Pacific
salmon
stocks.
The
methods
for
estimating
extinction
risk
use
either
population
viability
analysis
(
PVA)
or
a
set
of
surrogate
measures
that
include
current
population
size
parameters
and
population
trends.
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997)
have
also
looked
at
the
consequences
of
extinction
on
a
genetic
and
evolutionary
basis,
and
have
considered
potential
loss
of
adaptive
genetic
diversity
and
ecological
function.

The
following
risk
assessment
for
summer
chum
stocks
uses
the
procedures
for
measuring
extinction
risk
as
presented
by
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997).
It
is
recognized
by
the
co­
managers
that
this
methodology
does
not
include
all
potential
risk
factors
(
as
discussed
in
Wainwright
and
Waples
1998),
however,
the
use
of
both
minimum
population
size
and
population
trend
criteria
does
provide
a
basis
for
ranking
extinction
risk.
From
a
practical
point
of
view,
much
of
the
information
needed
to
assess
additional
sources
of
extinction
risk
is
either
not
available
or
is
subject
to
a
variety
of
interpretations.
For
example,
if
the
amount
or
quality
of
available
habitat
has
been
severely
impacted,
this
could
impose
a
limitation
on
one
or
more
life
stages
and
increase
risks
of
extinction.
The
process
for
prioritizing
the
consequences
of
extinction
from
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997)
has
not
been
used
in
this
recovery
plan
because
the
co­
managers
consider
avoidance
of
extinction
to
be
of
equal
priority
for
all
summer
chum
stocks.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
47
The
co­
managers
will
periodically
review
summer
chum
salmon
extinction
risk,
because
these
risks
can
change
over
time
as
a
consequence
of
actions
taken
under
this
plan,
or
because
of
natural
or
unanticipated
variations
in
survivals.

1.7.4.2
Assessing
Risk
The
methods
provided
by
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997)
to
assess
extinction
risk,
result
in
the
ranking
of
individual
stocks
into
one
of
four
categories;
very
high,
high,
moderate,
and
special
concern
(
Table
1.11).
They
present
specific
definitions
of
various
measures
of
population
size
and
decline
that
are
summarized
below,
and
are
used
in
the
summer
chum
risk
assessment.
For
the
purposes
of
this
assessment,
a
"
low"
category
has
been
added
for
defining
stocks
that
do
not
fit
any
of
the
above
categories
and
are
not
at
risk
of
extinction.

Population
Viability
Analysis
While
the
risk
of
extinction
can
potentially
be
determined
by
a
quantitative
population
viability
analysis
such
as
those
described
by
Emlen
1995
or
Ratner
et
al.
1997
for
chinook
salmon,
the
data
do
not
exist
to
conduct
this
type
analysis
for
summer
chum
salmon.
For
a
detailed
discussion
of
the
use
of
PVA
and
the
quantitative
criteria
used
below,
see
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997).

Population
Size
Criteria
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997)
offer
several
precautions
for
the
use
of
salmon
spawner
census
numbers.
First,
that
N
represents
spawning
fish,
not
total
run
size,
and
is
not
an
annual
escapement
value
but
is
calculated
by
multiplying
annual
escapement
by
generation
length.
Second,
the
population
numbers
should
account
for
any
contribution
to
spawning
by
precocious
males
(
not
generally
applicable
for
chum
salmon).
Finally,
if
only
census
numbers
are
available
to
rank
extinction
risk,
either
N
or
N
can
be
used,
but
not
both.
e
Population
Decline
Criteria
Each
of
the
following
criteria
represent
a
specific
risk
category
(
see
Table
1.11).

Precipitous
Decline
­
A
stock
that
has
undergone
recent
decline
(
within
the
last
two
generations)
to
annual
escapements
below
500
fish,
and
has
a
recruit/
spawner
ratio
of
less
than
one.
Historically
small
but
stable
stocks
are
not
included
in
this
category.

Chronic
Decline
or
Depression
­
A
stock
whose
annual
escapements
are
at
or
below
500
fish
and
appears
to
be
stable,
but
has
previously
declined
more
than
can
be
accounted
for
by
known
variation.

Decline
Apparent
or
Probable
­
A
stock
whose
annual
escapements
have
not
reached
the
above
thresholds,
but,
after
allowing
for
known
variation,
appear
to
be
declining
at
about
10%
to
20%
per
year
over
the
last
2
to
4
generations.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
48
Order
of
Magnitude
Decline
Within
One
Generation
­
A
stock
whose
escapement
numbers
are
reduced
quickly
and
dramatically
(
by
catastrophic
event
or
disturbance)
by
an
order
of
magnitude
in
a
single
generation
(
i.
e.,
a
90%
decline).

Smaller
But
Significant
Decline
­
A
stock
that
suffers
a
lesser
but
significant
reduction
in
escapements
due
to
a
single
event
or
disturbance.

Table
1.11.
Criteria
for
assessing
the
level
of
risk
of
extinction
for
Pacific
salmonid
stocks
(
from
Allendorf
et
al.
1997).
Risk
of
extinction
Risk
of
extinction
criteria
Very
high
High
Moderate
Special
Concern
Probability
using
50%
within
5
20%
within
20
5%
within
100
Historically
population
viability
years
years
years
present,
believed
analysis
or
known
to
still
exist
but
no
current
data
­­
OR
­­
­­
OR
­­
­­
OR
­­
Not
applicable
any
TWO
of
the
ONE
very
high
ONE
high
risk
following
criteria
risk
criterion
criterion
­­
OR
­­
­­
OR
­­
any
TWO
of
the
following
Effective
population
size
N
50
or
less
N
less
than
500
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
per
generation
­­
OR
­­
­­
OR
­­
e
e
Total
population
size
N
250
or
less
N
less
than
2500
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
per
generation
Population
decline
Precipitous
Chronic
decline
or
Decline
apparent
Not
applicable
decline
depression
or
probable
Catastrophe,
rate
and
Order
of
Smaller
but
Not
applicable,
Not
applicable
effect
magnitude
decline
significant
decline
stocks
rate
at
least
w/
in
one
high
risk
generation
Risk
Assessment
The
following
risk
assessments
are
based
on
the
criteria
described
above
in
Table
1.11,
and
the
results
of
the
risk
assessments
are
summarized
in
Table
1.12.

Union
River
Estimated
escapements
to
the
Union
River
show
no
declining
trend
over
the
period
of
record
and,
in
fact,
appear
to
have
increased
somewhat
since
the
1970s.
This
population
has
shown
more
stability
than
any
other
stock
in
the
region.
This
is
not
to
say
that
the
size
of
the
population
has
not
been
larger
prior
to
the
period
of
record;
the
river
may
have
been
impacted
by
human
developments
affecting
habitat
conditions
in
the
earlier
part
of
the
twentieth
century
or
even
in
the
latter
part
of
the
previous
century,
and
consequently
run
sizes
have
been
reduced.
Escapements
over
the
last
four
years
have
ranged
from
223
to
721,
averaging
462
spawners.
The
effective
population
size
(
N
)
e
equals
333
for
the
1995­
98
return
years,
and
total
population
size
(
N)
is
1,667
fish
for
the
same
years
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
49
(
Table
1.12).
This
stock
meets
only
one
high
risk
criterion
(
population
size),
and
the
risk
of
extinction
is
rated
as
moderate.

Lilliwaup
Creek
Estimated
escapements
to
Lilliwaup
Creek
range
from
4
to
79
over
the
last
four
years,
averaging
only
33
spawners.
This
is
3.5%
of
the
annual
average
937
spawners
estimated
for
the
years
1974
through
1978
(
i.
e.,
from
the
first
year
of
relatively
reliable
estimates
to
the
year
before
the
general
summer
chum
escapement
decline
in
Hood
Canal;
see
Part
Two
­
Region­
wide
Factors
for
Decline).
The
effective
population
size
(
N
)
equals
only
24
fish
for
the
1995­
98
return
years,
and
total
population
e
size
(
N)
is
120
for
the
same
years
(
Table
1.12).
Because
the
population
meets
one
very
high
risk
criterion
(
low
population
size)
and
is
in
a
chronic
decline
situation,
the
risk
of
extinction
is
judged
to
be
high.

Hamma
Hamma
River
The
annual
average
estimated
Hamma
Hamma
system
escapement
over
the
past
four
years
is
374,
ranging
from
104
to
774
spawners.
The
wide
range
of
escapements
extending
back
to
the
mid
1980s,
and
dipping
to
less
than
100
spawners
in
some
years,
raises
questions
about
the
stability
of
the
population,
however,
average
escapement
has
increased
in
recent
years.
The
average
of
374
spawners
is
7%
of
the
1974
through
1978
average
of
5,465
spawners.
The
effective
population
size
(
N
)
equals
269
fish
for
the
1995­
98
return
years,
and
total
population
size
(
N)
is
1,347
for
the
same
e
years
(
Table
1.12).
Because
the
population
meets
one
high
risk
criterion
(
population
size)
and
is
currently
increasing,
the
risk
of
extinction
is
judged
to
be
moderate.

Duckabush
River
The
estimated
escapement
in
the
Duckabush
River
ranges
from
226
to
2,650
over
the
last
four
years,
averaging
1,044
spawners.
This
average
is
32
%
of
the
1974
through
1978
annual
average
of
3,254
spawners.
The
effective
population
size
(
N
)
equals
752
fish
for
the
1995­
98
return
years,
and
total
e
population
size
(
N)
is
3,758
for
the
same
years
(
Table
1.12).
Though
escapements
have
declined
substantially
since
the
1970s,
the
current
escapement
levels
appear
to
be
relatively
stable
and
this
stock
exceeds
the
population
size
criteria,
indicating
that
the
risk
of
extinction
is
low.

Dosewallips
River
The
1974
through
1978
annual
average
escapement
is
2,846
spawners,
ranging
from
1,901
to
3,593.
The
escapement
numbers
decrease
substantially
during
the
1980s,
dropping
below
200
spawners
in
five
of
ten
years.
However,
since
the
early
1990s,
the
numbers
have
rebounded
and,
over
the
last
four
years,
escapement
estimates
have
ranged
from
47
to
6,976,
averaging
2,537
spawners
(
89%
of
the
1974
through
1978
annual
average).
The
estimate
of
47
spawners
in
1997
is
a
cause
for
concern,
but
this
may
be
an
aberrant
year
within
the
recovery
period.
The
effective
population
size
(
N
)
e
equals
1,827
fish
for
the
1995­
98
return
years,
and
total
population
size
(
N)
is
9,133
for
the
same
years
(
Table
1.12).
Because
escapements
have
increased
substantially
in
recent
years
and
exceed
the
population
size
risk
criteria,
the
risk
of
extinction
is
judged
to
be
low.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
50
Big/
Little
Quilcene
Rivers
Escapement
estimates
averaged
1,689
spawners
(
range
of
795
to
2,978)
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
and
918
spawners
(
range
of
44
to
1,816)
in
the
Little
Quilcene
River
from
1974
through
1978.
For
the
last
four
years
(
1995­
1998),
the
Big
Quilcene
River's
average
estimated
escapement
is
5,523
spawners
(
range
of
2,244
to
8,479)
while
the
average
of
the
Little
Quilcene
River
is
153
spawners
(
range
of
29
to
265).
The
combined
total
effective
population
size
(
N
)
equals
4,087
fish
for
the
e
1995­
98
return
years,
and
the
total
population
size
(
N)
is
20,434
for
the
same
years
(
Table
1.12).
The
most
recent
estimated
returns
(
1995­
1996)
likely
have
been
affected
by
the
existing
supplementation
project
begun
in
1992.
Based
on
an
increasing
escapement
trend
and
the
large
recent
escapements,
the
current
extinction
risk
for
this
stock
is
low.

The
risk
of
extinction
and
its
effect
on
the
decision
to
supplement
this
stock
beginning
in
1992,
is
probably
best
judged
by
examining
escapements
just
prior
to
initiation
of
the
supplementation
project.
The
four
year
average
estimated
escapement
from
1988
through
1991
is
only
89
spawners
for
this
stock
(
including
both
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers),
with
annual
escapements
ranging
from
2
to
297
fish.
The
effective
population
size
(
N
)
equals
64
fish
for
the
1988­
91
return
years,
and
e
total
population
size
(
N)
is
320
for
the
same
years
(
Table
1.12).
Habitat
conditions
in
both
streams
are
poor
and
represent
a
threat
to
the
survival
of
the
stock.
At
the
time
supplementation
was
begun,
this
type
of
risk
assessment
would
have
rated
this
stock
to
be
at
high
risk
of
extinction
because
the
high
risk
criteria
for
population
size
and
chronic
decline
were
exceeded.

Snow/
Salmon
Creeks
From
1974
through
1978,
escapement
estimates
average
584
spawners
(
range
of
327
to
818)
in
Snow
Creek
and
831
spawners
(
range
of
512
to
1,664)
in
Salmon
Creek.
During
the
last
four
years,
Snow
Creek's
average
estimated
escapement
is
70
spawners
(
range
of
25
to
160)
and
the
average
of
Salmon
Creek
is
768
spawners
(
range
of
538
to
1,023).
The
total
average
escapement
for
the
stock
in
the
last
four
years
is
838
spawners,
with
a
range
of
annual
escapements
between
563
and
1,051
fish.
The
effective
population
size
(
N
)
equals
603
fish
for
the
1995­
98
return
years,
and
total
e
population
size
(
N)
is
3,017
for
the
same
years
(
Table
1.12).
The
most
recent
return
estimates
(
1995­
1998)
likely
have
been
affected
by
returns
to
the
existing
supplementation
project
begun
on
Salmon
Creek
in
1992.
Since
the
stock
(
with
two
streams
combined)
has
experienced
increasing
overall
escapements
in
recent
years
and
average
escapement
exceeds
the
population
size
risk
criteria,
the
current
risk
of
extinction
is
judged
to
be
low.

As
with
the
Quilcene
stock,
the
risk
of
extinction
and
its
affect
on
the
decision
to
supplement
this
stock
should
be
judged
by
examining
escapements
just
prior
to
initiation
of
the
supplementation
project
in
1992.
The
four
year
average
estimated
escapement
from
1988
through
1991
is
829
spawners
for
this
stock,
with
annual
escapements
ranging
from
184
to
2,638
fish.
The
four­
year
average
is
heavily
influenced
by
the
1988
escapement
of
2,638
spawners,
however,
the
three
subsequent
years
(
1989
­
1991)
have
an
average
escapement
of
only
226
fish,
with
a
range
from
184
to
278
spawners.
Using
the
1989
to
1991
three
year
average
of
226
fish,
the
effective
population
size
(
N
)
equals
163
fish,
and
total
population
size
(
N)
is
814
for
the
same
years
(
Table
1.12).
e
Habitat
impacts
are
moderate
to
high
and
potentially
are
a
threat
to
the
survival
of
the
stock.
At
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
51
time
supplementation
was
begun,
this
type
of
risk
assessment
would
have
rated
this
stock
to
be
at
high
risk
of
extinction,
because
the
very
high
risk
criterion
of
precipitous
decline
and
the
high
risk
criterion
for
population
size
were
exceeded.

Jimmycomelately
Creek
Escapements
for
Jimmycomelately
Creek
for
the
past
four
years
annually
have
averaged
103
spawners
(
range
of
30
to
223).
Sufficient
in­
stream
spawner
survey
data
to
estimate
escapement
have
not
been
collected
on
Jimmycomelately
Creek
before
1982.
However,
for
the
seven
year
period
of
1982
through
1988
(
the
latter
year
being
the
start
of
the
general
decline
for
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stocks),
annual
escapement
estimates
average
441
spawners
(
range
of
61
to
1,052).
The
recent
four
year
average
is
23%
of
the
historical
seven
year
average.
The
effective
population
size
(
N
)
equals
e
74
fish
for
the
1995­
98
return
years,
and
total
population
size
(
N)
is
371
for
the
same
years
(
Table
1.12).
Because
of
the
chronic
decline
of
this
stock
and
population
sizes
meeting
the
high
risk
criteria,
the
risk
of
extinction
is
judged
to
be
high.

Dungeness
River
Historically,
surveys
of
summer
chum
spawners
have
not
been
performed
in
the
Dungeness
River
and
no
escapement
estimates
are
available.
Only
recently
has
it
been
recognized
that
summer
chum
persist
in
the
river.
This
information
comes
from
observations
made
in
the
course
of
collecting
data
on
chinook
and
pink
salmon
as
part
of
ongoing
recovery
efforts
for
these
two
species.
Habitat
conditions
are
relatively
poor
and
may
pose
a
threat
to
the
summer
chum
stock.
Little
information
is
available
through
which
judgements
can
be
rendered
regarding
the
status
of
the
Dungeness
stock,
if
it
exists.
More
information
is
needed
before
recovery
activities
are
contemplated
and
the
Dungeness
River
stock
risk
rating
is
special
concern.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
1.7
Stock
Evaluations
Page
52
Table
1.12.
Extinction
risk
assessment
for
summer
chum
salmon
(
based
on
Allendorf
et
al.
1997).

Stock
(
Mean
95­
98)
Size
(
N
)
Size
(
N)
Trend
Risk
Rating
Escapement
Population
Population
Population
Effective
Total
Recent
e
1
2
Union
462
333
1,667
Increasing
Moderate
Lilliwaup
38
27
137
Chronic
decline
High
or
depression
Hamma
Hamma
366
264
1,318
Increasing
Moderate
Duckabush
1,044
752
3,758
Increasing
Low
Dosewallips
2,537
1,827
9,133
Increasing
Low
Big
&
Little
Quilcene
Current
status
5,676
4,087
20,434
Increasing
Low
Pre­
project
status
89
64
320
Precipitous
High
3
decline
Snow/
Salmon
Current
status
835
601
3,006
Increasing
Low
Pre­
project
status
226
163
814
Precipitous
High
4
decline
Jimmycomelately
103
74
371
Precipitous
High
decline
Dungeness
No
data
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Special
Concern
Effective
population
size
(
N
)
=
Average
escapement
x
3.6
(
generation
length)
x
0.2
(
N
/
N).
1
e
e
Total
population
size
(
N)
=
Average
escapement
x
3.6
(
generation
length).
2
Big/
Little
Quilcene
average
escapement
for
1988
through
1991
return
years.
3
Snow/
Salmon
creeks
average
escapement
for
1989
through
1991
return
years
(
see
text).
4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
53
"
The
basic
approach
is
to
examine
a
variety
of
region­
wide
factors
potentially
affecting
production,
both
natural
and
human
caused,
to
identify
those
that
change
in
concert
with
the
recent
summer
chum
salmon
decline."
Part
Two
Region­
wide
Factors
For
Decline
2.1
Introduction
Like
all
Pacific
salmon,
summer
chum
salmon
are
influenced
by
a
variety
of
factors,
with
both
positive
and
negative
consequences
for
their
overall
survival.
Part
Two
provides
a
general
analysis
of
those
factors
that
most
likely
have
been
responsible
for
the
abrupt
decline
in
summer
chum
salmon
abundance
that
has
occurred
in
Hood
Canal
streams
in
the
late
1970s
and
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
a
decade
later.
The
basic
approach
is
to
examine
a
variety
of
region­
wide
factors
potentially
affecting
production,
both
natural
and
human
caused,
to
identify
those
that
change
in
concert
with
the
recent
summer
chum
salmon
decline.
Part
Three
of
this
recovery
plan
will
identify
more
specific
factors
for
decline
and
will
present
recovery
strategies,
under
the
general
categories
of
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
habitat,
and
harvest
management.

While
this
discussion
focuses
on
individual
factors
for
decline,
the
observed
reductions
in
the
numbers
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
region
are
the
result
of
the
combined
impacts
of
a
number
of
factors.
When
two
or
more
impacts
occur
that
negatively
affect
the
survival
or
the
resilience
of
a
salmon
population
there
may
be
a
synergistic
effect,
where
there
is
a
greater
overall
loss
than
an
observed
change
in
an
individual
survival
factor.
An
example
of
such
an
amplification
of
impacts
might
be
if
a
habitat
alteration
substantially
reduces
the
incubation
survival
of
the
eggs
and
alevins
in
a
stream
(
e.
g.,
through
increased
siltation
or
flooding),
and
the
subsequent
predation
on
the
surviving
fry
becomes
higher
than
normal
because
predators
take
an
increased
proportion
of
the
reduced
prey
population.
The
combined
impact
(
total
mortality)
would
be
higher
than
just
the
change
in
incubation
survival
would
suggest.

The
factors
identified
here
may
not
include
all
of
the
elements
that
need
to
be
addressed
for
recovery
of
these
summer
chum
stocks.
Those
factors
implicated
in
the
recent
abrupt
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
will
not
necessarily
include
those
effects
that
over
time,
gradually
and
cumulatively
impact
salmon
survivals.
For
example,
there
has
been
a
long
history
of
negative
anthropogenic
habitat­
related
impacts
affecting
salmon
populations,
and
many
of
these
have
occurred
prior
to
the
period
of
decline
addressed
here
(
section
3.4).
Additionally,
nearly
two
decades
have
passed
since
the
beginning
of
the
decline
of
summer
chum,
and
a
broader
range
of
negative
conditions
now
exist.
All
known
negative
factors
must
be
addressed
to
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
54
effect
the
recovery,
stability,
and
sustainability
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
stocks.

2.2
Negative
Impacts
On
Abundance
2.2.1
Introduction
The
following
section
will
examine
those
factors
that
can
influence
summer
chum
salmon
abundance
in
an
attempt
to
identify
specific
sources
of
mortality
that
have
contributed
to
the
declines
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon.
There
are
several
general
conclusions,
however,
that
can
be
reached
through
a
simple
examination
of
the
escapement
data
and
run
size
data
in
Table
1.5
and
Table
1.6
(
see
section
1.5,
Period
of
Decline
discussion
in
Part
One).
First,
the
factors
for
decline
are
probably
different
for
the
two
regions
involved;
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
The
drop
in
abundance
of
summer
chum
salmon
has
occurred
ten
years
apart
in
the
two
regions;
1979
for
Hood
Canal
streams,
versus
1989
for
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams.
This
is
probably
because
of
differences
in
these
regions;
they
have
distinctly
different
climates,
stream
habitat
types,
habitat
problems,
and
fishery
exploitation
patterns.
The
second
observation
is
that
the
data
suggest
that
the
factors
for
decline
affect
every
chum
salmon
return
year,
and
do
not
seem
to
have
a
short
term
cyclic
component.
This
information
is
useful
because
short
term
cyclic
effects
can
be
discounted
in
the
following
examination
of
limiting
factors
(
e.
g.,
the
every
other
year
presence
of
pink
salmon
can
be
eliminated
as
a
potential
negative
impact).
If
there
is
a
cyclic
element
involved
in
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon,
it
likely
has
a
decadal
or
longer
pulse.

Potential
factors
affecting
production
will
be
examined
individually
in
the
following
four
categories:
1)
climate,
2)
ecological
interactions,
3)
habitat,
and
4)
harvest.
This
section
will
end
with
a
conclusions
discussion
that
will
examine
the
combined
impacts
of
factors
for
decline,
and
will
evaluate
the
relative
importance
of
various
factors.

2.2.2
Climate
The
weak
returns
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
1979
to
both
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
reflected
a
broad
failure
of
nearly
all
Washington
State
wild
summer
and
fall
chum
stocks.
All
regions
of
the
state
experienced
record
low
returns
of
chum
salmon,
and
the
statewide
harvest
in
1979
was
the
lowest
recorded
for
the
species
in
60
years
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
The
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
and
Union
River
(
Hood
Canal)
summer
chum
salmon
stocks
immediately
recovered
from
the
low
returns
in
1979,
but
the
other
populations
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
failed
to
recover
and
in
most
cases
declined
further
over
the
next
several
years.
The
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stocks
began
to
decline
a
decade
later.
This
pattern
of
major
decline
and
subsequent
continuing
low
population
abundance
beginning
in
Hood
Canal
in
1979
was
relatively
consistent
across
a
number
of
streams
with
varying
environments
and
habitat
types.
The
uniform
nature
of
these
declines
suggests
the
need
to
assess
the
possibility
of
a
regional
environmental
impact,
in
fresh
and/
or
marine
waters.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
55
El
Niño­
Southern
Oscillation
(
ENSO)

A
climate
event
that
begins
as
a
warming
episode
in
the
tropical
Pacific
zone
and
can
result
in
large
scale
intrusions
of
anomalously
warm
marine
water
northward
along
the
PNW
coastline.

Pacific
Decadal
Oscillation
(
PDO)

A
pattern
of
climate
and
ocean
condition
regimes
occurring
in
the
north
Pacific
Ocean
(
associated
with
the
Aleutian
low
pressure
system)
that
results
in
shifts
in
sea
surface
temperatures
and
plankton
abundance
on
a
decadal
time
scale.
Local
stocks
of
summer
chum
salmon
may
be
particularly
susceptible
to
changes
in
climate.
These
fish
are
the
southernmost
representatives
of
summer­
timed
chum
salmon
in
the
northeast
Pacific
region,
may
naturally
lead
a
somewhat
tenuous
existence,
and
may
be
less
resilient
when
facing
a
changing
environment.
Changes
in
ocean,
estuarine,
or
freshwater
conditions
that
may
have
a
modest
impact
on
fall
chum
salmon
could
be
a
major
limiting
factor
for
summer
chum
salmon.

