Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
337
Part
Four
Summary
of
Plan
Elements
4.1
Introduction
This
part
of
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
provides
a
summary
description
of
the
plan
elements,
considering
how
they
apply
across
the
Hood
Canal/
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
region
and
to
individual
summer
chum
salmon
stocks
and
watersheds.
The
intent
is
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.
In
the
course
of
summarizing
information
below,
references
are
given
to
specific
sections
of
this
plan
where
more
complete
and
detailed
information
exists.
Part
Four
also
provides
discussions
of
how
the
goals
of
the
recovery
plan
and
ESA
will
be
achieved,
when
population­
based
recovery
goals
will
be
available,
and
how
the
plan
will
be
implemented
by
the
co­
managers
and
others.

4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
The
objectives,
strategies
and
actions
of
the
plan
are
summarized
in
Tables
4.1
through
4.7.
These
applications
are
applicable
to
all
of
the
summer
chum
watersheds
and
estuaries.
Specific
objectives
are
described
within
section
dealing
with
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.

Actions
are
differentiated
from
strategies
in
that
an
action
is
a
specific
measure
or
set
of
measures
that
directly
addresses
a
problem,
and
is
agreed
to
by
the
parties
with
jurisdiction.
A
strategy
is
meant
to
be
an
approach
to
developing
specific
actions.
In
this
plan,
a
strategy
is
generally
indicated
where
not
all
participants
with
jurisdiction/
authority
are
yet
involved;
the
idea
being
that
specific
actions
can
be
developed
from
the
strategy
once
all
the
appropriate
parties
are
participating
(
e.
g.,
with
regard
to
habitat
issues).

Parties
with
jurisdiction/
authority
pertaining
to
a
given
action
or
strategy
and
other
partners
are
listed
in
describing
the
action/
strategy
even
if
they
are
not
yet
participating
in
this
plan.
The
intent
is
to
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
338
recognize
the
potential
role
of
those
parties
and
recommend
their
participation.
But,
of
course,
they
are
not
necessarily
bound
by
provisions
set
forth
in
this
initiative.

The
status
of
resources/
funding
to
address
a
strategy
or
action
is
described
in
two
categories,
Phases
1
and
2.
Phase
1
means
the
resources
and
funding
required
for
the
strategy
or
action
are
currently
available.
Phase
2
means
the
resources/
funding
are
not
currently
available
and,
in
some
cases,
may
not
yet
be
clearly
identified.

The
description
of
the
time
frame
for
an
action/
strategy
is
in
general
terms.
Words
such
as
continuing,
immediate
and
undetermined
are
most
often
used
to
indicate
the
approximate
timing
for
implementation.
More
specific
information
is
provided
when
available.

4.2.1
Artificial
Production
The
artificial
production
program
supplements
production
of
severely
depressed,
at
risk
populations
and
reintroduces
summer
chum
to
watersheds
where
the
historical
populations
have
been
lost.
In
the
future,
the
program
may
also
incorporate
provisions
for
enhancing
fishing
opportunity.
The
program
is
coordinated
with
other
management
actions
and
is
designed
to
minimize
ecological
and
genetic
risks.
The
program
includes
risk
assessment
leading
to
selection
of
projects,
guidelines
for
effective
and
low
risk
operations,
monitoring
of
implementation
and
success,
and
adaptive
management
(
see
Part
Three,
section
3.2).
The
following
table
summarizes
the
major
actions
of
the
co­
managers
under
Artificial
Production.
Note
that
monitoring
and
evaluation
measures
are
summarized
separately
below
(
see
section
4.2.5).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
339
Table
4.1
Artificial
Production
objectives
and
action
items.

Objective:
Conduct
an
annual
evaluation
of
the
risk
of
extinction
for
each
extant
summer
chum
stock.

Action
Items
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
1.
Update
the
plan's
extinction
risk
evaluation
with
each
year's
escapement
numbers.
See
Part
One,
1.7.4
­
Stock
Extinction
Risk
for
discussion
of
assessment
of
extinction
risk
used
in
this
recovery
plan.
The
methodology
(
following
Allendorf
et
al.
(
1997)
uses
recent
population
size
and
population
trends
to
determine
the
risk
of
extinction
for
individual
stocks.
WDFW,
Tribes
NMFS,
USFWS
Phase
1
Annual
2.
Continually
review
literature
for
improved
methods
for
extinction
risk
assessment
The
science
of
risk
assessment
is
rapidly
evolving,

and
the
co­
manager's
intent
is
to
use
the
most
current
assessment
techniques
as
they
become
available.
WDFW,
Tribes
NMFS,
USFWS
Phase
1
Annual
Objective:
Avoid
the
future
extinction
of
any
extant
summer
chum
stock
through
the
use
of
supplementation
techniques.

1.
Continue
the
current
supplementation
projects
for
summer
chum
salmon.
Continuing
projects
include
Big
Quilcene,
Salmon
Creek,
Lilliwaup
and
Hamma
Hamma.
WDFW,

Tribes,
USFWS
HCSEG,

NOSC,

WOS,
LLTK
Generally,
existing
projects
fall
within
the
category
of
Phase
1
projects.
New
projects
and
some
identified
monitoring
and
assessment
needs
for
existing
projects
(
section
4.2.5)
fall
within
the
category
of
Phase
2
projects.
Several
projects
are
currently
in
operation
and
are
expected
to
continue
under
a
defined
schedule
(
section
3.2.3.4).

One
new
project
is
recommended
for
Jimmycomelately
stock
(
section
3.2.3.3)
where
project
implementation
is
expected
to
begin
the
summer
of
1999.
Additional
projects
may
be
considered
in
the
future
(
section
3.2.3.3).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
340
Table
4.1
Artificial
Production
objectives
and
action
items
(
continued).

Action
Items
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Initiate
a
new
supplementation
project
for
the
Jimmy­
comelately
stock.
The
Jimmycomelately
stock
has
been
identified
in
this
plan
as
having
a
high
risk
of
extinction,

because
of
current
low
population
size
and
a
recent
precipitous
decline
(
see
Part
One,
1.7.4
­
Stock
Extinction
Risk).
Efforts
are
underway
to
improve
habitat
conditions
in
the
stream,
however,
these
remedies
are
long
term.
Immediate
supplementation
is
recommended,
and
is
expected
to
commence
in
the
summer
of
1999.
WDFW,

Tribes
NOSC
and/
or
WOS
Phase
1
Immediate
3.
Operate
all
supplementa­
tion
projects
to
minimize
potential
deleterious
effect.
All
supplementation
projects
will
follow
the
recovery
plan
criteria
for
minimizing
potential
deleterious
effects
in
the
following
areas:
partial/

total
hatchery
failure,
predation,
competition,

disease,
and
loss
of
genetic
variability
within
and
between
populations.
WDFW,

Tribes,
USFWS
HCSEG,

NOSC,

WOS,
LLTK
Phase
1
Immediate.

4.
Initiate
future
supplementa­
tion
projects
for
any
stock
found
to
have
a
high
risk
of
extinction.
Supplementation
techniques
to
be
used
if
assessment
shows
that
the
stock
is
in
jeopardy
of
extinction
and
there
are
no
other
timely
remedies.
WDFW,

Tribes
Partners
depend
on
stock
location
and
interest
of
agencies
and
citizen
groups
Phase
2
As
needed.

Objective:
Reintroduce
summer
chum
salmon
to
region
streams
as
donor
stocks
become
available.

1.
Continue
the
current
reintroduction
projects
for
summer
chum
salmon.
Big
Beef
Chimacum
WDFW,

Tribes,
USFWS
HCSEG,

NOSC,

WOS,
LLTK
Phase
1
Immediate.

2.
Operate
all
reintroduction
projects
to
minimize
potential
deleterious
effect.
All
supplementation
projects
will
follow
the
recovery
plan
criteria
for
minimizing
potential
deleterious
effects
in
the
following
areas:
partial/

total
hatchery
failure,
predation,
competition,

disease,
and
loss
of
genetic
variability
within
and
between
populations.
WDFW,

Tribes,
USFWS
HCSEG,

NOSC,

WOS,
LLTK
Phase
1
Immediate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
341
Table
4.1
Artificial
Production
objectives
and
action
items
(
continued).

Action
Items
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
3.
Initiate
future
reintroduction
projects
as
donor
stocks
become
available.
Stocks
that
are
candidates
for
future
reintroduction
include:
Tahuya
Dewatto,
Skokomish,
and
Anderson.
Decisions
to
pursue
reintroductions
will
be
based
on
current
status
of
donor
stock
(
ability
to
contribute
brood
stock).
Donor
stocks
will
be
limited
to
adjacent
stocks
not
previously
introduced
to
another
streams.
WDFW,

Tribes.
Partners
depend
on
stock
location
and
interest
of
agencies
and
citizen
groups.
Phase
2
When
appropriate.

4.
Allow
opportunity
for
natural
reintroductions
to
occur
on
some
streams
through
straying.
See
Part
One
­
1.7.2.3
for
list
of
streams
identified
as
possibly
being
part
of
the
historic
distribution
of
summer
chum
salmon.
These
streams
will
be
allowed
to
repopulate
naturally.
WDFW,

Tribes.
Phase
1
Immediate
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
342
4.2.2
Ecological
Interactions
Ecological
interactions
between
summer
chum
and
other
species
have
been
assessed
as
part
of
this
initiative
(
see
Part
Three,
section
3.3).
There
is
little
likelihood
that
summer
chum
(
specifically,
artificially
produced
summer
chum)
will
substantially
impact
other
species.
The
artificial
production
levels
are
relatively
small,
limiting
competitive
interactions
with
other
juvenile
salmonids,
and
since
the
production
programs
are
intended
to
restore
summer
chum
spawners
to
historical
levels,
competition
on
the
spawning
grounds
should
not
be
an
issue.
Because
summer
chum
are
released
at
a
relatively
small
size,
predation
effects
on
other
fishes
is
not
a
concern.
More
important
to
consider
are
the
impacts
of
other
species
on
summer
chum.
Primary
sources
of
potential
impact
are
other
salmonids
and
marine
mammals
(
see
Part
Two
­
Region­
wide
Factors
for
Decline).
Potential
impacts
of
other
salmonids
(
with
emphasis
on
hatchery
produced
fish)
include
effects
from
hatchery
operations,
predation,
competition
and
fish
disease
transfer.
The
potential
impact
of
marine
mammals
is
predation
on
summer
chum.
Following
are
descriptions
of
actions
to
address
these
potential
impacts.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
343
Table
4.2
Ecological
Interactions
objectives
and
action
items.

Objective:
Eliminate
and
reduce
negative
hatchery
interactions
with
summer
chum.

Action
Items
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
1.
Assess
risks
to
summer
chum
from
producing
hatchery
salmonids.
See
Part
Three,
3.3
for
description
of
risk
assessment
that
includes
hazards
from
hatchery
operations
(
associated
with
broodstock
collection,

water
withdrawal,
hatchery
intakes
and
outlets,
and
pollution),
predation
(
direct
and
indirect
effects),

competition
and
behavioral
modification
(
from
juvenile
and
adult
hatchery
fish),
and
fish
disease
transfer.
WDFW,

Tribes
USFWS
Phase
1
Completed
as
part
of
this
initiative
and
updated
periodically.

2.
Identify
risk
aversion
measures
to
reduce
risks
of
hatchery
programs.
See
Part
Three,
3.3
for
detailed
description
of
risk
aversion
measures
including
protocol
for
broodstock
collection,
species­
specific
limitations
on
hatchery
releases
to
reduce
or
eliminate
potential
for
predation
and
competition,
and
protocol
for
fish
disease
management.
WDFW,
Tribes,

USFWS
Phase
1
Completed
as
part
of
this
initiative.

3.
Implement
identified
risk
aversion
measures.
Apply
risk
aversion
measures
to
hatchery
programs
as
identified
in
3.3.2
of
Part
Three.
WDFW,
Tribes,

USFWS
HCSEG,
WOS,

NOSC,
LLTK
Phase
1
Immediate.

Objective:
Assess
and
respond
to
other
potential
negative
species
interactions
with
summer
chum
(
see
3.3).

1.
Evaluate
impacts
of
fall
chum
spawning
activity
on
summer
chum.
Design
and
implement
assessment
of
impacts
from
fall
chum
spawning
within
same
stream
reaches
in
which
summer
chum
spawn.
WDFW,

Tribes
Agencies
and
others
with
funding
resources.
Phase
2
Undetermined.

2.
Assess
impacts
of
pinniped
predation
on
summer
chum.
Continue
study
to
assess
pinniped
populations
and
impacts
on
salmon
within
Hood
Canal..
NMFS,
WDFW
Tribes
and
other
agencies
or
entities
Phase
1
Continuing.

3.
Implement
appropriate
management
actions
based
on
assessments
of
negative
interactions.
Management
actions
may
include
control
of
individual
seals
or
populations,
and
short­
term
limiting
of
fall
chum
escapement
levels
in
designated
streams.
NMFS
WDFW,

Tribes
Phase
1
or
2
When
appropriate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
344
4.2.3
Harvest
Management
Harvest
management
provisions
have
been
developed
within
this
initiative
to
manage
fisheries
in
a
manner
that
will
allow
the
rebuilding
and
maintenance
of
self­
sustaining
summer
chum
populations
throughout
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
while
maximizing
harvest
opportunities
on
co­
mingled
salmon
species.
The
harvest
management
strategy
utilizes
a
conservative
four­
way
control
mechanism:
1)
a
base
set
of
conservative
fishing
regulations,
2)
abundance
and
escapement
thresholds
that
trigger
adjustments
to
the
fishing
regime,
3)
exploitation
rate
objectives
that
will
result
in
changes
to
the
harvest
regime
if
not
met,
and
4)
overall
stock
assessment
criteria
that
will
affect
all
plan
provisions,
including
harvest,
if
not
satisfactorily
met
at
periodic
plan
reviews.
Following
is
a
summary
of
harvest
management
actions.
Detailed
descriptions
may
be
found
in
Part
Three,
section
3.5.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
345
Table
4.3
Harvest
Management
objectives
and
action
items.

Objective:
Define
and
implement
a
base
conservation
harvest
regime
that
will
halt
the
decline
of
summer
chum
and
allow
rebuilding.

Action
Items
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
1.
Review
and
analyze
existing
data
to
determine
basis
for
effective
harvest
management.
Escapement,
catch
and
fisheries
data
have
been
compiled
and
analyzed
(
see
Part
One
and
Part
Three,
3.5)
and
the
structure
of
a
base
conservation
harvest
regime
has
been
established
(
see
Part
Three,
3.5).
WDFW,
Tribes
Phase
1
Completed
as
part
of
this
initiative.

2.
Identify
specific
harvest
management
actions
within
the
conservation
based
harvest
regime.
Harvest
management
actions
include
no
directed
harvest
on
summer
chum
and
specific
time,
area
and
gear
restrictions
on
other
species
to
reduce
summer
chum
bycatch
to
very
low
levels
(
details
in
Part
Three,
3.5).
WDFW,

Tribes
Phase
1
Completed
as
part
of
this
initiative.

3.
Implement
harvest
management
actions.
Protective
harvest
management
actions
have
been
in
effect
since
1992.
The
base
conservation
harvest
regime
developed
for
this
initiative
more
clearly
defines
and
expands
upon
ongoing
management
actions.

Implementation
is
effective
immediately.
WDFW,

Tribes
Phase
1
Continuing.

4.
Maintain
summer
chum
exploitation
rates
substantially
below
levels
observed
during
years
of
decline,
and
at
levels
that
will
not
impede
recovery.
Exploitation
rates
are
evaluated
each
year
and
additional
harvest
management
measures
taken
if
rates
fall
outside
defined
range.
Additionally,
every
5
years,
exploitation
rates
will
be
evaluated
for
longer
term
effects
and
actions
taken
as
determined
appropriate
(
see
Part
Three,
3.5
and
3.6).
WDFW,
Tribes
Phase
1
Completed
as
part
of
this
initiative.

Objective:
Ensure
that
base
conservation
harvest
regime
is
working
effectively.

5.
Evaluate
the
base
conservation
regime
assumptions.
Exploitation
rates
are
evaluated
each
year
and
additional
harvest
management
measures
taken
if
rates
fall
outside
defined
range.
Additionally,
every
5
years,
exploitation
rates
will
be
evaluated
for
longer
term
effects
and
actions
taken
as
determined
appropriate
(
see
Part
Three,
3.5
and
3.6).
WDFW,
Tribes
Phase
1
Continuing.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
346
Table
4.3
Harvest
Management
objectives
and
action
items
(
continued).

Action
Items
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Evaluate
stocks
and
harvest
management
units
performance
against
minimum
abundance
and
spawning
distribution
criteria.
Criteria
(
thresholds)
are
described
in
Part
One,
1.7.3
and
Appendix
Report
1.5.
Reviews
occur
annually
(
Part
Three,

section
3.6).
If
criteria
are
not
met,
causes
for
failure
are
evaluated
and
appropriate
actions
are
taken
applicable
to
harvest,
habitat
and
supplementation
programs.
WDFW,
Tribes
Other
agencies
and
entities
Phase
1
Annual
reviews
begin
with
1999.

First
five
year
review
in
2004.

Objective:
Determine
what
constitutes
a
recovery
harvest
regime.

1.
Define
recovery
criteria
and
recovered
harvest
regime.
Within
one
year,
criteria
for
recovered
stocks
and
harvest
management
units
should
be
developed
upon
which
a
recovery
based
harvest
regime
will
be
defined.
The
conservation
based
harvest
regime
will
remain
in
effect
until
recovery
criteria
are
met.
WDFW,

Tribes.
Phase
1
Within
one
year.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
347
4.2.4
Habitat
Strategies
for
addressing
habitat
factors
for
decline
have
been
identified
by
the
co­
managers
(
Part
Three,
section
3.4).
The
local
governments
and
agencies
with
jurisdiction
are
expected
to
take
the
lead
in
selecting
and
implementing
specific
actions
based
on
the
strategies.
The
co­
managers
anticipate
providing
technical
assistance
in
the
process
of
determining
specific
habitat
protection
and
recovery
actions,
to
the
extent
available
resources
will
allow.
An
overview
of
habitat
objectives
and
strategies
is
presented
in
Table
4.4,
followed
immediately
by
Table
4.5
that
describes
specific
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
for
individual
stocks
and
watersheds.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
348
Table
4.4
Region­
wide
habitat
objectives
and
strategies.

Objective:
Develop
a
high
level
of
certainty
that
the
habitat
component
of
plan
will
be
completed
and
implemented.

Strategy
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
1.
Engage
local
governmental
bodies
and
other
entities
in
continuing
the
development
and
implementation
of
the
program
for
habitat
protection
and
recovery.
Development
of
a
habitat
program
has
begun
with
this
plan
in
the
description
of
strategies
for
the
protection
and
recovery
of
summer
chum
in
response
to
specific
habitat­
related
factors
for
decline
(
Part
Three,
section
3.4).
To
have
an
effective
program,
local
governments
and
citizens
must
participate
in
its
development
because
the
local
governments
have
the
jurisdiction
to
implement
the
needed
measures
and
because
without
local
support,
implementation
will
not
succeed.
This
action
requires
presentation
of
this
plan
to
the
local
governments
and
entities,
who
will
then
lead
in
developing
additional
planning
and
specific
actions
to
address
the
habitat­
related
factors
for
decline
(
see
also
the
immediately
following
strategy).
Working
through
local
groups,
efforts
should
be
made
to
educate
the
public
about
importance
of
functional
habitats
and
associated
management
actions
for
the
protection
and
recovery
of
summer
chum
and
other
species.
Mason,
Kitsap,

Jefferson
and
Clallam
Counties,
HCCC,

DNR,
DOE,

DOT,
USFS,

WDFW,
Tribes.
Local
groups
and
citizens,

other
agencies.
Use
existing
funding
and
resources,
Phase
1.
Immediate.