2.2.2.1
Ocean
Effects
(
ENSO
and
PDO)

The
phenomena
of
the
El
Niño­
Southern
Oscillation
(
ENSO)
and
the
Pacific
Decadal
Oscillation
(
PDO)
have
received
a
great
deal
of
recent
attention
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
(
PNW)
fisheries
community
because
of
increasing
evidence
that
these
fluctuations
in
ocean
conditions
can
have
profound
effects
on
the
growth
and
survival
of
Pacific
salmon
and
other
types
of
fish
(
see
Emmett
and
Schiewe
1997).

El
Niño­
Southern
Oscillation
events
begin
as
warming
episodes
in
the
tropical
Pacific
zone
and
can
result
in
large
scale
intrusions
of
anomalously
warm
marine
water
northward
along
the
PNW
coastline.
The
effects
of
these
warm
water
intrusions
are
felt
along
the
Washington
and
British
Columbia
coast
for
a
one
to
two
year
duration
in
an
irregular
periodicity
of
every
two
to
seven
years
(
Mysak
1986).
ENSO
episodes
vary
greatly
in
intensity,
and
have
been
shown
to
impact
salmonid
marine
growth
and
survival
(
e.
g.
food
abundance
and
predator
impacts
change),
and
can
additionally
affect
the
freshwater
environment.
ENSO
impacts
on
salmonid
growth
and
survival
can
vary
by
species
and
locale
(
e.
g.,
negative
for
Oregon
coastal
coho
salmon
(
Pearcy
1992),
positive
for
British
Columbia
sockeye
salmon
(
Mysak
1986)).
ENSO
conditions
are
associated
with
generally
warmer
and
drier
weather
conditions
along
the
PNW
coastal
zone,
and
can
cause
reduced
snow
pack
and
lower
stream
flows
in
western
Washington
State
(
Mantua,
undated).

The
Pacific
Decadal
Oscillation
is
a
pattern
of
climate
and
ocean
condition
regimes
occurring
in
the
north
Pacific
Ocean
(
associated
with
the
Aleutian
low
pressure
system)
that
results
in
shifts
in
sea
surface
temperatures
and
plankton
abundance
on
a
decadal
time
scale
(
Mantua
et
al.
1997).
The
20
to
40
year
regimes
in
the
PDO
have
been
shown
to
relate
directly
to
the
abundance
of
Alaskan
pink
and
sockeye
salmon
(
Francis
and
Hare
1997).
The
most
recent
shift
occurred
in
1977
(
Ebbesmeyer
et
al.
1989),
and
resulted
in
warmer
coastal
sea
temperatures,
cooler
central
Pacific
sea
temperatures,
and
more
abundant
plankton
resources
which
contributed
to
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
56
strong
returns
of
Alaskan
salmon
in
the
last
two
decades
(
Francis
and
Hare
1997).
The
most
recent
PDO
shift
has
been
shown
to
relate
to
general
increases
in
production
of
pink,
chum
and
sockeye
salmon
in
the
North
Pacific
Ocean
(
Beamish
and
Bouillion
1993),
and
more
specifically
to
Fraser
River
sockeye
salmon
(
Beamish
et
al.
1997).
While
the
PDO
can
have
a
substantial
effect
on
the
growth
and
survival
of
salmon
during
their
migrations
and
feeding
in
the
north
Pacific
Ocean,
the
phenomenon
can
also
have
a
major
influence
on
the
freshwater
environment
along
the
PNW
coast,
including
Washington
State.
Air
temperatures,
wind
conditions,
and
precipitation
are
locally
affected
by
the
PDO
(
Mantua
et
al.
1997).

The
influence
of
PDO
regime
shifts
on
the
abundance
of
zooplankton
and
on
subsequent
salmon
production
in
the
North
Pacific
Ocean
has
been
demonstrated
(
Francis
and
Hare
1997).
The
available
data
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
are
insufficient
to
examine
the
possibility
of
impacts
of
PDO
changes
on
the
marine
survivals
of
these
fish.
However,
naturally
produced
fall
chum
stocks
in
Puget
Sound
and
Hood
Canal
have
increased
in
abundance
since
1977,
and
now
approach
historic
levels
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
Additionally,
returns
of
fall
chum
salmon
to
established
Puget
Sound
hatchery
facilities
(
e.
g.,
Hoodsport,
and
Minter
Creek),
show
that
marine
survivals
following
the
PDO
shift
in
1977
ranged
from
normal
to
above
normal.
If
we
assume
fall
and
summer
chum
salmon
are
subject
to
similar
ocean
effects,
the
success
of
fall
chum
salmon
would
suggest
that
unusual
ocean
mortality
has
not
contributed
to
the
summer
chum
salmon
declines.
The
success
of
fall
chum
salmon
also
seems
to
discount
the
possibility
that
ENSO
events
have
negatively
impacted
marine
survivals,
and
thus
it
appears
to
be
unlikely
that
ENSO
related
ocean
survival
conditions
are
a
significant
contributor
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon.

2.2.2.2
Estuarine
Effects
Ebbesmeyer
et
al.
(
1989)
has
described
the
relationship
between
PDO
regimes
and
conditions
in
the
Puget
Sound
region;
showing
linkages
with
patterns
of
precipitation,
freshwater
runoff,
saltwater
temperatures,
and
currents
in
Puget
Sound.
Since
1977,
the
PDO
has
been
in
a
positive
state,
which
correlates
with
less
precipitation
in
western
Washington,
decreasing
freshwater
runoff,
and
faster
inflow
of
marine
water
into
the
Puget
Sound
basin
from
mid­
depth
to
bottom.
These
factors
could
change
conditions
in
estuarine
areas
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
and
alteration
of
conditions
that
potentially
affect
the
survivals
of
summer
chum
salmon
(
e.
g.,
estuarine
temperature,
salinity,
or
food
production),
may
have
contributed
to
the
observed
declines.
There
are,
however,
no
data
available
to
measure
such
change,
and
like
ocean
effects,
the
influence
of
estuarine
conditions
on
summer
chum
survivals
is
currently
not
known.

2.2.2.3
Freshwater
Effects
Stream
flows
are
a
primary
force
controlling
the
survival
of
salmon
in
the
stream
environment.
For
summer
chum
salmon,
the
critical
periods
are
during
spawning
(
September
­
October)
and
during
the
intragravel
incubation
of
eggs
and
alevins
(
November
­
March).
Since
chum
salmon
juveniles
do
not
typically
rear
in
freshwater,
stream
flows
during
the
spring
and
summer
months
presumably
have
less
impact
on
survivals,
possibly
influencing
fry
emigration
(
February
­
April)
and
the
upstream
migration
of
the
earliest
arriving
adults
in
August.
The
following
examination
of
stream
flow
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon
will
focus
on
the
spawning
and
incubation
periods.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
57
Because
adult
summer
chum
salmon
enter
streams
and
spawn
during
the
lowest
flow
period
of
the
year,
they
are
particularly
vulnerable
to
any
reductions
in
stream
flow.
Severely
low
flows
can
limit
access
to
the
better
spawning
sites
within
the
stream
channel;
causing
spawning
salmon
to
utilize
sub­
optimum
areas,
which
can
result
in
reduced
egg
to
fry
survivals
(
Ames
and
Beecher
1995).
The
possible
negative
consequences
of
poor
redd
site
selection
can
be
reduced
egg
and
alevin
survivals
because
of
factors
like
inadequate
intergravel
flow
and
increased
exposure
to
the
effects
of
winter
floods.

Winter
stream
flows
can
have
substantial
adverse
effects
on
chum
salmon
survival,
associated
with
the
mortality
of
incubating
eggs
and
alevins
caused
by
streambed
scouring
and
increased
siltation.
The
nature
of
flow
related
impacts
on
incubating
chum
salmon
eggs
and
alevins
has
been
defined
for
chum
salmon
at
Big
Qualicum
River,
British
Columbia
by
Lister
and
Walker
(
1966)
(
see
Table
2.1).
They
demonstrate
an
inverse
relationship
between
incubation
survival
and
the
peak
flow
that
occurs
during
incubation,
with
egg
to
fry
survivals
at
Big
Qualicum
varying
fivefold;
from
25%
with
no
flood,
to
5%
with
flood
conditions.
The
authors
identify
instream
flow
and
resultant
streambed
scour
to
be
the
major
factor
influencing
the
freshwater
survival
rate
of
chum
salmon.

The
same
flow/
survival
relationship
has
also
been
shown
for
salmonids
in
Washington
State;
sockeye
salmon
in
the
Cedar
River
(
Thorne
and
Ames
1987),
and
chinook
and
coho
salmon
in
the
Skagit
and
Clearwater
rivers
respectively
(
Dave
Seiler,
WDFW,
personal
communication).
The
mechanics
of
stream
bed
scour
and
the
effects
on
chum
salmon
egg
pockets
and
intergravel
survival
are
described
by
Montgomery
et
al.
(
1996)
from
studies
on
Kennedy
Creek
in
southern
Puget
Sound.
Any
changes
in
the
magnitude
of
winter
flows
can
have
a
direct
effect
on
the
success
of
summer
chum
salmon.

Table
2.1.
Chum
salmon
survival
from
actual
egg
deposition
to
fry
migration
in
relation
to
discharge
extremes
during
incubation,
Big
Qualicum
River,
1959­
64
(
from
Lister
and
Walker
1966).

Maximum
daily
discharge
(
cfs)
Percent
during
incubation
survival
(
brood
year)

393
25.2
(
1964)
800
25.9
(
1963)
1,260
17.8
(
1961)
1,360
18.2
(
1959)
2,000
9.6
(
1962)
3,200
5.3
(
1960)

For
the
present
analysis,
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
(
USGS)
stream
discharge
records
have
been
examined
to
look
for
possible
relationships
between
summer
chum
salmon
abundance
and
the
effects
of
climate
on
critical
stream
flows
(
Appendix
Table
2.1).
Several
stream
discharge
data
bases
have
been
examined
for
1)
any
evidence
explaining
the
abrupt
drop
in
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
in
1979,
2)
any
relationship
between
flows
and
the
1989
drop
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
abundance,
and
3)
any
general
changes
in
stream
flows
that
relate
to
the
PDO
shift
in
1977.
The
absence
of
survival
rate
data
for
summer
chum
salmon
precludes
the
use
of
traditional
correlation
analyses
to
examine
the
possible
relationships
between
stream
flows
and
the
survivals
of
summer
chum
salmon.
Instead,
variations
in
mean
flows
for
periods
of
years
before
and
after
observed
changes
in
the
climate
or
summer
chum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
58
salmon
abundance
have
been
examined.
Any
evidence
of
change,
or
lack
of
change,
in
the
stream
flow
data
has
been
tested
for
statistical
significance
(
one
tailed
t­
test).

Puget
Sound
Stream
Flow
Index
­
Gallagher
(
1979)
has
developed
a
data
base
of
freshwater
and
marine
environmental
variables
for
his
study
of
the
factors
affecting
the
life
histories
of
Puget
Sound
chum
and
pink
salmon.
WDFW
annually
updates,
and
in
some
cases
modifies,
this
database
for
use
in
forecasting
annual
returns
of
chum
and
pink
salmon
to
Puget
Sound.
One
of
the
more
useful
stream
discharge
parameters
that
has
been
developed
by
Gallagher
is
the
percent
deviation
from
the
mean
of
the
lowest
and
highest
ten
consecutive
days
of
stream
flow,
derived
from
stream
discharge
data
from
a
number
of
USGS
stream
gages
on
major
river
systems
in
the
Puget
Sound
region.
This
Puget
Sound
Stream
Flow
Index
(
PSSFI)
data
base
has
not
been
updated
in
recent
years,
however
the
1959
through
1991
water
years
are
represented
(
Appendix
Table
2.1).
The
current
PSSFI
assembles
stream
flow
data
from
nine
stream
gages
(
Table
2.2)
for
several
periods
corresponding
to
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
(
September
15
­
November
14),
and
incubation
stages
(
November
15
­
February
14).

Table
2.2.
USGS
stream
gages
included
in
the
Puget
Sound
Stream
Flow
Index.

North
Fork
Nooksack
River
at
Glacier
Puyallup
River
at
Puyallup
Skagit
River
at
Concrete
Skokomish
River
at
Potlatch
Skykomish
River
at
Gold
Bar
North
Fork
Skokomish
near
Potlatch
Snoqualmie
River
at
Carnation
Duckabush
River
near
Brinnon
Puyallup
River
at
Orting
The
PSSFI
shows
changes
in
low
flows
(
spawning)
that
may
relate
to
the
recent
PDO
shift.
The
average
10­
day
low
flows
(
Sept.
15
­
Nov.
14)
coinciding
with
the
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
period
dropped
in
the
mid­
1970s
(
Appendix
Figure
2.1).
A
comparison
of
the
low
flows
during
the
first
18
years
(
1959­
1976)
of
the
PSSFI
data
base
with
the
most
recent
15
year
period
(
1977­
1991)
shows
a
statistically
significant
change
(
Appendix
Figure
2.1).
The
average
pre­
1977
low
flows
are
higher
than
normal
(+
9.5%
deviation
from
the
mean),
while
the
1977­
1991
low
flows
are
substantially
lower
than
the
overall
mean
(­
11.5%
deviation
from
the
mean).
For
post­
1976
years
11
of
15
years
have
10­
day
low
flows
below
the
1959­
1991
average.
For
the
winter
high
flow
period
(
Nov.
15
­
Feb.
14),
the
PSSFI
shows
a
weaker
potential
response
to
the
PDO
shift.
The
higher
average
10­
day
flows
from
1959
to
1976
(+
6.4%
deviation
from
the
mean),
change
to
lower
average
flows
for
the
post­
1976
years
(­
7.7%
deviation
from
the
mean)
(
non­
significant;
Appendix
Figure
2.2).
Nine
of
15
years
are
below
the
mean
during
this
later
period.

These
shifts
to
lower
Puget
Sound
stream
flows
during
the
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
and
incubation
periods
appear
to
occur
in
concert
with
the
1977
regime
shift
in
the
ocean
climate
cycle,
and
also
seem
to
correspond
with
the
decline
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon.
Another
measure
of
stream
flow,
peak
momentary
discharge
from
the
same
nine
USGS
gaging
stations
(
1959­
1991),
does
not
appear
to
relate
to
the
PDO
regime
shift,
showing
an
approximately
equal
frequency
of
above
average
peak
flow
events
before
and
after
1977.

Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stream
flows
­
While
the
PSSFI
data
seem
to
show
a
link
between
the
PDO
and
stream
flows
during
the
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
season,
a
more
direct
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
59
examination
of
local
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stream
flows
is
needed
to
identify
specific
conditions
affecting
summer
chum
salmon
stocks.
There
are
just
three
USGS
stream
gages
on
the
region's
streams
that
are
pertinent
to
summer
chum
salmon,
and
have
been
in
operation
from
the
1960s
to
present;
Big
Beef
Creek,
the
Duckabush
River,
and
the
Dungeness
River.

Spawning
flows
­
Mean
monthly
stream
discharge
data
for
the
September­
October
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
period
have
been
examined
for
the
three
streams.
The
1968
through
1993
years
have
been
selected
for
this
analysis
because
that
range
of
years
encompasses
the
period
of
the
chum
salmon
data
base
available
for
these
streams.
There
are
two
missing
years
for
Big
Beef
Creek
(
1968
and
1982),
while
the
Duckabush
and
Dungeness
rivers
have
a
continuous
record
for
the
period
(
Appendix
Table
2.1).
Even
though
these
are
the
only
streams
with
available
stream
flow
records,
they
can
be
considered
to
be
representative
of
the
summer
chum
salmon
streams
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.

Big
Beef
Creek
is
a
small
lowland
stream
that
originates
in
the
central
Kitsap
Peninsula
at
an
elevation
of
just
under
500
feet,
and
flows
northwesterly
for
ten
miles
to
enter
the
east
shore
of
Hood
Canal.
Mean
annual
stream
discharge
ranges
from
30
to
50
cfs
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
The
watershed
has
undergone
past
logging,
and
is
now
experiencing
substantial
road
and
home
construction.
In
contrast,
the
Duckabush
River
has
its
origin
high
in
the
Olympic
Peninsula,
at
an
elevation
of
over
5,200
feet.
The
river
flows
for
just
over
24
miles
in
an
easterly
direction,
entering
the
west
shore
of
Hood
Canal.
The
upper
12.6
miles
(
RM
11.5­
24.1),
and
numerous
tributaries,
are
located
in
the
Olympic
National
Park,
9.2
miles
(
RM
2.3­
11.5)
are
in
the
Olympic
National
Forest,
and
the
lower
2.3
miles
flow
through
mostly
private
lands.
Average
annual
stream
flow
is
slightly
more
than
400
cfs
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
Below
the
Park
boundary,
logging
has
prevailed
on
Forest
Service
land,
and
some
home
development
has
occurred
along
the
lower
river.

There
are
no
USGS
flow
gages
on
the
summer
chum
salmon
streams
of
Discovery
and
Sequim
bays.
To
examine
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stream
flow
patterns,
two
sources
of
data
have
been
used;
the
USGS
gage
on
the
Dungeness
River,
and
stream
flow
data
collected
at
the
WDFW
Snow
Creek
Research
Station
for
the
years
1977­
1992
and
1994
(
Appendix
Table
2.1,
provided
by
T.
H.
Johnson
and
R.
Cooper,
WDFW).

Both
Snow
Creek
and
the
Dungeness
River
support
summer
chum
salmon,
however,
the
two
streams
are
very
different
in
character.
Snow
Creek
is
a
small,
lowland
stream
that
originates
in
the
foothills
of
the
Olympic
Mountains
at
an
approximate
elevation
of
2,900
feet,
and
flows
east
and
north
for
10.1
miles
to
its
confluence
with
Discovery
Bay.
The
creek
is
characterized
by
low
stream
flow
resulting
from
the
influence
of
the
rain
shadow
effect
of
the
Olympic
Mountain
range.
The
headwaters
of
Snow
Creek
(
above
RM
6.75)
are
in
the
Olympic
National
Forest
and
are
subject
to
periodic
logging
impacts
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
Lower
basin
land
use
includes
farmland
and
rural
home
development.
The
Dungeness
River
originates
at
an
elevation
of
approximately
6,600
feet
in
the
Olympic
Mountains
and
flows
north
for
nearly
32
miles
to
its
mouth
on
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Average
annual
Dungeness
River
flow
is
just
under
400
cfs
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
A
major
tributary,
the
Gray
Wolf
River,
joins
the
Dungeness
15.8
miles
above
its
mouth.
Both
streams
originate
high
in
the
Olympic
Mountains,
and
snow
melt
contributes
to
summer
and
early
fall
stream
flows.
The
entire
basin
above
RM
13.4
is
in
the
Olympic
National
Forest
and
Park
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
60
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
Land
use
patterns
include
substantial
logging
on
Forest
Service
lands,
and
rural
farm
and
home
development
in
the
lower
basin.

The
mean
September­
October
flows
for
Big
Beef
Creek,
and
the
Duckabush
and
Dungeness
rivers
do
not
drop
in
1977
in
relationship
to
the
PDO
shift,
but
instead
display
relatively
uniform
flows
until
a
substantial
reduction
in
1986
and
subsequent
years.
Average
September­
October
stream
flow
declines
from
10.8
cfs
(
1968­
1985)
to
4.6
cfs
(
1986­
1993)
at
Big
Beef
Creek,
from
an
average
of
241
to
122
cfs
for
the
same
time
periods
at
Duckabush
River,
and
from
203
to
134
cfs
at
the
Dungeness
River.
The
changes
in
spawning
flows
after
1986
are
statistically
significant
for
each
of
the
three
streams
(
Appendix
Figures
2.3­
2.5).
The
Snow
Creek
data
begin
in
1977
and
cannot
be
used
to
examine
the
PDO
effect.

Table
2.3
partitions
the
mean
September­
October
flows
into
three
periods
for
comparison;
1968­
1976,
1977­
1985,
and
1986­
1993.
The
flows
for
the
two
periods,
1968­
1976
and
1977­
1985,
are
not
statistically
different
for
Big
Beef
Creek,
the
Duckabush
River,
and
the
Dungeness
River
(
Appendix
Table
2.2).
The
drop
in
discharge
during
the
1986­
1993
period
is
severe;
Big
Beef
Creek
down
57%,
the
Duckabush
River
down
49%,
and
the
Dungeness
River
down
34%.
These
differences
are
statistically
significant
(
Appendix
Figure
2.3­
2.5).
Snow
Creek
follows
the
same
pattern
with
a
statistically
significant
drop
from
a
mean
flow
of
6.6
cfs
(
1977­
1985)
to
an
1986­
1993
mean
flow
of
3.6
cfs
(
Appendix
Figure
2.6),
a
45%
decline.
With
the
very
different
geomorphology
and
land
use
patterns
of
the
four
basins,
the
similar
magnitude
of
the
changes
in
flow
in
the
individual
streams
suggests
a
broad
climatic
change
as
the
primary
cause
for
the
reduction
in
discharges.

Table
2.3.
Mean
flow
in
cfs
during
September
and
October
in
four
steams
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
(
1968­
1993),
with
(
n)
=
number
of
years
available
data.

Stream
1968­
1976
1977­
1985
1986­
1993
Mean
flow
Mean
flow
Mean
flow
Big
Beef
Cr.
­
mean
10.9
(
8)
10.7
(
8)
4.6
(
8)
­
range
5.0
­
35.8
5.4
­
24.6
3.1
­
6.5
Duckabush
R.
­
mean
210.0
(
9)
272.9
(
9)
121.9
(
8)
­
range
101
­
489
90
­
376
54
­
214
Snow
Cr.
­
mean
no
data
6.6
(
9)
3.6
(
7)
­
range
1.4
­
13.6
1.8
­
7.7
Dungeness
R.
­
mean
194.8
(
9)
211.0
(
9)
134.0
(
6)
­
range
133
­
320
149
­
260
99
­
167
Incubation
flows
­
For
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
streams,
only
the
USGS
gages
on
the
Duckabush
and
Dungeness
rivers
provide
a
continuous
year­
round
discharge
record
for
time
periods
before
and
after
the
PDO
shift.
It
is
assumed
that
the
Dungeness
River
is
reasonably
representative
of
flow
patterns
for
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
streams.
Snow
Creek
flow
data
are
not
suitable
for
this
analysis
because
the
flow
record
begins
in
1977.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
61
The
annual
peak
instantaneous
discharges
for
both
rivers
(
Appendix
Table
2.2)
have
been
examined
for
evidence
of
changes
in
incubation
period
(
October­
March)
flow
patterns
during
the
1968­
1995
span
of
years.
The
average
Duckabush
River
peak
instantaneous
flow
during
the
nine
years
preceding
the
1977
PDO
shift
(
3,864
cfs)
is
lower
than
the
same
value
calculated
for
the
19
years
following
the
shift
(
5,064
cfs)
(
Appendix
Figure
2.7).
The
Dungeness
River
has
an
average
peak
flow
of
2,437
cfs
for
the
1968­
1976
period
that
increases
to
an
average
peak
flow
of
3,776
cfs
from
1977
to
1995
(
Appendix
Figure
2.8).
The
pattern
of
peak
flows
is
similar
for
both
rivers;
substantially
higher
average
peak
flows
for
the
years
since
the
regime
shift.
The
flow
change
for
the
Duckabush
is
not
statistically
significant,
while
the
change
in
Dungeness
River
flow
is
statistically
different
(
Appendix
Table
2.2).

Table
2.4
splits
the
peak
flow
data
into
three
periods
(
1968­
1976,
1977­
1985,
and
1986­
1995)
to
examine
the
relationship
between
pre­
PDO
shift
flows
and
two
time
periods
for
subsequent
years.
Average
peak
flows
are
substantially
higher
for
both
time
periods
following
the
regime
shift,
however,
there
is
no
indication
of
a
shift
in
peak
flows
in
1986
corresponding
to
the
observed
change
in
spawning
flows
(
Appendix
Table
2.2).
This
result
seems
to
contradict
the
pattern
of
positive
PDO
regimes
causing
warmer,
drier
weather
conditions
in
the
PNW
region,
and
is
also
contrary
to
the
PSSFI
data
(
see
above)
which
shows
a
reduction
in
10­
day
winter
high
flows
after
the
regime
shift.
It
may
be
that
during
warmer
conditions,
precipitation
from
major
Pacific
storms
takes
the
form
of
more
intense
rain
events
with
less
snow
fall,
resulting
in
faster
runoff
and
greater
peak
stream
flow
events.

Table
2.4.
Mean
and
range
of
peak
instantaneous
flows
in
cfs
in
the
Duckabush
and
Dungeness
rivers
occurring
between
October
and
March
(
1968­
1995),
with
(
n)
=
number
of
years
available
data.

Stream
1968­
1976
1977­
1985
1986­
1995
Peak
flow
Peak
flow
Peak
flow
Duckabush
R.
­
mean
3,864
(
9)
5,364
(
9)
4,793
(
10)
­
range
1,360­
6,090
2,160­
7,820
1,910­
9,240
Dungeness
R.
­
mean
2,437
(
9)
3,768
(
9)
3,783
(
10)
­
range
597­
5,150
1,460­
6,550
1,300­
7,120
2.2.2.4
Conclusions
Climate
and
its
effects
on
ocean
processes
and
weather
is
a
complex
subject,
and
the
above
analysis
is
only
intended
to
identify
general
patterns
of
climate
that
may
have
contributed
to
the
changes
in
summer
chum
salmon
status.
The
following
discussion
and
Table
2.5
are
summarizations
of
the
possible
effects
of
climate
change
and
the
potential
effects
on
summer
chum
salmon.

Ocean
Effects
Because
of
the
lack
of
specific
summer
chum
salmon
survival
data,
the
potential
impacts
of
changes
in
ocean
productivity
related
to
ENSO
events
and
PDO
regime
shifts
cannot
be
determined
at
this
time.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
62
Table
2.5.
Summary
of
observed
changes
in
Puget
Sound
(
PSSFI),
Hood
Canal,
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stream
flows.

The
1977
PDO
regime
shift
­
Ocean
productivity
effects
on
summer
chum
salmon
survivals
are
not
measurable
due
to
lack
of
stock
production
data.

Stream
flows
that
changed
with
the
1977
PDO
regime
shift:
C
10­
day
low
spawning
flows
declined
(
Sept.
15
­
Nov.
14)
for
PSSFI.
C
10­
day
high
incubation
flows
declined
(
Nov.
15
­
Feb
14)
for
PSSFI.
C
Peak
instantaneous
incubation
flows
increased
in
the
Duckabush
and
Dungeness
rivers
(
Oct.­
Mar.).

The
1986
flow
reductions
­
Stream
flows
that
changed
in
1986:
C
Mean
spawning
flows
declined
in
Big
Beef
and
Snow
creeks,
and
Duckabush
and
Dungeness
rivers
(
Sept.­
Oct.).

Estuarine
Effects
Regional
climate
patterns
(
e.
g.,
rainfall
and
air
temperatures)
have
been
shown
to
be
affected
by
changes
in
ocean
conditions
related
to
ENSO
events
and
shifts
in
the
PDO.
These
are
the
type
of
changes
that
can
influence
the
productive
capacity
of
estuaries,
however,
at
this
time
it
is
not
known
to
what
degree
these
climate
shifts
may
or
may
not
have
contributed
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
stocks.

Freshwater
Effects
Spawning
flows
­
Along
with
major
ocean
changes,
shifts
in
the
PDO
have
been
shown
to
affect
Puget
Sound
weather,
precipitation,
and
run­
off
(
Ebbesmeyer
et
al.
1989).
In
the
current
"
positive"
PDO
state,
precipitation
and
resultant
stream
discharges
would
be
expected
to
be
lower
than
average.
While
the
Puget
Sound
Stream
Flow
Index
shows
a
drop
in
spawning
season
low
flows
that
corresponds
to
the
1977
PDO
regime
shift,
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
have
had
stable
September­
October
mean
flows
through
this
period
of
climate
change.
A
notable
drop
in
stream
flows
in
the
region
has
occurred,
however,
in
1986
and
flows
have
continued
to
be
lower
in
subsequent
years.

Two
obvious
questions
are:
1)
why
does
the
PSSFI
spawning
flow
index
correlate
with
the
PDO
shift
while
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
do
not
show
a
similar
relationship,
and
2)
do
PSSFI
spawning
flows
show
the
1986
drop
in
stream
flows?

The
PSSFI
percent
deviation
from
the
mean
10­
day
low
flow
statistic
is
dominated
by
measurements
from
large
river
systems
(
e.
g.
the
Skagit
and
Puyallup
rivers)
whose
late
summer
spawning
flows
may
be
largely
influenced
by
a
combination
of
snow
melt,
precipitation,
and
groundwater.
In
contrast,
Big
Beef
Creek
and
the
Duckabush
River
September
and
October
flows
are
more
likely
to
result
from
precipitation
and
groundwater,
and
without
a
substantial
contribution
from
snow
melt,
may
be
less
affected
by
the
PDO
climate
shift.
Summer
stream
flows
in
the
Dungeness
River
are
affected
by
snow
melt
runoff,
but
September­
October
flows
are
lower
and
likely
more
the
result
of
local
precipitation
and
groundwater
contributions.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
63
The
1986
drop
in
stream
discharge
during
the
spawning
season
is
apparent
in
the
PSSFI
flows.
As
discussed
above,
there
has
been
a
clear
drop
in
the
PSSFI
after
1976
(
see
Appendix
Figure
2.1),
however,
the
two
greatest
negative
deviations
from
the
mean
flow
occurred
in
1986
and
1987,
­
31.73%
and
­
45.43%
respectively.
The
PSSFI
does
not
continue
at
this
lower
level,
however,
showing
values
averaging
­
4.9%
for
the
four
year
period
of
1988­
1991.
The
1986
drop
in
streams
flows
may
not
be
evident
in
the
PSSFI
as
a
continuing
condition
because
of
the
influence
of
late
summer
snow
melt
in
the
large
streams
included
in
this
index.

Incubation
flows
­
A
fundamental
change
in
peak
winter
flows
has
occurred
in
concert
with
the
1977
PDO
shift
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams.
Peak
instantaneous
discharge
during
the
summer
chum
salmon
incubation
period
(
October­
March)
has
increased
substantially,
as
measured
on
the
Duckabush
(+
31%)
and
Dungeness
(+
55%)
rivers.
As
stated
above,
this
outcome
seems
opposed
to
the
expected
pattern
of
warmer,
dryer
weather
with
the
current
positive
PDO
regime,
but
this
apparent
anomaly
may
result
from
differences
in
the
amount
of
precipitation
that
falls
in
the
form
of
rainfall
(
and
less
as
snowfall)
from
individual
storm
events.

Climate
Impacts
on
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Hood
Canal
­
The
decline
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
begins
with
the
1979
adult
return,
which
is
primarily
composed
of
1976
brood
age­
3
fish
and
1975
brood
age­
4
fish.
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
from
the
1975
and
1976
broods
were
at
sea
for
2­
3
years
after
the
regime
shift,
and
it
is
possible
that
their
marine
survivals
were
negatively
impacted.
There
are
no
direct
summer
chum
salmon
data
available
to
support
or
refute
the
possibility
of
lower
marine
survivals,
however,
the
recent
success
of
fall
chum
salmon
in
the
region
suggests
that
it
is
unlikely
that
changes
in
marine
survival
significantly
contributed
to
the
decline.

The
increase
in
peak
incubation
flows
after
the
PDO
shift
is
substantial
(+
31%
for
the
Duckabush
River),
and
increased
flow
related
mortalities
of
incubating
eggs
and
alevins
is
a
likely
result.
The
elevated
incubation
flows
may
well
have
been
a
contributing
factor
to
the
lack
of
recovery
and
continued
decline
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
early
1980s.
Since
ENSO
events
have
the
same
type
of
effects
as
the
current
positive
PDO
state
on
regional
weather
patterns
(
warmer
and
drier
conditions),
both
conditions
could
affect
stream
flows.

Increased
intra­
redd
mortality
resulting
from
higher
incubation
flows
could
have
been
exacerbated
by
the
major
reduction
in
spawning
flows
that
occurred
in
1986
and
subsequent
years.
The
major
decline
in
average
stream
flows
that
occurred
in
September/
October
stream
flows
(­
57%
at
Big
Beef
Creek
and
­
49%
at
Duckabush
River)
has
several
potentially
serious
consequences
for
summer
chum
salmon.
The
early
return
and
spawning
timing
of
summer
chum
salmon
makes
them
particularly
vulnerable
to
reductions
in
stream
flow.
Low
flows
and
elevated
water
temperatures
could
delay
the
entry
of
the
fish
to
spawning
streams,
which
could
increase
their
susceptibility
to
fishery
exploitation
and
predation.
Once
in
the
stream,
they
would
be
forced
to
spawn
in
mid­
channel
areas,
exposing
resulting
eggs
and
alevins
to
increased
levels
of
mortality
during
subsequent
high
flow
events.
A
continuation
of
the
combination
of
low
flow
patterns
during
spawning
and
elevated
incubation
flows
of
recent
years
could
slow
the
recovery
rate
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
64
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
­
The
summer
chum
salmon
stocks
of
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
have
recovered
quickly
from
the
low
1979
return,
and
have
displayed
good
returns
until
the
major
decline
in
1989.
As
with
Hood
Canal
streams,
the
Dungeness
River
shows
no
change
in
September/
October
flows
coinciding
with
the
1977
PDO
shift.
The
1986
severe
drop
in
spawning
flows
seen
in
the
Hood
Canal
region
also
has
occurred
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams,
and
may
have
substantially
impacted
local
summer
chum
salmon
stocks.
Stream
discharge
data
from
Snow
Creek
show
a
drop
in
September/
October
flows
of
45%,
and
Dungeness
River
flows
for
the
same
months
have
declined
34%.

Snow,
Salmon,
and
Jimmycomelately
creeks
are
small
streams
that
are
located
in
the
rain
shadow
of
the
Olympic
Mountain
range,
and
experience
extremely
low
flows
during
the
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
season.
For
example,
the
mean
September/
October
flow
on
Snow
Creek
from
1977
to
1985
is
only
6.6
cfs.
The
reduction
in
Snow
Creek
spawning
flows
to
an
average
of
3.8
cfs
from
1986
to
1993,
has
the
potential
to
cause
a
major
reduction
in
summer
chum
salmon
survivals
and
returns.
Extreme
low
flows
during
the
spawning
period
can
jeopardize
survival
by:

°
increasing
prespawning
mortality
of
adults
by
restricting
or
delaying
access
to
freshwater;
°
increasing
prespawning
mortality
of
adults
in
the
stream
through
exposing
the
spawners
to
higher
than
normal
predation
levels;
°
increasing
prespawning
mortality
of
adults
in
the
stream
because
of
elevated
water
temperatures;
and
°
increasing
mortality
of
incubating
eggs
and
alevins
because
of
limited
spawner
access
to
optimum
spawning
sites.

The
offspring
of
the
summer
chum
salmon
that
spawned
in
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
in
1986
first
returned
as
age­
3
fish
in
1989.
For
the
1990
return,
and
subsequent
years,
the
returning
fish
have
all
been
subjected
to
the
impacts
of
the
reduced
spawning
and
increased
incubation
flows.
The
limited
nature
of
the
freshwater
habitat
in
the
region,
the
small
size
of
the
individual
spawning
streams,
and
the
early
runtiming
of
the
summer
chum
stocks,
combine
to
give
the
observed
changes
in
local
stream
flow
regimes
the
potential
to
have
had
a
strong
negative
impact
on
the
success
of
the
summer
chum
salmon.
It
is
likely
that
the
effects
of
climate
on
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stream
flows
has
contributed
to
the
decline
in
summer
chum
salmon
stock
status.

As
with
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon,
there
are
insufficient
data
available
for
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
fish
to
evaluate
potential
PDO
and
ENSO
effects
on
marine
survivals.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
65
Climate
in
Relation
to
Human
Caused
Impacts
Any
analysis
of
climate
change
in
relation
to
stream
flow
and
summer
chum
populations
cannot
be
isolated
from
a
consideration
of
human­
caused
habitat
alterations.
It
is
significant
to
note
that
prior
to
significant
human
impact
to
their
habitat,
summer
chum
populations
have
persisted
in
the
face
of
natural
climate
fluctuations.
Over
the
last
150
years,
however,
human
development
impacts
have
produced
incremental
and
gradual,
but
cumulatively
significant
changes
to
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
watersheds.
These
changes
have
altered
the
resiliency
of
salmon
habitat
in
the
face
of
these
climate
fluctuations.
Historically,
diverse
and
resilient
habitats
buffered
summer
chum
populations
against
the
effects
of
deleterious
climate
shifts.
Stream
channels
contained
abundant
LWD
with
sufficient
stable
spawning,
incubation,
and
migration
habitats.
Riparian
forests,
intact
floodplains,
wetlands,
and
alluvial
aquifers
moderated
stream
flows
against
seasonal
extremes.

The
climate­
driven
changes
in
hydrology
described
above
(
decreases
in
spawning
season
stream
flows
since
1986
and
increases
in
instantaneous
peak
discharge
during
the
incubation
period
since
1977)
are
even
more
significant
when
we
consider
how
they
interact
with
human
impacts
to
summer
chum
habitat.
Water
withdrawal
from
streams
or
aquifers
that
are
in
hydrologic
continuity
with
summer
chum
streams
has
further
increased
the
severity
of
low
flows.
Removal
of
streamside
vegetation
has
reduced
the
thermal
insulating
capacity
of
riparian
zones
and
resulted
in
elevated
water
temperatures
during
the
summer
chum
spawning
season.
In
addition,
loss
of
wetlands
and
critical
aquifer
recharge
areas
to
development
has
likely
further
exacerbated
low
flows
by
eliminating
natural
groundwater
recharge
that
augments
stream
flows
during
the
summer.

Floodplain
development
and
stream
bank
armoring
has
altered
the
impact
of
peak
flow
events
on
incubating
summer
chum
salmon
through
the
loss
of
flood
storage
capacity
and
the
confinement
of
flood
flows
to
the
main
channel.
Removal
of
LWD
from
stream
channels
has
reduced
bed
stability
and
scour
resistance.
Both
LWD
removal
and
the
confinement
of
flood
flows
to
the
main
channel
have
increased
the
frequency
and
severity
of
streambed
scour
with
negative
consequences
for
summer
chum
incubation
survival.

Human
changes
to
Hood
Canal/
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stream
ecosystems
have
thus
diminished
the
natural
resiliency
of
summer
chum
habitat,
rendering
populations
more
vulnerable
to
climate
shifts.
Climate
shifts
like
those
observed
in
the
past
30
years,
with
their
associated
stream
flow
changes,
likely
have
posed
little
threat
to
summer
chum
populations
before
the
cumulative
effects
of
habitat
changes
from
human
development
became
manifest.
There
are
no
streams
within
the
region
that
have
escaped
such
mistreatment,
thus
disentangling
climate
from
human­
induced
impacts
is
highly
problematic.

2.2.3
Ecological
Interactions
The
interactions
of
summer
chum
salmon
with
various
species
of
fish,
birds,
and
mammals
is
a
normal
part
of
their
life
history,
and
usually
are
in
a
state
of
dynamic
equilibrium
with
co­
evolved
species.
While
these
interactions
include
factors
like
nutrient
contribution
and
cover,
this
discussion
will
focus
only
on
competition
for
living
space
and
food
resources,
and
predation
of
one
species
on
another.
Fresh
(
1997)
points
out
that
extraordinary
competition
or
predation
impacts
on
salmonids
are
often
the
consequence
of
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
66
an
alteration
of
the
natural
life
history
processes
of
the
interacting
species.
For
example,
hatchery
programs
can
increase
the
numbers
of
potential
competitors
and/
or
predators,
or
over­
harvest
can
reduce
population
abundance
to
the
point
that
predation
mortality
becomes
depensatory,
and
holds
prey
populations
at
a
very
low
level.

In
a
review
of
the
available
literature
dealing
with
the
effects
of
competition
and
predation
on
Pacific
salmon,
Fresh
(
1997)
reports
that;
"...
33
fish
species,
13
bird
species,
and
16
marine
mammal
species
are
predators
of
juvenile
and
adult
salmon."
Emmett
et
al.
(
1991)
state
about
juvenile
chum
salmon:
"
In
freshwater
and
estuarine
environments,
this
species'
primary
predators
are
probably
other
salmonids."
Salo
(
1991)
reviews
a
variety
of
studies
which
showed
freshwater
predation
mortality
rates
for
chum
salmon
fry
averaging
from
22­
58%,
with
extreme
ranges
of
2­
85%.
Major
freshwater
predator
species
identified
include;
coho
salmon,
cottids,
trout,
and
char.
Predation
is
the
primary
cause
of
chum
fry
mortality
in
the
estuarine
environment;
with
major
predators
being
other
salmonids,
various
nearshore
marine
fish
species,
and
a
variety
of
predatory
birds
(
Emmett
et
al.
1991).
At
sea,
lamprey,
shark,
other
large
predatory
fish,
and
several
types
of
marine
mammals
are
the
most
significant
predators
(
Emmett
et
al.
1991).

A
variety
of
fish
species
potentially
can
compete
for
food
resources
with
chum
salmon,
however,
Bakkala
(
1970)
states
that
the
other
species
of
Pacific
salmon
are
principle
competitors
of
chum
salmon.
The
effects
of
this
competition
between
salmon
species
can
be
substantial,
as
evidenced
by
the
strong
two
year
cycles
in
chum
salmon
abundance
when
the
juvenile
chum
salmon
compete
for
common
food
resources
with
biennially
abundant
pink
salmon
juveniles
(
Gallagher
1979,
Ames
1983,
Salo
1991,
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
Salmonids
can
also
compete
for
spawning
sites
when
adult
run
timing
and
spawning
distributions
overlap
(
Bakkala
1970).

Conspecific
competition
with
fall
chums,
of
both
wild
and
hatchery
origin,
can
be
a
major
concern.
Wild
fall
chum
salmon
are
currently
very
abundant
in
Hood
Canal
streams,
and
although
they
do
not
directly
compete
with
summer
chum
salmon
for
spawning
sites
because
of
temporal
separation,
the
construction
of
redds
by
fall
chum
could
potentially
cause
the
loss
of
previously
deposited
summer
chum
eggs
and
alevins
because
of
redd
disturbance.

The
large
magnitude
of
the
hatchery
fall
chum
salmon
program
in
Hood
Canal
has
raised
concerns
about
the
potential
impact
on
summer
chum
salmon
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994,
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
The
combined
numbers
of
wild
and
hatchery
produced
chum
fry
entering
Hood
Canal
in
recent
years
likely
exceeds
past
historic,
wild­
only
juvenile
population
levels.
Both
the
numbers
and
timing
of
releases
suggest
that
there
may
be
possible
negative
competitive
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon
stocks.
Hatchery
programs
for
other
species
of
salmonids
have
in
some
cases
been
intense,
and
the
potential
for
both
competitive
and
predatory
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon
juveniles
has
been
identified
(
WDFW
et
al.
1993,
Johnson
et
al.
1997,
Tynan
1998).

Beginning
with
the
1992
brood,
summer
chum
salmon
supplementation
programs
were
initiated
at
the
USFWS
hatchery
on
the
Big
Quilcene
River
and
by
Wild
Olympic
Salmon
on
Salmon
Creek.
Since
summer
chum
salmon
have
not
been
artificially
propagated
in
the
Hood
Canal
or
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions
during
the
1970s
and
1980s,
hatchery
propagated
summer
chum
could
not
have
contributed
to
the
recent
decline
of
the
wild
populations.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
67
Fall
Chum
Salmon
Stocks
of
chum
salmon
that
return
from
October
through
December,
and
spawn
from
November
to
January
in
Hood
Canal
streams.
Fall
chum
stocks
are
genetically
distinct
from
summer
chum
salmon.
The
following
section
reviews
existing
information
on
the
possible
effects
of
competition
and
predation
on
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
populations.
Various
wild
and
hatchery
salmonids,
marine
fish,
birds,
and
marine
mammals
are
discussed.

2.2.3.1
Wild
Fall
Chum
Salmon
Fall
chum
salmon
populations
are
present
in
each
of
the
Hood
Canal
streams
currently
supporting
summer
chum
salmon.
Of
the
streams
used
by
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
only
the
Dungeness
River
also
has
a
fall
chum
salmon
population.
In
Hood
Canal,
the
differences
in
timing
between
the
summer
and
fall
chum
adult
return
and
spawning
periods
precludes
direct
interactions
in
the
spawning
streams
between
adults
of
the
two
run
timings
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994).
The
later
spawning
fall
fish,
however,
could
cause
negative
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon,
by
physically
disrupting
their
redds
and
increasing
the
mortality
of
the
incubating
eggs
and
alevins.

Hood
Canal
fall
chum
salmon
generally
spawn
farther
upstream
than
summer
chum
salmon,
but,
there
is
overlap
of
spawning
grounds
in
all
streams.
In
the
case
of
streams
with
migration
barriers
the
degree
of
overlap
can
be
extensive.
The
much
higher
stream
flows
that
are
typical
of
the
November­
January
spawning
period
of
fall
chum
can
result
in
the
selection
of
individual
spawning
locations
away
from
the
low
water,
mid­
channel,
redd
sites
of
summer
chum
salmon.
As
stream
flows
increase,
preferred
spawning
depths
and
velocities
occur
nearer
to
the
shoreline,
and
spawners
tend
to
select
spawning
sites
closer
to
the
margins
of
the
stream,
away
from
center
channel
(
Ames
and
Beecher
1995).
This
type
of
partitioning
of
spawning
riffles
can
moderate
the
effects
of
redd
superimposition,
and
may
in
part
explain
how
summer
and
fall
spawning
chum
salmon
can
coexist
in
the
same
stream.
Another
factor
mitigating
the
impacts
of
the
disturbance
of
summer
chum
redds,
is
that
the
eggs
of
summer
chum
salmon
should
have
developed
to
the
eyed
stage
by
the
time
that
native
fall
chum
arrive
to
spawn,
and
should
be
able
to
physiologically
tolerate
a
modest
amount
of
shifting
and
movement
caused
by
redd
superimposition.

Another
type
of
potential
competition
between
the
two
forms
of
chum
salmon
would
occur
during
the
juvenile
estuarine
and
inshore
marine
waters
feeding
and
growth
phases.
It
has
been
suggested
that
artificially
produced
fall
chum
salmon
may
pose
an
ecological
risk
to
summer
chum
salmon
because
of
increased
competition
for
food
resources
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997).
Wild
fall
chum
salmon
could
potentially
have
an
impact
if
sizeable
populations
have
substantial
temporal
and
spacial
overlaps
with
summer
chum
salmon
in
estuarine
or
inshore
marine
waters.
This
is
not
the
case,
however,
since
there
are
distinct
temporal
variations
in
the
early
life
histories
of
the
summer
chum
and
wild
fall
chum
stocks
in
this
region.

For
wild
fall
chum
salmon
to
have
contributed
significantly
to
the
observed
decline
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon,
either
as
adult
or
juvenile
competitors,
a
major
increase
in
population
size
over
pre­
decline
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
68
levels
would
be
necessary.
Table
2.6
presents
the
1974­
1997
escapements
of
Hood
Canal
summer
and
fall
chum
salmon
in
common
streams
summarized
as
five­
year
averages
(
more
detailed
descriptions
are
provided
in
Table
1.2
and
Appendix
Table
1.1).
For
the
1974­
1978
periods,
average
escapements
to
common
streams,
are
similar
for
both
chum
salmon
forms,
but
during
the
1979­
1983
years
both
summer
and
fall
chum
escapements
have
dropped
precipitously.
Fall
chum
bottom
out
with
a
low
escapement
of
2,766
spawners
to
summer
chum
streams
in
1983,
and
then
begin
to
display
an
increasing
trend
(
Appendix
Table
2.3).
During
the
most
recent
five
years,
escapements
of
fall
chum
have
averaged
over
88,000
spawners.
The
similar
performance
of
the
two
forms
of
chum
salmon,
in
terms
of
escapements,
during
the
periods
immediately
before
and
after
the
summer
chum
salmon
decline
does
not
suggest
a
major
change
in
the
potential
interactions
between
the
summer
and
fall
fish.
The
large
1994­
1998
increase
in
fall
chum
escapements
that
has
occurred
in
concert
with
the
improved
summer
chum
escapements
during
the
same
years
also
suggests
that
competition
between
wild
summer
and
fall
fish
is
not
a
significant
limiting
factor.
It
is
likely
that
the
differences
in
life
history
timing
are
sufficient
to
allow
the
two
forms
to
coexist
in
the
freshwater
and
marine
environments
(
see
discussion
of
timing
differences
in
the
Hatchery
Fall
Chum
section
below).

Table
2.6.
Five
year
average
escapements
of
Hood
Canal
summer
and
fall
chum
salmon
to
those
streams
with
summer
chum
populations
(
1974­
1998).

Return
years
escapements
escapements
Summer
chum
Fall
chum
1974­
78
17,773
20,006
1979­
83
3,238
5,257
1984­
88
1,760
16,919
1989­
93
978
29,816
1994­
98
9,078
88,599
The
abundant
fall
chum
may
have
an
unique
positive
interaction
with
summer
chum
salmon,
by
helping
to
stabilize
stream
beds
and
minimize
flood
effects
on
summer
chum
salmon.
In
a
study
of
chum
salmon
spawning
in
Kennedy
Creek
(
south
Puget
Sound),
Montgomery
et
al.
(
1996)
has
found
that
the
sorting
of
stream
gravels
by
mass
spawning
of
chum
salmon
stabilizes
the
stream­
bed,
which
leads
to
a
reduced
probability
of
erosion
during
subsequent
high
flow
events
and
reduces
the
loss
of
chum
salmon
eggs
and
alevins.
These
authors
also
point
out
that
the
feedback
system
between
mass
spawning
and
streambed
stability
can
be
interrupted
by
a
declining
spawner
population
trend,
adding
to
the
difficultly
of
recovering
a
depressed
salmon
stock.
In
the
case
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon,
it
may
be
that
the
abundant
mass­
spawning
fall
chum
salmon
are
contributing
to
stream­
bed
stability
conditions,
benefitting
both
summer
and
fall
populations.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
69
2.2.3.2
Hatchery
Fall
Chum
The
artificial
propagation
of
fall
chum
salmon
at
hatcheries
in
the
Hood
Canal
region
over
the
last
20
years
has
been
very
successful,
producing
adult
returns
numbering
from
100,000
to
over
600,000
fish
each
year
(
Tynan
1998).
The
large
returns
result
from
chum
salmon
propagation
programs
at
five
hatcheries
that
release
juveniles
into
the
waters
of
Hood
Canal
(
two
WDFW
hatcheries,
one
USFWS
hatchery,
and
two
tribal
hatcheries).
In
addition
to
the
formal
hatchery
programs,
numerous
Volunteer
Enhancement
Program
remote
site
incubators
(
RSI)
release
unfed
fry
into
a
number
of
Hood
Canal
streams.