2.
Complete
development
and
begin
implementation
of
the
habitat
component
of
the
plan.
The
next
stages
of
habitat
program
development
involve
the
selection
and
implementation
of
specific
measures
or
actions.
These
measures
include
broad­
based
regulatory
actions
affecting
land
use
practices
in
the
watersheds
and
estuaries
(
for
example,
establishing
riparian
protection
zones,
limiting
development
of
impervious
surfaces,
more
effective
regulation
of
shoreline
structures),
and
specific
habitat
recovery
actions
(
for
example,
acquiring
land
or
easements
to
protect
habitat
from
development,
removing
or
setting
back
dikes).
An
evaluation
procedure
for
prioritizing
specific
local
recovery
actions
is
suggested
in
Part
Three,
section
3.4).
Applications
to
specific
watersheds
are
summarized
in
Table
4.5
and
presented
in
detail
within
Appendix
Report
3.6.
Mason,
Kitsap,

Jefferson
and
Clallam
Counties,
HCCC,

DNR,
DOE,

DOT,
USFS.
WDFW,

Tribes,

local
groups
and
citizens,

other
agencies.
Phases
1
and
2.
Immediate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
349
Table
4.4
Region­
wide
habitat
objectives
and
strategies
(
continued).

Objective:
Develop
a
high
level
of
certainty
that
the
habitat
component
of
plan
will
be
completed
and
implemented.

Strategy
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
Objective:
Maintain
and
restore
critical
subestuarine
and
nearshore/
shoreline
processes
and
conditions.

1.
Prohibit
further
ditching,
diking
and
road
construction
in
subestuaries,

and
prohibit
or
severely
restrict
bulkheading
as
well
as
construction
of
new
piers,
docks
and
floats
along
shorelines.
Further
degradation
of
estuarine
habitats
is
to
be
avoided
wherever
possible.
Exemptions
for
single
family
residences
should
be
removed
from
the
Shoreline
Management
Master
Plan.
Critical
habitat
areas
especially
require
protection.

Consideration
should
be
given
to
requiring
use
of
joint
facilities
(
e.
g.,
docks,
floats)
away
from
critical
areas
and
use
of
alternatives
to
bulkheading.
Sources
of
marine
sediment
(
feeder
bluffs,
etc.)
Must
be
allowed
to
provide
sediment
to
the
marine
environment
for
the
maintenance
of
spits,
beaches,
and
other
nearshore
habitat
features.

Mitigation
should
be
required
for
any
unavoidable
developments
(
see
Part
Three,
3.4).
Counties
Agencies,

tribes
and
other
interested
parties
Phase
1,
possibly
Phase
2.
Immediate
2.
Identify
and
purchase
from
willing
landowners
property
or
easements
of
undeveloped,
subestuarine
and
shoreline
areas.
Summer
chum
rely
on
diverse,
productive
and
structurally
complex
habitats
in
the
estuarine
areas.

Undeveloped
critical
areas
should
be
protected
from
future
development
by
purchase
of
property
or
easements
(
see
Part
Three,
3.4).
Counties,

agencies,

nonprofit
organizations
Agencies,

tribes
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
2
As
funding
resources
become
available.

3.
Remove
or
set
back
dikes
and
refit
or
remove
roads/
causeways
in
subestuaries.
Re­
establish
dendritic
channels
and
patterns
of
inundation
in
deltas,
and
restore
sinuous
mainstream
channels
in
subestuarine
areas.
Restoration
of
habitat
in
the
subestuaries
is
a
critical
component
of
summer
chum
recovery
(
see
Part
Three,
3.4).
Restoration
will
provide
unrestricted
tidal
and
freshwater
circulation,

natural
sediment
transport
and
storage,
and
development
of
marshes,
swamps
and
eel
grass
beds,
all
of
which
contribute
to
high
quality
summer
chum
rearing
and
migrating
habitat.
Counties
Agencies,

tribes
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
2
As
funding
becomes
available.

4.
Establish
vegetation
buffer
requirements
for
marine
shorelines.

Place
critical
nearshore
migratory
pathways
in
marine
reserves.
Vegetation
buffers
protect
natural
shoreline
processes
and
limit
effects
of
development.

Critical
nearshore
migratory
pathways
will
need
to
be
identified
and
given
adequate
protection
(
Part
Three,
3.4).
Counties
Agencies,

tribes
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
1
As
soon
as
possible.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
350
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions.

A.
Dungeness
Stock
(
see
also
action
to
evaluate
summer
chum
population
in
Table
4.6)

Objective:
Restore
salmonid
habitat
in
the
Dungeness
River
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
1.
Re­
establish
functional
flood
plain
in
the
lower
2.6
miles
of
river
(
dike
removal
and
constriction
abatement).

2.
Abate
man­
made
constrictions
above
RM
2.6.

3.
Create
stable
long­
term
log
jams.

4.
Manage
sediment
to
stabilize
channel
and
reduce
flooding
risk.

5.
Construct
and/
or
protect
side
channels.

6.
Restore
riparian
vegetation.

7.
Conserve
instream
flows.

8.
Decrease
water
quality
impacts
in
Dungeness
Bay
to
control
harmful
ulvoid
blooms.

9.
Restore
estuarine
habitat
and
functions
in
Dungeness
Bay
and
along
juvenile
summer
chum
migration
corridors
(
e.
g.,
Gierin
Creek
estuary).
The
Dungeness
River
has
been
subject
to
numerous
planning
processes.
A
Watershed
Council
and
technical
workgroup
have
been
working
for
several
years
on
a
comprehensive
plan
to
guide
salmonid
restoration.
The
plan,
which
incorporates
the
seven
actions/
strategies
listed
here,
was
approved
by
the
Watershed
Council
in
1998.
These
continuing
efforts,
assuming
adequate
funding,
are
expected
to
result
in
the
restoration
of
habitat
functions
to
the
benefit
of
summer
chum
as
well
as
other
salmonid
species.
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Clallam
County,
state
and
federal
agencies.
Property
owners
and
others.
Phases
1
and
2.
Ongoing
B.
Jimmycomelately
Stock
Objective:
Re­
establish
estuary
to
freshwater
linkages
and
functions
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Reconnect
and
expand
existing
connections
between
freshwater
reaches
of
flood
plain
and
tidal
delta.
The
poor
connections
and
habitat
conditions
at
the
freshwater/
estuary
interface
is
viewed
as
the
primary
issue
to
be
addressed
in
restoring
summer
chum
habitat
of
Jimmycomelately
Creek.
An
estuary
technical
workgroup
has
been
established
to
determine
the
scope
of
restoration
actions,
and
to
identify
funding
sources
and
time
lines.
Clallam
County,

DOT.
Clallam
Conservat.

District,
WDFW,

Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,

WSU
Coop.
Ext.,

land­
owners
and
others.
Phases
1
and
2.
Early
stages.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
351
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Remove
secondary
roads
and
railroad
grade
that
limit
tidal
circulation
and
fish
movement.

3.
Fill
remnant
ditches.

4.
Mitigate
and
eliminate
log
storage
and
handling
impacts.

5.
Create
stable
logjams
to
increase
channel
complexity.

6.
Restore
estuarine
habitat
and
functions
in
Sequim
Bay
and
along
juvenile
summer
chum
migration
corridors
(
e.
g.,
Bell
Creek
estuary).

C.
Salmon/
Snow
Stock
­
Salmon
and
Snow
Watersheds
Objective:
Restore
stream
habitat
functions
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Return
stream
channel
to
sinuous
morphology.

2.
Control
sediment
inputs
to
natural
levels.

3.
Create
stable
logjams
to
increase
channel
complexity.

4.
Restore
riparian
vegetation.
These
measures
address
the
major
impacts
assessed
to
be
limiting
habitat
functions
in
Salmon
and
Snow
creeks
and
affecting
freshwater
life
stages
of
summer
chum.
Restoration
activities
were
begun
in
1995
in
Snow
Creek
north
of
Highway
101
and
west
of
State
Road
20
to
abate
channel
constriction,
re­
establish
pools,
lower
streambed
and
place
LWD
in
stream.
A
more
comprehensive
restoration
effort
can
be
built
on
these
initial
activities.
Additional
assessment
may
be
needed
to
prepare
for
actions.
Clallam
County,

DOT
Clallam
Conserv.

District,
WDFW,

James­
town
S'Klallam
Tribe,
WSU
Coop.

Ext.,
landowners
and
others.
Phase
2
As
funding
becomes
available.

Objective:
Re­
establish
estuary
to
freshwater
linkages
and
functions
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Remove
railroad
grade.

2.
Remove
or
set
back
dikes.
The
railroad
grade
limits
tidal
circulation
for
both
creek
deltas
and
is
located
at
the
center
of
emergent
marsh
rearing
habitat
on
Snow
Creek.
Dike
removal
on
both
creeks
must
be
carefully
planned
because
of
the
integration
of
diked
areas
with
Highway
101
transportation
corridor.
Additional
assessment
may
be
required
to
prepare
for
actions
Clallam
County,

DOT
Clallam
Conserv.

District,
WDFW,

James­
town
S'Klallam
Tribe,
WSU
Coop.

Ext.,
land­
owners
and
others.
Phase
2
As
funding
becomes
available.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
352
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
D.
Chimacum
Watershed
Objective:
Recover
summer
chum
habitat
in
lower
stream
reaches
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Replace
road
fill
and
culvert
at
Irondale
Rd.

crossing.

2.
Re­
establish
riparian
forest
on
east
and
west
forks.

3.
Restore
wetlands.

4.
Protect
wetlands
and
riparian
areas
downstream
of
Irondale
Rd.

5.
Protect
lower
river
floodplain
and
estuary.

6.
Restore
estuarine
and
nearshore
habitat
by
removing
fill
from
approximately
18
to
20
acres
of
former
intertidal
habitat
located
immediately
south
of
the
Chimacum
Creek
mouth.

7.
Decrease
water
quality
impacts
to
the
estuary
and
associated
nearshore
areas.
These
measures
address
the
major
limiting
factors
affecting
summer
chum
in
Chimacum
Creek.
The
work
at
the
Irondale
Rd.
crossing
is
to
remove
possibility
of
future
culvert
failure.

Riparian
restoration
will
help
reduce
high
summer
temperatures
and
input
of
fine
sediment.
Wetland
restoration
will
help
control
summer
and
winter
flow
conditions.
Assessment
of
winter
and
summer
flow
effects
is
also
needed.
The
Jefferson
Land
Trust
and
WDFW
are
currently
working
to
acquire
conservation
easements
including
riparian
areas.
The
tidal
floodplain
and
estuary
are
undeveloped
and
should
be
protected
by
acquisition
and
regulation.
Jefferson
County
WDFW,
Tribes
and
local
groups.
Phase
2
As
soon
as
funding
is
available.

E.
Quilcene
Stock
­
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
Watersheds
Objective:
Determine
instream
flows
needed
to
support
summer
chum
during
immigration
and
spawning
life
stages
in
the
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).
Perform
instream
low
flow
assessment
and
recommend
summer
instream
low
flow
levels
and
associated
habitat
improvements.
Because
of
water
withdrawals,
summer
low
flows
are
believed
to
be
limiting
immigration
and
spawning
life
stages
in
the
Big
and
Little
Quilcene.
An
assessment
of
low
flow
needs
should
be
performed
using
appropriate
methodology
and
considering
other
factors
(
e.
g.
channel
aggradation)
that
may
affect
summer
chum
habitat
in
conjunction
with
low
flows.
A
recommendation
of
instream
low
flow
levels
and
any
associated
habitat
improvements
should
be
developed
based
on
the
results
of
the
assessment.
DOE,
Jefferson
County,
WDFW.
Tribes,
City
of
Port
Town­
send,

other
agencies
and
interested
parties.
Undetermined
­

Phase
2
As
soon
as
funding
/
resources
are
available.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
353
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
Objective:
Meet
and
maintain
recommended
instream
low
flow
levels
and
associated
habitat
improvements
in
the
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers.

Develop
and
implement
process
to
gain
acceptance
of
instream
low
flow
levels
and
associated
habitat
improvements,
to
seek
needed
funding
and
to
follow­
up
with
specific
actions
to
meet
objective.
The
governing
bodies
with
jurisdiction,
directly
affected
parties
and
others
should
convene
to
review
results
of
the
instream
flow
assessment
and
develop
a
cooperative
response
to
meeting
instream
flow
needs
and
addressing
associated
habitat
improvements.
Funding
requirements
should
be
determined
and
a
strategy
developed
to
secure
the
funds.
The
funding
strategy
should
be
implemented
and
specific
actions
should
be
taken
to
ensure
instream
low
flow
levels
are
met
and
to
secure
associated
habitat
improvements
critical
to
successful
instream
low
flow
conditions.
Jefferson
County,
City
of
Port
Town­
send,

Dept.
of
Ecology,

WDFW,
any
affected
landowners.
Tribes,
other
agencies
and
interest­
ed
parties.
Undetermined
­

Phase
2
Immediately
following
completion
of
instream
flow
assessment
Objective:
Protect
or
improve
channel
complexity,
reduce
channel
aggradation
effects,
and
protect
and
improve
riparian
conditions
in
the
lower
rivers
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Purchase
from
willing
landowners
property
and
easements
adjacent
to
stream
reaches
and
in
the
flood
plains
of
the
lower
rivers
and
subestuaries.
In
the
lower
Big
Quilcene
River
(
downstream
of
RM
1.0),
the
exact
location
of
the
river
is
controlled
in
large
part
by
the
placement
of
dikes;
natural
lateral
river
movement
is
constrained
and
sediment
aggradation
occurs
in
a
restricted
area.
The
effect
has
been
to
reduce
channel
complexity
and
exacerbate
negative
effects
of
sediment
aggradation.
The
purchase
of
property
or
easements
in
this
reach
of
the
river,
complemented
by
removal
and
setting
back
of
dikes
(
see
below)
and
obtaining
appropriate
instream
low
flow
conditions
(
see
above)
will
return
natural
river
and
flood
plains
interactions
and
functions,
will
increase
channel
complexity,
and
will
significantly
improve
summer
chum
habitat
conditions
in
the
lower
river.
The
purchase
of
this
land
will
eliminate
the
need
to
protect
the
existing
land
uses
of
the
current
landowners
from
effects
of
flooding
and
thus
will
allow
for
more
natural
river
functions.
The
reach
of
the
Big
Quilcene
River
from
RM
1.0
to
2.5
is
constrained
by
farmers
and
residents
who
have
armored
the
banks
to
restrict
river
movement.
Purchase
of
property
or
flood
plain
easements
will
allow
the
river
to
move
more
naturally
across
the
flood
plain,
will
lead
to
improved
riparian
conditions
and
will
increase
channel
complexity.

The
lower
Little
Quilcene
River
contains
a
few
remaining
spawning
areas
with
intact
riparian
forest
and
good
instream
habitat.
Purchase
of
property
or
easements
will
protect
these
areas
from
degradation.
Jefferson
County,
willing
land­
owners.
Tribes,
WDFW,
other
agencies
and
interest­
ed
parties.
Undetermined
­

Phase
2.
Immediately
as
funds
become
available
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
354
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Remove
or
set
back
dikes
in
the
flood
plain
and
estuary.
Removal
and
setting
back
of
dikes
could
provide
access
to
substantial
amounts
of
the
flood
plains
and
estuaries
of
the
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers.
Natural
lateral
river
movement,
accompanied
by
improved
distribution
of
sediments,
greater
channel
complexity
and
improved
riparian
conditions
would
result
in
much
improved
habitat
to
the
benefit
of
summer
chum.
Jefferson
County,
willing
land­
owners.
Tribes,
WDFW,

other
agencies
and
interest­
ed
parties.
Undetermined
­

Phase
2.
As
funds
become
available
3.
Reduce
future
development
in
the
flood
plain
by
restricting
construction
permits.
Permits
should
be
restricted
to
not
allow
new
construction
of
residences
or
other
developments
in
flood
plain
areas
that
currently
accommodate
natural
stream/
flood
plain
interactions
and
functions.
The
purpose
would
be
to
avoid
further
diminution
of
natural
processes
that
support
desirable
summer
chum
habitat
conditions.
The
flood
plain
on
the
north
side
of
the
Little
Quilcene
River
below
RM
0.7
is
a
natural
flood
plain
area
that
should
be
protected
from
development.
Jefferson
County.
Other
counties,

agencies
tribes
and
interest­
ed
parties.
Undetermined
­

Phase
2
if
needed.
Immediate.

4.
Determine
sources
and
extent
of
sediment
aggradation
and
scouring
problems.
The
sources
of
sediment
aggradation
on
the
Little
Quilcene
should
be
determined
using
existing
watershed
analysis
methods.
The
extent
and
dynamics
of
sediment
aggradation
and
scouring
effects
should
be
assessed
in
the
lower
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers.
These
assessments
will
provide
a
better
understanding
of
the
scope
of
the
aggradation
and
scouring
problems
that
exist
in
the
lower
rivers,
and
indicate
what
actions
may
be
taken
to
rectify
the
problems,
leading
to
improved
habitat
conditions
for
summer
chum.
U.
S.
Forest
Service
(
upper
watershed
sediment
source
areas),

Jefferson
County
.
Other
agencies
tribes
and
interest­
ed
parties.
Undetermined
­

Phase
2
if
needed.
As
funds
become
available
5.
Restore
natural
levels
of
LWD
to
the
anadromous
use
zones
of
both
rivers.
The
Big
and
Little
Quilcene
rivers
are
extremely
deficient
in
stable
LWD.
Restoring
LWD
will
contribute
to
channel
stability
and
complexity.
U.
S.
Forest
Service,
Jefferson
County
Other
agencies,

tribes
and
interested
parties.
Phase
2
As
funds
become
available.

6.
Restore
natural
meandering
configuration
to
the
channelized
reach
of
the
Big
Quilcene
River
between
approximately
river
mile
2.5
and
2.8.
Channelization
of
this
portion
of
river
in
1950s
has
led
to
extremely
simplified
and
impaired
habitat
ever
since.
Also,

with
the
river
being
confined
against
the
valley
wall
in
this
area,
high
rates
of
bluff
erosion
and
sediment
recruitment
into
the
river
have
occurred.
Restoring
the
channel
to
a
meandering
configuration
will
restore
channel
complexity,

reduce
stream
energy
and
allow
the
river
to
move
away
from
the
highly
erodible
slopes.
Jefferson
County
Other
agencies,

tribes
and
interested
parties.
Phase
2
As
funds
become
available.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
355
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
7.
Remove
artificially
aggraded
sediments
from
the
Big
Quilcene
and
Little
Quilcene
river
delta
cones.
Channelization
of
these
streams
has
caused
the
development
of
abnormal
delta
cones
that
have
buried
intertidal
estuarine
habitat
at
these
stream
mouths.
These
delta
cones
should
be
removed
to
restore
estuarine
habitat
and
contribute
to
the
stability
of
the
lower
reaches
of
these
streams.
Similar
consideration
should
be
given
to
removing
delta
cones
of
other
streams
in
Quilcene
Bay
estuary
(
i.
e.,
Indian
and
Jakeway
creeks).
Jefferson
County
Other
agencies,

tribes
and
interested
parties.
Phase
2
As
funds
become
available.

F.
Dosewallips
Stock
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
summer
chum
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Purchase
property
or
conservation
easements
in
lower
3.0
miles
of
watershed.
Development
pressures
are
highly
concentrated
in
the
lower
3.0
miles
of
river,
where
most
summer
chum
use
occurs.
Acquisition
of
property
or
easements
from
willing
landowners
will
ensure
future
protection
and
recovery
of
summer
chum
habitat.
The
potential
also
exists
for
planting
conifers
in
the
riparian
zone
and
placing
engineered
logjams
to
improve
channel
complexity
and
stabilize
spawning
gravels.
Jefferson
County
and
state/
federal
agencies
Tribes
and
other
interested
parties
Phase
2
When
funding
is
available
2.
Restore
tidal
circulation
across
the
subestuary.
Existing
and
failed
dikes
have
disconnected
the
wetlands
across
the
delta.
Removing
or
setting
back
the
dikes
would
allow
more
natural
tidal
circulation
and
access
to
habitat.
Tidal
channels
north
of
the
river
mouth
could
be
reconnected
to
the
mainstem
river.
Jefferson
County
and
state/
federal
agencies
Tribes
and
other
interested
parties
Phase
2
When
funding
is
available
3.
Restore
natural
levels
of
LWD
to
the
anadromous
use
zones
of
the
Dosewallips
River.
The
Dosewallips
River
if
deficient
in
stable
LWD.
Restoring
LWD
will
contribute
to
channel
complexity
and
stability.
Jefferson
County
and
state/
federal
agencies.
Tribes
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
2
When
funding
is
available.