As
reported
by
Johnson
et
al.
(
1997),
the
artificial
propagation
of
chum
salmon
began
in
1905
at
a
state
hatchery
in
the
Skokomish
system,
and
expanded
in
1911
and
1912
at
USFWS
hatcheries
on
the
Duckabush
and
Big
Quilcene
rivers.
The
USFWS
program
originally
included
both
summer
and
fall
chum
salmon,
however,
summer
chum
production
was
dropped
at
the
two
stations
after
1937
at
Big
Quilcene
and
after
1942
at
Duckabush
(
Cook­
Tabor
1994).
The
Hoodsport
fall
chum
salmon
program
began
in
1953,
when
the
hatchery
facility
first
became
operational,
and
has
been
built
solely
from
native
Finch
Creek
fish
(
Tynan
1998).
In
1976,
George
Adams
and
McKernan
hatcheries
(
WDFW)
began
to
release
fall
chum
salmon
(
Finch
Creek
stock)
into
the
Skokomish
system.
In
1977,
Enetai
Hatchery
(
Skokomish
Tribe)
began
to
release
Quilcene
stock
fall
chum
salmon
into
a
small
independent
stream
located
just
north
of
the
mouth
of
the
Skokomish
River.
That
same
year,
the
Port
Gamble
Hatchery
(
Port
Gamble
S'Klallam
Tribe)
initiated
releases
of
Quilcene
stock
fall
chum
but
switched
to
Finch
Creek
stock
by
1979.

The
WDFW
Hoodsport
Hatchery
on
Finch
Creek
has
been
the
largest
fall
chum
salmon
program
in
Hood
Canal
over
the
last
three
decades.
During
the
early
years,
the
hatchery's
goal
was
to
take
enough
chum
eggs
to
keep
a
maintenance
run
at
the
station,
however,
in
1968
the
objectives
changed
to
take
as
many
eggs
as
possible
(
Schwab
1974).
Current
goals
for
the
WDFW
Hood
Canal
fall
chum
salmon
hatchery
program
are
to
enhance
tribal
and
all­
citizen
commercial
fisheries,
enhance
a
local
Hoodsport
vicinity
recreational
fishery,
and
provide
eggs
in
support
of
the
Skokomish
system
hatcheries
and
Volunteer
Enhancement
Program
cooperative
projects
(
Tynan
1998).

Annual
egg
take
goals,
as
specified
in
the
1986
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Management
Plan,
are
for
sufficient
eggs
for
the
release
of
40
million
fry
(
subsequently
reduced
to
approximately
36
million
fry),
plus
additional
eggs
(
if
available)
to
support
the
operations
of
local
enhancement
groups.
The
annual
releases
of
all
Hood
Canal
WDFW
hatchery
produced
fall
chum
salmon
(
1969­
1993
brood
years)
range
from
a
low
of
approximately
984,000
fish
for
1969
brood
to
a
high
of
50,330,000
fish
from
the
1984
brood,
and
average
24,042,000
fish
over
the
entire
period
(
see
Appendix
Table
2.4).
An
average
of
approximately
5
million
additional
juvenile
chum
salmon
are
released
from
the
tribal
and
federal
hatcheries
(
Johnson
et
al.
1997),
and
the
Volunteer
Enhancement
Program
has
released
of
an
average
of
5.25
million
fish
between
1990
and
1994
(
Tynan
1998).
In
total,
these
large
numbers
have
generated
concerns
that
the
fall
chum
salmon
hatchery
program
in
Hood
Canal
could
have
a
potentially
negative
competitive
impact
on
summer
chum
salmon
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994,
Johnson
et
al.
1997).

There
is
a
general
correlation
between
the
increasing
hatchery
fall
chum
salmon
program
and
the
decline
in
summer
chum
salmon.
The
1975
and
1976
brood
years
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
declined
abruptly
in
abundance,
as
evidenced
by
adult
escapements
in
1979.
The
WDFW
hatchery
fall
chum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
70
salmon
program
expanded
substantially
in
the
early­
1970s,
increasing
from
a
1972
brood
release
of
1.0
million,
to
3.4
million
for
the
1973
brood,
and
9.4
million
for
the
1974
brood
(
Table
2.7).
Another
major
production
jump
occurred
with
the
release
of
29.6
million
1978
brood
fall
chum
salmon.

While
these
expansions
of
hatchery
fall
chum
releases
have
occurred
during
the
general
time
frame
of
the
summer
chum
collapse,
they
are
out
of
synchronization
by
several
years.
The
increased
hatchery
releases
of
1973
and
1974
broods
should
have
directly
impacted
the
returns
of
age­
3
and
age­
4
summer
chum
salmon
in
1976,
1977,
and
1978,
and
the
1978
hatchery
increase
should
have
affected
the
1981
and
subsequent
broods
(
Table
2.7).
The
1979
summer
chum
salmon
decline
falls
between
these
two
periods
of
change
in
hatchery
fish
abundance.
One
possible
explanation
for
this
lack
of
direct
synchrony
is
that
it
may
have
taken
two
years
of
increased
hatchery
releases
to
depress
invertebrate
prey
abundance
to
the
point
that
summer
chum
salmon
juveniles
were
affected.
If
this
scenario
actually
occurred,
the
1974
brood
releases
of
9.4
million
fall
chum
salmon
would
have
over­
cropped
invertebrate
prey
resources
in
the
canal,
contributing
to
lowered
prey
reproduction
the
following
spring,
and
reduced
production
of
food
resources
for
the
competing
1975
brood
hatchery
fall
(
8.5
million
release)
and
wild
summer
chum
juveniles.

Countering
the
theory
of
hatchery
fall
chum
salmon
competitive
impacts
is
survival
data
for
Hoodsport
Hatchery
fall
chum
salmon
showing
that
both
the
1974
and
1975
broods
experienced
above
average
marine
survivals.
If
food
resources
had
become
limiting
to
the
point
of
causing
the
observed
decline
in
1975
brood
summer
chum
salmon,
the
hatchery
fish
should
have
displayed
a
corresponding
drop
in
survival.
Another
argument
that
counters
the
general
negative
correlation
between
hatchery
fall
chum
releases
and
summer
chum
salmon
status
is
that
the
returns
of
summer
chum
salmon
have
increased
substantially
in
recent
years,
with
roughly
four
times
as
many
hatchery
chum
released
into
Hood
Canal
as
was
the
case
in
the
mid­
1970s
(
Table
2.7).

Since
the
hatchery
and
summer
chum
discussion
above
does
not
clearly
resolve
the
issue
of
the
possible
contribution
of
the
hatchery
fall
chum
program
to
the
summer
chum
salmon
decline,
the
following
section
will
review
the
available
research
on
the
ecological
relationships
of
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal.

Juvenile
chum
salmon
in
the
Hood
Canal
estuary
­
A
considerable
body
of
scientific
literature
exists
on
the
subject
of
the
ecological
relationships
of
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal.
Nearly
all
of
these
studies
have
been
conducted
by
researchers
from
the
University
of
Washington,
in
part
to
determine
the
potential
impacts
of
the
construction
and
operation
of
the
Bangor
Naval
Base.
While
these
studies
are
not
always
able
to
specifically
look
at
differences
between
summer
and
fall
chum
salmon,
they
do
offer
a
broad
picture
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
life
history
in
Hood
Canal.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
71
Table
2.7.
Total
brood
year
releases
of
WDFW
hatchery
fall
chum
to
the
waters
of
Hood
Canal,
and
return
years
as
age­
3
and
age­
4
adults
(
1969­
1998
broods).

Brood
year
Total
releases
Return
years
(
age
3
&
4
fish)

1969
938,788
1972,
1973
1970
1,447,406
1973,
1974
1971
1,363,110
1974,
1975
1972
1,039,168
1975,
1976
1973
3,374,966
1976,
1977
1974
9,408,285
1977,
1978
1975
8,465,125
1978,
1979
1976
13,679,756
1979,
1980
1977
7,939,467
1980,
1981
1978
29,606,329
1981,
1982
1979
39,110,094
1982,
1983
1980
36,340,223
1983,
1984
1981
16,859,884
1984,
1985
1982
35,905,744
1985,
1986
1983
28,325,669
1986,
1987
1984
50,330,002
1987,
1988
1985
36,535,000
1988,
1989
1986
40,400,100
1989,
1990
1987
40,122,500
1990,
1991
1988
35,217,100
1991,
1992
1989
34,521,500
1992,
1993
1990
19,619,100
1993,
1994
1991
38,639,100
1994,
1995
1992
39,652,200
1995,
1996
1993
33,205,650
1996,
1997
1994
37,860,000
1997,
1998
1995
34,324,091
1998,
1999
1996
34,508,783
1999,
2000
1997
25,388,986
2000,
2001
1998
24,344,935
2001,
2002
The
following
quotations
are
from
a
WDFW
discussion
of
the
subject
(
Crawford
1997).

Spatial
overlap
or
separation
during
migration
­
Historical
release
strategies
(
fed
vs.
unfed
fry)
and
release
sizes
(
size
range
from
swim­
up
to
1.2
gm)
during
the
pre­
April
1
time
period
(
see
Appendix
Table
2.4)
are
important
factors
to
adequately
assess
the
likelihood
for
the
co­
occurrence,
and
hence
competition,
of
hatchery
fall
chum
and
summer
chum
in
the
Canal.

"
Schreiner
(
1977)
reported
that
migrating
chum
fry
in
Hood
Canal
remained
in
near­
shore
areas
until
reaching
a
length
of
45­
50
mm,
when
the
chum
were
observed
to
move
to
deeper
off­
shore
areas.
Other
authors
also
reported
that
chum
released
from
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
at
or
near
this
size
range
early
in
the
season
tended
to
migrate
rapidly
northward
and
into
offshore
areas
(
Whitmus
and
Olsen
1979;
Prinslow
et
al.
1979;
Prinslow
et
al.
1980;
Salo
et
al.
1980;
Bax
and
Whitmus
1981;
Whitmus
1985).
A
45
mm
chum
weighs
0.73
grams
(
or
622
fpp),
which
is
comparable
to
the
0.66
gram
(
686
fpp)
average
size
of
fed
fall
chum
released
prior
to
April
1
from
the
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
(
Table
I).
Bax
(
1983)
observed
that
wild
chum
migrating
prior
to
April
showed
little
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
72
change
in
length
as
time
progressed,
averaging
35­
44
mm
in
fork
length
(
Schreiner
1977;
Bax
et
al.
1978).
The
best
scientific
information
would
suggest
that
fed
fall
chum
fry
of
the
average
size
released
from
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
pre
April
1
do
not
share
the
same
feeding
and/
or
migratory
areas
as
summer
chum.
Unfed
fry
groups
released
from
the
hatchery
facilities
prior
to
April
1
have
a
greater
likelihood
for
interaction
with
summer
chum,
as
they
are
of
similar,
if
not
the
same
size,
and
likely
use
the
same
nearshore
areas
for
foraging
during
migration."

Food
item
overlap
during
migration
­
The
differences
in
types
of
prey
that
are
predominantly
taken
by
chum
fry
of
differing
sizes
(
and
foraging
in
differing
areas)
must
be
considered
to
adequately
assess
the
potential
for
competition
between
hatchery
fall
chum
and
wild
summer
chum.

"
Bax
et
al.
(
1978)
and
Simenstad
et
al.
(
1980)
reported
that
immediately
upon
entry
into
Hood
Canal
small
(
30­
40
mm
fl)
juvenile
chum
fry
(
of
naturally­
producing
populations
or
from
the
Big
Beef
Creek
spawning
channel)
captured
in
nearshore
areas
during
out­
migration
in
Hood
Canal
fed
primarily
on
epibenthic
organisms,
mainly
harpacticoid
copepods,
gammarid
amphipods,
polychaete
annelids,
and
crustacean
eggs.
After
the
fish
grew
larger
than
45­
55
mm
fl
(
or
entered
the
Canal
at
this
size
from
hatchery
facilities)
and
moved
to
off­
shore
areas,
they
fed
mainly
upon
pelagic
organisms,
such
as
euphausids,
calanoid
copepods,
and
hyperiid
amphipods.
Simenstad
et
al.
(
1980)
also
reported
on
the
effect
of
fish
size
upon
selection
of
foraging
habitat
by
illustrating
comparative
prey
spectra
of
chum
fry
captured
via
beach
seine
in
shallow
sublittoral
habitats
with
the
prey
spectra
of
tow­
net
caught
chum
(
recognizing
that
the
size
of
chum
increases
with
increasing
distance
from
shore).
Larvaceans
and
harpacticoids
comprised
over
60
%
of
the
total
prey
spectrum
of
chum
captured
in
nearshore
areas,
whereas
over
85
%
of
chum
captured
off­
shore
was
euphausids,
calanoid
copepods,
and
hyperiid
amphipods
(
Simenstad
et
al.
1980).
The
best
scientific
information
would
suggest
that
fed
fall
chum
fry
of
the
average
size
released
from
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
before
April
1
and
wild
summer
chum
have
a
low
likelihood
of
diet
overlap
during
migration."

Rapid
out­
migration
during
February­
March
time
period
­
The
tendency
of
juvenile
chum
entering
the
Canal
before
April
1
to
outmigrate
rapidly
should
be
considered
in
any
assessment
of
the
likelihood
for
resource
competition.

"
As
reported
in
Simenstad
et
al
(
1980),
chum
fry
entering
the
Canal
early
in
the
outmigration
period
(
February­
March
­
the
summer
chum
fry
migratory
period)
generally
encounter
a
naturally
low
abundance
of
prey
resources,
and
rapid
outmigration
may
be
one
behavioral
response
to
this
low
availability.
Salo
et
al
(
1980),
Prinslow
et
al.
(
1980),
Bax
(
1982),
and
Bax
(
1983)
all
report
rapid
out­
migration
and
short
residence
time
for
juvenile
chum
in
the
Canal
during
this
time
period.
The
fact
that
chum
entering
the
estuary
during
February
and
March
migrate
out
of
the
Canal
quickly
does
not
lend
well
to
an
argument
for
resource
competition
between
summer
chum
and
hatchery­
origin
fall
chum.
The
likelihood
is
that
the
duration
of
interaction
between
these
groups
is
minimal."

Timing
of
fall
chum
releases
­
Prior
to
the
late
1970s,
the
releases
of
fed
(
reared)
fall
chum
fry
for
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
all
have
occurred
after
April
1
(
Appendix
Table
2.4),
with
average
release
dates
in
the
first
week
of
May
(
Tynan
1998).
This
release
schedule
has
provided
substantial
separation
between
summer
and
hatchery
fall
chum
juveniles;
with
the
summer
fish
having
a
peak
Hood
Canal
exodus
timing
of
April
1­
April
3,
and
completing
emigration
from
the
canal
around
the
first
of
May
(
Tynan
1997).
In
1992
and
1993,
pre­
April
hatchery
chum
fry
releases
into
Hood
Canal
total
19.7
million
and
28.6
million
fish
respectively
(
Appendix
Table
2.4
­
note
that
release
year
is
the
year
following
brood
year
shown
in
table).

Again,
the
following
quotations
are
from
Crawford
(
1997):
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
73
"
The
primary
annual
production
objective
of
fall
chum
hatcheries
in
Hood
Canal
is
the
release
of
one
gram
fed
fry
after
30
to
60
days
of
rearing
(
50
mm
average
fl,
or
450
fpp)
in
April
or
May.
Chum
released
at
this
size
have
been
shown
to
have
higher
survival
rates
to
adult
return
in
Hood
Canal
(
H.
Fuss,
WDFW
personal
communication
4/
1/
97).
The
April­
May
release
timing
of
these
fish
into
Hood
Canal
coincides
with
the
emergence
and
marine
out­
migration
timing
of
wild
fall­
run
chum,
which
enter
seawater
at
a
smaller
size
(
0.37
gram
avg.
(
Koski
1975),
or
35­
40
mm
avg.
fl
(
Schreiner
1977)).
During
years
of
good
hatchery
growth
(
warm
rearing
water,
good
husbandry
practices),
or
in
years
when
hatchery
pond
space
used
for
fall
chum
was
limiting,
fed
fall
chum
have
been
released
earlier
than
April.
Out
of
an
average
total
fall
chum
fed
fry
release
from
WDFW
hatcheries
in
Hood
Canal
of
20,899,836
(
1970­
94
data,
range
of
795,040
­
45,955,845),
an
average
of
6,125,158
(
range
0
­
20,073,200)
or
29.3
%
of
the
total
annual
production
(
range
0
%
­
64.9
%)
have
been
released
prior
to
April
1.
These
pre­
April
1
release
fed
fry
have
ranged
in
size
from
0.36
to
1.2
grams
(
39
­
54
mm
fl)
and
have
averaged
0.66
grams
(
44
mm
fl)
between
1970
and
1994.

Hood
Canal
hatchery
facilities
also
have
produced
unfed
fall
chum
fry.
These
fish
have
generally
been
produced
in
remote
site
incubators,
and
released
without
any
rearing
at
a
size
of
0.34
to
0.38
grams
(
35­
40
mm)
upon
swim­
up.
On
average,
49.2
%
(
1970­
94
data,
range
0
%
­
100
%
of
the
unfed
fry
groups
have
been
released
in
February
or
March.
Annual
unfed
fry
releases
in
Hood
Canal
have
averaged
3,142,224
(
range
0
­
8,744,000),
with
1,545,856
(
range
0
­
8,494,000)
of
the
total
released
prior
to
April
1
on
average.

In
the
NMFS
document
"
Review
of
Information
on
Hood
Canal
Summer
Chum
Salmon
ESU
collected
in
1995
and
1996",
it
is
noted
that
1992
brood
year
summer
chum
returns
to
the
western
tributaries
and
Quilcene
Bay
were
very
strong,
exhibiting
some
of
the
highest
apparent
recruit
per
spawner
rates
that
have
been
documented
for
Puget
Sound
chum.
As
discussed
above,
hatchery
release
data
for
1992
brood
fall
chum
indicate
that
over
20,000,000
fed
fry
and
over
8,400,000
unfed
fry
were
released
from
Hood
Canal
hatcheries
prior
to
April
1,
1993,
coincident
with
the
out­
migration
of
this
extremely
successful
1992
summer
chum
brood.
The
pre­
April
1
fall
chum
liberations
that
year
were
3.3
times
greater
than
1970­
94
average
fed
fry
levels
and
5.5
times
greater
than
1970­
94
average
unfed
fry
release
levels.
Collectively,
the
pre­
April
1
fall
chum
fed
and
unfed
fry
releases
coincident
with
the
migration
period
of
1992
brood
summer
chum
in
1993
were
the
largest
on
record
(
see
attached
Appendix
Table
2.4).

The
fact
that
1992
brood
wild
summer
chum
exhibited
such
high
survival
in
the
midst
of
the
largest
pre­
April
1
fall
chum
hatchery
releases
into
Hood
Canal
on
record
does
not
support
an
argument
for
negative
impacts
of
competition
between
wild
summer
chum
and
hatchery
fall
chum
during
this
time
period.
Based
upon
the
performance
of
the
1992
brood
summer
chum,
we
could
in
turn
speculate
that
the
magnitude
of
pre­
April
1
hatchery
fall
chum
releases
in
1993
effectively
minimized
the
effects
of
predation
on
commingled
1992
brood
wild
summer
chum
by
swamping
potential
predators
with
alternative
prey."

Remote
site
incubators
­
Enhancement
of
chum
salmon
using
remote
site
incubators
(
RSI)
has
occurred
within
the
region,
with
17
sites
identified
on
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
by
Johnson
et
al.
(
1997).
Summer
chum
have
not
generally
been
included
in
the
RSI
program;
the
exceptions
being
the
recovery
projects
at
Salmon
Creek,
Lilliwaup,
and
Hamma
Hamma,
and
the
efforts
to
reintroduce
summer
chum
salmon
to
Chimacum
and
Big
Beef
creeks.

The
RSI
program
began
to
release
substantial
numbers
of
fall
chum
salmon
unfed
fry
into
Hood
Canal
streams
in
1978.
For
brood
years
1978
through
1993,
an
average
of
just
under
5
million
(
range
0
­
8.7
million)
fall
chum
unfed
fry
were
released
annually
from
all
facilities,
including
RSIs
(
Appendix
Table
2.4).
While
the
RSI
releases
have
not
been
totaled
separately,
they
make
up
approximately
6%
of
the
overall
unfed
fry
released
annually.
Not
all
of
the
RSI
release
sites
are
on
summer
chum
salmon
streams.
For
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
74
example,
in
review
of
fall
chum
salmon
RSIs
on
the
streams
of
west
Kitsap
Peninsula,
only
half
of
the
projects
are
located
on
summer
chum
salmon
streams
(
Turner
1995).
The
first
major
releases
occurred
in
1978
(
adults
returning
in
1981­
1983),
which
does
not
match
with
the
summer
chum
decline
beginning
with
the
1975
and
1976
broods.

The
numbers
of
unfed
fry
released
are
small
when
compared
to
the
tens
of
millions
of
fed
chum
fry
produced
in
Hood
Canal
hatcheries.
It
is
unlikely
that
the
RSI
program
have
contributed
to
the
observed
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon,
because
of
the
relatively
small
release
numbers,
and
because
the
inception
of
the
program
is
several
years
out
of
synchronization
with
the
decline.

Conclusions
­
The
recent
success
of
summer
chum,
in
the
face
of
very
large
hatchery
releases
of
fall
chum,
suggests
that
competitive
interactions
have
not
been
a
significant
contributor
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon.
Additionally,
the
lack
of
direct
synchrony
between
hatchery
releases
and
changes
in
summer
chum
abundance,
and
the
ecological
differences
between
summer
and
fall
chum
in
marine
waters,
support
the
likelihood
of
minimal
interactions.
A
possibility
that
must
be
considered
is
that
the
apparent
negative
correlation
between
hatchery
fall
chum
salmon
and
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
may
simply
be
a
coincidence.
There
is
still
uncertainty
surrounding
the
issue
of
juvenile
fall
and
summer
chum
interaction,
and
further
investigation
may
be
warranted.

2.2.3.3
Other
Salmonids
Summer
chum
salmon
share
spawning
streams,
estuaries,
and
nearshore
marine
waters
with
a
number
of
other
salmonids
in
addition
to
fall
chum
salmon.
These
other
salmonids
include
wild
and
hatchery
origin
chinook,
coho,
and
pink
salmon,
and
steelhead
and
cutthroat
trout.
The
wild
populations
of
these
species
have
not
increased
during
the
periods
of
summer
chum
salmon
decline
(
pink
salmon
excepted),
and
it
is
unlikely
that
they
have
contributed
substantially
to
the
observed
changes
in
summer
chum
status.
However,
there
has
been
a
general
concern
expressed
about
the
possible
effects
of
outplanting
of
hatchery
chinook,
coho,
and
trout
in
summer
chum
streams
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994,
Johnson
et
al.
1997,
Tynan
1998).
There
are
several
levels
of
concern;
adult
competition
for
spawning
sites,
juvenile
competition
for
food,
and
predation
on
juvenile
summer
chum.

There
have
been
several
investigations
into
the
interaction
between
salmonid
species
in
the
region
(
Schreiner
et
al.
1977;
Simenstad
and
Kinney
1978;
Prinslow
et
al.
1980;
Bax
et
al.
1980;
Simenstad
et
al.
1980;
Whitmus
1985
among
others).
Based
on
studies
in
Hood
Canal,
Simenstad
and
Kinney
(
1978)
and
Prinslow
et
al.
(
1980)
conclude
that
predation
on
chum
salmon
by
other
species,
including
salmonids,
in
the
open
waters
of
Hood
Canal
is
insignificant.
However,
a
number
of
authors
studying
early
marine
migration
behavior
for
chum
in
Hood
Canal
report
significant,
high
mortality
levels
during
the
first
few
days
of
residence
in
the
estuary
that
may
be
caused
by
predation.

Fluorescent
pigment­
marked
chum
salmon
released
from
Big
Beef
Creek
during
February
in
1978
and
1979
had
mortality
rates
of
29
%
and
49
%
of
the
population,
respectively,
during
the
first
two
days
in
the
estuary
(
Salo
et
al.
1980).
Prinslow
et
al.
(
1980)
reported
a
survival
rate
of
44
%
(
mortality
rate
of
56
%)
for
the
1978
brood
chum
migrating
from
Big
Beef
Creek
after
four
days.
Whitmus
(
1985)
documented
a
mortality
rate
of
58
%
and
74
%
over
2
days
for
45
mm
chum
fry
released
in
two
groups
during
early
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
75
May
from
Enetai
Hatchery
in
Hood
Canal.
Bax
(
1983a)
reported
average
daily
mortality
rates
for
Enetai
fall
chum
of
between
31
%
and
46
%
over
a
two
and
a
four
day
period.
Predation
by
cutthroat
trout
and
marine
birds
was
thought
to
account
for
the
mortality
of
chum
juveniles
released
from
Enetai
(
Whitmus
1985),
and
Bax
(
1983)
hypothesized
that
high
susceptibility
to
predation
and
attraction
of
predators
to
the
chum
fry
release
location
were
responsible
for
high
mortality
rates
estimated
in
his
study.

Considerable
uncertainty
exists
regarding
the
adverse
effects
of
species
released
in
regional
hatcheries
on
chum
salmon
through
competition.
Chum
and
pink
salmon
have
been
shown
to
use
the
same
nearshore
beach
environment
during
their
initial
period
of
residence
and
prey
upon
the
same
sublittoral
epibenthic
crustacean
populations
during
emigration
(
Schreiner
et
al.
1977).
Ames
(
1983)
has
conducted
a
preliminary
examination
of
the
interactions
between
the
salmon
species
in
Hood
Canal,
and
has
identified
only
pink
and
chinook
salmon
as
possibly
having
a
negative
impact
on
chum
salmon
survivals.
This
is
a
limited
study
that
examines
only
short­
term
data
sets
from
before
1979,
and
does
not
include
the
trout
species.

The
following
discussion
will
consider
the
general
interactions
known
to
occur
between
the
various
species.
The
risks
to
summer
chum
of
hatchery
programs
producing
other
salmonid
species
in
the
region
are
assessed
in
a
separate
section
of
this
plan
(
3.3
Ecological
Interactions).
The
following
text
summarizes
information
more
fully
detailed
in
section
3.3
regarding
hazards,
interactions,
and
potential
effects
to
summer
chum
that
may
result
from
the
hatchery
production
of
chinook,
coho,
and
pink
salmon,
and
trout
species
within
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions.

Summer
chum
juvenile
timing
­
The
potential
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon
associated
with
the
releases
of
hatchery
origin
salmonids
are
largely
controlled
by
the
degree
of
overlap
in
the
timing
of
releases
compared
to
the
timing
of
juvenile
chum
life
history
stages.
Many
releases
of
hatchery
fish
are
timed
to
avoid
significant
interactions
with
sensitive
species.

The
critical
survival
periods
for
summer
chum
salmon
are
the
incubation,
emergence
and
emigration
stage
in
freshwater,
and
the
early
marine
emigration
period.
Tynan
(
1997)
has
summarized,
and
estimated
from
available
field
studies,
juvenile
timing
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon,
and
the
following
information
is
taken
from
that
assessment.
The
ranges
of
dates
presented
below
represent
the
earliest
beginning
date
and
latest
ending
date
observed
(
or
estimated),
and
chum
of
a
particular
life
stage
would
not
necessarily
be
present
through
the
full
range
of
these
dates
every
year
(
see
Tynan
1997).
Summer
chum
eggs
are
estimated
to
be
present
in
the
"
tender
stage"
in
stream
gravels
from
early
September
through
early
November
in
an
average
year.
This
period
can
be
viewed
as
the
time
when
summer
chum
eggs
are
most
vulnerable
to
disturbance
during
incubation.
Estimated
emergence
timing
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
ranges
from
February
7
to
April
14,
with
an
average
peak
of
March
18
for
east
side
stocks,
and
March
27
for
westside
stocks.
For
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stocks,
the
emergence
timing
ranges
from
February
15
to
May
26,
with
a
April
5
average
date
for
the
peak.
Since
nearly
all
chum
salmon
fry
emigrate
to
sea
immediately
following
emergence
from
the
gravel,
the
same
dates
represent
both
emergence
and
emigration.
Estimated
summer
chum
salmon
juvenile
departure
dates
from
Hood
Canal
range
from
February
21
to
April
28,
with
an
April
2
average
peak
date.
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
are
estimated
to
be
present
in
inshore
waters
ranging
from
February
28
to
June
8,
with
an
April
17
average
peak.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
76
Steelhead
and
cutthroat
trout
­
Because
of
major
differences
in
the
life
histories
of
chum
salmon
and
the
trout
species,
substantial
juvenile
and
adult
competition
between
chum
salmon
and
trout
is
unlikely.
It
is
known,
however,
that
sea­
run
cutthroat
trout
are
predators
on
juvenile
salmonids
in
the
marine
environment
(
Simenstad
and
Kinney
1978;
Cardwell
and
Fresh
1979;
Whitmus
1985).
Steelhead
trout
released
as
yearling
smolts
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
are
also
viewed
as
posing
a
high
predation
risk
in
the
freshwater
and
marine
environments
due
to
their
large
size
relative
to
the
chum
fry
(
Fresh
et
al.
1984).

Most
summer
chum
streams
in
the
region
have
received
steelhead
out­
plants
within
the
past
thirty
years,
and
during
the
period
of
decline
for
summer
chum
in
Hood
Canal
(
Tynan
1998).
The
number
of
steelhead
smolts
planted
has
been
reduced
in
recent
years,
from
a
1965­
98
average
of
94,000
in
Hood
Canal
to
under
80,000
(
1995­
1998
release
levels)
(
Appendix
Figure
2.9).
Steelhead
releases
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
have
been
similarly
reduced,
to
about
13,000
from
a
1955­
97
average
of
19,000
(
Appendix
Figure
2.10).
Also,
steelhead
are
now
released
into
only
four
watersheds
within
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region:
Skokomish
River,
Dosewallips
River,
Hamma
Hamma
River,
and
the
Dungeness
River.
In
Hood
Canal
streams,
the
normal
release
size
for
steelhead
smolts
has
been
4­
7
fish
per
pound
(
fpp)
or
180
­
230
mm
and
this
large
size
at
release
makes
this
species
a
potential
predator
on
newly
emerged
chum
salmon
fry
(
Tynan
1998).
The
release
of
only
smolts
in
the
steelhead
hatchery
program
enhances
their
tendency
to
immediately
migrate
to
marine
waters,
which
may
extend
the
period
of
potential
predation
on
chum
salmon
fry
into
the
nearshore
marine
areas.
Steelhead
released
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
are
of
a
similar
size
(
3­
6
fpp).

Sea­
run
cutthroat
trout
were
released
into
several
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
streams
from
the
mid­
1980s
through
the
early
1990s,
but,
commencing
in
1992,
are
no
longer
released
into
anadromous
areas
within
the
region
(
Appendix
Figure
2.9).
No
streams
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
have
been
planted
with
sea­
run
cutthroat
within
the
past
42
years
(
Tynan
1998).
In
previous
years,
an
annual
(
1985­
91)
average
of
27,000
sea­
run
cutthroat
were
released
into
Hood
Canal
streams
at
a
size
of
4­
16
fpp
(
128­
230
mm).
The
piscivorous
nature
of
the
species
and
the
large
size
at
release
relative
to
emigrating
summer
chum
elevates
the
likelihood
that
the
species
preyed
on
emigrating
chum,
including
summer
chum.
Several
studies
in
Hood
Canal
document
predation
on
chum
salmon
fry
by
sea­
run
cutthroat
(
Simenstad
and
Kinney
1978;
Prinslow
et
al.
1980;
Whitmus
1985).

The
cessation
of
all
hatchery
sea­
run
cutthroat
releases
into
anadromous
waters
within
the
region
eliminates
the
need
to
consider
their
predation
effects
on
summer
chum.
In
large
part
the
potential
for
hatchery
steelhead
predation
on
chum
fry
is
mitigated
by
timing
of
releases.
Steelhead
smolt
releases
occur
in
April
and
May
in
both
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
Tynan
1998).
In
some
years,
when
summer
chum
fry
emergence
extends
until
mid­
April,
steelhead
smolts
are
released
in
summer
chum
streams
while
chum
fry
are
still
present.
Additionally,
these
steelhead
releases
can
have
access
to
summer
chum
fry
in
marine
waters
until
the
end
of
April.

Chinook
and
coho
salmon
­
Annual
fall
chinook
salmon
smolt
releases
from
Hood
Canal
region
hatcheries
have
averaged
6.1
million
sub­
yearlings
and
226,000
yearlings
since
1990
(
Appendix
Figure
2.11).
Releases
of
this
species
into
Hood
Canal
were
quite
low
during
the
late
1970
period
of
summer
chum
decline
relative
to
late
1980
levels.
Chinook
smolt
out­
plants
in
the
region
have
declined
significantly
since
1989.
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
chinook
production
was
low
to
non­
existent
between
1974
and
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
77
1994.
Recent
year
chinook
releases
into
summer
chum
streams
(
the
Dungeness
River)
have
been
975,000
sub­
yearlings,
200,000
fingerlings,
and
800,000
fed
fry
Appendix
Figure
2.12).
Appendix
Figures
2.13
and
2.14
present
annual
coho
salmon
juvenile
release
levels
into
the
same
summer
chum
regions.
Annual
coho
juvenile
release
levels
have
remained
quite
stable
across
the
last
twenty
years,
with
the
exception
of
unfed
fry
releases,
which
were
discontinued
in
the
early
1990s.

Hatchery­
origin
chinook
and
coho
salmon
smolts
are
thought
to
pose
a
high
risk
of
a
significant
negative
impact
on
wild
chum
salmon
due
to
predation
in
freshwater
and
nearshore
estuarine
areas
where
the
species
co­
occur
(
Fresh
et
al.
1984).
Coho
salmon
are
of
special
concern
for
predation
effects
due
to
their
large
size
at
release
as
yearling
smolts
(
average
release
size
10
­
17
fpp,
or
130
­
160
mm)
relative
to
the
size
of
emigrating
wild
summer
chum
(
1,000
­
1,200
fpp,
or
35­
39
mm)
(
Tynan
1998).
Most
chinook
salmon
are
released
from
hatcheries
as
sub­
yearlings,
averaging
65­
80
fpp,
or
80
­
86
mm),
making
predation
on
emigrating
chum
salmon
unlikely.
Yearling
chinook
salmon
released
from
net­
pens
in
Hood
Canal
at
an
average
size
of
5
fpp
(
195
mm)
likely
pose
a
predation
risk
to
summer
chum
fry
if
present
in
estuarine
areas
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period.

Extensive
stomach
content
analysis
of
coho
and
chinook
salmon
smolts
in
Hood
Canal
show
only
minimal
evidence
of
predation
on
other
salmonids,
including
chum
salmon
(
Simenstad
and
Kinney
1978;
Whitmus
1985).
Although
these
species
were
captured
in
the
same
seine
sets
during
the
predation
studies,
they
may
not
have
been
occupying
the
same
area,
leading
to
the
observations
of
no
predation
by
coho
and
chinook
smolts
(
Whitmus
1985).
Visual
observations
prior
to
seining
in
the
Whitmus
(
1985)
study
indicate
a
potential
for
horizontal
segregation
of
chum
and
coho
smolts
when
coho
are
very
abundant
in
areas
where
chum
are
also
present.

Due
to
a
freshwater
entry
timing
similar
to
summer
chum,
non­
indigenous­
origin
fall
chinook
adults
planted
in,
or
straying
into,
summer
chum
streams
may
compete
for
spawning
sites,
and
may
disrupt
summer
chum
survival
through
redd
superimposition.
Although
there
are
no
direct
studies
to
evaluate
actual
effects
on
summer
chum
productivity,
hatchery­
origin
fall
chinook
have
been
routinely
observed
spawning
in
the
same
areas
used
by
indigenous
summer
chum
populations
(
R.
Egan,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.,
August
1999).

Like
hatchery
steelhead
releases,
the
risk
of
predation
by
hatchery­
origin
chinook
and
coho
salmon
yearling
smolts
is
largely
mitigated
by
the
late
timing
of
yearling
and
sub­
yearling
releases
from
regional
hatchery
facilities
relative
to
the
estimated
summer
chum
emigration
period.
Yearling
sub­
yearling
chinook
salmon
smolt
releases
occur
in
early
May
and
early
June
respectively
in
Hood
Canal,
where
all
of
the
fall
chinook
within
the
summer
chum
region
are
produced.
Dungeness
native­
origin
chinook
sub­
yearling
smolts
are
released
into
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
waters
between
mid­
June
and
mid­
July,
a
period
well
past
the
March­
April
summer
chum
fry
emigration
(
Tynan
1998).
The
risk
of
competition
posed
by
fall
chinook
on
the
spawning
grounds
can
be
minimized
by
discontinuance
of
fall
chinook
releases
that
are
not
part
of
a
formal
recovery
program
into
summer
chum
streams.
Pink
salmon
­
The
Dosewallips,
Duckabush,
and
Hamma
Hamma
rivers
support
separate
stocks
of
pink
salmon,
and
limited
numbers
of
this
species
are
occasionally
observed
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
and
Lilliwaup
Creek.
Pink
salmon
spawn
in
these
streams
(
odd­
years
only)
in
September
and
October;
the
same
spawning
period
as
summer
chum
salmon.
Potential
interactions
between
the
two
species
would
include
competition
by
adults
for
spawning
sites,
redd
superimposition,
and
competition
for
food
resources
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
78
in
the
estuary
and
marine
waters.
Since
pink
salmon
are
only
present
every
other
year,
any
significant
negative
impact
on
summer
chum
salmon
should
result
in
a
biennial
pattern
in
the
survival
and
return
rates
of
summer
chum.
The
ecological
similarities
in
the
life
histories
of
pink
and
chum
salmon
do
result
in
lower
returns
of
chum
salmon
in
dominant
pink
return
years
throughout
the
range
of
the
two
species
(
odd­
years
for
southern
populations
and
even­
years
in
northern
areas).
Competition
between
juveniles
in
marine
waters
is
the
most
likely
explanation
for
this
effect
(
Gallagher
1979,
Ames
1983,
Salo
1991).
For
local
summer
chum
salmon
stocks,
however,
there
is
no
obvious
short­
term
cyclic
effect
in
the
years
following
the
1979
summer
chum
decline,
i.
e.
no
changes
in
the
return
rates
of
just
the
odd­
year
chum
salmon
brood
years.
To
the
contrary,
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
are
currently
the
most
successful
in
streams
that
they
co­
habit
with
pink
salmon,
which
argues
against
a
substantial
change
in
the
competitive
interactions
between
these
species.

There
is
an
artificial
propagation
program
for
pink
salmon
at
the
WDFW
Hoodsport
Hatchery
that
has
operated
since
1953.
This
program
has
released
an
average
of
approximately
1.5
million
pink
fry
per
year
(
Tynan
1998)
(
Appendix
Figure
2.15).
There
is
no
indication
that
these
releases
have
contributed
to
the
summer
chum
decline.
However,
to
minimize
the
likelihood
for
adverse
effects,
attempts
are
being
made
to
minimize
interactions
between
hatchery
pink
salmon
releases
and
summer
chum
by
delaying
pink
salmon
releases
until
after
April
1.

Current
Hatchery
Programs
­
As
addressed
in
the
previous
section,
the
hatchery­
induced
hazard
that
has
had
the
highest
potential
to
have
negatively
affected
summer
chum
is
competition
in
the
estuary
posed
by
fall
chum
salmon
released
during
the
summer
chum
emigration
period.
Although
no
adverse
effects
on
summer
chum
survival
resulting
from
past
early
liberations
of
fall
chum
are
readily
evident,
it
is
possible
that
fall
chum
compete
for
limited
food
resources
available
in
Hood
Canal
during
their
early
spring
migration.

Although
steelhead
smolts
are
currently
truck­
planted
into
several
summer
chum
streams
within
the
region,
the
late
planting
date
of
the
fish
relative
to
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
likely
prevents
interaction
between
the
two
species,
and
adverse
effects.
Due
to
their
piscivorous
nature
and
continuous
presence
in
nearshore
estuarine
areas,
past
production
of
sea­
run
cutthroat
may
have
had
negative
predation
effects
on
summer
chum.
The
cutthroat
program
has
been
discontinued
and
adverse
effects
posed
to
summer
chum
are
therefore
no
longer
a
concern.

Releases
of
fall
chinook
and
coho
salmon
smolts,
as
presently
practiced
in
the
region,
are
judged
to
not
pose
risks
of
predation
to
summer
chum.
These
two
species
are
released
from
regional
hatcheries
much
later
than
the
summer
chum
emigration
period,
reducing
the
likelihood
for
interaction.
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).
Although
available
studies
indicate
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
and
coho
and
summer
chum
should
be
continued.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
79
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.

Pink
salmon
released
from
Hoodsport
Hatchery
in
March
may
pose
risks
to
summer
chum
fry
through
competition
for
food
resources.
Risks
of
adverse
competitive
effects
posed
by
hatchery
pink
salmon
are
proposed
to
be
addressed
by
delaying
releases
of
these
species
until
after
the
summer
chum
emigration
period
(
post
April
1).
This
practice
may
reduce
the
likelihood
for
interactions
between
the
two
species,
minimizing
the
risk
of
food
resource
competition.
However,
it
is
unclear
if
this
measure
can
be
practically
met
due
to
the
early
timing
of
pink
egg
takes
and
emergence
periods
in
the
hatchery,
which
makes
holding
pink
salmon
through
April
1
problematic.
Also,
benefits
to
emigrating
summer
chum
afforded
by
"
swamping"
of
predator
populations
by
hatchery
pink
releases
will
be
forgone
with
this
practice.

Conclusions
­
While
there
are
uncertainties
about
the
effects
of
competition
and
predation
by
salmonids
on
summer
chum
salmon,
because
of
the
magnitude
of
hatchery
releases
during
the
1970s
and
early
1980s
these
types
of
interactions
likely
have
contributed
to
the
decline
of
the
summer
chum
stocks
of
Hood
Canal.
There
is
a
low
likelihood
that
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks
have
been
affected
by
releases
of
hatchery
salmonids.

2.2.3.4
Marine
Fish
Most
marine
fish
species
that
inhabit
the
same
waters
as
chum
salmon
are
potential
predators
and/
or
competitors,
particularly
during
juvenile
chum
salmon
life
stages.
However,
diet
studies
have
shown
that
other
salmonids
are
usually
the
principal
predator/
competitor
species
affecting
chum
salmon
(
Bakkala
1970,
Emmett
et
al.
1991).

The
status
of
bottom
fish
species
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
has
been
the
subject
of
two
separate
WDFW
stock
status
inventories;
for
bottomfish
(
Day
et
al.
1995),
and
for
forage
fish
(
Lemberg
et
al.
1997).
These
inventories
tracked
trends
in
marine
fish
populations
using
catch
and
effort
statistics
from
recreational
and
commercial
catches.

Most
bottomfish
species
in
the
region
have
declined
over
the
last
three
decades,
possibly
influenced
by
some
of
the
same
climate
changes
that
have
affected
chum
salmon.
Catches
of
several
species
briefly
increased
in
the
late
1970s
(
e.
g.,
dogfish
and
lingcod),
however,
this
was
due
to
higher
exploitation
rates
in
trawl
fisheries
and
was
not
the
result
of
increased
abundance
(
Greg
Bargmann,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.).

The
forage
fish
species
are
predominately
represented
by
Pacific
herring
in
the
marine
waters
of
the
region.
Herring
assessment
surveys
have
been
conducted
in
multiple
index
areas
in
both
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
since
1977,
and
show
either
stable
(
Hood
Canal)
or
declining
(
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca)
trends
in
abundance.
The
initiation
of
these
surveys
coincides
with
the
PDO
regime
shift,
and
there
are
no
quantitative
data
from
earlier
years
to
indicate
if
herring
abundance
changed
at
that
time.
Anecdotal
information
suggests
that
regional
herring
populations
have
had
similar
abundances
before
and
after
the
1977
climate
change
(
Greg
Bargmann,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
80
As
pointed
out
above,
the
various
local
marine
fish
species
are
potential
summer
chum
competitors
and/
or
predators.
However,
based
the
abundance
trends
of
these
species
over
the
past
two
decades,
it
is
unlikely
that
extraordinary
levels
of
predation
or
competition
by
bottom
fish
or
herring
have
been
a
significant
factor
in
the
observed
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
or
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.

2.2.3.5
Birds
Common
Mergansers
are
well­
known
to
feed
on
juvenile
salmon
during
their
downstream
migration
and
could
be
taking
summer
chum
fry.
In
marine
waters,
chum
fry,
including
summer
chum
fry,
in
shallow
nearshore
areas
are
likely
to
be
preyed
upon
by
mergansers
and
double­
crested
cormorants
and
possibly
by
western
and
horned
grebes
(
Dave
Nysewander,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.).
Common
mergansers
have
been
observed
herding
chum
fry
into
shallow
water
and
feeding
in
McAllister
Creek
(
south
Puget
Sound)
(
Bill
Tweit,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.).
As
chum
fry
grow
and
move
away
from
the
near­
shore
area,
they
are
likely
to
be
preyed
upon
by
double­
crested
and
pelagic
cormorants,
mergansers,
pigeon
guillemots,
gulls
(
especially
Bonaparte's),
terns,
loons,
grebes,
and
rhinoceros
auklets.
Marbled
murrelets
are
not
considered
to
pose
any
significant
threat
to
chum
fry,
because
they
are
currently
at
depressed
population
levels,
and
because
they
are
plankton
and
larval
fish
specialists.
When
juvenile
chum
enter
the
open
ocean,
deep­
water
bird
predators
include
common
murres,
shearwaters,
Brandt's
cormorants
and
puffins.
Only
bald
eagles
and
osprey
are
likely
to
prey
on
adult
summer
chum.

Very
little
is
known
about
the
extent
of
bird
predation
on
chum
salmon.
A
study
of
marks
made
by
predators
on
juvenile
chum
captured
by
beach
seine,
purse
seine,
and
trawl
at
a
range
of
depths
in
Masset
Inlet,
British
Columbia
has
found
marks
attributed
to
birds
in
6%
of
chum
juveniles
captured
(
Dawe,
unpublished
results).
The
proportion
of
chum
in
this
study
which
did
not
escape
bird
predators
is
unknown.
Dawe
reports
pigeon
guillemots
preying
on
schools
of
juvenile
pink
salmon
but
does
not
mention
observing
them
preying
on
chum.

The
majority
of
information
on
long­
term
sea
bird
population
trends
within
Washington
State
has
been
collected
on
the
outer
Washington
Coast
and
at
Protection
Island
(
near
Discovery
Bay).
Little
information
exists
for
the
Hood
Canal
or
Sequim
Bay
areas.
On
the
outer
Washington
coast,
common
murres
underwent
a
population
crash
from
about
30,000
birds
to
2,400
birds
in
1983­
84,
as
a
result
of
the
1983
El
Niño
(
Wilson
1991).
The
population
has
increased
since
then
to
perhaps
7,000
birds
(
Ulrich
Wilson,
USFWS,
pers.
comm.).
The
trend
in
the
murre
population
on
Tatoosh
Island
differs
from
that
of
the
rest
of
the
coast
in
that
it
peaked
at
about
3,100
birds
in
1991
but
has
declined
since
then.
Double­
crested
cormorants
on
the
outer
coast
have
had
a
sharp
decrease
in
breeding
success,
if
not
in
numbers
of
adult
birds,
from
between
400
and
500
nests
in
1982
to
essentially
none
in
1983­
84.
They
experienced
another
decline
associated
with
a
milder
El
Niño
in
1987­
1988
(
Wilson
1991),
but
since
have
rapidly
recovered
in
number
both
on
the
outer
coast
and
in
Puget
Sound
(
Ulrich
Wilson,
USFWS,
pers.
comm.).
Brandt's
cormorants
nesting
success
during
the
1980s
has
been
similar
to
that
of
double­
crested
cormorants,
however,
during
the
1987­
1988
El
Niño,
Brandt's
cormorants
crashed
and
recovered
a
year
earlier
than
double­
crested
cormorants,
presumably
because
they
nest
later
than
double­
crested
cormorants
(
Wilson
1991).
The
effects
of
the
1987­
1988
El
Niño
may
have
occurred
too
late
to
affect
nesting
by
doublecrested
cormorants
in
1987
but
in
time
to
affect
Brandt's.
Similarly,
the
waning
of
El
Niño
effects
in
1988
may
have
occurred
too
late
for
double­
crested
cormorants
but
in
time
to
permit
Brandt's
to
nest
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
81
successfully.
Pigeon
guillemot
numbers
on
Protection
Island
increased
from
1976
to
1989
and
have
decreased
since
then.
There
has
been
a
large
reduction,
perhaps
as
much
as
95%,
in
the
numbers
of
horned
and
red­
necked
grebes
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
over
the
last
ten
years.
Gulls
on
Protection
Island
have
shown
a
small
but
probably
non­
significant
increase
in
recent
years
(
Ulrich
Wilson,
USFWS,
pers.
comm.).
During
the
1960s,
the
rhinoceros
auklet
population
on
Protection
Island
was
low
(
5,000­
6,000
breeding
pairs)
until
sheep
were
removed
from
the
island.
The
population
has
since
increased,
peaking
at
17,000
breeding
pairs
in
1976,
but
has
declined
to
about
12,000
pairs
today
(
Ulrich
Wilson,
USFWS,
pers.
comm.).