G.
Duckabush
Stock
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
summer
chum
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

4.
Purchase
property
or
conservation
easements
in
lower
2.5
miles
of
watershed.
Development
pressures
are
highly
concentrated
in
the
lower
2.5
miles
of
river,
where
most
summer
chum
use
occurs.
Acquisition
of
property
or
easements
from
willing
landowners
will
ensure
future
protection
and
recovery
of
summer
chum
habitat.
The
potential
also
exists
for
planting
conifers
in
the
riparian
zone
and
placing
engineered
logjams
to
improve
channel
complexity
and
stabilize
spawning
gravels.
Jefferson
County
and
state/
federal
agencies
Tribes
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
2
When
funding
is
available.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
356
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/
Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Restore
tidal
circulation
across
the
subestuary.
Rerouting
or
refitting
the
Highway
101
road
causeway
across
the
delta
would
help
restore
tidal
circulation
and
juvenile
salmon
migration
and
rearing
in
the
subestuary.
Removal
or
setting
back
of
one
of
the
dikes
in
the
northern
delta
would
reconnect
additional
delta
area.
Jefferson
County,
DOT,

state/
federal
agencies
Tribes
and
other
interested
parties
Phase
2
When
funding
is
available
H.
Hamma
Hamma
Stock
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
summer
chum
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

3.
Protect
and
restore
riparian
forests.
Logging
and
timber
salvage
in
riparian
zone
has
reduced
LWD
recruitment
into
the
stream
and
has
increased
soil
erosion
and
landslide
hazards.

Providing
an
adequate
riparian
forest
buffer
and
avoiding
harvest
on
steep
slopes
is
recommended.

Engineered
logjams
may
be
placed
to
improve
channel
habitat
complexity.
Mason
County,
DOT,

state
/
federal
agencies.
Land­
owner,

tribes
and
other
interested
parties
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate
4.
Restore
tidal
circulation
across
the
subestuary.
Reconnecting
the
lower
river
with
the
north
bank
marsh
would
restore
fish
access
to
subestuarine
habitat
used
for
rearing
and
refuge.
An
assessment
of
this
action
and
others
in
the
delta
area
is
needed
to
determine
nature
and
feasibility
of
actions.
Mason
County,
DOT,

state
/
federal
agencies.
Land­
owner,

tribes
and
other
interested
parties
Phase
2
Immediate
I.
Lilliwaup
Stock
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
summer
chum
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Restore
riparian
forest
in
lower
river.
Restriction
of
human
activities
associated
with
agricultural
and
residential
developments
would
allow
riparian
forests
to
become
reestablished,
providing
a
source
of
LWD
to
increase
channel
complexity.
Mason
County
Landowners

tribes
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
1
Immediate
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
357
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Protect
wetlands
in
upper
Lilliwaup
valley.
The
DNR­
owned
wetlands
are
believed
to
play
a
major
role
in
sustaining
summer
flows.
The
land
should
be
managed
to
ensure
the
wetlands
are
maintained.
DNR
Tribes
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
1
Continuing.

3.
Restore
natural
tidal
channel
system.
The
natural
tidal
channel
system
of
the
subestuary
is
impacted
by
the
Highway
101
road
causeway.

The
causeway
should
be
relocated
or
refitted
to
reduce
impact.
DOT
Tribes
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
2
When
funded.

J.
Skokomish
Stock
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
freshwater
natural
habitat
conditions
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Restore
natural
flows
in
the
North
Fork.
Substantial
restoration
of
North
Fork
flows
(
currently
diverted
by
the
Cushman
Hydroelectric
Project)
would
restore
historic
habitat
conditions,

reduce
or
eliminate
sediment
aggradation
in
the
main
channel,
and
improve
conditions
for
upstream
adult
salmon
migration
during
the
summer
low
flow
months.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Interior
City
of
Tacoma,

state
and
federal
agencies,
Skok.

Tribe
Phase
1
and
possibly
Phase
2.
In
process.

2.
Improve
hydrological
conditions
throughout
watershed.
Reducing
road
densities
through
obliteration
and
decommissioning
and
improving
drainage
of
remaining
roads
by
installing
larger
and
more
frequent
cross
drains
and
water
bars
will
help
restore
ecosystem
processes
and
lessen
peak
flow
impacts.
By
allowing
the
forest
to
mature,

general
hydrologic
conditions
will
improve
and
rain
on
snow
impacts
will
be
reduced.
Federal
and
state
agencies,
Mason
County
Skok.
Tribe
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate
3.
Restore
riparian
condition
through
revegetation
Revegetation
of
the
riparian
corridor
together
with
decommisioning
dikes
and
fencing
livestock
will
improve
the
river
connection
with
the
floodplain
and
improve
riparian
benefits
(
e.
g.,

provide
source
of
LWD).
Mason
County
Conserv.
Dist.
,

state
and
federal
agencies,
Skok.

Tribe,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
358
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
4.
Provide
for
natural
movement
of
the
river
across
the
floodplain.
Removal
of
dikes
and
purchase
of
property
or
easements
from
willing
landowners
would
allow
the
river
to
move
across
and
integrate
more
naturally
with
the
flood
plain,
creating
improved
habitat
conditions.
Habitat
diversity
may
be
improved
by
reconnecting
isolated
sloughs
and
side
channels.
Mason
County
State
and
federal
agencies,
Skok.

Tribe,
landowners
Phase
2
Depends
on
funding.

Objective:
Restore
delta
functions.

Convert
lands
back
to
estuarine
wetlands
with
natural
distributary
channels.
Remove
dikes
and
tide
gates,
and
remove
or
relocate
roads
to
provide
unimpeded
tidal
circulation
in
river
delta.
A
key
part
of
the
subestuary's
recovery
is
the
restoration
of
North
Fork
flows
that
strongly
affect
the
delta's
ecological
processes
and
would
reduce
the
long
term
sediment
aggradation
in
the
main
channel.

The
actions
will
restore
summer
chum
migration
and
rearing
habitat.
Mason
County
State
and
federal
agencies,
Skok.

Tribe,
landowners
Phase
2
Depends
in
part
on
funding.

K.
Union
Stock
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
subestuarine
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

5.
Purchase
property
or
conservation
easements
in
undeveloped
subestuarine
or
shoreline
areas.
Acquisition
of
properties
or
easements
from
willing
landowners
will
secure
permanent
protection
of
undeveloped,
natural
areas
that
provide
summer
chum
rearing
and
migratory
habitat.
Mason
County
Agencies,
tribes,

landowners
Phase
2
Contingent
on
funding.

6.
Recover
habitat
through
removal
or
setting
back
dikes
and
removal
of
unnecessary
fills
and
bulkheads.
There
is
a
need
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
the
dikes,
fills
and
bulkheads
and
their
impact
on
the
subestuarine
environment.

Based
on
results
of
assessment,
restoration
opportunities
may
be
explored
and
negotiated
with
the
landowners.
Mason
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phase
2
Contingent
on
funding.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
359
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/
Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
stream
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Restore
riparian
forest.
Encourage
riparian
revegetation
throughout
the
stream
corridor.
Upgrade
riparian
protection
through
ordinances.
Existing
riparian
forests
may
be
improved
by
underplanting
shade
tolerant
conifers.
Mason
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

2.
Increase
channel
complexity.
Channel
complexity
may
be
improved
by
allowing
natural
input
processes
for
woody
debris
to
occur
and
by
leaving
LWD
in
the
stream
channel.
Consider
placing
engineered
logjams
in
channel.
Mason
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

3.
Improve
water
quality.
Raise
standards
for
best
management
practices
utilized
by
industrial
landowners,
small
farms
and
residential
homeowners
to
reduce
impacts
on
habitat
and
water
quality.
Enact
effective
stormwater
protection
measures.
Mason
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phase
1
Immediate.

L.
Big
Mission
Watershed
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
subestuarine
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

4.
Purchase
property
or
conservation
easements
in
undeveloped
subestuarine
or
shoreline
areas.
Acquisition
of
properties
or
easements
from
willing
landowners
will
secure
permanent
protection
of
undeveloped,
natural
areas
that
provide
summer
chum
rearing
and
migratory
habitat.
Mason
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phase
2
Contingent
on
funding.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
360
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/
Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Recover
habitat
through
removal
or
setting
back
dikes
and
removal
of
unnecessary
fills
and
bulkheads.
The
condition
and
effectiveness
of
dikes,
fills
and
bulkheads,
and
their
impact
on
the
subestuarine
environment
should
be
assessed.
Based
on
results
of
assessment,
restoration
opportunities
should
be
explored
and
negotiated
with
the
landowners.
Explore
with
Washington
Parks
Dept.
the
potential
of
reconfiguring
the
lower
stream
channel.
Mason
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phase
2
Contingent
on
funding.

Objective:
Protect
and
improve
stream
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

3.
Restore
riparian
forest.
Encourage
riparian
revegetation
throughout
the
stream
corridor.
Upgrade
riparian
protection
through
ordinances.
Consider
purchasing
from
willing
landowners
critical
undeveloped
properties
or
conservation
easements
on
developed
properties
that
can
be
enhanced.

Existing
riparian
forests
may
be
improved
by
underplanting
shade
tolerant
conifers.
Link
the
DNR
riparian
forests
in
the
middle
reaches
of
stream
with
riparian
forests
in
the
lower
reaches.
Mason
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

4.
Increase
channel
complexity.
Channel
complexity
may
be
improved
by
allowing
natural
input
processes
for
woody
debris
to
occur
and
by
leaving
LWD
in
the
stream
channel.
Consider
placing
engineered
logjams
in
channel.
Assess
capacity
of
bridges/
culverts
to
pass
wood,
water
and
sediment
to
lower
reaches;

replace
or
improve
these
structures
where
appropriate.
Where
possible,
remove
rip
rap
or
replace
with
bio­
engineered
shoreline
protection.
Mason
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
361
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/
Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
M.
Tahuya
Watershed
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
stream
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Protect
and
improve
riparian
condition.
Allowing
existing
forests
to
mature
and
providing
adequate
riparian
buffers
will
over
time
protect
and
improve
riparian
processes.
As
riparian
condition
improves,
potential
effects
of
high
water
temperatures
(
i.
e.,
limiting
distribution
of
returning
adults)
will
be
mitigated.
Mason
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

2.
Increase
channel
complexity.
Channel
complexity
will
increase
by
allowing
the
river
to
migrate
naturally
across
the
100
year
floodplain.
Opportunities
for
elimination
of
bank
hardening
and
stream
channelization
that
limit
natural
river
movement
should
be
pursued.
Mason
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

3.
Protect
instream
flows.
Negative
impacts
on
instream
flows
are
likely
with
development
in
the
watershed
unless
effective
management
is
applied.
Impervious
surfaces
should
be
limited,
storm
water
control
measures
planned
and
implemented,
and
drainage
structures
sized
to
allow
for
100
year
storm
events.
Mason
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

4.
Protect
and
improve
subestuarine
habitat.
Efforts
should
be
made
to
protect
estuary
from
further
development,
especially
bank
hardening.
Existing
road
causeways
constrict
water
circulation
and
should
be
refitted
to
reduce
impact.
Mason
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

N.
Dewatto
Watershed
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
stream
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Protect
and
improve
riparian
condition.
Riparian
functions
will
improve
as
the
existing
riparian
forest
matures
over
the
next
25­
50
years.

Adequate
protection
through
regulation
and
enforcement
will
ensure
functions
such
as
LWD
recruitment,
and
moderation
of
water
temperatures
will
naturally
improve
over
time.
Mason
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
362
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/
Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Upgrade
road
conditions.
Fine
sediments
in
spawning
gravels
may
be
reduced
by
routing
road
drainage
away
from
stream
channels,

stabilizing
sidecasts,
hardening
road
surfaces,

upgrading
stream
crossings
to
pass
100­
year
flood
events
and,
where
possible,
decommisioning
roads.
Mason
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

3.
Improve
channel
complexity.
Restore
natural
function
within
the
100­
year
flood
plain
by
removing
or
redesigning
constraints
to
natural
channel
development.
Such
constraints
include
bank
hardening
and
channelization.
Mason
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

4.
Protect
subestuary.
The
subestuary
is
one
of
few
relatively
undisturbed
deltas.
Specific
measures
should
be
sought
to
ensure
its
protection;
e.
g.,
purchase
of
conservation
easements
and
regulation
of
land
use.
Mason
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

O.
Big
Anderson
Watershed
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
stream
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

5.
Protect
and
improve
riparian
condition.
Increase
riparian
buffer
and
provide
adequate
protection.
Plant
conifers
throughout
flood
plain
in
lower
one
mile
of
stream.
Kitsap
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

6.
Reduce
unnatural
instream
sediment
accumulation
and
reduce
adverse
peak
flow
effects.
Avoid
logging
on
potentially
unstable
slopes
and
decommission
or
repair
roads
that
have
high
surface
erosion
or
landslide
hazard.
Limit
new
road
construction.
Increase
water
bars
and
cross
drains
on
forest
roads.
Redirect
roadside
ditches
to
avoid
direct
routing
of
storm
flows
into
stream
channels.
Kitsap
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

7.
Improve
habitat
in
lower
river
flood
plain
and
subestuary.
Relocate
roads
out
of
flood
plain
or
replace
road
fill
with
structures
that
allow
channel
movement
and
passage
of
flood
waters.
Alternatively,
roads
may
be
set
back
or
rerouted
within
flood
plain
to
improve
habitat.
Remove
abandoned
railroad
fill
in
subestuary.
Kitsap
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phase
1
and
2
Immediate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
363
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/
Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
P.
Stavis
Watershed
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
stream
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Protect
existing
high
quality
habitat
Continue
and
expand
acquisitions
under
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Sanctuary.
Highest
priority
is
estuary
and
adjacent
uplands,
but
also
important
are
adjoining
shoreline
areas,
lower
mainstem
and
flood
plain,
and
wetland
hydrologic
source
areas.
Kitsap
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

2.
Protect
and
restore
riparian
forest.
For
properties
acquired
in
lower
watershed,
replant
streamside
areas
lacking
sufficient
riparian
forest
or
appropriate
species
and
abandon
any
associated
roads.

Consider
treatments
to
encourage
conifer
regeneration
on
WDFW
properties.
Reforest
narrow
riparian
zones
on
upstream
DNR
lands.
Establish
appropriate
riparian
zone
widths
to
provide
long­
term
LWD
recruitment.
Assess
West
Kitsap
Watershed
Analysis
prescriptions
and
modify
as
needed.
Kitsap
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

3.
Establish
hydrologic
maturity
targets.
Set
forest
harvest
rates
to
ensure
hydrologic
maturity.

Address
growth
management
issues
to
limit
effects
(
e.
g.,
from
impervious
services)
on
hydrologic
maturity.
Kitsap
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

4.
Use
Stavis
Creek
estuary
as
critical
habitat
template.
Establish
long
term
monitoring
programs
to
track
estuarine
quality.
Kitsap
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

Q.
Seabeck
Watershed
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
stream
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Control
sediment
sources.
Improve
road
maintenance
and
surfacing
on
private
roads,
and
ensure
storm
water
runoff
is
not
routed
directly
into
stream
channel.
Evaluate
effectiveness
of
slope
stability
standards.
Control
timing
of
clearing
and
grading
activities
adjacent
to
creek
to
avoid
storm
events.
Kitsap
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phase
1
and
2
Immediate
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
364
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/
Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Improve
channel
complexity.
Place
LWD
jams
in
lower
river
if
determined
to
be
feasible.
Kitsap
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

3.
Protect
flow
conditions.
Prohibit
new
water
withdrawals
until
instream
flow
requirements
are
established.
Establish
impervious
surface
limits
and
condition
land
use
permits
accordingly.
Retrofit
existing
developments
for
storm
water
control.
Maintain
minimum
60%
of
watershed
in
forest
cover.
Kitsap
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

4.
Protect
and
restore
riparian
habitat.
Acquire
high
quality
riparian
forest
to
protect
habitat.

Replant
riparian
buffers
with
native
species
to
improve
habitat.
Review
and
revise
critical
area
ordinance
to
meet
recommended
functional
riparian
buffer
standards.
Kitsap
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

5.
Protect
subestuary.
Prevent
further
development
within
subestuary
by
land
acquisition
or
land
use
regulation.
Kitsap
County
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

R.
Big
Beef
Watershed
Objective:
Protect
and
improve
stream
habitat
(
see
Appendix
Report
3.6).

1.
Reduces
sources
of
sediment
aggradation.
Reduce
mass
wasting
into
lower
five
miles
of
stream
by
prohibiting
logging
and
development
on
steep,

unstable
slopes.
Address
sediment
contributions
from
existing
abandoned
and
active
roads
(
esp.
Kidhaven
Rd.
at
RM
3.2).
Prohibit
new
roads
on
steep
ravine
slopes
below
Lake
Symington.
Monitor
effectiveness
of
prescriptions
for
logging
(
West
Kitsap
Watershed
analysis)
and
rural
development
(
Critical
Areas
Ordinance).
Kitsap
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

2.
Increase
channel
complexity.
Remove
service
road
located
within
flood
plain
&

evaluate
feasibility
of
restoring
side
channels
and
wetlands
next
to
U.
W.
research
facility.
Assess
role
of
WDFW
weir
in
affecting
sediment
routing
and
investigate
options
for
reducing
its
impact.
Evaluate
option
of
placing
LWD
jams
in
lower
river.
Kitsap
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phase
1
and
2
Immediate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
365
Table
4.5
Stock
and
watershed
specific
habitat
objectives,
strategies
and
potential
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/
Authority
Partners
Resources/
Funding
Time
Frame
3.
Reduce
causeway
impact
on
delta.
Retrofit
causeway
by
removing
fill
and
expanding
bridge
span
to
reduce
its
footprint
in
the
historic
delta,

promote
full
tidal
water
exchange
and
allow
natural
habitat
development
in
subestuary.
Kitsap
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

4.
Improve
flow
conditions.
Condition
water
applications
to
ensure
minimum
instream
flow
recommendations
are
met.
Establish
impervious
surface
limits
and
condition
land
use
permits
accordingly.
Maintain
minimum
60%
of
watershed
in
forest
cover.
Institute
water
conservation
programs
and
seek
opportunities
to
reduce
number
of
shallow
wells
in
watershed.
Require
on­
site
infiltration
of
runoff
from
impervious
surfaces
where
soils
are
appropriate.
Ensure
road
drainage
is
not
routed
directly
into
stream
channels.
Kitsap
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

5.
Protect
and
restore
riparian
forests.
Continue
riparian
area
acquisition
efforts
under
the
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Sanctuary
program.
Replant
degraded
riparian
zones
with
appropriate
native
species.
Review
and
revise
critical
area
ordinance
consistent
with
recommendations
for
riparian
buffers.
Kitsap
County,
DOT
Agencies,

tribes,
landowners
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
366
4.2.5
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
Monitoring
and
evaluation
are
intended
to
document
compliance
with
the
management
actions
described
in
this
initiative
and
to
help
verify
whether
or
not
the
expected
results
of
those
actions
actually
occur.
They
also
are
used
to
validate
critical
assumptions
upon
which
management
actions
are
based
and
address
identified
information
gaps.
Monitoring
and
evaluation
are
necessary
to
demonstrate
the
effectiveness
of
the
initiative
in
addressing
the
factors
for
decline,
in
stopping
population
declines,
and
ultimately
in
recovering
summer
chum.
Table
4.6
summarizes
monitoring
and
evaluation
objectives,
strategies
and
actions.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
367
Table
4.6
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
­
objectives,
strategies
and
actions.

Objective:
Document
compliance
of
specific
projects
and
actions
with
applicable
guidelines,
criteria
or
rules.

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
1.
Monitor
summer
chum
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects
for
consistency
with
provisions
and
guidelines
under
the
initiative
and
in
support
of
adaptive
management
(
section
3.2).
Monitoring
is
accomplished
by
required
recording
of
all
project
operations
including
brood
stocking,
incubation,

rearing,
health,
transfer
and
release
of
fish.
Records,

including
building
of
new
facilities,
are
summarized
and
made
available
in
annual
reports.
Projects
may
be
modified
or
even
terminated
based
on
monitoring
results.
WDFW,
USFWS,

Tribes.
HCSEG,

NOSC,
WOS,

LLTK.
Phase
1.
Immediate.