Hodges
et
al.
(
1996)
has
compiled
Alaska
water
bird
population
trend
data
based
on
aerial
surveys
from
1957
through
1994.
Potential
chum
predators
monitored
include
mergansers
and
loons.
Pacific,
arctic,
common,
and
red­
throated
loons
have
all
declined
in
number
since
1977,
while
merganser
numbers
have
increased
since
1977.
It
is
not
known
if
the
Alaska
data
are
applicable
to
Washington.

Most
sea
bird
populations
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
and
Washington
Coast
have
experienced
declines
or
declines
and
recoveries
during
the
time
that
summer
chum
have
been
declining.
Given
the
relatively
low
numbers
of
summer
chum
relative
to
numbers
of
fall
chum,
it
is
unlikely
that
sea
birds
were
a
significant
cause
of
summer
chum
decline.

2.2.3.6
Marine
Mammals
Since
the
passage
of
the
Federal
Marine
Mammal
Protection
Act
in
1972,
the
populations
of
seals
and
sealions
in
Washington
and
other
coastal
states
have
steadily
increased.
Observations
of
predation
by
California
sea
lions
(
Zalophus
californianus)
and
Pacific
harbor
seals
(
Phoca
vitulina)
on
various
salmonids
have
also
increased,
raising
concerns
about
the
impacts
on
depressed
and
other
salmonid
populations
(
NMFS
1997b).

Hood
Canal
­
Pacific
harbor
seals
are
the
primary
pinniped
species
in
Hood
Canal,
with
an
estimated
current
year­
round
population
of
over
1,500
individuals
(
Jeffries
et
al.
1999).
Annually,
peak
abundance
occurs
in
October,
and
the
greatest
concentrations
are
in
the
vicinity
of
the
mouths
of
the
larger
river
systems.
Index
counts
of
harbor
seals
have
been
conducted
in
Hood
Canal
by
WDFW
since
1983,
and
between
1983
and
1996
seal
populations
have
increased
approximately
5%
annually
(
Steve
Jeffries,
WDFW,
pers.
comm.).
Other
pinneped
populations
in
the
region
include
an
estimated
10­
50
California
sea
lions
and
less
than
10
Steller
sea
lions
which
also
occur
in
Hood
Canal
(
NMFS
1997).

Because
of
their
small
size,
out­
migrating
chum
salmon
fry
are
not
thought
to
be
vulnerable
to
harbor
seal
or
sea
lion
predation
(
NMFS
1997).
Substantial
chum
fry
predation
by
seals
under
unusual
circumstances
has
been
observed
at
the
Puntledge
River
in
British
Columbia.
Lighting
on
bridges
near
the
river
mouth
illuminates
outmigrating
chum
fry,
and
in
one
study
harbor
seal
predation
between
April
and
June
of
1995
has
been
estimated
to
be
3.1
million
fry,
or
7­
31%
of
the
year's
production
(
NMFS
1997).
Since
similar
conditions
are
not
present
in
Hood
Canal,
harbors
seals
are
unlikely
to
be
significant
predators
on
the
region's
chum
salmon
fry.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
82
The
predation
by
seals
and
sea
lions
on
adult
salmon
has
been
well
documented.
NMFS
(
1997)
reviews
a
variety
of
pinniped
food
habits
studies
for
both
harbor
seals
and
sea
lions,
which
show
differing
salmonid
consumption
rates
depending
on
salmon
abundance
and
the
availability
of
alternate
prey
species.
As
an
example,
one
1980­
82
study
has
shown
that
the
percentage
of
seal
scat
samples
containing
salmonid
remains
was
10%
in
Grays
Harbor
and
28%
in
Willapa
Bay
(
Reimer
and
Brown
1996).
Estimates
of
salmonid
consumption
by
pinnipeds
in
Oregon
by
Kaczynski
and
Palmisano
(
1992)
have
used
rates
of
10.8%
of
total
biomass
consumed
for
harbor
seals
and
10%
for
California
sea
lions.

NMFS
(
1997)
presents
an
estimate
of
the
annual
prey
biomass
consumption
(
956
metric
tons)
by
1,036
harbor
seals
in
Hood
Canal.
Using
these
consumption
rates,
the
current
harbor
seal
population
of
1,500
animals
in
Hood
Canal
would
consume
1,385
metric
tons
of
prey
biomass
per
year.
If
salmon
constitute
10.8%
of
the
diet
(
Kaczynski
and
Palmisano
1992),
Hood
Canal
harbor
seals
could
be
taking
a
substantial
number
of
salmon
each
year.
Since
summer
chum
salmon
currently
make
up
only
about
1%
of
the
total
return
of
salmon
(
all
species)
to
Hood
Canal,
seal
predation
rates
on
summer
chum
might
be
considered
to
be
modest,
unless
seals
are
specifically
targeting
summer
chum
populations.

In
the
summer
of
1998,
WDFW
began
a
multi­
year
study
of
harbor
seal
predation
on
adult
salmon
near
the
mouths
of
a
number
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
streams;
Big
and
Little
Quilcene,
Dosewallips,
Duckabush,
and
Hamma
Hamma
rivers
(
Jeffries
et
al.
1999).
Direct
observations
of
seal/
salmon
interactions
have
been
made
in
the
vicinity
of
the
river
mouths
on
a
three
day
per
week
schedule,
beginning
in
the
first
week
of
September,
and
ending
just
before
the
Thanksgiving
holiday.
Preliminary
results
from
this
study
indicate
that
harbor
seals
have
taken
substantial
numbers
of
adult
salmon
during
the
summer
chum
migration
period.
Estimated
daylight
total
salmon
predation
numbers
for
each
observation
area
are:
243
fish
in
Quilcene
Bay,
113
fish
at
Dosewallips
River,
96
fish
at
Duckabush
River,
and
277
fish
at
Hamma
Hamma
River.
These
predation
observations
could
potentially
include
summer
chum
salmon,
fall
chum
salmon,
coho
salmon,
and
chinook
salmon
(
pink
salmon
were
not
present
in
1998).
For
two
systems,
Quilcene
Bay
and
the
mouth
of
the
Dosewallips
River,
estimates
have
been
made
of
the
percent
chum
salmon
taken
by
seals
during
predation
events
when
prey
species
could
be
identified;
73%
chum
salmon
at
Quilcene
Bay
(
11
of
15
kills),
and
62.5%
at
Dosewallips
River.
While
the
high
chum
salmon
predation
rates
include
both
summer
and
fall
chum
(
there
are
insufficient
observations
to
reliably
estimate
just
summer
chum
predation),
there
clearly
has
been
substantial
seal
predation
on
the
1998
return
of
adult
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal.

The
lack
of
census
data
for
harbor
seals
and
sea
lions
in
Hood
Canal
during
the
1970s
makes
a
direct
examination
of
the
possible
relationship
of
pinniped
predation
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
impossible.
The
evidence
for
the
substantial
increase
in
the
Hood
Canal
seal
population
since
1983,
indicates
that
in
the
late
1970s,
seals
were
in
much
lower
abundance
in
Hood
Canal.
Sea
lions
have
a
relatively
minor
presence
in
Hood
Canal.

In
conclusion,
it
seems
unlikely
that
pinniped
predation
has
been
a
significant
contributor
to
the
original
decline
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon.
It
is
apparent,
however,
that
because
of
the
now
locally
abundant
seal
populations
and
the
1998
study
preliminary
results,
showing
substantial
salmon
predation
at
the
mouths
of
summer
chum
streams,
harbor
seals
may
be
an
important
factor
that
could
slow
the
recovery
rate
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
83
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
­
The
NMFS
(
1997b)
report
does
not
provide
estimates
of
pinniped
population
sizes
for
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
They
do
identify
Harbor
seals
and
Steller
sea
lions
as
being
present
in
marine
areas
adjacent
to
summer
chum
streams
in
the
region.
There
have
been
no
reports
of
unusual
levels
of
pinniped
interactions
with
summer
chum
salmon,
and
it
is
unknown
if
seals
or
sea
lions
have
contributed
to
the
observed
summer
chum
salmon
decline.
However,
pinniped
predation
may
slow
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
this
region.

2.2.3.7
Conclusions
Competition
and
predation
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon
­
Fresh
(
1997)
offers
insight
into
the
difficulties
in
measuring
the
impacts
of
competition
and
predation,
and
observes
that
"...
available
data
will
rarely
if
ever
be
unequivocal."
The
above
review
supports
that
assessment.
There
is
little
direct
evidence
available
to
either
document
or
refute
the
possibility
of
substantial
competition
or
predation
effects
on
summer
chum
salmon.
Of
the
various
potentially
competitive
or
predatory
species
discussed
above,
only
the
increased
abundance
of
hatchery
origin
fall
chum
salmon
comes
close
to
matching
the
period
of
decline
in
the
summer
chum
salmon
populations.
However,
even
this
potentially
negative
relationship
is
contradicted
by
a
lack
of
direct
synchrony,
ecological
differences
between
summer
and
fall
juvenile
chum
in
marine
waters,
and
the
recent
increases
in
summer
chum
salmon.
While
the
currently
available
information
suggests
that
the
hatchery
fall
chum
salmon
program
is
not
having
a
major
impact
on
summer
chum
salmon
survivals,
uncertainty
still
exists
and
may
warrant
further
investigation.
The
generally
high
numbers
of
other
hatchery
salmonids
released
into
Hood
Canal
streams
during
the
period
of
decline
are
likely
to
have
contributed
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
stocks
in
that
region.

A
second
important
conclusion
relating
to
potential
competition
and
predation
effects
on
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon,
is
that
increases
in
abundance
of
two
species
after
the
decline
may
currently
be
affecting
the
survivals
of
summer
chum
salmon,
and
may
ultimately
slow
recovery.
Wild
fall
chum
salmon
have
recently
been
very
successful
in
Hood
Canal,
with
some
annual
escapements
exceeding
100,000
spawners.
There
is
a
possibility
that
redd
superimposition
by
fall
chum
salmon
could
reduce
intergravel
survivals
of
the
earlier
spawned
eggs
and
alevins
of
summer
chum
salmon.
A
second
species
with
the
potential
to
affect
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
salmon
is
the
Pacific
harbor
seal.
Over
the
last
25
years,
harbor
seal
populations
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
have
increased
at
about
5%
per
year
and
are
now
very
abundant.
Additionally,
preliminary
results
from
a
1998
WDFW
seal
predation
study
in
Hood
Canal
shows
that
there
are
substantial
levels
of
seal
predation
occurring
on
depressed
summer
chum
salmon
populations.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
84
2.2.4
Habitat
Of
the
four
general
topics
included
in
this
discussion
of
factors
for
decline,
habitat
issues
have
a
different
relationship
to
changes
in
survival
and
production
of
summer
chum
salmon.
The
basic
approach
of
Part
Two
is
to
document
and
evaluate
any
changes
in
factors
affecting
summer
chum
production
that
have
occurred
in
concert
with
the
specific
recent
periods
of
decline
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions.
In
general,
habitat
loss
is
a
long­
term,
cumulative
process
that
leads
to
gradual
reductions
in
the
productivity
of
fish
and
wildlife
species.
It
is
rare
for
abrupt
habitat
change
to
occur
on
a
regional
scale
and
affect
salmon
in
multiple
streams
across
a
number
of
watersheds.
Examples
of
large
scale
natural
habitat
disruptions
would
be
the
recent
volcanic
eruption
of
Mount
St.
Helens,
and
the
forest
fire
that
burned
at
least
half
of
the
Olympic
Peninsula
in
the
year
1308
(
USFS
and
WDNR
1994).
Nearly
all
human­
caused
habitat
loss
occurs
at
a
much
smaller
scale;
at
the
watershed,
stream,
or
stream
reach
level.
Some
types
of
habitat
impact
can
cause
substantial
local
losses
to
the
productive
capacity
of
the
freshwater
environment,
e.
g.
dam
construction,
or
forest
road
building
and
logging.
Other
impacts
like
land
clearing,
stream
bank
armoring,
and
increases
in
impervious
surfaces
have
smaller
immediate
incremental
effects,
but
added
together
and
over
time
they
can
have
a
major
negative
impact.
For
a
discussion
of
local
habitat
impacts
on
individual
streams
see
Part
Three,
section
3.4
Habitat.

There
are
no
observed
region­
wide
changes
in
habitat
that
correspond
in
timing
to
the
1979
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal,
or
to
the
1989
decline
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Cumulative
habitat
impacts
have
contributed
to
the
decline,
however,
and
habitat
restoration
must
be
a
major
part
of
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
two
regions.
Short­
and
long­
term
changes
in
habitat
on
a
local
scale
have
reduced
the
range
of
summer
chum
salmon,
have
affected
their
survival
and
productivity
in
streams
and
estuaries,
and
have
caused
or
contributed
to
the
extirpation
of
populations
of
summer
chum
salmon
from
streams
in
the
region.
These
habitat
related
impacts
have
reduced
the
resiliency
of
summer
chum
salmon,
and
in
combination
with
the
other
factors
for
decline,
have
led
to
the
current
depressed
status
of
these
stocks
of
fish.
The
primary
objective
of
this
recovery
plan,
to
have
healthy
and
harvestable
stocks
of
summer
chum
salmon,
cannot
succeed
without
a
strong
and
comprehensive
habitat
protection
and
restoration
effort.

The
following
discussion
will
provide
a
review
of
the
general
habitat
needs
and
factors
limiting
production
for
summer
chum
salmon.
Two
case
studies
from
Hood
Canal
streams
are
also
presented
to
show
how
habitat
alterations
can
cause
severe
impacts
on
the
survival
and
production
of
summer
chum
salmon.
This
section
ends
with
a
discussion
of
the
contribution
of
habitat
change
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
region.

2.2.4.1
General
Summer
Chum
Habitat
Overview
Suitable
salmonid
habitat,
including
that
of
summer
chum
salmon,
needs
to
provide
for
six
key
life
requirements
for
them
to
be
productive
and
successful.
Salmonids
need
adequate
quantity
and
quality
of
water.
They
need
food
for
survival
and
growth.
They
need
forms
of
shelter
that
provide
protection
from
predators
and
allow
them
to
minimize
energy
loss.
Salmonids
need
to
be
able
to
move
within
and
between
habitat
types
to
fulfill
their
life
requirements.
They
need
clean
and
relatively
stable
gravel
areas
to
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
85
reproduce.
These
life
requirements
are
affected
by
both
natural
processes
and
human
influences
on
those
natural
processes.

Many
reviewers
have
summarized
the
life
histories
and
habitat
requirements
of
salmon,
and
the
effects
of
natural
and
human
events
and
activities
on
salmonid
survival
and
production.
Palmisano
et
al.
(
1993),
NRC
(
1996),
and
Spence
et
al.
(
1996)
all
provide
good
reviews
of
these
issues
and
all
have
been
utilized
in
the
preparation
of
this
plan.

Summer
chum
salmon
habitat
includes
all
of
the
places
where
they
spawn,
feed,
grow,
and
migrate.
In
the
broadest
sense,
maintaining
and
protecting
this
habitat
also
protects
the
habitat
of
the
prey
species
that
make
up
the
salmonid
diet,
and
those
upland
areas
that
directly
affect
the
waters
where
salmonids
actually
live.
Summer
chum
salmon
are
generally
found
in
the
lowermost
reaches
of
streams,
however,
their
habitat
is
affected
by
overall
watershed
habitat
conditions.
Some
streams
like
the
Skokomish
River
have
fairly
big
watersheds,
while
others
like
Big
Beef
Creek
and
Snow
and
Salmon
creeks
are
only
medium
sized
watersheds.
Estuaries,
near
and
off
shore
marine
areas
of
Hood
Canal,
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
and
the
open
ocean
are
all
part
of
summer
chum
salmon
habitat.

Streams
in
the
HC­
SJF
region
course
through
wilderness
areas
and
national
parks,
industrial
and
nonindustrial
forests,
agricultural
land,
and
rural
and
suburban
residential
landscapes.
Land
uses
adjacent
to
nearshore
marine
areas
range
from
state
and
county
parks,
federal
refuges
to
rural
and
urban
residential
development
to
industrial
harbors.
All
of
these
land
uses
affect
the
survival
and
productivity
of
summer
chum
salmon
and
must
be
considered
in
the
recovery
effort.

The
life
requirements
for
chum
salmon
are
influenced
through
a
combination
of
interrelated
physical,
chemical
and
biological
processes,
and
habitat
conditions
occurring
over
both
short­
and
long­
time
scales,
and
across
a
variety
of
land
forms.
Many
of
these
relationships
are
not
well
understood.
Quite
often
it
is
very
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
draw
quantitative
relationships
between
habitat
conditions
and
salmonid
survival
and
production.
Further,
freshwater
habitat/
production
relationships
can
be
confounded
by
ocean
survival
conditions,
inter­
and
intraspecific
competition
and
predation
relationships,
and
by
a
variety
of
fishery
impacts.
Nonetheless,
chum
salmon
life
requirements
appear
to
be
affected
by
habitat
conditions
in
the
following
manner:

C
Water
quantity
(
flow
regime)
is
affected
primarily
through
basin
hydrology,
which
is
manifested
as
instream
flows.
Instream
flows
are
affected
by:
1)
natural
climatic,
topographic
geologic,
soils,
and
vegetative
conditions;
2)
land
use
activities;
and
3)
other
in­
and
out­
of­
stream
uses
of
water
(
hydropower,
irrigation).

C
Water
quality
is
affected
in
part
by
basin
hydrology
and
instream
flows.
It
is
also
influenced
by:
1)
upslope
events
such
as
soil
erosion
and
land
slides;
2)
by
the
condition
and
extent
of
riparian
(
near
water)
vegetation;
3)
by
the
extent
and
function
of
wetlands;
4)
by
a
variety
of
natural
and
chemical
contaminants;
5)
by
stream
channel
and
marine
habitat
stability
and
complexity;
and
6)
by
in­
water
activities
such
as
dredging.

C
Food
supply
and
availability
is
affected
by:
1)
instream
flows;
2)
sediment
quality,
delivery
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
86
and
routing;
3)
water
quality;
4)
riparian,
wetland,
and
marine
vegetation;
5)
stream,
lake
and
marine
habitat
complexity;
6)
the
numbers
of
returning
adult
anadromous
or
resident
spawning
salmonids;
and
7)
by
predator­
prey
and
species
competition
relationships.

C
Shelter
for
rest
and
cover
is
influenced
by
hydrology,
water
quality,
sediment
quality,
delivery
and
transport,
and
by
the
extent
and
condition
of
riparian
vegetation.
Stream
channels
which
possess
varied
and
complex
habitat
features
such
as
large
woody
debris,
rocks
and
boulders,
and
channel
features
such
as
overhanging
banks,
and
a
variety
of
water
depths
and
velocities,
provide
abundant
resting
and
hiding
shelter.

C
Fish
access
and
passage
are
affected
by
hydrology,
water
quality,
sediment
quality,
delivery
and
routing,
riparian
and
wetland
condition
and
extent,
and
floodplain
connectivity.
Fish
passage
is
further
influenced
by
natural
obstacles
such
as
waterfalls
and
human
structures
such
as
dams,
dikes,
and
culverts,
and
by
some
docks,
breakwaters
and
piers
in
marine
areas.

C
Reproduction
is
influenced
by
all
the
above,
but
primarily
by
instream
flows,
sediment
transport,
and
water
quality.

To
sustain
and
recover
summer
chum
salmon
populations,
functional
and
accessible
fish
habitat
is
essential.
This
includes
both
existing
salmonid
habitat
in
its
present
condition,
as
well
as
degraded
habitat
in
need
of
restoration.
It
will
also
require
protection
and
restoration
of
the
productive
capacity
of
habitat.
Areas
used
by
summer
chum
salmon
to
complete
their
life
history
needs
must
be
protected
or
restored,
including
instream,
riparian,
estuarine,
and
wetland
ecosystems,
and
the
upland
activities
and
processes
that
affect
them.

Protection
of
the
existing
habitat
base
should
be
the
first
priority
for
habitat
actions.
Such
protection
is
usually
the
most
cost­
effective
initial
mechanism
available
to
ensure
summer
chum
sustainability.
It
is
immediate,
efficient,
and
can
slow
or
stop
the
trend
of
habitat
loss.
It
also
retains
current
summer
chum
production
capacity,
and
provides
a
foundation
for
future
recovery
and
growth.
Protection
is
also
relatively
inexpensive
when
compared
to
the
cost
of
restoring
summer
chum
salmon
habitat.

However,
given
the
current
degraded
state
of
summer
chum
habitat
in
the
region,
restoration
must
also
be
initiated.
Restoration
is
a
long­
term
activity.
In
this
region
there
are
many
actions
that
could
be
initiated
in
the
short
term,
however
others
may
take
many
years
to
accomplish
because
of
the
cost
and
because
often
a
period
of
natural
watershed
healing
is
needed.
Habitat
restoration
is
a
relatively
new
and
experimental
science,
and
is
more
costly
than
protection.
Restoration
will
be
critical
in
those
areas
where
the
existing
habitat
base
is
insufficient
to
sustain
summer
chums,
or
where
habitat
degradation
or
loss
is
a
key
cause
of
stock
decline.

Protection
and
maintenance
of
wild
salmonid
habitat
requires
recognition
of
the
continuum
of
aquatic
and
terrestrial
physical
and
chemical
processes,
biological
systems,
and
human
influences
on
that
continuum
(
Vannote
et
al.
1980).
The
stream
continuum
exists
in
a
longitudinal
fashion
from
the
smallest
rivulet,
down
through
increasingly
larger
streams
and
rivers,
into
estuaries
and
eventually
to
the
open
ocean.
Downstream
processes
are
linked
to
upstream
processes
through
routing
of
water,
sediment,
and
organic
matter.
Chum
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
87
salmon
in
particular,
since
they
spawn
and
rear
very
near
stream
mouths,
are
especially
susceptible
to
the
entirety
of
habitat
conditions
and
processes
that
occur
within
a
watershed,
and
those
that
affect
estuarine,
marine
and
open
ocean
habitats
within
their
migratory
range.

2.2.4.2
Historical
Habitat
Impacts
On
Summer
Chum
Salmon
The
following
discussion
reviews
two
examples
of
Hood
Canal
streams
that
have
been
affected
by
substantial
habitat
alterations;
resulting
in
serious
reductions
in
summer
chum
salmon
survivals
in
one
stream,
and
contributing
to
the
extirpation
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
other
stream.
These
examples
are
presented
here
only
to
provide
an
overview
of
how
changes
in
habitat
quality
and
quantity
can
impact
summer
chum
salmon,
and
are
not
meant
to
be
an
examination
of
all
habitat
problems
in
these
streams.
A
comprehensive
assessment
of
habitat­
related
factors
affecting
summer
chum
salmon
in
these
two
streams,
and
in
all
other
summer
chum
streams
in
the
region
is
provided
in
Part
Three,
section
3.4
Habitat
and
in
detailed
watershed
descriptions
in
Appendix
Report
3.6.

Big
Quilcene
River
Summer
Chum
Salmon
­
The
Big
Quilcene
River
flows
in
a
south
easterly
direction
from
its
headwaters
in
the
Olympic
Mountains
for
18.9
miles
to
its
confluence
with
Dabob
Bay
and
Hood
Canal.
The
basin
has
a
drainage
area
of
about
70
square
miles
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
With
the
exception
of
a
small
section
of
the
extreme
upper
watershed,
the
entire
drainage
above
river
mile
4.0
is
in
the
Olympic
National
Forest
(
USFS
and
WDNR
1994),
and
is
managed
for
forestry
and
recreational
uses.
Below
river
mile
4.0,
land
uses
are
predominately
residential,
and
some
shellfish
culture
and
limited
agriculture.

Big
Quilcene
River
habitat
impacts
­
The
habitat
conditions
of
the
watershed
are
described
in
detail
in
the
Big
Quilcene
Watershed
Analysis
(
USFS
1994),
and
the
following
are
selected
quotations
regarding
habitat
impacts
from
the
Executive
Summary
of
that
report.

"
Pre­
management
disturbance
regimes
dictating
vegetation
patterns,
sediment
flow,
and
hydrologic
response
were
influenced
by
wildfires.
These
fires
covered
thousands
of
acres
at
a
time
with
frequencies
of
every
100­
200
years.
Large
pulses
of
sediment
routed
through
the
watershed
after
fires
from
landslides
on
steep
slopes.
These
sediment
pulses
most
likely
caused
dramatic
changes
in
channel
location
of
the
lower
mainstem
as
the
Big
Quilcene
River
deposited
this
sediment.
High
intensity
storms,
such
as
rain­
on­
snow
may
have
produced
smaller
sediment
peaks
as
the
watershed
was
recovering
from
these
fires,
particularly
from
landforms
noted
as
being
less
resilient
to
changes
in
hydrology.
Road
construction
and
timber
harvest
since
the
1930s
has
produced
sediment
disturbances
similar
to
those
after
wildfires
but
without
recovery
intervals
between
disturbances.
Urban
development
and
in­
stream
removal
of
large
wood
along
the
lower
mainstem
have
reduced
channel
habitat
diversity
by
straightening
the
channel
and
removing
roughness
in
the
channel.
Water
diverted
from
the
upper
watershed
and
sediment
deposition
in
the
lower
mainstem
may
have
reduced
pool
volume
and
channel
depth.
Vegetation
removal
has
altered
temporal
and
spacial
distribution
of
vegetation
changing
the
character
of
habitat
structure
and
distribution.

Present
day
demands
for
high
quality
and
quantity
of
water
for
a
variety
of
uses
is
a
major
issue
in
the
watershed,
particularly
during
low
flow
periods.
The
Big
Quilcene
River
supplies
water
for
municipal
and
commercial
uses
and
as
well
for
aquatic
species
including
salmon.

This
assessment
shows
a
generally
poor
condition
of
physical
stream
habitats,
and
thus,
productive
capacity,
within
locally
significant
reaches
of
stream.
Habitats
within
the
WAU
are
poorly
distributed
and
quite
dynamic
under
natural
conditions.
It
is
not
possible
to
correlate
fish
populations
(
either
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
88
standing
crop
or
smolt
output)
with
habitat
conditions
due
to
the
effect
of
hatchery
production.
Instream
flows
during
the
low­
flow
periods
likely
create
a
bottleneck
in
fish
production,
particularly
for
highly
valued
anadromous
fishes
in
the
lowest
reaches
of
streams
in
the
WAU.
Water
management
and
conversion
of
existing
uses
of
the
forest
lands
to
urban
areas
or
interfaces
may
be
more
critical
to
the
conservation
and
management
of
fish
habitat
and
populations
than
patterns
of
forest
disturbance."

The
above
quotation
details
only
the
effects
of
sedimentation
on
the
river
channel.
Part
Three,
section
3.4
Habitat
and
the
Big
Quilcene
River
watershed
description
in
Appendix
Report
3.6
provide
more
detailed
descriptions
of
sedimentation
and
other
habitat
problems
in
the
basin.

The
above
described
habitat
conditions
cause
major
problems
for
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
lower
Big
Quilcene
River.
Sediments
from
the
upper
watershed
are
transported
downstream
by
high
flows,
and
aggregate
in
the
low
gradient
reaches
of
the
lower
river.
As
the
channel
fills
with
sediments,
local
flooding
impacts
are
exacerbated,
resulting
in
landowner
desires
to
channelize
the
river,
armor
stream
banks,
and
install
levees.
Unfortunately,
these
are
the
same
stream
reaches
used
by
summer
chum
salmon
for
spawning
and
the
subsequent
incubation
of
eggs
and
alevins.
Most
of
the
remedial
measures
used
to
control
flood
impacts
result
in
reduced
habitat
quality,
affecting
the
survival
of
the
local
summer
chum
salmon
population.

Habitat
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon
­
A
recent
example
demonstrates
the
type
of
impact
that
even
a
single
flood
control
project
can
have
on
the
salmon
using
the
stream.
In
December
of
1993,
an
intense
rain
storm
resulted
in
flooding
on
the
Big
Quilcene
River,
and
caused
a
breech
in
a
levee
on
the
lower
river.
The
affected
landowner,
fearing
damage
to
adjacent
structures,
conducted
an
unauthorized
channelization
project,
removing
stream
bottom
materials
from
approximately
a
third
of
a
mile
of
the
channel.
This
project
took
place
at
a
time
period
when
the
eggs
and
alevins
of
summer
chum
salmon
were
incubating
in
the
stream
gravels.
An
on­
site
inspection
by
WDF
staff
found
that
the
entire
stream
bottom
in
the
affected
reach
had
been
severely
disrupted,
resulting
in
the
total
loss
of
all
incubating
eggs
and
alevins.
A
subsequent
evaluation
determined
that
29%
of
the
total
production
of
the
1994
summer
chum
salmon
spawning
in
the
river
had
been
destroyed
by
this
project
(
Uehara
1994).
This
unfortunate
impact
on
the
survival
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
Big
Quilcene
River
occurred
in
a
year
when
only
89
total
spawners
had
returned
to
the
river
(
Uehara
1994),
and
when
the
stock
was
considered
to
be
in
critical
status
(
WDF
et
al.
1993).

Skokomish
River
Summer
Chum
Salmon
­
The
Skokomish
River
is
the
largest
stream
system
in
Hood
Canal,
and
historically
has
produced
a
major
portion
of
Hood
Canal
salmon
runs
(
Smoker
1952).
Two
large
tributaries,
the
North
and
South
forks,
come
together
at
river
mile
9.0
to
form
the
mainstem
Skokomish
River.
Because
of
the
extensive
amount
of
habitat
potentially
provided
by
the
Skokomish
system,
it
is
likely
that
with
pristine
conditions
(
pre­
development)
this
watershed
was
the
largest
producer
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal.
Most
of
the
system
has
under
gone
extensive
habitat
alterations,
however,
with
negative
consequences
for
indigenous
stocks
of
salmon.
The
following
example
will
discuss
only
the
impacts
of
a
single
limiting
factor
(
water
withdrawal)
on
the
summer
chum
salmon
of
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River.
For
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
habitat
limiting
factors
in
the
entire
Skokomish
River
basin,
see
Part
Three,
section
3.4
Habitat
and
the
Skokomish
River
watershed
description
in
Appendix
Report
3.6.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
89
North
Fork
Skokomish
River
habitat
impacts
­
The
North
Fork
Skokomish
River
flows
for
41.9
miles
out
of
the
Olympic
Mountains
in
a
generally
southerly
direction
to
its
confluence
with
the
South
Fork
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
Over
100
tributary
streams
join
the
mainstem
of
the
North
fork
to
form
a
watershed
of
118
square
miles
(
FERC
1996).
Two
major
features
in
the
system
are
lakes
Cushman
and
Kokanee
which
are
formed
by
hydroelectric
dams,
and
represent
the
upper
limit
of
anadromous
fish
utilization.
The
area
above
Lake
Cushman
is
almost
entirely
within
the
Olympic
National
Park,
which
maintains
the
watershed
and
adjacent
lands
in
a
protected,
natural
condition.
Below
the
reservoirs,
land
use
is
predominately
forestry,
with
some
residential
and
agriculture
uses
near
the
confluence
with
the
South
Fork
(
FERC
1996).

The
two
hydroelectric
dams
were
built
on
the
North
Fork
by
the
city
of
Tacoma;
Dam
No.
1
at
river
mile
19.6
was
completed
in
1926,
and
Dam
No.
2
at
river
mile
17.3
was
finished
in
1930.
The
upper
dam
inundated
the
pre­
existing
Lake
Cushman
and
increased
its
size
from
about
322
surface
acres
to
its
present
4,010
acres.
Mean
annual
stream
flow
at
the
lower
dam
site
has
been
estimated
to
be
approximately
748
cfs.
After
the
construction
of
the
North
Fork
dams,
virtually
all
flow
was
diverted
from
the
system
at
the
lower
dam
until
1988,
when
30
cfs
was
provided
below
the
project
(
FERC
1996).
This
lack
of
water
discharge
from
the
dams
combined
with
a
partial
diversion
of
the
largest
downstream
tributary
(
McTaggert
Creek),
reduced
the
flows
in
the
North
Fork
to
the
point
that
at
certain
times
of
the
year
all
of
the
water
disappeared
into
the
ground,
and
portions
of
the
stream
were
dry
(
WDF
1957).
The
1957
WDF
report
also
documented
a
specific
observation
of
a
section
of
the
North
Fork
with
no
surface
flow
in
August
1954,
going
dry
first
at
a
point
about
a
half
mile
above
the
mouth.
These
conditions
of
extreme
low
flow
likely
occurred
most
often
in
late
summer,
at
the
time
when
summer
chum
salmon
needed
to
access
the
stream
for
spawning.

South
Fork
and
mainstem
Skokomish
River
habitat
impacts
­
The
South
Fork
Skokomish
River
flows
for
27.5
miles
in
a
southeasterly
direction
to
its
confluence
with
the
North
Fork.
From
the
joining
of
these
two
major
tributaries,
the
mainstem
flows
in
a
generally
easterly
direction
for
nine
miles
to
its
mouth
on
the
southern
end
of
Hood
Canal
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
Most
of
the
124
square
miles
of
drainage
area
are
in
the
Olympic
National
Forest,
with
private
forest
lands,
agriculture,
and
residential
uses
in
the
lower
watershed
and
along
the
mainstem
(
FERC
1996).

The
same
habitat
alteration
processes
described
above
for
the
Big
Quilcene
River
(
USFS
and
WDNR
1994)
have
also
occurred
in
the
South
Fork
and
mainstem
Skokomish,
only
on
a
much
larger
scale.
Stream
flows
exhibit
tremendous
volatility;
with
extreme
flows
during
the
period
of
record
(
1931­
1996;
South
Fork
Skokomish
USGS
gage
12060500)
varying
from
a
high
discharge
of
21,600
cfs
to
a
low
of
just
62
cfs
(
Wiggins
et
al.
1997).

Massive
downstream
sediment
transport
occurs
from
the
South
Fork,
filling
the
mainstem
Skokomish
River
channel.
These
sediments
are
being
released
from
heavily
logged
areas
of
the
upper
watershed
(
FERC
1996).
Over
the
years,
an
extensive
system
of
levees
has
been
constructed
along
the
lower
river
to
protect
low­
lying,
flood
prone
lands.
As
the
river
channel
between
the
levees
has
filled
with
sediments
from
upstream,
river
bed
elevations
have
risen,
and
flooding
of
lands
adjacent
to
the
lower
river
have
increased
in
frequency
(
FERC
1996).
Multiple,
damaging
floods
now
occur
virtually
every
year
in
the
Skokomish
River
lowlands.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
90
Habitat
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon
­
Summer
chum
salmon
probably
ceased
to
exist
as
a
selfsustaining
stock
in
the
Skokomish
River
system
in
the
late­
1960s
or
early
1970s.
Only
limited
information
on
the
population
size
prior
to
that
time
period
exists.
Between
1935
and
1953
annual
tribal
net
catches
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
river
in
September
ranged
from
61
to
986
fish
(
Smoker
et
al.
1952).
An
estimated
3,000
to
4,000
summer
chum
spawners
were
observed
in
the
South
Fork
and
mainstem
on
October
1,
1954
(
WDF
1957).
A
WDF
assessment
of
Puget
Sound
salmon
escapements
for
the
years
1966­
1971
estimated
the
Skokomish
summer
chum
salmon
average
escapement
to
be
approximately
300
spawners,
and
characterized
the
population
as
having
"
a
negligible
level
of
abundance"
(
Williams
et
al.
1975).
In
1974
a
WDF
salmon
status
review
listed
Skokomish
summer
chum
salmon
adult
returns
as
"
few,"
with
escapement
levels
"
unknown"
(
WDF
1974).
By
the
following
year,
summer
chum
salmon
were
no
longer
included
as
a
viable
stock
in
the
Skokomish
system
in
annual
WDF
status
assessments
(
WDF
1975).
A
state­
wide
inventory
of
salmon
and
steelhead
stocks
in
1992
(
WDFW
and
WWTIT
1994),
did
not
find
evidence
of
a
viable,
self­
sustaining
summer
chum
stock
in
the
system.
The
question
of
the
status
of
the
small
numbers
of
summer­
timed
chum
salmon
that
are
sporadically
observed
in
the
Skokomish
has
been
reexamined
for
this
recovery
planning
effort,
and
the
same
conclusion
has
been
reached;
there
is
currently
no
evidence
of
a
viable
summer
chum
stock
in
the
system
(
see
discussion
in
Part
One).

North
Fork
summer
chum
salmon
were
likely
extirpated
from
that
stream
as
early
as
1956.
A
Skokomish
tribal
elder,
Joe
Andrews
Sr.,
documented
this
loss
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River
in
a
1991
interview
conducted
by
the
British
Columbia
Indian
Language
Project.
Speaking
of
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River:

"
Frank
Allen,
however,
especially
liked
to
smoke
a
summer
run
of
dog
salmon,
a
yellowish­
colored
salmon
that
came
upriver
between
July
and
September.
Apparently
this
run
was
no
longer
available
after
around
1956."
(
Bouchard
and
Kennedy
1997).

Supporting
this
account
is
a
1957
WDF
report
which
stated:

"
The
chum
salmon
population
now
using
the
North
Fork
would
not
be
especially
affected
by
this
extreme
low
flow
and
dry
stretch.
The
chum
salmon
enter
in
mid­
November
after
the
river
has
recovered
and
the
dry
period
is
over."
(
WDF
1957).

This
reference
indicates
that
only
fall­
timed
chum
salmon
were
using
the
North
Fork
in
1957.
The
lack
of
adequate
migration
and
spawning
flows
in
the
North
Fork
after
the
construction
of
the
dams
presumably
has
been
a
major
contributor
to
the
loss
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
that
stream.

The
impacts
of
habitat
alteration
have
been
devastating
for
those
species
or
stocks
of
salmon
that
spawn
in
the
South
Fork
and
mainstem
Skokomish
in
late
summer
or
early
fall
months.
In
1961,
WDF
staff
began
to
conduct
regular
spawning
ground
surveys
on
the
South
Fork
and
mainstem
Skokomish
during
September
and
October.
Since
that
time,
summer
chum
have
been
only
rarely
observed;
and
over
the
last
20
years
the
numbers
observed
are
considered
to
be
too
low
to
represent
a
self­
sustaining
stock.
The
extreme
low
flows
during
the
early
spawning
periods,
followed
by
severe
flooding
and
massive
sediment
movement
have
created
a
situation
where
eggs
deposited
by
early
spawning
chum
salmon
using
riffles
in
the
main
river
channels
have
little
chance
of
survival.
These
conditions
have
likely
played
a
major
role
in
the
extirpation
of
the
summer
chum
salmon
of
the
Skokomish
system.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
91
2.2.4.3
Conclusions
Although
no
single
region­
wide
habitat
alteration
is
apparent
during
the
periods
of
summer
chum
salmon
decline
in
Hood
Canal
or
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams,
the
cumulative
impacts
of
habitat
loss
has
been
a
significant
factor
in
the
lowered
survival
and
production
of
these
fish.
As
shown
in
the
case
studies
above,
disturbance
of
critical
habitat
elements
can
cause
reductions
in
survivals,
and
in
the
worst
case,
extirpation
of
stocks.
Local
summer
chum
salmon
may
be
more
vulnerable
to
these
kinds
of
impacts
than
other
salmonids,
because
they
are
at
the
southern
extent
of
their
distribution
and
probably
lead
a
more
tenuous
existence
than
more
northern
stocks.

While
the
examples
presented
for
the
Skokomish
and
Big
Quilcene
rivers
are
extreme
cases,
similar
but
smaller
scale
habitat
loss
has
occurred
on
all
summer
chum
salmon
streams
in
the
region.
These
habitat
impacts
lower
the
resiliency
of
the
summer
chum
populations,
exacerbating
any
additional
negative
impacts
on
the
survivals
of
these
fish.
Habitat
change
has
been
a
major
contributor
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
see
section
3.4
and
Appendix
Report
3.6).

2.2.5
Harvest
The
early
history
of
fisheries
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
is
summarized
above
in
the
Harvest
Data
discussion
of
Part
One
(
section
1.4.3).
The
"
modern"
era
of
regional
salmon
management
began
with
the
1974
Boldt
Decision
on
Indian
fishing
rights.
Traditional
Puget
Sound
fisheries
changed
in
1974
from
a
mixed­
stock
harvest
approach
to
a
more
terminal
pattern
of
fishing,
to
accommodate
the
necessary
allocation
of
returning
fish
to
tribal
and
non­
tribal
fisheries,
and
to
provide
for
better
fishery
management.
This
resulted
in
the
movement
of
new
and
intensive
non­
Indian
and
tribal
net
fisheries
into
the
Hood
Canal
terminal
area,
which
was
previously
a
salmon
preserve
that
was
closed
for
net
fisheries
and
open
for
sport
fishing.
The
two
summer
chum
stocks
in
Discovery
and
Sequim
bays
have
been
almost
completely
protected
from
harvest
within
the
bays
(
terminal
areas).
The
summer
chum
stocks
of
both
regions,
however,
are
affected
by
harvest
in
pre­
terminal
areas,
including
catches
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
by
both
U.
S.
and
Canadian
fishers.

Of
the
various
activities
that
can
affect
the
success
of
a
salmon
population,
harvest
is
usually
the
only
factor
for
which
the
numbers
of
fish
taken
from
the
population
are
routinely
quantified.
The
effort
to
account
for
the
numbers
of
fish
taken
in
various
fisheries
has
a
number
of
problems,
one
of
which
is
the
allocation
of
mixed
stock
catches
to
their
appropriate
stock
of
origin.
In
an
attempt
to
deal
with
this
problem
for
the
purposes
of
this
recovery
planning
process,
an
improved
runsize
data
base
has
been
developed
(
see
Part
One,
1.4.4
Run
Size).
These
summer
chum
salmon
runsize
data
will
be
used
in
section
3.5,
Harvest
Management,
to
estimate
exploitation
rates
to
evaluate
the
contribution
of
fishery
impacts
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon.
These
harvest
data
are
thought
to
provide
a
reasonable
measure
of
the
general
impacts
of
fishing
activities
on
summer
chum
salmon.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
92
Pre­
terminal
Area
Marine
waters
where
specific
stocks
(
or
groups
of
stocks)
are
mixed
with
fish
returning
to
other
regions.
These
areas
for
summer
chum
salmon
include
all
marine
waters
of
Admiralty
Inlet,
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
and
the
Pacific
Ocean
seaward
of
Hood
Canal
and
Discovery,
Sequim,
and
Dungeness
bays.
2.2.5.1
Pre­
terminal
Harvest
The
pre­
terminal
management
areas
for
summer
chum
salmon
include
all
marine
waters
seaward
of
Hood
Canal
and
Discovery
and
Sequim
bays.
Summer
chum
salmon
are
harvested
in
these
areas
during
fisheries
for
other
species
of
salmon,
primarily
pink
and
sockeye
salmon.
During
the
time
period
that
summer
chum
salmon
are
present,
management
authority
is
vested
in
the
Pacific
Salmon
Commission
(
PSC)
for
most
of
the
preterminal
areas
(
Admiralty
Inlet
excepted).
Since
these
PSC
fisheries
are
directed
at
Fraser
River
pink
and
sockeye
stocks,
seasons
and
exploitation
rates
are
based
on
the
annual
abundance
of
those
species.
Summer
chum
salmon
have
been
incidentally
harvested
during
these
fisheries
at
exploitation
rates
based
on
the
needs
of
Fraser
River
runs.

Accounting
for
all
harvests
of
summer
chum
salmon
has
been
a
desired
objective
of
the
on­
going
restoration
planning
effort.
Accordingly,
beginning
in
1995,
tissue
samples
for
genetic
profiling
of
summer­
timed
chum
have
been
collected
from
a
major
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
fishery
(
Canadian
Area
20).
The
WDFW
Genetic
Lab
analyzed
the
resulting
samples
using
allozyme
electrophoresis
techniques,
and
estimated
that
for
the
1995­
1997
seasons
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
contributed
an
average
of
49%
of
the
chum
salmon
sampled.
Annual
results
were;
31%
in
1995,
68%
in
1996,
and
49%
in
1997
(
Larry
LeClair,
WDFW,
personal
communication).
The
sample
data
were
used
to
estimate
total
annual
catch
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
in
PSC
fisheries
prior
to
September
16
for
each
year
from
1974
through
1997
(
see
Appendix
Report
1.3
for
methods).
Admiralty
Inlet
summer
chum
harvests
were
apportioned
to
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
using
runreconstruction
methods.

An
examination
of
1974­
1997
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
exploitation
rate
on
an
annual
basis
(
Table
2.8)
shows
that
there
has
been
no
meaningful
change
in
the
exploitation
rates
on
summer
chum
salmon
corresponding
to
the
decline
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
stocks
in
1979
and
subsequent
years,
or
for
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
stocks
beginning
in
1989.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
93
Table
2.8.
Annual
U.
S.
pre­
terminal
exploitation
rates
and
harvest
for
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
stocks,
1974
to
1998.

Return
Pre­
terminal
Estimated
Return
Pre­
terminal
Estimated
years
exploitation
harvest
years
exploitation
harvest
rate
rate
1974
0.023
378
1987
0.024
147
1975
0.019
600
1988
0.032
310
1976
0.045
3,383
1989
0.081
426
1977
0.042
785
1990
0.022
45
1978
0.025
719
1991
0.088
230
1979
0.098
1,025
1992
0.027
129
1980
0.031
557
1993
0.065
98
1981
0.095
666
1994
0.026
80
1982
0.036
428
1995
0.006
66
1983
0.059
279
1996
0.005
103
1984
0.014
73
1997
0.004
46
1985
0.101
487
1998
0.008
41
1986
0.018
167
A
substantial
increase
in
Canadian
Area
20
exploitation
rates
is
apparent
during
the
four
year
period
from
1989
through
1992
(
Table
2.9).
The
1989
and
1990
Area
20
exploitation
rates
were
respectively
the
highest
(
43.2%)
and
third
highest
(
33.4%)
in
the
24
year
data
base.
The
two
following
years
had
exploitation
rates
of
18.5%
(
1991)
and
20.6%
(
1992);
both
years
well
above
the
25
year
average
rate
of
11.1%.
Since
1989,
the
Canadian
Area
20
fishery
harvested
an
average
of
76%
of
the
total
pre­
terminal
catch.
For
the
1993­
1998
period,
Area
20
pre­
terminal
exploitation
rates
returned
to
lower
levels,
averaging
4.7%
and
ranging
from
1.5
to
14.2%
annually.
The
relatively
high
exploitation
rates
between
1989
and
1992
coincided
with
the
severe
drop
in
escapements
of
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
beginning
with
the
1989
return
year.

Table
2.9.
Annual
Canadian
Area
20
exploitation
rates
and
harvest
for
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
stocks,
1974
to
1998.

Return
Area
20
Estimated
Return
Area
20
Estimated
years
exploitation
harvest
years
exploitation
harvest
rate
rate
1974
0.086
1,399
1987
0.063
390
1975
0.034
1.064
1988
0.075
738
1976
0.075
5,705
1989
0.432
2,273
1977
0.049
913
1990
0.334
696
1978
0.025
701
1991
0.185
438
1979
0.057
591
1992
0.206
980
1980
0.053
980
1993
0.044
67
1981
0.131
915
1994
0.142
451
1982
0.187
2,219
1995
0.042
458
1983
0.006
28
1996
0.015
338
1984
0.062
314
1997
0.019
198
1985
0.336
1,620
1998
0.018
98
1986
0.088
796
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
94
Terminal
Area
Marine
waters
near
the
ultimate
freshwater
destination
of
specific
salmonid
stocks
(
or
groups
of
stocks)
where
they
have
separated
from
fish
returning
to
other
regions.

Extreme
Terminal
Area
Marine
or
freshwater
areas
where
salmonids
of
a
single
stock
or
management
unit
have
separated
from
fish
of
other
stocks.
2.2.5.2
Terminal
and
Extreme
Terminal
Harvest
As
defined
by
the
co­
managers,
the
terminal
fishery
management
areas
for
the
region
include
most
of
the
marine
waters
of
Hood
Canal
(
Management
Areas
12,
12B,
and
12C).
Extreme
terminal
management
areas
include
marine
areas
12A,
12D,
Discovery
and
Sequim
bays
(
Management
Area
6B),
Dungeness
Bay
(
6D),
and
all
rivers
where
summer
chum
salmon
are
present.
Hood
Canal
is
intensively
fished
by
tribal
and
non­
tribal
net
fishers,
while
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
terminal
area
bays
are
essentially
regulated
for
no
net
fishing.
Because
of
these
patterns
of
regulation
and
fishing,
the
following
discussion
will
focus
on
Hood
Canal
terminal
area
harvest.

As
tribal
and
non­
tribal
net
fisheries
moved
into
Hood
Canal
in
the
years
following
the
1974
Boldt
Decision,
fishery
exploitation
rates
changed
dramatically
for
most
salmon
stocks
in
the
region.
Four
salmon
species
were
present
as
both
wild
and
hatchery
populations
in
Hood
Canal
(
sockeye
excepted),
and
fishery
managers
were
faced
with
the
problem
of
run
timing
overlaps
throughout
the
fishing
season.
In
an
attempt
to
deal
with
this
problem,
the
wild
and
hatchery
components
of
each
species
were
designated
as
having
either
"
primary"
or
"
secondary"
management
status
(
HCSMP
1986).
Primary
stocks
would
be
managed
for
directed
fisheries
in
mixed
stock
fishing
areas.
Secondary
stocks
would
be
subjected
to
seasons
and
exploitation
rates
in
mixed
stock
areas
that
were
suitable
for
primary
stocks
present
in
the
same
areas.
The
co­
managers
designated
Hood
Canal
summer
salmon
to
have
a
"
secondary
stock"
management
status,
which
meant
that
any
harvest
would
be
incidental
to
fisheries
directed
at
other
species;
mainly
coho
and
chinook
salmon
which
had
a
primary
management
status.
Mixed
stock
exploitation
rates
and
seasons
were
established
annually
based
on
the
abundance
of
coho
and
chinook
salmon,
resulting
in
high
exploitation
rates
on
summer
chum
salmon
in
some
management
areas.
Tynan
(
1992)
examined
the
effect
of
terminal
harvest
on
summer
chum
escapements
for
the
years
1968­
1991,
and
concluded
that
high
exploitation
rates
had
contributed
substantially
to
reduced
escapements.