2.
Monitor
hatchery
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
negative
ecological
interactions
of
other
species
with
summer
chum,
consistent
with
provisions
of
section
3.3.
Hatchery
records
demonstrate
level
of
compliance
with
identified
mitigation
actions.
Results
are
summarized
in
annual
report.
WDFW,
USFWS,

Tribes
Citizens
and
other
participant
organizations
Phase
1.
Immediate.

3.
Monitor
harvest
regulations
and
fisheries
for
consistency
with
plan
provisions
(
section
3.5).
Records
of
harvest
regulations
are
kept.
Tribal
and
state
fisheries
enforcement
programs
promote
compliance
with
regulations
and
record
violations.
Results
are
reviewed
annually.
WDFW,
Tribes
Phase
1.
Immediate.

4.
Include
compliance
monitoring
as
part
of
habitat
protection
and
restoration
measures
(
section
3.4).
Documenting
compliance
with
land
use
permits
and
regulations,
and
with
specifications
of
habitat
restoration
projects,
should
be
required
in
the
development
of
these
actions.
Local
governments
and
agencies
with
jurisdiction
WDFW,
Tribes
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.

Objective:
Measure
effectiveness
of
actions
and
projects.

1.
Monitor
adult
returns
from
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects.
All
artificially
produced
summer
chum
are
marked
or
tagged
so
that
returning
hatchery
origin
fish
may
be
sampled.

Because
all
currently
planned
projects
are
integrated
recovery
programs,
the
focus
is
on
number
and
proportion
of
natural
origin
returns
(
NORs)
as
the
primary
measure
of
project
success.
(
Adequate
sampling
resources
are
critical
for
effective
monitoring.)
Artificial
production
program
may
be
reduced
or
even
terminated
based
on
monitoring
results
(
Part
Three,
3.2).
WDFW,
USFWS,

Tribes
HCSEG,

NOSC,
WOS,

LLTK
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
368
Table
4.6
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
­
objectives,
strategies
and
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Monitor
catches,
escapements,

genetics,
ages
and
fisheries
exploitation
rates.
Summer
chum
are
not
targeted
in
fisheries.
However,

catches
of
summer
chum
in
fisheries
for
other
species,
with
run
timing
that
overlaps
that
of
summer
chum,
are
monitored,
as
are
summer
chum
escapements
to
spawning
grounds,
genetic
stock
information,
ages
of
summer
chum
and
other
biological
data
(
see
Part
One).
With
this
information,
runs
are
reconstructed
and
exploitation
rates
estimated
to
measure
the
success
of
harvest
controls
and
assess
the
condition
of
the
summer
chum
management
units
and
stocks.
Population
performance
standards
will
be
used
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
all
management
actions
in
conserving
and
recovering
summer
chum
(
see
also
below,
section
4.2.6).
WDFW,
USFWS,

Tribes
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate
3.
Verify
that
assumed
effects
of
habitat
restoration
projects
on
habitat
are
what
was
assumed.
Projects
should
include
post­
construction
monitoring
for
specific
effects
on
habitat
or
fish
(
e.
g.,
changes
in
habitat
configuration
or
function
(
such
as
expansion
of
salt
marsh)

and/
or
improved
fish
access
to
restored
habitat)
(
Part
Three,
3.4).
Local
governments
and
agencies
with
jurisdiction
WDFW,
Tribes
and
other
interested
parties.
Phases
1
and
2
As
projects
are
implemented
Objective:
Validate
critical
assumptions
behind
planning
and
actions.

1.
Verify
that
under
present
guidelines
artificial
production
projects
do
not
affect
genetic
diversity
of
natural
populations.
Continue
to
collect
genetic
information
on
natural
summer
chum.
Collect
genetic
information
over
time
from
selected
artificial
production
programs
to
monitor
any
changes
and
compare
with
natural
populations
(
Part
Three,
3.2).
WDFW,
USFWS,

Tribes
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate
2.
Verify
that
straying
of
hatchery
summer
chum
out
of
watersheds
of
origin
is
at
acceptably
low
levels.
Sample
summer
chum
for
marks
during
brood
stocking
operations.
Also,
sample
summer
chum
carcasses
for
marks
in
watersheds
of
origin
and
in
adjacent
watersheds
(
Part
Three,
3.2).
WDFW,
USFWS,

Tribes
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate
3.
Verify
that
regulatory
measures
for
Hood
Canal
terminal
fisheries
based
on
run
timing
will
control
summer
chum
exploitation
levels
to
expected
low
levels.
Catches
in
terminal
fisheries
will
be
monitored
and
genetic
samples
will
be
taken
(
to
separate
summer
from
fall
chum)

so
that
run
timing
assumptions
are
verified
or
modified,

and
associated
regulatory
measures
are
also
adapted
as
needed
(
Part
Three,
3.5).
Tribes,
WDFW
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
369
Table
4.6
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
­
objectives,
strategies
and
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
4.
Investigate
whether
controlled
Hood
Canal
terminal
fisheries
impacts
on
summer
chum
do
not
disproportionately
affect
one
or
more
stocks.
Results
of
monitoring
summer
chum
catch
distribution
and
associated
genetics
sampling
information
would
address
this
issue
(
Part
Three,

3.5).
Tribes,
WDFW
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate
5.
Verify
that
pre­
terminal
fisheries
exploitation
rates
fall
within
bounds
stipulated
for
conservation
based
fishing
regime.
Monitoring
of
within
state
pre­
terminal
fisheries
to
estimate
exploitation
rates
is
planned.
Agreements
will
be
sought
with
Canada
to
monitor
fisheries
with
likely
impact
(
Part
Three,
3.5).
WDFW,
Tribes
Phases
1
and
2
Immediate
6.
Verify
and
increase
understanding
of
habitat
factors
for
decline
identified
in
this
initiative.
Evaluations
should
be
made
in
selected
locations
of
factors
(
and
associated
parameters)
currently
identified
as
negatively
affecting
summer
chum.

Included
are
assessments
of
storm
flow
runoffs
and
upland
drainage
patterns
that
affect
peak
flows,
low
flow
and
temperatures,
LWD
loading
and
channel
stability
affecting
channel
complexity
and
floodplain
function,
sediment
delivery
and
routing,
riparian
forest
condition,
and
subestuarine
habitat
condition
(
Part
Three,
3.4).
WDFW,
Tribes
Other
agencies
and
interested
parties.
Phases
1
and
2
As
funding
and
resources
become
available.

Objective:
Perform
assessments
that
address
additional
identified
information
gaps.

1.
Plan
and
implement
evaluation
of
Dungeness
summer
chum
population
The
Dungeness
stock
is
known
to
exist
in
the
Dungeness
River
but
the
abundance
and
condition
of
the
stock
is
not
known
(
Part
One,
section
1.7.2.1).

An
assessment
of
the
population,
including
measurements
of
the
distribution
and
levels
of
escapement,
should
be
designed
and
implemented
by
the
management
agencies
and
tribes.
The
assessment
should
provide
an
understanding
of
the
status
of
the
stock
and
provide
a
basis
for
determining
appropriate
management
actions.
WDFW,
and
Tribes
USFWS
and
other
interested
agencies
and
parties
Phase
2
As
soon
as
funding
is
available.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
370
Table
4.6
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
­
objectives,
strategies
and
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
2.
Assess
summer
chum
productivity
and
production
capacity.
Obtain
age
and
sex
data
from
existing
populations
and
develop
estimates
of
productivity.
Also
perform
more
in
depth
investigations;
for
example,
the
research
project
has
been
initiated
at
Big
Beef
Creek
(
where
summer
chum
are
being
reintroduced)
to
assess
productivity
from
egg
deposition
to
adult
return
and
to
follow
production
of
consecutive
generations
spawning
in
the
stream
(
Part
Three,

3.2).
WDFW
Tribes,
HCSEG
and
other
interested
parties.
Phases
1
and
2
Continuing.

3.
Assess
summer
chum
nonharvest
mortality.
Research
non­
harvest
summer
chum
mortality
as
a
mortality
rate
per
fish
encountered
such
that
the
rate
for
each
gear
type
is
estimated
with
sufficient
precision
to
match
goals
for
accuracy
of
exploitation
rate
estimates
and
management
effectiveness
(
Part
Three,
3.5).
WDFW,
Tribes
Phase
2
When
funding
becomes
available.

4.
Develop
stream
habitat
classification
system
and
database.
The
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Habitat
Inventory
and
Assessment
Project
(
SSHIAP)
is
being
developed
by
the
comanagers
and
is
expected
to
provide
recovery
planners
a
valuable
tool
for
planning
and
prioritizing
protection
and
recovery
work
(
Part
Three,
3.4).
Tribes,
WDFW
Other
agencies
and
interested
parties.
Phases
1
and
2
Continuing.

5.
Survey
habitat
in
streams
and
estuaries
where
little
or
no
data
has
been
collected.
Systematically
collected
habitat
data
is
lacking
or
limited
in
scope
for
several
streams
and
the
nearshore
estuarine
areas.

Surveys
will
provide
improved
understanding
of
habitat
conditions
affecting
summer
chum
(
Part
Three,
3.4).
WDFW,
Tribes
Other
agencies
and
interested
parties.
Phase
2
When
funding
or
resources
become
available.

6.
Assess
stream
bed
scouring
effects
on
summer
chum
redds
in
selected
watersheds.
Increases
in
peak
winter
flows,
stream
bed
mobility
and
consequent
scouring
of
salmon
redds
is
perceived
as
a
major
factor
of
decline
in
several
watersheds.
Scour
chain
monitoring
linked
with
spawning
surveys
and/
or
emergent
fry
trapping
will
help
better
define
severity
of
effect
on
summer
chum
(
Part
Three,
3.4).
WDFW,
Tribes
Other
agencies
and
interested
parties.
Phase
2
When
funding
or
resources
become
available.

7.
Perform
multi­
scenario
analysis
of
full
build­
out
in
selected
watersheds
using
standard
and
alternative
designs
and
materials.
Analysis
will
help
reconcile
development
pressures
with
habitat
protection
needs
(
Part
Three,
3.4).
Counties,
local
governments
WDFW,

Tribes
Unknown
As
soon
as
practical.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
371
Table
4.6
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
­
objectives,
strategies
and
actions
(
continued).

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
8.
Perform
analysis
of
hydrologic
changes
in
selected
watersheds.
Hydrologic
changes
such
as
artificial
stream
channel
constrictions
and
increased
peak
flows
dynamically
interact
to
affect
sediment
regimes,
bed
stability
and
channel
complexity
impacting
summer
chum
habitat.

Analysis
of
these
changes
will
help
focus
on
appropriate
summer
chum
protection
and
recovery
measures
(
Part
Three,
3.4).
Counties,
local
governments
WDFW,
Tribes
Unknown
As
soon
as
practical.

9.
Inventory
and
assess
estuarine
nearshore
habitat
and
shoreline
structures.
Little
information
currently
exists
on
estuarine
nearshore
habitat
or
shoreline
structures.
A
study
is
needed
to
survey
the
shoreline
and
evaluate
effects
of
man­
made
structures
on
habitat
and
summer
chum
(
Part
Three,
3.4).
WDFW,
Tribes
Other
agencies
and
interested
parties.
Phase
2
When
funding
or
resources
become
available.

10.
Perform
estuarine
life
history
study
of
selected
summer
chum
populations.
Study
would
be
to
determine
the
distribution
and
timing,
as
well
as
the
feeding
and
sheltering
characteristics
of
juvenile
summer
chum
in
the
subestuarine
and
nearshore
environments
(
Part
Three,
sections
3.3,
3.4).
WDFW,
Tribes
Other
agencies
and
interested
parties.
Phase
2
When
funding
or
resources
become
available.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
372
4.2.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
The
summer
chum
salmon
conservation
initiative
is
an
integrated
plan,
with
each
element
contributing
in
concert
with
other
elements
to
address
the
broad
range
of
factors
for
decline
and
promote
recovery.
The
plan
elements
of
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
habitat
and
harvest
management
have
been
presented
separately,
each
with
specific
objectives,
strategies
and
actions
intended
to
conserve
and
recover
summer
chum
salmon.
However,
it
is
understood
that
the
combination
of
effects
from
the
individual
strategies
and
actions,
across
all
elements,
is
the
key
to
success.
To
fully
integrate
the
initiative's
elements,
the
results
must
be
assessed
over
time
with
existing
management
measures
either
adjusted
or
terminated,
and
possibly
new
measures
added
as
is
appropriate.
While
the
previous
descriptions
of
each
of
the
elements
address
specifically
applicable
performance
evaluations,
the
ultimate
measure
of
overall
success
must
include
assessment
of
summer
chum
population
performance.
Table
4.7
describes
the
co­
managers'
approach
to
assessing
and
responding
to
summer
chum
population
performance.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.1
Introduction
and
4.2
Summary
of
Plan
Objectives,
Strategies,
and
Actions
Page
373
Table
4.7
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
­
objectives
and
action
items.

Objective:
Define
population
performance
criteria
for
periodic
evaluation
of
summer
chum
populations.

Strategy/
Action
Description
Jurisdiction/

Authority
Partners
Resources/

Funding
Time
Frame
1.
Identify
thresholds
below
which
summer
chum
management
units
and
stocks
are
at
critical
status.
Numerical
critical
thresholds
or
flags
have
been
set
for
escapements
and
run
sizes
of
management
units
and
stocks
(
see
Part
One,
1.7.3
and
Appendix
Report
1.5).
WDFW,
Tribes
NMFS
Phase
1
Completed
as
part
of
this
initiative.

2.
Identify
recovery
thresholds.
Numerical
recovery
thresholds
are
to
be
determined
in
2000.
WDFW,
Tribes
NMFS
Phase
1
Scheduled
for
completion
in
spring
2000.

Objective:
Periodically
evaluate
summer
chum
population
performance
and
provide
effective
management
response
to
evaluation.

1.
Annually
review
population
performance
and
provide
specified
response.
Review
entails
comparing
past
year's
estimates
of
run
sizes
or
escapements
(
for
the
defined
management
units
and
stocks)

with
identified
critical
threshold
values.
If
any
estimates
fall
below
critical
thresholds
or
flags,
the
following
responses
are
implemented:
1)
identify
and
if
appropriate
implement
appropriate
emergency
actions;
2)
within
6
months,
prepare
assessment
of
causes
of
population
decline
and
recommend
modifications
to
plan
to
effect
prompt
restoration
of
management
unit
or
stock
to
non­
critical
status.
All
potential
factors
for
decline
will
be
considered
in
assessment.
WDFW,

Tribes
NMFS
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
1
Annual
2.
Review
population
performance
every
5
years.
Five
year
review
will
include:
1)
performance
review
of
each
element
of
plan
relative
to
its
specific
existing
and
any
subsequent
newly
defined
standards,
2)
cumulative
and
comprehensive
review
of
annual
population
performances
relative
to
critical
thresholds,
3)
refinement
of
recovery
standards
if
sufficient
information
is
available,
and
4)

preparation
of
recommendations
pertaining
to
management
objectives,
strategies
and
actions
including
possible
modification
or
termination
of
existing
measures
and
addition
of
new
ones.
Management
actions
will
be
pursued
based
on
recommendations.
WDFW,

Tribes
NMFS
and
other
interested
parties.
Phase
1
Every
five
years
beginning
2004.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.3
Accomplishing
Goals
of
Recovery
Plan
and
ESA
Page
374
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.

"
The
co­
managers
are
committed
to
seeing
that
no
additional
extinctions
occur."
4.3
Accomplishing
Goals
of
Recovery
Plan
and
Meeting
ESA
Objectives
The
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
comprehensively
addresses
all
factors
affecting
the
decline
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Specific
actions
and
strategies
are
identified
to
protect
and
restore
the
populations
and,
because
there
is
much
to
learn
about
summer
chum
and
the
effectiveness
of
management
actions
taken,
adaptation
based
on
knowledge
gained
is
a
part
of
the
plan.
Over
time,
learning
as
we
go,
the
co­
managers
believe
that
recovery
of
the
summer
chum
will
be
realized.

4.3.1
Achieving
the
Recovery
Plan
Goal
Recovery
activities
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
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.
This
goal
is
in
some
respects
more
rigorous
than
the
requirements
of
ESA,
since
it
goes
beyond
the
singular
need
to
secure
summer
chum
populations
from
the
risk
of
extinction.
The
plan
goal
statement
is
presented
below
and
is
discussed
in
the
Foreword
(
page
2).

The
co­
managers
believe
that
there
is
a
very
high
likelihood
that
this
plan
will
accomplish
the
recovery
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks.
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.
The
following
elements
of
the
plan
will
contribute
to
its
ultimate
success.

4.3.1.1
Artificial
Production
The
plan
identified
16
individual
summer
chum
stocks,
seven
of
which
have
recently
become
extinct
(
Part
One).
The
co­
managers
are
committed
to
seeing
that
no
additional
extinctions
occur.
Annual
assessments
of
individual
stocks
will
determine
levels
of
extinction
risk,
and
if
any
stock
is
found
to
be
at
great
risk,
hatchery
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.3
Accomplishing
Goals
of
Recovery
Plan
and
ESA
Page
375
"
The
co­
managers
will
institute
rigorous
criteria
for
the
release
of
hatchery
salmonids
into
the
waters
of
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions."

"...
the
identification
of
specific
actions,
prioritization,
and
implementation
are
a
part
of
an
on­
going
process
to
be
completed
by
the
jurisdictions
actually
controlling
the
habitat".
supplementation
using
local
brood
stock
will
be
used
to
sustain
and
recover
the
stock.
The
hatchery
supplementation
techniques
to
be
applied
under
this
plan
have
been
proven
to
be
extremely
successful
for
the
Big/
Little
Quilcene
and
Snow/
Salmon
summer
chum
salmon
stocks,
and
if
needed
can
confidently
be
used
in
the
future.
In
addition
to
the
supplementation
of
at
risk
extant
stocks,
the
plan
provides
for
the
staged
reintroduction
of
summer
chum
salmon
to
streams
where
recent
extinctions
have
occurred.
Two
such
projects
are
currently
underway,
at
Big
Beef
and
Chimacum
creeks,
and
the
first
three­
year
old
spawners
are
expected
back
in
1999.
These
and
future
reintroductions
will
further
reduce
the
overall
extinction
risk
to
summer
chum
salmon
by
increasing
the
number
of
independent
populations.

4.3.1.2
Ecological
Interactions
Two
significant
sources
of
negative
competition
and/
or
predation
were
identified
in
Part
Two
­
Region­
wide
Factors
For
Decline,
interactions
with
hatchery
salmonids
and
predation
on
adult
summer
chum
by
marine
mammals.
The
co­
managers
will
institute
rigorous
criteria
for
the
release
of
hatchery
salmonids
into
the
waters
of
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions.
These
criteria
include
time,
size
and
species
restrictions
that
are
designed
to
greatly
reduce
potential
negative
impacts
on
summer
chum
salmon.
The
co­
managers
will
monitor
and
evaluate
risk
aversion
measures
being
implemented
to
meet
these
criteria.
The
plan
recommends
that
the
on­
going
studies
of
harbor
seal
predation
on
summer
chum
salmon
continue,
and
recognizes
that
future
remedial
measures
may
be
required
if
seal
predation
is
shown
to
be
affecting
recovery.

4.3.1.3
Habitat
Habitat
degradation
was
identified
as
a
major
factor
for
decline
(
Part
Two).
Recovery
of
proper
habitat
quality
and
function
is
a
long
term
effort.
The
habitat
portion
of
the
plan
cannot
be
implemented
by
the
co­
managers,
but
rather
is
the
responsibility
of
land
and
water
management
agencies,
major
land
holders,
and
private
citizens.
The
summer
chum
plan
has
identified
watershed
and
estuarine
limiting
factors
and
measures
for
recovery,
however,
the
identification
of
specific
actions,
prioritization,
and
implementation
are
a
part
of
an
on­
going
process
to
be
completed
by
the
jurisdictions
actually
controlling
the
habitat.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.3
Accomplishing
Goals
of
Recovery
Plan
and
ESA
Page
376
"
The
co­
managers
will
limit
the
incidental
summer
chum
harvests
in
Washington
terminal
and
pre­
terminal
fisheries
to
levels
that
will
minimize
impacts
on
summer
chum
stocks."
4.3.1.4
Harvest
Management
The
harvest
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
various
terminal
and
pre­
terminal
fisheries
was
identified
as
one
of
the
factors
contributing
to
the
decline
of
summer
chum
stocks.
The
comanagers
will
limit
the
incidental
summer
chum
harvests
in
Washington
terminal
and
preterminal
fisheries
to
levels
that
will
minimize
impacts
on
summer
chum
stocks.
Annual
evaluation
and
adaptive
management
of
the
fisheries
will
assure
that
the
numbers
of
summer
chum
salmon
that
are
harvested
incidentally
to
fisheries
for
other
species
remain
at
very
low
levels.

4.3.1.5
Cumulative
Effects
of
Recovery
Actions
Taken
together,
the
above
described
conservation
and
restoration
activities
will
have
a
synergistic
effect
on
the
recovery
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks.
In
summary,
the
following
results
are
expected.
No
further
extinctions
will
occur.
Re­
introductions
of
summer
chum
to
currently
unpopulated
streams
will
occur
through
time.
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
and
evaluation
and
adaptive
management
will
assure
that
recovery
objectives
are
achieved.
Ultimately,
the
combined
effects
of
these
actions
will
recover
summer
chum
salmon.

4.3.2
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
was
to
identify
the
elements
that
would
constitute
a
successful
salmon
recovery
plan.
NMFS
described
three
major
criteria
to
be
met
by
a
conservation
plan
(
NMFS
1996a).
One
criterion
is
that
the
plan
must
have
substance;
that
is,
it
includes
measures
that
will
effect
recovery.
Another
criterion
is
that
there
must
be
certainty
that
the
measures
will
be
undertaken
by
the
parties
with
the
authority
and
means
to
implement
recovery
actions.
The
third
criterion
is
for
monitoring
and
assessment
that
will
lead
to
effective
adaptive
management
and
help
determine
what
recovery
is
and
when
it
occurs.
This
initiative
provides
the
basis
for
addressing
all
three
criteria..
However,
in
order
to
meet
the
three
criteria
and
succeed
in
recovering
summer
chum,
the
measures
summarized
in
the
following
sections
must
be
addressed
by
the
indicated
parties.
As
implementation
of
the
below
described
strategies
actions
occur,
the
participants
in
recovery
can
learn
from
the
experience,
making
adjustments
as
appropriate.
Furthermore
as
information
is
gained,
the
conditions
of
recovery
may
be
determined
and
ultimately
recovery
of
the
summer
chum
can
be
achieved.

The
1996
NMFS
guidance
document
also
presented
nine
critical
and
desirable
elements
that
should
constitute
a
salmon
restoration
strategy
for
an
ESA
listed
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.3
Accomplishing
Goals
of
Recovery
Plan
and
ESA
Page
377
4.3.2.1
NMFS
­
Critical
and
Desirable
Elements
Substance
of
the
Plan
1.
Identify
at
appropriate
scales
the
major
factors
that
have
contributed
to
decline
of
the
ESU.
2.
Establish
priorities
for
action.
3.
Establish
explicit
objectives
and
timelines
for
correcting
factors
for
decline
and
achieving
desired
population
characteristics.
4.
Establish
quantifiable
criteria
and
standards
by
which
progress
toward
each
objective
will
be
measured.
5.
Adopt
measures
(
actions)
needed
to
achieve
the
explicit
objectives.

Implementation
Certainty
6.
Provide
high
levels
of
certainty
that
the
identified
measures
and
actions
will
be
implemented,
including
necessary
authorities,
commitments,
funding,
staffing,
and
enforcement
measures.

Monitoring
7.
Establish
a
comprehensive
monitoring
and
reporting
program,
including
methods
to
measure
whether
objectives
are
being
met,
and
to
detect
subpopulation
declines
and
increases
in
each
ESU.

Other
8.
As
much
as
possible,
integrate
Federal
state,
tribal,
local,
corporate,
and
non­
governmental
activities
and
projects
that
are
designed
to
recover
salmon
populations
and
the
habitats
upon
which
they
depend.
9.
Utilize
an
adaptive
management
approach
that
actively
shapes
management
actions
to
generate
needed
information.

4.3.2.2
NMFS
Elements
and
the
Summer
Chum
Plan
Those
recovery
actions
that
will
be
implemented
by
the
co­
managers
are
in
the
areas
of
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
and
harvest
management.
Each
of
the
NMFS
recovery
plan
elements
is
discussed
below
in
the
context
of
the
co­
managers'
responsibility
and
their
implementation
of
recovery
actions.
Habitat
recovery
actions
should
also
eventually
be
incorporated
under
the
NMFS
recovery
plan
elements
but
are
not
included
in
the
following
discussion
because
they
fall
primarily
outside
the
co­
managers'
jurisdiction.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.3
Accomplishing
Goals
of
Recovery
Plan
and
ESA
Page
378
Substance
of
the
Plan
Element
1)
Identify
at
appropriate
scales
the
major
factors
that
have
contributed
to
decline
of
the
ESU.

Region­
wide
factors
contributing
to
the
observed
summer
chum
salmon
declines
in
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
were
identified
in
Part
Two
­
Region­
wide
Factors
For
Decline
of
this
recovery
plan.
Major
factors
for
decline
for
Hood
Canal
stocks
were
habitat
deterioration
and
terminal
area
fishery
harvest,
and
moderate
impacts
resulted
from
climate
effects
on
stream
flow,
interactions
with
hatchery
salmonids,
and
pre­
terminal
harvests.
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
stocks
experienced
major
cumulative
habitat
impacts
and
climate
effects
on
stream
flow,
along
with
moderate
impacts
from
pre­
terminal
harvest.
The
recent
expansion
of
harbor
seal
populations
and
their
predation
on
summer
chum
was
identified
as
a
recent
major
factor
that
may
affect
recovery.

Limiting
factors
for
summer
chum
salmon
at
the
stock,
watershed,
and
management
unit
levels
are
assessed
in
Part
Three
­
Evaluation
and
Mitigation
of
Factors
for
Decline,
which
identifies
specific
limiting
factors
and
also
provides
specific
strategies
and
actions
for
recovery.

Element
2)
Establish
priorities
for
action.

For
those
management
actions
that
are
the
responsibility
of
the
co­
managers
(
including
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
and
harvest
management)
,
the
recovery
plan
has
adopted
a
single
priority:
immediate
action.
In
fact,
substantial
co­
manager
actions
in
these
areas
have
been
underway
since
1992,
and
have
resulted
in
increased
summer
chum
salmon
runsizes
and
escapements
in
recent
years
(
see
discussions
in
Parts
One
and
Three).

Element
3)
Establish
explicit
objectives
and
timelines
for
correcting
factors
for
decline
and
achieving
desired
population
characteristics.

Specific
objectives
are
identified
in
detail
in
the
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
and
harvest
management
discussions
in
Part
Three,
and
are
summarized
above
in
section
4.2.
Each
objective
has
one
or
more
specific
actions
that
address
recovery
needs.
Specific
timelines
are
not
identified
for
the
various
objectives
and
actions
because
immediate
implementation
is
the
comanager
intent
(
see
Element
2
above).
In
some
situations,
future
actions
may
be
instituted
based
on
currently
unforeseeable
circumstances,
e.
g.
supplementation
of
a
stock
that
declines
to
a
point
of
extinction
risk,
or
an
opportunity
for
reintroduction
to
a
former
summer
chum
stream.
Adaptive
management
is
also
a
major
feature
of
the
plan
(
see
Element
9
below),
however,
since,
changes
in
management
will
be
in
response
to
future
events
and
results,
no
timelines
can
be
established.

Element
4)
Establish
quantifiable
criteria
and
standards
by
which
progress
toward
each
objective
will
be
measured.

Very
specific
and
quantifiable
criteria
and
standards
for
management
and
implementation
of
recovery
objectives
are
presented
in
the
individual
sections
of
Part
Three,
and
are
summarized
below.
Some
examples
of
specific
criteria
include;
brood
stock
collection
criteria
to
avoid
loss
of
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.3
Accomplishing
Goals
of
Recovery
Plan
and
ESA
Page
379
genetic
variability,
time
and
size
at
release
criteria
for
hatchery
salmon
to
avoid
competition
and
predation
effects
on
summer
chum,
and
exploitation
rate
criteria
to
minimize
fishery
impacts.
In
addition,
the
plan
contains
three
approaches
for
evaluating
the
abundance,
distribution,
and
extinction
risk
for
summer
chum
stocks.

Element
5)
Adopt
measures
(
actions)
needed
to
achieve
the
explicit
objectives.

Individual
action
items
(
relating
to
specific
objectives)
are
presented
in
the
artificial
production,
ecological
interactions,
and
harvest
management
sections
of
Part
Three,
and
are
summarized
above
(
section
4.2).
Many
of
the
actions
have
been
previously
implemented
and
will
be
continued,
while
others
represent
new
recovery
activities.

Implementation
Certainty
Element
6)
Provide
high
levels
of
certainty
that
the
identified
measures
and
actions
will
be
implemented,
including
necessary
authorities,
commitments,
funding,
staffing,
and
enforcement
measures.

The
co­
managers
are
the
lawfully
designated
agencies
(
under
US
v.
Washington
and
State
statutes)
with
the
responsibility
for
managing
summer
chum
salmon.
Co­
manager
recovery
activities
have
been
underway
since
1992,
and
as
a
result,
many
of
the
objectives
of
this
plan
have
been
included
in
the
normal
operation
of
WDFW
and
the
Tribes.
Management
biologists,
hatchery
personnel
and
facilities,
and
enforcement
officers
are
routinely
assigned
to
the
activities
affecting
summer
chum
salmon.
The
co­
mangers
feel
that
current
dedicated
levels
of
funding
and
staffing
are
minimally
acceptable
to
effect
summer
chum
salmon
recovery.
However,
additional
activities
are
identified
in
the
plan,
the
funding
and
implementation
of
which,
will
improve
summer
chum
salmon
management
and
likely
speed
recovery.
Important
new
measures
include
support
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects,
collection
of
information
on
productive
capacity
and
recovery
levels,
and
the
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
recovery
actions.

Monitoring
Element
7)
Establish
a
comprehensive
monitoring
and
reporting
program,
including
methods
to
measure
whether
objectives
are
being
met,
and
to
detect
subpopulation
declines
and
increases
in
each
ESU.

The
co­
managers
have
a
number
of
long
term
monitoring
programs
in
place
that
are
adequate
to
measure
general
population
responses
to
recovery
efforts.
These
include
spawner
escapement
monitoring,
harvest
accounting,
run
size
estimation
procedures,
and
hatchery
release
accounting.
The
plan
identifies
specific
ways
that
these
existing
programs
can
be
improved.
In
addition,
needed
new
monitoring
and
evaluation
action
items
are
identified
in
Part
Three
(
and
see
above
summary
in
section
4.2.5).
Some
examples
are;
collection
of
comprehensive
age
data
for
use
in
determining
production
rates
for
summer
chum
stocks,
genetic
stock
identification
in
fisheries
to
help
minimize
selective
impacts,
evaluation
of
the
success
of
supplementation
programs,
and
monitoring
of
straying
of
supplemented
stocks.
While
the
existing
co­
manager
monitoring
and
evaluation
programs
are
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.4
Population­
based
Recovery
Goals
Page
380
sufficient
to
achieve
the
long
range
recovery
goals
of
this
plan,
the
recommended
new
monitoring
efforts
will
allow
more
protective
and
directed
recovery
approaches
and
will
ultimately
speed
recovery.

Other
Element
8)
As
much
as
possible,
integrate
Federal
state,
tribal,
local,
corporate,
and
nongovernmental
activities
and
projects
that
are
designed
to
recover
salmon
populations
and
the
habitats
upon
which
they
depend.

This
recovery
plan
is
the
combined
effort
of
technical
staff
members
representing
the
co­
managers
(
WDFW
and
The
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Tribes),
and
representatives
of
NMFS
and
USFWS.
Additionally,
private
citizen
salmon
enhancement
groups
were
provided
opportunities
to
meet
with
the
co­
managers
and
to
offer
comments
on
plan
elements
affecting
their
projects.
As
the
plan
proceeds,
there
will
be
opportunities
for
general
public
comment
on
all
parts
of
the
recovery
effort.

Element
9)
Utilize
an
adaptive
management
approach
that
actively
shapes
management
actions
to
generate
needed
information.

Adaptive
management
is
a
critical
element
of
the
recovery
plan
for
summer
chum
salmon.
Annual
and
longer
term
evaluations
of
the
abundance,
distribution,
and
extinction
risk
of
summer
chum
stocks
will
guide
the
future
application
of
the
recovery
activities
under
this
plan.
At
the
same
time,
monitoring
and
evaluation
programs
will
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
individual
recovery
efforts
like
supplementation
and
reintroduction,
fishery
impacts,
and
seal
predation.
These
evaluation
and
adaptive
management
approaches
are
described
in
Part
One,
1.7
Stock
Evaluations,
and
in
Part
Three,
3.6
Program
Integration
and
Adaptive
Management
(
see
also
summary
in
section
4.2.6
below).

4.4
Population­
based
Recovery
Goals
The
following
sections
describe
how
the
overall
goal
to
protect
and
restore
summer
chum
is
to
be
achieved
and
summarize
measures
to
be
taken
to
meet
that
goal.
However,
specific
quantitative,
population­
based
recovery
goals
are
also
needed
that
determine
when
recovery
has
been
achieved.
These
goals
must
account
for
the
condition
and
dynamics
of
the
summer
chum
populations
and
should
define
recovery
in
terms
of
population
abundance,
productivity
and
diversity.
For
a
given
population,
management
unit
or
all
of
the
summer
chum
to
be
recovered,
goals
specified
as
levels
or
ranges
of
summer
chum
abundance
(
run
size)
and
escapement
must
be
specified,
consistent
with
the
productive
capacity
of
the
habitat.
Lacking
adequate
information
on
the
relationship
of
habitat
to
productive
capacity,
historical
experience
with
populations
may
initially
serve
to
set
the
abundance
and
escapement
recovery
goals.

But
in
addition
to
defining
abundance
and
escapement
recovery
goals,
it
is
critical
to
determine
productivity
goals;
that
is,
target
production
rates
or
ranges
of
rates.
Productivity
can
be
thought
of
as
a
rate
of
survival;
that
is,
the
number
of
salmon
produced
for
each
parent
spawner
that
survive
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.5
Plan
Implementation
Page
381
over
a
given
life
stage
or
range
of
life
stages.
Productivity
may
be
measured,
for
example,
over
the
entire
life
cycle
as
the
number
of
recruits
per
spawner.
Productivity
determines
the
amount
of
harvest
a
given
population
can
support
and
it
determines
the
resiliency
of
that
population;
that
is,
it's
ability
to
recover
and
to
sustain
itself
under
a
range
of
environmental
conditions.
For
a
population
to
be
considered
recovered,
it
should
demonstrate
adequate
productivity
for
sustainability
and
harvest,
as
defined
by
the
productivity
recovery
goals.

Finally,
population­
based
recovery
goals
must
include
diversity.
This
set
of
goals
should
include
maintaining
the
geographic
range
and
variable
life
histories
expressed
by
the
populations
of
summer
chum.
To
a
large
extent
this
consideration
is
already
addressed
in
this
recovery
plan
with
the
focus
first
on
protecting
and
restoring
existing
populations,
but
also
on
restoring
summer
chum
to
watersheds
where
they
are
now
extinct.

The
co­
managers
have
defined
performance
standards
upon
which
to
measure
the
progress
of
the
summer
chum
salmon
populations
towards
achieving
recovery
(
see
section
3.6.4).
In
addition,
the
co­
managers
are
developing
a
comprehensive
set
of
population­
based
recovery
goals,
addressing
abundance,
productivity
and
diversity
as
described
above.
These
recovery
goals
are
scheduled
for
completion
in
spring
2000
and
will
be
made
available
in
a
supplement
to
this
recovery
plan
(
see
section
4.6,
Plan
Supplements).

4.5
Plan
Implementation
The
above
summary
descriptions
of
objectives,
strategies
and
actions
for
summer
chum
protection
and
recovery
include
listings
of
the
participants
with
the
authority
or
jurisdiction
to
pursue
specific
actions
or
strategies
and
also
listings
of
other
participants
who
can
provide
support
as
partners.
The
fisheries
co­
managers,
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Tribes,
are
committed
to
carrying
out
the
provisions
of
the
plan
for
which
they
have
the
authority
(
measures
addressing
harvest
management,
artificial
production
and
ecological
interactions)
and
to
supporting
other
parties
who
pursue
recommendations
of
the
plan
for
which
they
have
jurisdiction
or
authority
(
e.
g.,
counties
in
their
efforts
to
address
habitat
protection
and
recovery
measures).
The
co­
managers
have,
in
fact,
since
1992
been
implementing
many
of
the
actions
specified
in
this
initiative.
The
process
of
developing
the
initiative
has
confirmed
and
refined
many
of
the
comanagers
existing
management
measures
and
led
to
the
development
and
immediate
implementation
of
others.
The
co­
managers
intend
to
file
this
initiative
with
the
federal
court
to
be
adopted
as
a
court
order
under
U.
S.
v
Washington.

The
preparers
of
this
plan
have
attempted
to
develop
a
comprehensive
document
that
addresses
all
the
components
for
protection
and
recovery
of
summer
chum
and
provides
a
scientific
basis
for
recommending
actions/
strategies.
However,
particularly
with
respect
to
summer
chum
habitat,
this
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
this
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
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.6
Plan
Supplements
Page
382
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
this
plan.

The
basic
requirements
for
the
harvest
management,
artificial
production
and
ecological
interaction
components
of
the
plan
are
currently
being
met
by
resources
and
funding
available
to
WDFW,
the
Tribes
and
USFWS.
These
include:
1)
the
annual
planning,
regulation,
monitoring
and
enforcement
of
fisheries
and
also,
monitoring
of
harvests
and
escapements;
2)
the
operation,
basic
assessments
and
monitoring
of
supplementation
and
reintroduction
projects;
and
3)
all
of
the
mitigative
measures
to
prevent
or
reduce
ecological
impacts
on
summer
chum
from
potential
hatchery­
caused
ecological
interactions.
All
of
these
currently
supported
actions/
strategies
are
categorized
in
the
tables
above
as
Phase
1,
meaning
that
funding
and
resources
to
execute
the
measures
are
presently
in
place.
There
are,
however,
several
actions
under
jurisdiction
of
the
fisheries
co­
managers
that
are
categorized
as
Phase
2
or
a
combination
of
Phases
1
and
2,
meaning
the
actions
are
not
funded
or
could
be
improved
with
additional
funding.
Development
of
the
needed
support
of
these
actions
is
strongly
recommended
to
speed
recovery.
Still,
given
the
existing
available
resources
and
funding,
the
co­
managers'
believe
the
summer
chum
conservation
requirements
under
their
jurisdiction
are
being
met.

Many
of
the
recommended
habitat­
related
strategies
and
actions
are
not
currently
funded
(
Phase
2
in
Tables
4.4
and
4.5).
As
previously
noted,
additional
participation
in
planning
is
expected
to
result
in
the
specification
of
habitat
protection
and
restoration
measures
for
which
funding
will
need
to
be
found.
On­
going
and
new
funding
sources
through
the
county,
state
and
federal
governments
as
well
as
voluntary
participation
by
citizens,
landowners
and
others
can
help
to
meet
the
requirements
for
funding
and
implementation
of
these
measures.

It
is
expected
that
the
measures
identified
in
this
plan
and
that
are
subsequently
developed
based
on
recommendations
of
the
plan
will
be
incorporated
into
the
ESA
permitting
process.
That
process
has
been
in
development
in
the
same
time
frame
as
this
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).