The
issue
of
harvest
impacts
has
been
reexamined
as
a
part
of
this
restoration
planning
effort
(
see
Part
Three,
section
3.5
Harvest
Management).
The
newly
derived
runsize
and
exploitation
rate
estimates
are
described
in
Appendix
Report
1.3,
and
are
used
in
the
following
discussion.

Pre­
terminal
exploitation
rates
did
not
show
a
meaningful
change
in
the
years
before
and
after
1979,
but
Hood
Canal
terminal
exploitation
rates
went
from
essentially
zero
to
rates
that
ranged
between
14.7%
to
71.9%
for
the
years
1975­
1991.
Total
exploitation
rates
(
including
pre­
terminal
harvest)
ranged
from
21.4%
to
80.6%
for
the
same
span
of
years
(
Table
2.10).
During
the
first
six
years
of
the
Hood
Canal
fisheries
(
1974­
1979),
summer
chum
salmon
total
exploitation
rates
averaged
30.8%,
and
ranged
from
a
low
in
1974
of
11.1%
to
a
high
of
59.7%
in
1976.
The
return
in
1976
was
in
excess
of
74,000
fish,
and
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.2
Negative
Impacts
on
Abundance
Page
95
even
with
the
high
exploitation
rate,
over
27,000
spawners
escaped
to
Hood
Canal
streams.
From
1980
through
1991
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
were
subjected
to
high
total
exploitation
rates
(
averaging
57.1%),
with
the
majority
of
the
impact
occurring
in
the
terminal
area
fisheries
(
average
46.9%
exploitation
rate).

Hood
Canal
summer
chum
escapements
began
to
decline
precipitously
in
1979.
Total
exploitation
rates
in
1979
were
a
relatively
modest
30.2%,
and
the
period
of
consistently
high
exploitation
rates
began
the
following
year
(
Table
2.10).
The
1979
escapement
was
likely
depressed
by
environmental
conditions
that
resulted
in
record
low
returns
of
chum
salmon
statewide
in
that
year
(
see
discussion
in
section
2.2.2
Climate).
After
1979,
summer
chum
escapements
and
runsizes
dropped
in
concordance
with
the
increased
total
exploitation
rates
imposed
on
the
returns
(
Table
2.11).
In
1992
co­
managers
began
to
adopt
protective
harvest
management
provisions,
which
included
time
and
area
closures
and
mandatory
release
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
most
fisheries.
The
result
was
the
elimination
of
nearly
all
terminal
area
harvest,
with
exploitation
rates
ranging
from
0.3%
to
2.1%
for
the
1993­
1998
seasons
(
Table
2.10).
With
virtually
all
of
the
terminal
run
escaping,
the
number
of
summer
chum
spawners
in
Hood
Canal
streams
averaged
over
9,000
fish
per
year
over
the
last
five
years
(
Table
2.11).

Table
2.10.
Annual
terminal
and
total
exploitation
rates
for
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
stocks,
1974
to
1998.
1
Return
Terminal
Total
Return
Terminal
Total
years
exploitation
exploitation
years
exploitation
exploitation
rate
rate
rate
rate
1974
0.002
0.111
1987
0.719
0.806
1975
0.254
0.308
1988
0.367
0.474
1976
0.476
0.597
1989
0.352
0.864
1977
0.224
0.316
1990
0.347
0.702
1978
0.164
0.214
1991
0.388
0.660
1979
0.147
0.302
1992
0.064
0.296
1980
0.624
0.708
1993
0.021
0.130
1981
0.348
0.574
1994
0.011
0.179
1982
0.448
0.671
1995
0.003
0.052
1983
0.685
0.750
1996
0.006
0.026
1984
0.490
0.567
1997
0.019
0.043
1985
0.300
0.737
1998
0.007
0.003
1986
0.565
0.671
Summer
chum
salmon
returning
to
the
Hood
Canal
terminal
area
experience
varying
exploitation
1
rates
in
the
various
management
units.
See
Part
Three
­
section
3.5
Harvest
Management
for
discussion.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.3
Rating
of
Factors
for
Decline
Page
96
Table
2.11.
Five
year
average
summer
chum
salmon
pre­
terminal,
terminal,
and
total
exploitation
rates
and
escapements
for
Hood
Canal
stocks,
1974
to
1998.

Return
years
rates
(%)
rates
(%)
exploitation
escapements
Pre­
terminal
Terminal
Total
Hood
Canal
rates
(%)

1974­
78
8.5
22.4
34.3
17,773
1979­
83
15.1
45.0
61.1
3,238
1984­
88
16.3
48.8
65.8
1,760
1989­
93
29.6
23.4
53.6
978
1994­
98
5.7
0.9
6.7
9,028
2.2.5.3
Conclusions
Exploitation
rate
estimates
for
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks
show
increases
in
exploitation
rates
that
relate
to
the
declines
in
both
regions.
In
the
case
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon,
the
added
impacts
of
indirect
harvests
in
the
terminal
area
fisheries
(
after
1974)
combined
with
a
relatively
consistent
level
of
pre­
terminal
catch
have
contributed
substantially
to
the
decline
and
subsequent
continuing
low
production
levels.
The
fact
that
these
stocks
are
at
the
southern
limit
of
summer
spawning
chum
salmon
may
mean
that
they
have
a
naturally
lower
level
of
productivity,
making
them
less
able
than
wild
fall
chum
stocks
to
be
successful
with
levels
of
exploitation
rates
shown
in
Table
2.11
(
34%
to
66%).

Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
declined
abruptly
in
1989,
which
was
the
same
year
that
the
Canadian
pre­
terminal
exploitation
rate
peaked
at
43.2%
(
Table
2.9),
a
fourfold
increase
from
the
1974
to
1998
mean
of
11.1%.
Canadian
pre­
terminal
exploitation
rates
in
the
following
three
years
ranged
from
18.5%
to
33.4%,
and
were
substantially
higher
than
average.
These
higher
exploitation
rates
likely
contributed
to
the
lowered
escapements
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
streams
of
Discovery
and
Sequim
bays
after
1988.

2.3
Rating
of
Factors
For
Decline
2.3.1
Introduction
The
above
discussions
of
factors
for
decline
have
considered
the
impacts
of
individual
factors
as
if
no
other
impacts
were
occurring.
It
is
clear,
however,
that
the
declines
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
have
been
the
result
of
the
cumulative
impacts
of
a
number
of
factors.
This
section
will
rate
the
various
factors
for
decline
and
discuss
the
cumulative
impacts.
There
will
also
be
a
discussion
of
factors
identified
above
that
will
influence
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
salmon.
Some
of
these
factors
for
recovery
have
been
involved
in
the
reductions
in
summer
chum
salmon
survivals
and
run
sizes,
while
others
are
more
current
in
origin
and
likely
did
not
contribute
to
the
declines.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.3
Rating
of
Factors
for
Decline
Page
97
2.3.2
Ratings
Among
the
factors
for
decline,
only
the
effects
of
harvest
can
be
readily
quantified.
Because
of
this,
the
ranking
of
the
various
factors
for
decline
is
necessarily
a
subjective
process.
The
following
four
categories
are
used
to
rate
the
various
factors
for
decline
discussed
above:
1)
major
impact,
2)
moderate
impact,
3)
low
or
not
likely
impact,
or
4)
undetermined
impact.

Those
factors
categorized
as
having
a
major
impact
are
ones
of
such
significance
that
individually
they
could
have
caused
substantial
long­
term
reductions
in
survivals
and
run
sizes.
The
reversal
of
factors
in
this
category
would
likely
lead
to
rapid
recovery
of
the
summer
chum
stocks.
Moderate
rated
factors
are
ones
that
individually
could
cause
short­
term
reductions
in
survivals
and
run
sizes,
but
in
the
absence
of
other
negative
factors
are
not
likely
to
have
a
long­
term
impact.
Low
or
not
likely
ratings
are
factors
considered
to
be
within
the
range
of
normal
survival
factors
for
summer
chum
salmon.
The
undetermined
category
is
used
for
those
factors
that
may
have
negative
consequences,
but
supporting
data
are
not
available.
The
ratings
of
factors
for
decline
are
discussed
below
and
are
presented
in
Table
2.12.

Table
2.12.
Ratings
of
region­
wide
factors
for
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams.

Impact
ratings:
U
U
U
Major
U
U
Moderate
U
Low
or
not
likely
?
Undetermined
Factor
Hood
Canal
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Climate
Ocean
conditions
?
?
Estuarine
conditions
?
?
Freshwater
conditions
U
U
U
U
U
Ecological
Interactions
Wild
fall
chum
U
U
Hatchery
fall
chum
U
?
U
Other
salmonids
(
including
hatchery)
U
U
U
Marine
fish
U
U
Birds
U
U
Marine
mammals
U
U
Habitat
Cumulative
impacts
U
U
U
U
U
U
Harvest
Canadian
pre­
terminal
catch
U
U
U
U.
S.
Pre­
terminal
catch
U
U
Terminal
catch
U
U
U
U
2.3.3
Climate
The
effects
of
climate
on
the
success
of
summer
chum
salmon
has
three
broad
components;
ocean,
estuarine,
and
freshwater
survival.
The
impacts
on
salmon
survivals
in
each
of
these
areas
is
influenced
by
climate
regimes
of
decadal
length
periodicity
in
the
North
Pacific
Ocean.
The
last
documented
ocean
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.3
Rating
of
Factors
for
Decline
Page
98
regime
shift
occurred
in
1977,
and
relates
to
changes
in
local
weather
patterns.
The
Pacific
northwest
has
experienced
warmer,
dryer
weather
conditions
since
1977,
and
for
the
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region,
this
has
resulted
in
lower
stream
flows
during
the
summer
chum
spawning
period
(
September/
October)
and
higher
flood
flows
during
incubation
(
October
through
March).
These
conditions
have
likely
resulted
in
reduced
egg
to
fry
survivals
for
summer
chum
salmon
in
region
streams.
The
impact
of
climate
on
summer
chum
salmon
freshwater
survivals
is
rated
as
moderate
for
Hood
Canal
stocks,
primarily
because
there
is
substantial
variability
in
the
observed
stream
flows
and
not
all
years
have
had
flow
patterns
consistent
with
negative
impacts
for
these
fish,
and
because
the
reductions
in
spawning
flows
did
not
occur
until
1986.
The
concordance
of
the
1986
reduction
in
spawning
flow
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
results
in
a
major
impact
rating
for
summer
chum
stocks
in
that
region.
The
increased
frequency
of
damaging
flows
during
spawning
and
incubation
contributes
to
lower
survivals,
and
is
a
factor
that
potentially
will
slow
the
recovery
of
naturally
spawning
summer
chum
salmon.

The
impacts
of
ocean
climate
conditions
on
the
survival
of
summer
chum
salmon
during
their
period
of
estuarine
and
ocean
residence
is
also
important.
The
current
ocean
regime
shift
has
changed
patterns
of
temperature
and
freshwater
runoff,
which
likely
influence
conditions
in
estuaries.
Ocean
water
temperatures
and
plankton
abundances
in
the
North
Pacific
also
have
changed,
contributing
to
strong
returns
of
many
Alaskan
and
Canadian
salmon
stocks.
It
is
assumed
that
the
ocean
survivals
of
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
stocks
also
have
been
affected,
however,
the
data
do
not
exist
to
determine
the
nature
and
degree
of
change.
The
effects
of
ocean
conditions
on
summer
chum
salmon
in
both
the
estuaries
and
ocean
have
been
rated
as
undetermined.

The
major
reduction
in
stream
flows
shown
for
the
1986
and
later
years
likely
has
been
the
result
of
climatic
change,
but
may
still
be
exacerbated
by
water
withdrawals
or
other
human
caused
impacts
on
specific
streams.
Many
water
withdrawals
and
other
flow
altering
events
have
occurred
prior
to
1968,
and
current
stream
flow
patterns
represent
the
residual
water
supply
available
after
any
permanent
flow
alterations.
This
analysis
examined
the
evidence
for
recent
changes
in
stream
flow
patterns,
but
did
not
address
the
overall
issue
of
adequacy
of
flow
for
fish
production.

2.3.4
Ecological
Interactions
Of
the
various
potential
competitor
or
predator
species
considered,
none
are
thought
to
have
played
a
significant
roll
in
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon.
Data
relating
to
various
salmonid,
marine
fish,
predatory
bird,
and
marine
mammal
populations
have
been
examined
for
evidence
of
changes
coincident
with
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon.
Only
hatchery
fall
chum
have
shown
a
change
in
abundance
that
generally
related
to
the
period
of
decline
in
Hood
Canal.
Because
of
the
large
magnitude
of
releases
of
hatchery
salmonids
into
the
streams
of
Hood
Canal
during
the
period
of
summer
chum
decline,
and
because
of
the
high
potential
for
negative
interactions
resulting
from
these
releases,
hatchery
salmonids
have
been
rated
as
having
a
moderate
impact
on
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
stocks.
All
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
potential
competitor
or
predatory
species
have
been
rated
as
having
a
low
or
not
likely
impact.
Because
of
recent
increases
in
abundance,
wild
fall
chum
salmon
and
marine
mammals
have
been
identified
as
potential
factors
that
may
impede
recovery.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.3
Rating
of
Factors
for
Decline
Page
99
There
is
a
very
large
hatchery
program
for
fall
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal,
and
it
has
been
posited
that
juvenile
hatchery
fall
chum
may
have
a
negative
competitive
effect
on
summer
chum
salmon
survivals.
The
existing
evidence
suggests
that
there
is
no
substantive
negative
interaction
between
these
two
types
of
chum
salmon,
however,
the
question
must
be
considered
to
be
unresolved
at
this
time.
The
potential
impact
of
hatchery
fall
chum
salmon
has
been
placed
in
the
undetermined
category.

2.3.5
Habitat
The
impact
of
habitat
alteration
on
the
summer
chum
stocks
of
the
region
has
an
unique
relationship
to
the
survival
and
runsize
changes
in
these
populations
of
fish.
Habitat
degradation
and
loss
is
usually
the
result
of
the
cumulative
impacts
of
changes
in
the
land
and
aquatic
environments.
It
is
relatively
unusual
for
a
single
habitat
alteration
to
have
a
region­
wide
impact,
and
in
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
no
wide­
spread
habitat
impacts
have
been
observed
during
the
recent
periods
of
summer
chum
salmon
decline.
Individual
streams
have
experienced
cumulative
reductions
in
habitat
capacity
and
productivity
from
a
variety
of
sources
like
forestry,
road
building,
residential
construction,
stream
flow
alteration,
channelization
and
diking,
etc.
Over
the
years
this
has
resulted
in
the
loss
of
populations
(
e.
g.,
Skokomish)
and
caused
habitat
related
reductions
in
survivals
which
have
combined
to
lower
the
overall
resiliency
of
the
existent
summer
chum
salmon
populations.
This
effect
has
contributed
to
increased
vulnerability
of
the
stocks
and
has
played
a
major
part
in
the
declines.
The
cumulative
effects
of
habitat
change
have
been
rated
as
a
major
impact
on
summer
chum
salmon.
See
section
3.4
and
Appendix
Report
3.6
for
more
detailed
discussion
of
habitat
decline.

2.3.6
Harvest
Two
different
types
of
harvest
have
contributed
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
of
the
region;
preterminal
fisheries
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
and
terminal
fisheries
in
Hood
Canal.
For
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
stocks,
pre­
terminal
harvests
occur
annually,
primarily
in
fisheries
for
pink
and
sockeye
salmon
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
The
impact
of
these
fisheries
during
the
period
of
decline
of
Hood
Canal
stocks
has
been
rated
low.
After
1974,
an
added
level
of
fishery
exploitation
began
to
occur
in
the
terminal
area,
resulting
in
high
exploitation
rates
through
the
1980s.
Terminal
harvest
has
been
rated
as
a
major
impact
on
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon.

For
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks,
pre­
terminal
harvests
have
been
rated
as
having
a
moderate
impact.
Exploitation
rates
have
increased
substantially
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
fisheries
in
concert
with
the
1989
drop
in
summer
chum
salmon
escapements
to
region
streams.
There
have
been
no
meaningful
terminal
area
harvest
of
these
stocks,
which
results
in
a
low
or
not
likely
impact
rating.

2.3.7
Cumulative
Impacts
Three
primary
factors
have
combined
to
cause
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
both
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams;
habitat
loss,
fishery
exploitation,
and
climate
related
changes
in
stream
flow
patterns.
An
unusual
feature
of
the
declines
is
that
the
summer
chum
salmon
of
the
two
regions
have
been
affected
by
similar
factors,
but
the
declines
have
occurred
ten
years
apart.
The
summer
chum
salmon
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.3
Rating
of
Factors
for
Decline
Page
100
of
both
regions
have
experienced
concurrent
changes
in
critical
stream
flows
and
increased
fishery
exploitation
rates.
While
this
discussion
has
focused
on
region­
wide
change,
individual
stocks
likely
have
been
differentially
impacted
by
the
identified
factors
for
decline.
More
detailed
assessments
at
the
stock,
watershed,
and
management
unit
level
are
presented
in
Part
Three.

2.3.7.1
Hood
Canal
The
continuous
and
cumulative
reduction
in
habitat
productivity
and
capacity
influences
summer
chum
salmon
by
lowering
survival
rates
(
population
resiliency)
and
reducing
potential
population
size.
Thus
it
appears
that
when
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
began
to
experience
the
added
pressures
from
climate
change
and
new
fishery
exploitation,
the
populations
collapsed.
In
1979,
summer
chum
run
sizes
and
subsequent
escapements
were
very
low
because
of
the
effects
of
unfavorable
stream
flows
on
the
1975
and
1976
brood
production.
This
poor
performance
was
evident
in
chum
salmon
stocks
statewide.
The
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
populations
(
with
the
exception
of
Union
River)
were
the
only
chum
stocks
that
did
not
immediately
recover
from
the
low
return
levels
of
1979.
The
new
post­
Boldt
net
fisheries
in
Hood
Canal,
when
combined
with
pre­
terminal
harvests,
began
to
impose
high
exploitation
rates
on
summer
chum
salmon
in
1980,
contributing
to
low
escapements
through
the
1980s.
At
the
same
time,
oceanic
climate
changes
influenced
regional
weather
patterns,
resulting
in
unfavorable
stream
flows
during
the
summer
chum
salmon
egg
incubation
seasons.
Spawning
flows
also
dropped
substantially
in
1986
(
likely
climate
related),
and
contributed
to
the
continuing
poor
status
of
these
stocks.
The
current
low
production
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
appears
to
be
the
result
of
the
combined
effects
of
lower
survivals
caused
by
habitat
degradation,
climate,
increases
in
fishery
exploitation
rates,
and
the
impacts
associated
with
the
releases
of
hatchery
salmonids.

2.3.7.2
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
The
pattern
of
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
was
similar
to
the
Hood
Canal
experience,
however,
the
drop
in
escapements
occurred
ten
years
later,
in
1989.
The
impact
of
habitat
alteration
likely
had
similar
negative
impacts
on
stock
survivals
and
resiliency.
These
summer
chum
stocks
were
also
affected
by
a
coincidental
concurrence
of
changes
in
stream
flows
and
exploitation
rates.
Regional
stream
flows
during
the
spawning
season
dropped
substantially
in
1986,
and
likely
contributed
to
lower
returns
beginning
in
1989.
There
were
no
terminal
area
harvests
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
this
region,
however,
these
fish
were
harvested
in
pre­
terminal
fisheries
for
other
salmon
species.
In
1989,
the
pre­
terminal
exploitation
rates
increased
substantially,
reducing
the
numbers
of
summer
chum
salmon
escaping
to
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams.
The
combined
effects
of
reductions
in
habitat
quality,
stream
flows,
and
fishery
exploitation
resulted
in
low
summer
chum
salmon
production
in
the
region.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.4
Factors
Affecting
Recovery
Page
101
Depensatory
Mortality
Mortality
is
depensatory
when
its
rate
(
i.
e.,
proportion
of
population
that
dies)
increases
as
the
size
of
the
population
decreases.
This
is
in
contrast
to
compensatory
mortality
where
the
mortality
rate
decreases
as
the
population
size
decreases.
2.4
Factors
Affecting
Recovery
This
general
assessment
of
factors
for
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
has
focused
specifically
on
changes
in
fish
production
and
potential
survival
factors
that
occurred
twenty
years
ago
in
Hood
Canal
and
ten
years
ago
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Several
factors
have
been
surmised
to
have
had
a
major
negative
impact
on
summer
chum
salmon
survivals
and
runsize,
and
others
have
had
moderate
or
low
impacts.
Because
of
the
time
that
has
passed
since
the
declines
in
the
two
regions,
recovery
may
not
involve
just
the
factors
that
contributed
to
the
decline.
Some
of
the
factors
discussed
above
may
not
have
had
major,
or
even
moderate
impacts
on
the
declines
of
summer
chum
salmon,
but
now
may
be
factors
that
will
slow
recovery.

An
example
of
such
an
impediment
to
recovery
is
the
current
high
abundance
of
marine
mammals
in
Hood
Canal.
Twenty
years
ago,
harbor
seals
were
in
low
abundance
in
Hood
Canal,
and
are
unlikely
to
have
significantly
contributed
to
the
summer
chum
salmon
decline.
In
the
intervening
years,
the
local
seal
population
has
expanded
to
the
point
that
a
recent
NMFS
review
of
marine
mammal
predation
on
salmonids
(
NMFS
1997b)
has
stated
the
possibility
that
pinniped
predation
may
affect
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
salmon.
Preliminary
results
from
a
1998
pinniped
predation
study
on
a
number
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
streams
show
substantial
predation
on
returning
adult
salmon,
and
that
a
considerable
portion
of
this
predation
is
occurring
on
summer
chum
stocks.

Climate
change
and
its
affect
on
stream
flows
is
another
factor
that
has
the
potential
to
slow
the
recovery
of
summer
chum
stocks.
The
noted
reductions
in
average
spawning
flows
coupled
with
the
increases
in
peak
flows
during
incubation,
undoubtably
have
had
a
negative
impact
on
survivals.
While
not
all
years
experience
flows
that
are
negative
for
survivals,
the
overall
effect
may
slow
the
potential
rate
of
recovery.

Depensatory
mortality
(
where
mortality
rates
increase
as
population
size
declines)
is
a
biological
factor
that
may
also
slow
recovery,
particularly
for
very
small
populations.
Peterman
(
1977)
has
demonstrated
the
existence
of
multiple
domains
of
stability
in
salmon
populations,
where
depensatory
mortality
can
cause
population
abundance
to
stabilize
at
low
levels
after
a
collapse.
Predation
and
fishery
exploitation
are
two
factors
that
can
affect
depensatory
mortality
and
cause
a
salmon
population
to
stabilize
in
a
lower
domain,
and
it
can
be
difficult
for
a
depressed
population
to
recover
to
a
higher
level
if
the
depensatory
processes
can
not
be
changed.
Density
dependent
mortality
may
in
part
explain
why
some
populations
do
not
recover
after
a
short
term
reduction
in
survival
(
e.
g.,
the
decline
of
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
after
four
years
of
high
pre­
terminal
exploitation
rates).
Fishery
exploitation
rates
can
be
lowered
in
favor
of
the
depressed
population,
but,
it
may
not
be
possible
to
reduce
the
natural
levels
of
predators
or
to
rapidly
restore
degraded
habitat
that
may
be
holding
a
population
in
a
lower
domain.
This
situation
may
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
2.4
Factors
Affecting
Recovery
Page
102
substantially
slow
recovery
of
some
small
summer
chum
salmon
populations,
and
in
the
worse
cases
may
require
that
active
intervention
(
e.
g.
supplementation)
be
used
to
help
the
population
to
recover.

There
have
also
been
a
number
of
factors
that
are
positive
for
summer
chum
salmon
recovery.
One
is
the
successful
reduction
in
Hood
Canal
terminal
area
exploitation
rates,
beginning
with
the
1993
return
year.
The
average
terminal
area
harvest
has
been
just
over
1%
during
the
1993­
1997
seasons.
Successful
supplementation
projects
on
two
stocks
are
increasing
the
numbers
of
returning
summer
chum
adults
to
two
streams.
There
have
also
been
meaningful
changes
in
the
management
and
culture
of
hatchery
salmonids
in
the
region,
designed
to
reduce
negative
interactions
with
summer
chum
juveniles.
The
combined
effects
of
these
changes
in
summer
chum
salmon
management
have
contributed
to
the
increased
escapements
in
recent
years.
However,
additional
measures,
particularly
with
respect
to
habitat
protection
and
restoration,
are
required
for
successful
recovery
of
summer
chum
salmon.