4.6
Plan
Supplements
Two
additional
reports
have
been
published
to
provide
supporting
information
for
this
initiative:
Supplemental
Report
No.
1
­
Revised
Estimates
of
Escapement
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Natural
Spawning
Summer
Chum
Populations
(
Haymes
2000),
and
Supplemental
Report
No.
2­
Public
Review
Comments
on
Draft
Habitat
Sections
of
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
(
PNPTT
and
WDFW
2000).
The
first
supplement
provides
a
detailed
description
of
results
from
an
intensive
review
of
the
escapement
data,
including
revised
estimates
of
annual
summer
chum
salmon
escapements
and
ratings
of
the
quality
of
the
estimates.
Supplemental
Report
No.
2
is
a
compilation
of
all
written
comments
received
from
distribution
of
a
draft
of
the
habitat
element
of
the
initiative
(
section
3.4)
in
March,
1999.
Additional
supplemental
reports
to
the
initiative
will
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
4.6
Plan
Supplements
Page
383
prepared
in
the
course
of
its
implementation.
A
third
supplement
describing
population­
based
summer
chum
salmon
recovery
goals
is
scheduled
for
completion
in
spring
2000.
Later
this
year,
another
supplement
comprising
the
results
of
the
first
annual
plan
review
will
also
be
made
available.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
385
References
Allen,
B.
1974.
Early
marine
life
history
of
Big
Qualicum
River
chum
salmon,
p
137­
148.
In
Harding,
D.
R.
(
ed.)
Proceedings
of
the
1974
northeast
Pacific
pink
and
chum
salmon
workshop.
Dept.
of
Environment
and
Fisheries,
Vancouver,
B.
C.

Allendorf,
F.
W.
and
N.
Ryman.
1987.
Genetic
management
of
hatchery
stocks,
p.
141­
159.
In
Population
genetics
&
fishery
management.
Edited
by
N.
Ryman
and
F.
Utter.
Univ.
of
Wash.
Press,
Seattle,
WA.

Allendorf,
F.
W.,
D.
Bayles,
D.
L.
Bottom,
K.
P.
Currens,
C.
A.
Frissell,
D.
Hankin,
J.
A.
Lichatowich,
W.
Nehlsen,
P.
C.
Trotter,
and
T.
H.
Williams.
1997.
Prioritizing
Pacific
salmon
stocks
for
conservation.
Conservation
Biology
11.1:
140­
152.

Ames,
J.
1983.
Salmon
stock
interactions
in
Puget
Sound:
a
preliminary
look.
In
M.
A.
Miller
(
ed.),
Southeast
Alaska
coho
salmon
research
and
management
review
and
planning
workshop,
18­
19
May
1982.
Alaska
Dept.
Fish
and
Game,
Juneau,
AK.
109
p.

Ames,
J.
1984.
Puget
Sound
chum
salmon
escapement
estimates
using
spawner
curve
methodology,
p.
135­
148.
In
Symons,
P.
E.
K.
and
M.
Waldichuk
(
eds.),
Proc.
of
the
Workshop
on
Stream
Indexing
for
Salmon
Escapement
Estimation,
West
Vancouver,
B.
C.,
2­
3
February
1984.
Can.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
Tech.
Rpt.
no.
1326.

Ames,
J.,
and
H.
Beecher.
1995.
Recommended
spawning
flows
for
Cedar
River
sockeye
salmon:
with
a
review
of
spawning
distribution
and
flood
risk
studies
­
Rpt.
to
Cedar
River
In­
stream
Flow
Committee.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
108
p.

Ames,
J.
1997.
Status
summary
­
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
­
Report
to
the
Joint
Natural
Resources
Cabinet.
October,
1997.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
7
p.

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

Bakkala,
R.
G.
1970.
Synopsis
of
biological
data
on
the
chum
salmon,
Oncorhynchus
keta
Walbaum
1792.
FAO
species
synop.
No.
41,
U.
S.
Fish.
Wild.
Serv.
circ.
315.
89
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
386
Bams,
R.
A.,
and
C.
N.
H.
Lam.
1983.
Influences
of
deteriorating
water
quality
on
growth
and
development
of
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
larvae
in
a
Japanese
style
keeper
channel.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
40:
2098­
2104.

Bax,
N.
J.,
E.
O.
Salo,
B.
P.
Snyder,
C.
A.
Simenstad,
and
W.
J.
Kinney.
1978.
Salmonid
out­
migration
studies
in
Hood
Canal
(
final
rpt.,
phase
III,
Jan.­
July
1977).
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRIUW
7819,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
128
p.

Bax,
N.
J.,
E.
O.
Salo
and
B.
P.
Snyder.
1979.
Salmonid
out­
migration
studies
in
Hood
Canal
(
final
rpt.,
phase
IV,
Jan.­
July
1978).
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
7921.
89
p.

Bax,
N.
J.,
E.
O.
Salo,
and
B.
P.
Snyder.
1980.
Salmonid
out­
migration
studies
in
Hood
Canal
(
final
rpt.,
phase
V,
Jan.­
July
1979).
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
8010,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
55
p.

Bax,
N.
J.
and
C.
J.
Whitmus.
1981.
Early
marine
survival
and
migratory
behavior
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
released
from
the
Enetai
Hatchery,
Washington
in
1980.
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
8109,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
48
p.

Bax,
N.
J.
1982.
Seasonal
and
annual
variations
in
the
movement
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
through
Hood
Canal,
Washington,
p.
208­
218.
In
Brannon,
E.
L.
and
E.
O.
Salo
(
eds.)
Proceedings
of
the
Salmon
and
Trout
Migratory
Behavior
Symposium.
School
of
Fisheries,
Univ.
of
Wash,
Seattle
WA.

Bax,
N.
J.
1983.
The
early
migration
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
through
Hood
Canal
­
its
variability
and
consequences.
Ph.
D.
Dissertation,
Univ.
of
Wash,
Seattle,
WA.
196
p.

Beamer,
E.
M.,
and
R.
G.
LaRock.
1998.
Fish
use
and
water
quality
associated
with
a
levee
crossing
the
tidally
influenced
portion
of
Browns
Slough,
Skagit
River
Estuary,
Washington.
A
report
prepared
for
Skagit
County
Diking
District
No.
22.
Skagit
System
Cooperative,
La
Conner,
WA.

Beamish,
R.
J.,
and
D.
R.
Bouillon.
1993.
Pacific
salmon
production
trends
in
relation
to
climate.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
50:
1002­
1016.

Beamish,
R.
J.,
C.
M.
Neville,
and
A.
J.
Cass.
1997.
Production
of
Fraser
River
sockeye
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka)
in
relation
to
decadal­
scale
changes
in
the
climate
and
the
ocean.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
54:
543­
554.

Berejikian,
B.
A.
1995.
The
effects
of
hatchery
and
wild
ancestry
and
experience
on
the
relative
ability
of
steelhead
trout
fry
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
to
avoid
a
benthic
predator.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
52:
2476­
2482.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
387
Beschta,
R.
L.,
R.
E.
Bilby,
G.
W.
Brown,
L.
B.
Holtby,
and
T.
D.
Hofstra.
1987.
Stream
temperature
and
aquatic
habitat:
fisheries
and
forestry
interactions,
p.
191­
232.
In
Salo,
E.
O.,
and
T.
W.
Cundy
(
eds.)
Streamside
management:
forestry
and
fishery
interactions.
College
Of
Forest
Research,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Beschta,
R.
L.,
J.
R.
Boyle,
C.
C.
Chambers,
W.
P.
Gibson,
S.
V.
Gregory,
J.
Grizzel,
J.
C.
Hagar,
J.
L.
Li,
W.
C.
McComb,
M.
L.
Reiter,
G.
H.
Taylor,
and
J.
E.
Warila.
1995.
Cumulative
effects
of
forest
practices
in
Oregon.
Prepared
for
Oregon
Dept
of
Forestry
by
Ore.
State
Univ.,
Corvallis,
OR.

Bilby,
R.
E.
1984.
Removal
of
woody
debris
may
affect
stream
channel
stability.
J.
of
Forestry
82:
609­
613.

Bilby,
R.
E.,
and
J.
W.
Ward,
1989.
Changes
in
characteristics
and
function
of
large
woody
debris
with
increasing
size
of
streams
in
western
Washington.
Trans.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
118:
368­
378.

Bisson,
P.
A.,
R.
E.
Bilby,
M.
D.
Bryant,
C.
A.
Dolloff,
G.
B.
Grette,
R.
A.
House,
M.
L.
Murphy,
K.
V.
Koski,
and
J.
R.
Sedell.
1987.
Large
woody
debris
in
forested
streams
in
the
Pacific
Northwest:
past,
present,
and
future,
p.
143­
190.
In
Salo,
E.
O.,
and
T.
W.
Cundy
(
eds.).
Stream
management
:
forestry
and
fishery
interactions.
Contribution
no.
57,
Institute
of
Forest
Resources,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Bjornn,
T.
C.,
and
D.
W.
Reiser.
1991.
Habitat
requirements
of
salmonids
in
streams,
p.
83­
138.
In
Meehan,
W.
R.
(
ed.)
Influences
of
forest
and
rangeland
management
on
salmonid
fishes
and
their
habitats.
Special
Publication
19,
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.

Booth,
D.
B.,
and
C.
J.
Jackson.
1997.
Urbanization
of
aquatic
systems
 
degradation
thresholds,
stormwater
detention,
and
the
limits
of
mitigation.
Water
Resources
Bulletin
33:
1077­
1090.

Bouchard,
R.,
and
D.
Kennedy.
1997.
A
review
and
evaluation
of
Twana
ethnographic
sites
on
the
North
Fork
Skokomish
River.
Tacoma
Public
Utilities,
Tacoma,
WA.

Brodeur,
R.
D.
1991.
Ontogenetic
variations
in
the
type
and
size
of
prey
consumed
by
juvenile
coho,
Oncorhynchus
kisutch,
and
chinook,
O.
tshawytscha,
salmon.
Environ.
Biol.
Fishes
30:
303­
315.

Brock,
V.
E.,
and
R.
H.
Riffenburgh.
1960.
Fish
schooling:
a
possible
factor
in
reducing
predation.
J.
Cons.
Int.
Explor.
Mer.
25:
307­
217.

Brosofske,
K.
D.,
J.
Chen,
R.
J.
Naiman,
and
J.
F.
Franklin.
1997.
Effects
of
harvest
on
microclimate
from
small
streams
to
uplands
in
western
Washington.
Ecological
Applications
7:
1188­
1200.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
388
Busack,
C.
A.
and
K.
P.
Currens.
1995.
Genetic
risks
in
hatchery
operations:
fundamental
concepts
and
issues,
p
71­
80.
In
Schramm,
H.
L.
Jr.,
and
R.
G.
Piper
(
eds.)
Uses
and
effects
of
cultured
fishes
in
aquatic
ecosystems,
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
15.

Busack,
C.,
B.
Watson,
T.
Pearsons,
C.
Knudsen,
S.
Phelps,
and
M.
Johnston.
1997.
Yakima
fisheries
project
spring
chinook
supplementation
plan.
185
p.

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

Cavalli­
Sforza,
L.
L.,
and
A.
W.
F.
Edwards.
1967.
Phylogenetic
analysis:
Models
and
estimation
procedures.
Evolution
21:
550­
570.

Cederholm,
C.
J.
1972.
The
short­
term
physical
and
biological
effects
of
stream
channelization
at
Big
Beef
Creek,
Kitsap
County,
Washington.
M.
S.
Thesis,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Chamberlin,
T.
W.,
R.
D.
Harr,
and
F.
H.
Everest,
1991.
Timber
harvesting,
silviculture,
and
watershed
processes,
p.
181­
205.
In
Meehan,
W.
R.
(
ed.)
Influences
of
forest
and
rangeland
management
on
salmonid
fishes
and
their
habitats.
Special
Publication
19,
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.

Chapman,
D.
W.
1988.
Critical
review
of
variables
used
to
define
effects
of
fines
in
redds
of
large
salmonids.
Trans.
A.
Fish
Soc.
117:
1­
21.

Cook­
Tabor,
C.
K.
1994.
Summer
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Inter.,
Fish
and
Wild.
Serv.,
Lacey,
WA.
52
p.

Crawford,
B.
A.
1997.
Letter
to
M.
Schiewe,
dated
April
25,
1997
(
subject:
Response
to
partial
draft
of
NMFS
review
of
the
status
of
chum
salmon).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
62
p.
+
attachments
Cuenco,
M.
L.,
T.
W.
H.
Backman,
and
P.
R.
Mundy.
1993.
The
use
of
supplementation
to
aid
in
natural
stock
restoration,
p.
269­
293.
In
J.
G.
Cloud
and
G.
H.
Thorgaard
(
eds.)
Genetic
Conservation
of
Salmonid
Fishes.
Proceedings
of
a
NATO
Advanced
Study
Institute,
Plenum
Press,
New
York,
NY.

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

Dawe,
G.
(
No
year
cited).
The
classification
and
description
of
predator
attack
marks
in
juvenile
pink
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha).
Canadian
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans.
Unpublished.

Day,
D.,
W.
Palsson,
K.
Hoeman,
and
G.
Bargmann.
1995.
Puget
Sound
bottomfish
status
of
stocks
report
(
Draft
#
1).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.
Olympia,
WA.
171
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
389
Desbonnet,
A.
L.,
P.
Pogue,
D.
Reis,
J.
Boyd,
J.
Wills,
M.
Imperial.
1995.
Development
of
coastal
vegetated
buffer
programs.
Coastal
Management
23:
91­
109.

Dolloff,
C.
D.
1986.
Effects
of
stream
cleaning
on
juvenile
coho
salmon
and
dolly
varden
in
southeast
Alaska.
Trans.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
115:
743­
755.

Eames,
J.
M.,
T.
J.
Quinn
II,
and
M.
Hino.
1983.
1977
Northern
Puget
Sound
adult
coho
and
chum
tagging
studies.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
239
p.

Ebbesmeyer
C.
C.,
C.
A.
Coomes,
G.
A.
Cannon,
and
D.
E.
Bretschneider.
1989.
Linkage
of
ocean
and
fjord
dynamics
at
decadal
period.
American
Geophys.
Union
Geophys.
Monogr.
55:
399­
417.

Egan,
R.
1978.
Salmon
spawning
ground
data
report.
WDF
prog.
report
No.
51.
Wash.
State
Dept.
Fish.
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
484
p.

Emlen,
J.
M.
1995.
Population
viability
of
the
Snake
River
chinook
salmon.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
52:
1442­
1448.

Emmett,
R.
L.,
S.
L.
Stone,
S.
A.
Hinton,
and
M.
E.
Monaco.
1991.
Distribution
and
abundance
of
fishes
and
invertebrates
in
west
coast
estuaries,
Volume
II:
species
life
history
summaries.
ELMR
Rep.
No.
8,
NOAA/
NOS
Strategic
Environ.
Assessments
Div.,
Rockville,
MD.
329
p.

Emmett,
R.
L.,
and
M.
H.
Schiewe.
1997.
Estuarine
and
ocean
survival
of
northeastern
Pacific
salmon:
Proceedings
of
the
workshop.
NOAA
tech.
memo.
no.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
29,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
313
p.

Evans,
W.
A.,
and
B.
Johnson.
1980.
Fish
migration
and
fish
passage:
a
practical
guide
to
solving
fish
passage
problems.
USFS
rpt.
no.
EM­
7100­
2.
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Ag.,
Forest
Service,
Wash.
D.
C.

FAO­
UN
(
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
of
the
United
Nations).
1981.
Conservation
of
the
genetic
resources
of
fish:
problems
and
recommendations.
Report
of
the
Expert
Consultation
on
the
Genetic
Resources
of
Fish,
Rome,
Italy,
9­
13
June
1980.
FAO
Fisheries
Technical
Paper
217.
43
p.

FEMAT
(
Forest
Ecosystem
Management
Team).
1993.
Forest
Ecosystem
Management:
an
ecological,
economic,
and
social
assessment.
Report
of
the
Forest
Ecosystem
Management
Team,
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office
1993­
783­
071.
U.
S.
Government
Printing
Office
for
the
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Agri.,
Forest
Serv.;
U.
S.
Dept.
of
the
Inter.,
Fish
and
Wild.
Serv.,
Bureau
of
Land
Mgt.,
and
Nat.
Park
Serv.;
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Comm.,
Nat.
Ocean.
and
Atmospheric
Admin.
and
Nat.
Mar.
Fish.
Serv.;
and
U.
S.
Envir.
Prot.
Ag.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
390
Feller,
R.
J.
1974.
Trophic
analysis
of
juvenile
chum
and
pink
salmon
from
Puget
Sound,
1970­
72.
Pp.
149­
160
in
Harding,
D.
R.
(
ed.)
Proceedings
of
the
1974
northeast
Pacific
pink
and
chum
salmon
workshop.
Dep.
Of
Env.
Fish,
Vancouver,
B.
C.

FERC
(
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission).
1996.
Final
Environmental
Impact
Statement,
Cushman
Hydroelectric
Project
(
FERC
Project
No.
460),
Washington.
FERC/
EIS­
0095F,
Washington
DC.

Fiscus,
G.
1969.
1968
Admiralty
Inlet
chum
salmon
tagging.
Pp.
12­
19
in
1968
WDF
Annual
Report,
Wash.
State
Dept.
Fish.,
Olympia,
WA.

Francis,
R.
C.
and
S.
R.
Hare.
1997.
Regime
scale
climate
forcing
of
salmon
populations
in
the
northeast
Pacific
­
some
new
thoughts
and
findings,
p.
113­
128.
In
Emmett,
R.
L.,
and
M.
H.
Schiewe
(
eds.)
Estuarine
and
ocean
survival
of
northeastern
Pacific
salmon:
Proceedings
of
the
workshop.
NOAA
tech.
memo.
no.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
29,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.

Fresh,
K.
L.,
D.
Rabin,
C.
A.
Simenstad,
E.
O.
Salo,
K.
Garrison
and
L.
Matheson.
1979.
Fish
Ecology
studies
in
the
Nisqually
Reach
area
of
southern
Puget
Sound,
Washington
(
final
rpt.,
March
1977­
Aug.
1978).
Univ.
Washington,
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
Final
Rep.
FRI­
UW­
7904.
229
p.

Fresh,
K.
L.,
R.
D.
Cardwell,
B.
P.
Snyder,
and
E.
O.
Salo.
1980.
Some
hatchery
strategies
for
reducing
predation
upon
juvenile
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
in
freshwater,
p.
79­
89.
In
Proceedings
of
the
North
Pacific
Aquiculture
Symposium.
Alaska
Dept.
Fish
and
Game.
Anchorage,
Alaska.

Fresh,
K.
L.
(
ed.).
1984.
Evaluation
of
potential
species
interaction
effects
in
the
planning
and
selection
of
salmonid
enhancement
projects
(
unpublished).
Species
Interaction
Workgroup
(
SWIG)
of
the
Enhancement
Planning
Team.
Wash.
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wild.,
and
Northwest
Indian
Fish.
Comm.,
Olympia,
WA.

Fresh,
K.
L.,
and
S.
L.
Schroder.
1987.
Influence
of
the
abundance,
size,
and
yolk
reserves
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
on
predation
by
freshwater
fishes
in
a
coastal
stream.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
44(
2):
236­
243.

Fresh,
K.
L.
1997.
The
role
of
competition
and
predation
in
the
decline
of
Pacific
salmon
and
steelhead,
p.
245­
275.
In
Stouder,
D.
J.,
P.
A.
Bisson,
and
R.
J.
Naiman
(
eds.)
Pacific
Salmon
and
Their
Ecosystems:
Status
and
Future
Options,
Chapman
and
Hall,
New
York
City,
NY.

Furniss,
M.
J.,
T.
D.
Roelofs,
and
C.
S.
Yee.
1991.
Road
construction
and
maintenance,
p.
297­
324.
In
Meehan,
W.
R.
(
ed.)
Influences
of
forest
and
rangeland
management
on
salmonid
fishes
and
their
habitats.
Special
Publication
19,
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
391
Fuss,
H.
J.
and
C.
W.
Hopley.
1991.
Survival,
marine
distribution,
and
age
at
maturity
of
Hood
Canal
hatchery
chum,
p.
9­
16.
In
B.
White
and
I.
Guthrie
(
eds.)
Proceedings
of
the
15th
Northeast
Pacific
Pink
and
Chum
Salmon
Workshop.
Pacific
Salmon
Comm.,
and
Can.
Dept.
Fish
and
Oceans,
Vancouver,
B.
C.

Fuss,
H.
J.
1997a.
Can
hatchery­
origin
salmonids
establish
naturally
reproducing
populations?
­
WDFW
technical
report.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
25
p.

Fuss,
H.
J.
1997b.
Length­
weight
relationship
for
juvenile
chum
salmon
(
table).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
1
p.

Gallagher,
A.
F.
1979.
An
analysis
of
factors
affecting
brood
year
returns
in
the
wild
stocks
of
Puget
Sound
chum
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
and
pink
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha).
M.
S.
thesis,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
152
p.

Gerke,
R.
J.,
and
V.
W.
Kaczynski.
1972.
Food
of
juvenile
pink
and
chum
salmon
in
Puget
Sound,
Washington
­
WDF
tech.
rpt.
10.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
27
p.

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

Hamma
Hamma
Supplementation
Subcommittee.
1997.
Hamma
Hamma
River
summer
chum
salmon
supplementation
program
­
HCSEG,
LLTK,
PNPTC,
Skokomish
Tribe
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
USFWS,
and
WDFW.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.
Olympia,
WA.
12
p.

Hard,
J.
J.,
R.
P.
Jones,
Jr.,
M.
R.
Delarm,
and
R.
S.
Waples.
1992.
Pacific
salmon
and
artificial
propagation
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
NOAA
tech.
memo
NMFS­
NWFSC­
2,
U.
S.
Dept.
Comm.,
NOAA,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
Seattle,
WA.
56
p.

Hargreaves,
N.
B.
and
R.
J.
LaBrasseur.
1985.
Species
selective
predation
on
juvenile
pink
(
Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha)
and
chum
salmon
(
O.
keta)
by
coho
salmon
(
O.
kisutch).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
42:
659­
668.

Hargreaves,
N.
B.
and
R.
J.
LaBrasseur.
1986.
Size
selectivity
of
coho
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
preying
on
juvenile
chum
salmon
(
O.
keta).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
43:
581­
586.

Hastein,
T.
and
T.
Lindstad.
1991.
Diseases
in
wild
and
cultured
salmon:
possible
interaction.
Aquaculture,
98:
277­
288.

Hawkins,
S.
W.
and
J.
M.
Tipping.
In
press.
Predation
by
juvenile
hatchery
salmonids
on
wild
fall
chinook
salmon
fry
in
the
Lewis
River,
Washington.
California
Fish
and
Game
Dept.,
Sacramento,
CA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
392
Haymes,
J.
H.
2000.
Revised
estimates
of
escapement
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
natural
spawning
summer
chum
populations.
Supplemental
Report
No.
1
to
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

HCSMP
(
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Management
Plan).
1986.
United
States
v.
Washington,
No.
9213.
Sub­
proceeding
No.
83­
8.
26
p.

Henegar,
O.
L.,
and
K.
W.
Harmon.
1971.
A
review
of
references
to
channelization
and
its
environmental
impact.
Pages
79­
83
in
Stream
channelization.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.,
Bethesda,
MD.

Hillman,
T.
W.
and
J.
W.
Mullan.
1989.
Effect
of
hatchery
releases
on
the
abundance
of
wild
juvenile
salmonids,
p.
265­
285.
In
Summer
and
Winter
Ecology
of
Juvenile
Chinook
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Trout
in
the
Wenatchee
River,
Washington
­
Report
to
Chelan
County
PUD.
D.
W.
Chapman
Consultants,
Inc.,
Boise,
ID.

Hirschi,
R.,
and
M.
Reed.
1998.
Salmon
and
trout
life
history
study
in
the
Dungeness
River.
Jamestown
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Blyn,
WA.

Hoar,
W.
S.
1951.
The
behavior
of
chum,
pink,
and
coho
salmon
in
relation
to
their
seaward
migration.
J.
Fish
Res.
Bd.
8:
241­
263.

Hodges,
J.
I.,
J.
G.
King,
B.
Conant
and
H.
A.
Hanson.
1996.
Aerial
surveys
of
waterbirds
in
Alaska
1957­
94:
population
trends
and
observer
variability.
Information
and
Technology
Report
4,
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Inter.,
National
Biological
Service.

Holtby,
L.
B.,
T.
E.
McMahon,
and
J.
C.
Scrivener.
1989.
Stream
temperatures
and
inter­
annual
variability
in
the
emigration
timing
of
coho
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
smolts
and
fry
and
chum
salmon
(
O.
keta)
fry
from
Carnation
Creek,
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
46:
1396­
1405.

Holtz,
T.,
T.
Liptan,
and
T.
Schueler.
1998.
Beyond
innovative
development:
site
design
techniques
to
minimize
impacts
to
salmon
habitat.
Presentations
at
the
Salmon
in
the
City
Conference,
Mt.
Vernon,
WA.

Horner,
R.
R.
and
C.
W.
May.
1998.
Watershed
urbanization
and
the
decline
of
salmon
in
Puget
Sound
Streams.
Presentation
at
the
Salmon
in
the
City
conference,
Mount
Vernon,
WA.

Hunter,
J.
G.
1959.
Survival
and
production
of
pink
and
chum
salmon
in
a
coastal
stream.
J.
Fish.
Reserve
Bd.
Can.
16:
835­
886.

Iwata,
M.
1982.
Transition
of
fry
into
saltwater,
p.
204­
207.
In
Brannon,
E.
L.
(
ed.)
Proceedings
of
the
salmon
and
trout
migratory
behavior
symposium.
School
of
Fisheries,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
393
Jeffries,
S.
J.,
J.
M.
London,
and
M.
L.
Wilson.
1999.
Estimates
of
harbor
seal
predation
on
selected
Hood
Canal
salmon
run
for
fall
1998
(
Annual
prog.
rpt.).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
33
p.

Juanes,
F.
1994.
What
determines
prey
size
selectivity
in
piscivorous
fishes?,
p.
79­
100.
In
Stouder,
D.
J,
K.
L.
Fresh,
R.
J.
Feller
(
eds.)
Theory
and
Application
in
Fish
Feeding
Ecology.
Univ.
of
South
Carolina
Press,
Columbia,
SC.

Johnson,
O.
W.,
W.
S.
Grant,
R.
G.
Kope,
K.
Neely,
F.
W.
Waknitz,
and
R.
S.
Waples.
1997.
Status
review
of
chum
salmon
from
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.,
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
32,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
280
p.

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

Kaczynski,
V.,
and
J.
Plamisano.
1992.
A
review
of
management
and
environmental
factors
responsible
for
the
decline
and
lack
of
recovery
of
Oregon's
wild
anadromous
salmonids.
Report
to
Oregon
Forest
Industries
Council,
Salem,
OR.
292
p.

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

Kendra,
W.
1991.
Quality
of
salmonid
hatchery
effluents
during
a
summer
low­
flow
season.
Trans.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
120:
43­
51.

King
County.
1989.
Bear
Creek
basin
current
and
future
conditions
analysis.
Dept.
of
Public
Works,
Surface
Water
Management
Division,
Seattle,
WA.

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

Koski,
K.
V.
1981.
The
survival
and
quality
of
two
stocks
of
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
from
egg
deposition
to
emergence
in
a
controlled
stream
environment
at
Big
Beef
Creek,
p.
330­
333.
In
Lasker,
R.,
and
K.
Sherman
(
eds.)
The
early
life
history
of
fish:
recent
studies.
Rapp.
P.­
v
Reun.
Cons.
Int.
Explor.
Mer.
178
p.

Lampsakis,
N.
1994.
Memorandum
(
subject:
chum
entry
pattern
data)
to
Tim
Tynan,
WDFW,
and
Keith
Lutz,
NWIFC.
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council,
Kingston,
WA.
25
p.

LeClair,
L.
L.
1995.
Memorandum
(
subject:
1995
Area
20
chum
by­
catch)
to
Tim
Tynan,
WDFW.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
394
LeClair,
L.
L.
1996.
Memorandum
(
subject:
1996
Area
20
chum
by­
catch)
to
Tim
Tynan,
WDFW.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

Lee,
D.
C.,
and
B.
E.
Rieman.
1997.
Population
viability
assessment
of
salmonids
by
using
probabilistic
networks.
North
Amer
J.
Fish.
Mgt.
17:
1144­
1157.

Lemberg
N.
A.,
M.
F.
O'Toole,
D.
E.
Pentilla,
and
K.
C.
Stick.
1997.
1996
forage
fish
stock
status
report.
WDFW
rpt.
no.
98­
1.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
83
p.

Levings,
C.
D.
1980.
Consequences
of
training
walls
and
jetties
for
aquatic
habitats
at
two
British
Columbia
estuaries.
Coastal
Engineering
4:
111­
136.

Levy,
D.
A.,
and
T.
G.
Northcote.
1981.
The
distribution
and
abundance
of
juvenile
salmon
in
marsh
habitats
of
the
Fraser
River
estuary.
Westwater
Research
Centre
tech.
rep.
25,
Univ.
British
Columbia.
117
p.

Lister,
D.
B.
and
C.
E.
Walker.
1966.
The
effect
of
flow
control
on
freshwater
survival
of
chum,
coho
and
chinook
salmon
in
the
Big
Qualicum
River.
Can.
Fish
Culturist.
37:
3­
25.

Lisle,
T.
E.
1986a.
Effects
of
woody
debris
on
anadromous
salmonid
habitat,
Prince
of
Wales
Island,
southeast
Alaska.
North
Amer.
J.
Fish.
Mgt.
6:
538­
550.

Lisle,
T.
E.
1986b.
Stabilization
of
a
gravel
channel
by
large
streamside
obstructions
and
bedrock
bends,
Jacoby
Creek,
northwestern
California.
Geo.
Soc.
Amer.
Bull.
97:
999­
1011.

MacDonald,
K.,
D.
Simpson,
B.
Paulson,
J.
Cox,
and
J.
Gendron.
1994.
Shoreline
armoring
effects
on
physical
coastal
processes
in
Puget
Sound,
Washington.
Coastal
Erosion
Management
Studies,
Vol.
5,
Rept.
94­
78,
Water
and
Shorelands
Restoration
Program,
Wash.
Dept.
Ecol.,
Olympia,
WA.

Madej,
M.
A.
1978.
Response
of
a
stream
channel
to
an
increase
in
sediment
load.
MS
Thesis,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Major,
P.
F.
1978.
Predator­
prey
interactions
in
two
schooling
fishes,
Caranx
ignobilis
and
Stolephorus
pupureus.
Animal
Behavior
26:
760­
777.

Mantua,
N.
(
No
year
cited).
Relationships
between
the
ENSO
and
PDO
and
PNW
regional
temperatures,
precipitation,
snowpack,
and
streamflow.
11
p.
+
graphs.

Mantua,
N.
J.
and
S.
R.
Hare,
Y.
Zhang,
J.
M.
Wallace,
and
R.
C.
Francis.
1997.
A
Pacific
interdecadal
climate
oscillation
with
impacts
on
salmon
production.
Pp.
1069­
1079
in
Bulletin
of
the
Amer.
Meteorological
Soc.
78.

Mason,
J.
C.
1969.
Hypoxial
stress
prior
to
emergence
and
competition
among
coho
salmon
fry.
J.
Fish.
Res.
Bd.
Can.
26:
63­
91.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
395
Mason,
J.
C.
1974.
Behavioral
ecology
of
chum
salmon
fry
in
a
small
estuary.
J.
Fish.
Res.
Bd.
Can.
31:
83­
92.

May,
C.
W.,
E.
B.
Welch,
R.
R.
Horner,
J.
R.
Karr,
and
B.
W.
Mar.
1997.
Quality
indices
for
urbanization
effects
in
Puget
Sound
Lowland
streams.
Wash.
Dept.
of
Ecol.,
Water
Resources
Series
Tech.
Rpt.
154.

McHenry,
M.
L.,
D.
C.
Morrill,
and
N.
Currance.
1994.
Spawning
gravel
quality,
watershed
characteristics,
and
early
life
history
survival
of
coho
salmon
and
steelhead
in
five
north
Olympic
Peninsula
watersheds.
Natural
Resources
Department,
Lower
Elwha
S'Klallam
Tribe,
Port
Angeles,
WA,
and
Natural
Resources
Department,
Makah
Tribe,
Neah
Bay,
WA.

McNeil,
W.
J.,
and
W.
H.
Ahnell.
1964.
Success
of
pink
salmon
spawning
relative
to
size
of
spawning
bed
materials.
Special
scientific
report
 
fisheries
469.
US
Dept.
of
the
Interior,
Fish
and
Wild.
Serv.,
Washington
D.
C.

McNeil,
W.
J.
1964.
Redd
superimposition
and
egg
capacity
of
pink
salmon
spawning
beds.
J.
Fish.
Res.
Bd.
Can.
21:
1385­
1396.

Mid­
Columbia
Mainstem
Conservation
Plan
(
MCMCP).
1998.
Biological
Assessment
and
Management
Plan­
Mid­
Columbia
River
Hatchery
Program.
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Yakima
Indian
Nation,
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Colville
Indian
Reservation,
and
the
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Umatilla
Indian
Reservation.
Washington
Department
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Olympia.
135
p.

Montgomery,
D.
R.,
G.
E.
Grant,
and
K,
Sullivan.
1995.
Watershed
analysis
as
a
framework
for
implementing
ecosystem
management.
Water
Resources
Bulletin
31:
369­
385.

Montgomery,
D.
R.,
J.
M.
Buffington,
N.
P.
Peterson,
D.
Schuett­
Hames,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1996.
Stream­
bed
scour,
egg
burial
depths,
and
the
influence
of
salmonid
spawning
on
bed
surface
mobility
and
embryo
survival.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
53:
1061­
1070.

Myers,
K.
W.
1993.
New
conceptual
models
of
high­
seas
migrations
of
pink
and
chum
salmon,
p.
83­
96.
In
Alaska
Sea
Grant
(
ed.)
Proceedings
of
the
16
annual
1993
northeast
pacific
pink
th
and
chum
salmon
workshop.
Alaska
Sea
Grant
college
program
report
94­
02,
Univ.
of
AK,
Fairbanks,
AK.

Mysak,
L.
A.
1986.
El
Nino,
interannual
variability
and
fisheries
in
the
northeast
Pacific
Ocean.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
43:
464­
497.

Natural
Resource
Consultants.
1994.
1992­
93
hooking
mortality
study
final
report.
Saltenstall­
Kennedy
grant
NA26FD0138­
01.
Natural
Resources
Consultants,
Seattle,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
396
Nawa,
R.
K.,
C.
A.
Frissell,
and
W.
J.
Liss.
1990.
Life
history
and
persistence
of
anadromous
salmonid
stocks
in
relation
to
stream
habitats
and
watershed
classification
­
Annual
prog.
rpt.
Oreg.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Portland,
OR,
and
Oreg.
State
Univ.,
Corvallis,
OR.

Nawa,
R.
K.,
and
C.
A.
Frissell.
1993.
Measuring
scour
and
fill
of
gravel
streambeds
with
scour
chains
and
sliding­
bead
monitors.
North
Amer.
J.
Fish.
Mgt.
13:
634­
639.

NMFS
(
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service).
1996a.
Coastal
salmon
conservation:
working
guidance
for
comprehensive
salmon
restoration
initiatives
on
the
Pacific
coast.
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.,
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
28
p.

NMFS
(
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service).
1996b.
Review
of
information
on
Hood
Canal
Summer
Chum
Salmon
ESU
collected
in
1995
and
1996.
Unpubl.
rpt.,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.,
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
21
p.

NMFS
(
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service).
1997a.
(
Draft)
Snake
River
recovery
plan.
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
Seattle,
WA.
150
p.
(
plus
appendices).

NMFS
(
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service).
1997b.
Investigation
of
scientific
information
on
the
impacts
of
California
sea
lions
and
Pacific
harbor
seals
on
salmonids
and
on
the
coastal
ecosystems
of
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California.
NOAA
Tech.
Memo.
NMFS­
NWFSC­
28,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
172
p.

NRC
(
National
Research
Council).
1992.
Restoration
of
aquatic
ecosystems.
National
Academy
Press,
Washington
D.
C.

NRC
(
National
Research
Council).
1996.
Upstream:
Salmon
and
Society
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
National
Academy
Press,
Washington
D.
C.

Neave,
F.
1955.
Notes
on
the
seaward
migration
of
chum
and
pink
fry.
J.
Fish
Res.
Bd.
Can.
12:
369­
374.

Neave,
F.,
T.
Yonemori,
and
R.
G.
Bakkala.
1976.
Distribution
and
origin
of
chum
salmon
in
offshore
waters
of
the
north
Pacific
Ocean.
Inter.
N.
Pac.
Fish
Comm.
Bull.
35,
Vancouver
B.
C.
79
p.

Nehlsen,
W.,
J.
E.
Williams,
and
J.
A.
Lichatowich.
1991.
Pacific
salmon
at
the
crossroads:
stocks
at
risk
from
California,
Oregon,
Idaho,
and
Washington.
Fisheries
16:
4­
21.

Nelson,
W.
R.
and
M.
Soule.
1987.
Genetic
conservation
of
exploited
fishes.
Pp.
345­
368
in
Ryman,
N.
and
F.
Utter
(
eds.)
Population
genetics
&
fishery
management,
Univ.
of
Wash.
Press,
Seattle,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
397
NWIFC
(
Northwest
Indian
Fisheries
Commission)
and
WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife).
1998.
Salmonid
disease
control
policy
of
fisheries
co­
managers
of
Washington
State.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

Oregon
Natural
Resources
Council,
et
al.
v.
William
M.
Daley,
Secretary
of
Commerce
and
Rolland
Schmitten,
Director,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
and)
State
of
Oregon.
1998.
CV­
97­
1155­
ST
Opinion.
J.
M.
Stewart,
Magistrate,
U.
S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Oregon.
Portland.
June
1,
1998.

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

PSC
(
Pacific
Salmon
Commission).
1997.
Incidental
fishing
mortality
of
chinook
salmon:
mortality
rates
applicable
to
PSC
fisheries.
Tech
rpt.
TCCHINOOK
(
97­
1).
Pacific
Salmon
Commission,
Vancouver,
BC.

Palmisano,
J.
F.,
R.
H.
Ellis,
and
V.
Kaczynski
(
eds.).
1993.
The
impact
of
environmental
and
management
factors
on
Washington's
wild
anadromous
salmon
and
trout
(
two
volumes).
Prepared
for
Washington
Forest
Protection
Association,
Olympia,
WA,
and
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Olympia,
WA.

Pearcy,
W.
G.
1992.
Ocean
ecology
of
north
Pacific
salmonids.
Univ.
of
Wash.
Press.
Seattle,
WA.
179
p.

Peterson,
N.
P.,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1994a.
Persistence
of
egg
pocket
architecture
in
chum
salmon
redds,
p.
9­
25.
In
Quinn,
T.
P.,
and
N.
P.
Peterson
(
eds.)
The
effects
of
forest
practices
on
fish
populations.
WDNR
rpt.
no.
TFW­
F4­
94­
001.
Forest
Pract.
Div.,
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Olympia,
WA.

Peterson,
N.
P.,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1994b.
Variability
of
dissolved
oxygen
in
natural
egg
pockets
of
chum
salmon.
Pp.
26­
41
in
Quinn,
T.
P.,
and
N.
P.
Peterson
(
eds.)
The
effects
of
forest
practices
on
fish
populations.
WDNR
report
no.
TFW­
F4­
94­
001.
Forest
Pract.
Div.,
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Olympia,
WA.

Peterman,
R.
M.
1977.
A
simple
mechanism
that
causes
collapsing
stability
region
in
exploited
salmonid
populations.
J.
Fish.
Res.
Bd.
Can.
34:
1130­
1142.

Phelps,
S.
1993.
Breeding
of
Quilcene
Hatchery
summer­
run
chum.
WDFW
memorandum
to
Tim
Tynan,
Hatcheries
Program.
June
11,
1993.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
1
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
398
Phelps,
S.,
J.
Uehara,
D.
Hendrick,
J.
Hymer,
A.
Blakley,
and
R.
Brix.
1995.
Genetic
diversity
units
and
major
ancestral
lineages
for
chum
salmon
in
Washington,
p.
C1­
C55.
In
Busack,
C.
and
J.
B.
Shaklee,
(
eds.),
Genetic
diversity
units
and
major
ancestral
lineages
of
salmonid
fishes
in
Washington.
WDFW
Tech.
Rpt.
no.
RAD
95­
2,
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

PNFHPC
(
Pacific
Northwest
Fish
Health
Protection
Committee).
1989.
Model
comprehensive
fish
health
protection
program.
19
p.

Point
No
Point
Treaty
Tribes
and
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
2000.
Public
Review
Comments
on
Draft
Habitat
Sections
of
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative.
Supplemental
Report
No.
2
to
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

Pollock,
M.
M.
and
P.
M.
Kennard.
1989.
A
low­
risk
strategy
for
preserving
riparian
buffers
needed
to
protect
and
restore
salmonid
habitat
in
forested
watersheds
of
Washington
State.
December
1988.
31
p.

Prinslow,
T.
E.,
E.
O.
Salo,
and
B.
P.
Snyder.
1979.
Studies
of
behavioral
effects
of
a
lighted
and
unlighted
wharf
on
out­
migrating
salmonids
(
final
rpt.,
March­
April
1978).
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
7920,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
35
p.

Prinslow,
T.
E.,
C.
J.
Whitmus,
J.
J.
Dawson,
N.
S.
Bax,
B.
P.
Snyder,
and
E.
O.
Salo.
1980.
Effects
of
wharf
lighting
on
out­
migrating
salmonids,
1979
(
final
rpt.,
Jan.­
Dec.
1979).
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
8007,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
137
p.

Pritchard.,
A.
L.
1936.
Stomach
content
analysis
of
fishes
preying
upon
the
young
of
the
Pacific
salmon
during
the
fry
migration
at
McClinton
Cr.,
Masset
Inlet,
B.
C.
Field­
Natur.
50:
104­
105.

PSSMP
(
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan).
1985.
U.
S.
v.
Washington,
384
F.
supp.
312;
sub
no.
85­
2
(
W.
D.
Wash.),
Seattle
WA.

Ratner,
S.,
R.
Lande,
and
B.
B.
Roper.
1997.
Population
viability
of
spring
chinook
salmon
in
the
South
Umpqua
River,
Oregon.
Conserv.
Biol.
11:
879­
889.

Reimer,
S.
D.,
and
R.
F.
Brown.
1996.
Marine
mammal
(
pinniped)
food
habits
in
Oregon.
ODFW
Wildlife
Diversity
Program
tech.
rep.
96­
6­
01,
Oregon
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Portland,
OR.
26
p.

Reisenbichler,
R.
R.
and
G.
Brown.
1995.
Is
genetic
change
from
hatchery
rearing
of
anadromous
fish
really
a
problem?,
p.
578­
579.
In
Schramm,
H.
L.
Jr.,
and
R.
G.
Piper
(
eds.)
Uses
and
effects
of
cultured
fishes
in
aquatic
ecosystems,
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
Symp.
15.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
399
Ricker,
W.
E.
1972.
Hereditary
and
environmental
factors
affecting
certain
salmonid
populations,
p.
19­
160.
In
Simon,
R,
C.
and
P.
A.
Larkin
(
eds.)
The
Stock
Concept.
of
Pacific
Salmon.
MacMillian
Lectures
in
Fisheries,
University
of
British
Columbia,
Vancouver
B.
C.

Riggs,
L.
1990.
Principles
for
genetic
conservation
and
production
quality.
Results
of
a
scientific
and
technical
clarification
and
revision.
Northwest
Power
Planning
Council,
Portland,
OR.

Ruggerone,
G.
T.
1989.
Coho
salmon
predation
on
juvenile
sockeye
in
the
Chignik
lakes,
Alaska.
Ph.
D.
Dissertation.
School
of
Fisheries,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Ruggerone,
G.
T.
1992.
Threespine
stickleback
aggregations
create
a
potential
predation
refuge
for
sockeye
salmon
fry.
Can
J.
of
Zoology
70:
1052­
1056.

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

Salo.
E.
O.,
N.
J.
Bax,
T.
E.
Prinslow,
C.
J.
Whitmus,
B.
S.
Snyder,
and
C.
A.
Simenstad.
1980.
The
effects
of
construction
of
naval
facilities
on
the
out­
migration
of
juvenile
salmonids
from
Hood
Canal,
Washington
(
final
rpt.,
March
1
1975­
July
31,
1979).
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rep.
FRI­
UW­
8006,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
159
p.

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

Saunders,
R.
L.
1991.
Potential
interaction
between
cultured
and
wild
Atlantic
salmon.
Aquaculture
98:
51­
61.

Schreiner,
J.
U.
1977.
Salmonid
out­
migration
studies
in
Hood
Canal,
Washington.
M.
S.
Thesis.
Univ.
of
Wash.
91
p.

Schreiner,
J.
U.,
E.
O.
Salo,
B.
P.
Snyder
and
C.
A.
Simenstad.
1977.
Salmonid
out­
migration
studies
in
Hood
Canal
(
final
rpt.,
phase
II).
UW
Fish
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
7715,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
64
p.

Schreiner,
J.
U.,
and
M.
J.
Brownlee.
1989.
Effects
of
forest
harvesting
on
spawning
gravel
and
incubation
survival
of
chum
(
Oncorhynchus
keta),
and
coho
(
O.
kisutch)
in
Carnation
Cr.,
British
Columbia.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
46:
681­
696.

Schroeder,
S.
L.
1977.
Assessment
of
production
of
chum
salmon
fry
from
the
Big
Beef
Creek
spawning
channel.
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
final
rep.
no.
FRI­
UW­
7718.
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
77
p.

Schroder,
S.
L.
1981.
The
role
of
sex
selection
in
determining
overall
mating
patterns
and
mate
choice
in
chum
salmon.
Ph.
D
thesis,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
400
Schuett­
Hames,
D.,
and
G.
Pess.
1994.
A
strategy
to
implement
watershed
analysis
monitoring:
assessment
of
parameters
and
methods
monitoring
module
outline
recommendations.
TFWAM14
94­
01.
Timber,
Fish,
and
Wildlife,
Olympia,
WA.

Schuett­
Hames,
D.,
N.
P.
Peterson,
and
T.
P.
Quinn.
1994.
Patterns
and
scour
and
fill
in
a
low
gradient
alluvial
channel,
p.
42­
55.
In
Quinn,
T.
P.,
and
N.
P.
Peterson
(
eds.)
The
effects
of
forest
practices
on
fish
populations.
WDNR
report
no.
TFW­
F4­
94­
001.
Forest
Pract.
Div.,
Wash.
Dept.
Nat.
Res.,
Olympia,
WA.

Schwab,
R.
1974.
Hatchery
propagation
of
chum
and
pink
salmon
in
Washington,
p.
50­
53.
In
Harding,
D.
R.
(
ed.)
Proceedings
of
the
1974
Northeast
Pacific
pink
and
chum
salmon
workshop.
Dept.
of
the
Envir.,
Fisheries.
Vancouver,
BC.

Sedell,
J.
R.
and
K.
J.
Luchessa.
1982.
Using
the
historical
record
as
an
aid
to
salmonid
habitat
enhancement.
Pp.
210­
223
in
Armantrout,
N.
B.
(
ed.)
Proceedings
of
Acquisition
and
Utilization
of
Aquatic
Habitat
Inventory
Information
symposium,
23­
28
Oct.
1981,
Portland,
OR.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.,
Bethesda,
MD.

Sedell,
J.
R.
and
J.
L.
Frogatt.
1984.
Importance
of
streamside
forests
to
large
rivers:
the
isolation
of
the
Willamette
R.,
U.
S.
A.,
from
its
floodplain
by
snagging
and
streamside
forest
removal.
International
Vereingung
fur
theoretische
und
angewandte
Limnologie
Verhandlungen
22:
1828­
1834.

Sele,
B.
1995.
Status
of
summer
chum
salmon
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
(
Draft
document).
Fisheries
Management
Department,
Jamestown
S 
Klallam
Tribe.
Blyn,
WA.

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

Simenstad,
C.
A.
and
W.
J.
Kinney.
1978.
Trophic
relationships
of
out­
migrating
chum
salmon
in
Hood
Canal,
Washington,
1977
(
Final
rpt.,
Oct.
1,
1977
 
March
31,
1978).
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
7810,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
75
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.,
W.
J.
Kinney,
S.
S.
Parker,
E.
O.
Salo,
J.
R.
Cordell,
and
H.
Buechner.
1980.
Prey
community
structure
and
trophic
ecology
of
out­
migrating
juvenile
chum
and
pink
salmon
in
Hood
Canal,
Washington:
A
synthesis
of
three
years'
studies,
1977­
1979.
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
8026.
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.
113
p.

Simenstad,
C.
A.,
K.
L.
Fresh,
and
E.
O.
Salo.
1982.
The
role
of
Puget
Sound
and
Washington
coastal
estuaries
in
the
life
history
of
Pacific
salmon:
and
unappreciated
function,
p.
343­
364.
In
Kennedy,
V.
S.
(
ed.)
Estuarine
comparisons.
Academic
Press.
Toronto,
Ontario,
Canada.
709
p.

Sokal,
R.
R.,
and
F.
J.
Rohlf.
1981.
Biometry,
2nd
ed.
W.
H.
Freeman
&
Co.,
San
Francisco,
CA.
859
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
401
Smoker
W.
A.,
H.
M.
Jensen,
D.
R.
Johnson,
and
R.
Robison.
1952.
The
Skokomish
River
Indian
fishery.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
17
p.

Spence,
B.
C.,
G.
A.
Lomnicky,
R.
M.
Hughes,
and
R.
P.
Novitzki.
1996.
An
ecosystem
approach
to
salmonid
conservation.
TR­
4501­
96­
6057.
Man­
Tech
Environmental
Research
Services
Corp.,
Corvallis,
OR.

Steward,
C.
R.
and
T.
C.
Bjornn.
1990.
Supplementation
of
salmon
and
steelhead
stocks
with
hatchery
fish:
a
synthesis
of
published
literature.
UI
tech.
rpt.
90­
1,
Idaho
Cooperative
Fish
and
Wildlife
Research
Unit,
Univ.
of
Id.,
Moscow,
ID.
126
p.

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

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

Thorne,
R.
E.,
and
J.
J.
Ames.
1987.
A
note
on
variability
of
marine
survival
of
sockeye
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka)
and
effects
of
flooding
on
spawning
success.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
44:
1791­
1795.

Thornsteinson,
F.
V.
1962.
Herring
predation
on
pink
salmon
in
a
southeastern
Alaska
estuary.
Trans.
Amer.
Fish.
Soc.
Vol.
91
No.
3:
321­
323.

Toews,
D.
A.
A.,
and
M.
J.
Brownlee.
1981.
A
handbook
for
fish
habitat
protection
on
forest
lands
in
British
Columbia.
Canada
Dept.
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans,
Vancouver,
BC.

Tripp,
D.,
and
V.
A.
Poulin.
1986.
The
effects
of
logging
and
mass
wasting
on
salmonid
spawning
habitat
in
streams
on
the
Queen
Charlotte
Islands.
Land
Management
Report.
No.
50,
British
Columbia
Ministry
of
Forest
and
Lands,
Vancouver,
B.
C.

Turner,
R.
1995.
WDFW's
comments
to
NMFS
on
"
Preliminary
Conclusions
of
the
Review
of
the
Status
of
Chum
Salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta)
from
Washington,
Oregon,
and
California
under
the
U.
S.
Endangered
Species
Act",
August
4,
1995.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
29
p.

Tynan,
T.
J.
1992.
Hood
Canal
early
chum
harvest
and
escapement
assessment:
a
review
of
Hood
Canal
early
chum
escapements
and
inside
Hood
Canal
commercial
net
fishery
harvests
(
1968­
91)
with
recommendations
for
short
and
long
term
management
measures
to
assist
stock
rebuilding
(
WDF
rpt.).
Wash.
Dept.
of
Fish.
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
57
p.

Tynan,
T.
J.
1997.
Life
history
characterization
of
summer
chum
salmon
populations
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions.
Tech.
Report
No.
H
97­
06.
Hatcheries
Program,
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia.
WA.
99
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
402
Tynan,
T.
and
J.
Ames.
1997.
Memorandum
to
Orlay
Johnson,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS),
April
10,
1997
(
subject:
Hoodsport
hatchery
chum
timing).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

Tynan,
T.
J.
1998.
Characterization
of
WDFW
and
tribal
cooperative
hatchery
salmonid
production
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions.
Vol.
II
­
Biological
assessment
of
WDFW
hatchery
program
effects
on
the
status
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
summer
chum
salmon
populations
(
unpublished).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish.
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
104
p.

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

USFWS
(
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service).
1994.
Biological
assessments
for
operation
of
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
operated
or
funded
hatcheries
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin
in
1995­
1998.
Submitted
to
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
under
cover
letter,
dated
August
2,
1994,
from
William
F.
Shake,
Acting
USFWS
Regional
Director,
to
Brian
Brown,
NMFS.

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

U.
S.
v.
Washington.
1974.
384
F.
Supp
312
(
W.
D.
Wash.),
aff'd,
500
F.
2nd
676
(
9th
Cr.
1975,
cert.
denied),
423
U.
S.
1086
(
1976),
Seattle
WA.

Vannote,
R.
L.,
G.
W.
Minshall,
K.
W.
Cummins,
J.
R.
Sedell,
and
C.
E.
Cushing.
1980.
The
river
continuum
concept.
Can
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
37:
130­
137.

Varanasi,
U.,
E.
Casillas,
M.
R.
Arkoosh,
T.
Hom,
D.
A.
Misitano,
D.
W.
Brown,
S­
L.
Chan,
T.
K.
collier,
B.
B.
McCain,
and
J.
E.
Stein.
1993.
Contaminant
exposure
and
associated
biological
effects
in
juvenile
chinook
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
from
urban
and
nonurban
estuaries
of
Puget
Sound.
NOAA
Technical
Memorandum
NMFS­
NWFSC­
8,
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.

Wainwright,
T.
C.,
and
R.
S.
Waples.
1998.
Prioritizing
Pacific
salmon
stocks
for
conservation:
Response
to
Allendorf
et
al.
Conservation
Biology
12:
1144­
1147.

Waldichuck,
M.
1993.
Fish
habitat
and
the
impact
of
human
activity
with
particular
reference
to
Pacific
salmon.
Pp.
295­
337
in
Parsons,
L.
S.,
and
W.
H.
Lear
(
eds.)
Perspectives
on
Canadian
marine
fisheries
management.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
pub.
226.

Waples,
R.
S.
1990.
Conservation
genetics
of
Pacific
salmon
II.
Effective
population
size
and
the
rate
of
loss
of
genetic
variability.
Jour.
Heredity
81:
267­
276
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
403
Waples,
R.
S.
1996.
Towards
a
risk/
benefit
analysis
for
salmon
supplementation
(
draft
document).
NMFS
NW
Sci.
Center,
U.
S.
Dept.
Commer.
Nat.
Marine
Fish.
Serv.,
Seattle,
WA.
25
p.

Washington
Forest
Practices
Board.
1995.
Standard
methodology
for
conducting
watershed
analysis
(
Version
3).
Wash.
Forest
Pract.
Bd.,
Olympia,
WA.

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries).
1957.
Research
relating
to
fisheries
problems
that
will
arise
in
conjunction
with
current
and
projected
hydroelectric
developments
in
the
Skokomish
River
(
WDF
rpt.).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
132
p.

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries),
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
and
Washington
Department
of
Game.
1973.
Joint
statement
regarding
the
biology,
status,
management,
and
harvest
of
the
salmon
and
steelhead
resources
of
the
Puget
Sound
and
Olympic
Peninsular
drainage
areas
of
western
Washington.
U.
S.
v
Wash.
et
al.
Civil
No.
9213.
U.
S.
District
Court,
Western
District
of
Wash.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
140
p.
(
plus
tables
and
figures).

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries).
1974.
1974
status
of
the
salmon
resource
of
the
Puget
Sound
region,
Washington.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
24
p.

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries).
1975.
1975
status
of
the
salmon
resource
of
the
Puget
Sound
and
Coastal
regions,
Washington.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
48
p.

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries),
Washington
Department
of
Wildlife,
and
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes.
1993.
1992
Washington
State
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
212
p.

WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife)
and
WWTIT
(
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes).
1994.
1992
Washington
State
salmon
and
steelhead
stock
inventory­
Appendix
One
­
Puget
Sound
stocks
­
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
vol.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
424
p.

WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife).
1996.
Fish
health
manual.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
69
p.

WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife).
1997a.
Lower
Columbia
steelhead
conservation
initiative
(
draft
document,
June
12,
1997).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
115
p.

WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife).
1997b.
Watershed
resource
inventory
process.
Fish
supplementation
and
rearing
projects.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
404
WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife)
and
WWTIT
(
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes).
1997.
Policy
of
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
Western
Washington
Treaty
Tribes
concerning
wild
salmonids.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
46
p.

WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife)
and
WWTIT
(
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes).
1999.
Comprehensive
Chinook
Management
Plan
(
June
1999
draft).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
and
Northwest
Indian
Fish.,
Comm.,
Olympia,
WA.

Whitmus,
C.
J.,
and
S.
Olsen.
1979.
The
migratory
behavior
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
released
in
1977
from
the
Hood
Canal
hatchery
at
Hoodsport,
Washington.
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.
rpt.
FRI­
UW­
7916,
Univ.
of
Wash,
Seattle,
WA.
46
p.

Whitmus,
C.
J.
1985.
The
influence
of
size
on
the
early
marine
migration
and
mortality
of
juvenile
chum
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
keta).
M.
S.
Thesis.
Univ.
of
Wash.
69
p.

Wiggins,
W.
D.,
G.
P.
Ruppert,
R.
R.
Smith,
L.
L.
Reed,
L.
E.
Hubbard,
and
M.
L.
Courts.
1997.
Water
Resources
Data
­
Washington
­
Water
Year
1996.
USGS
water
data
rpt.
WA­
96­
1.
U.
S.
Geo.
Surv.,
Tacoma,
WA.
494
p.

Williams,
I.
V.
and
D.
F.
Amend.
1976.
A
natural
epizootic
of
Infectious
Hematopoietic
Necrosis
in
fry
of
sockeye
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka)
at
Chilko
Lake,
British
Columbia.
J.
Fish.
Res.
Bd.
Can.
33:
1564­
1567.

Williams,
R.
W.,
R.
M.
Laramie,
and
J.
J.
Ames.
1975.
A
catalog
of
Washington
streams
and
salmon
utilization,
Volume
1,
Puget
Sound
Region.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
974
p.

Wilson,
U.
1991.
Responses
of
three
seabird
species
to
El
Nino
events
and
other
warm
episodes
on
the
Washington
coast,
1979­
1990.
Condor
93:
853­
858.

Wissmar,
R.
C.
and
C.
A.
Simenstad.
1980.
Optimal
management
of
chum
salmon
based
on
estuarine
and
nearshore
carrying
capacity
for
out­
migrating
juveniles
in
Hood
Canal.
NSF
Research
grant
proposal.
UW
Fish.
Res.
Inst.,
Univ.
of
Wash,
Seattle,
WA.
80
p.

Witty,
K.,
C.
Willis,
and
S.
Cramer.
1995.
A
review
of
potential
impacts
of
hatchery
fish
on
naturally
produced
salmonids
in
the
migration
corridor
of
the
Snake
and
Columbia
rivers.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Assessment
(
final
rpt.).
S.
P
Cramer
and
Associates,
Gresham,
OR.
76
p.

Wolcott,
R.
S.
C.,
Jr.
1978.
The
chum
salmon
run
at
Wolcott
Slough.
Special
report
to
the
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior,
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
Reno,
NV.
41
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
405
Wright,
L.
D.,
J.
R.
Coleman,
and
B.
G.
Thom.
1973.
Processes
of
channel
development
in
a
high
tide
range
environment;
Cambridge
Gulf­
Ord
River
delta,
Western
Australia.
J.
of
Geology.
81:
15­
41.

Wydoski,
R.
S.
and
R.
R.
Whitney.
1979.
Inland
Fishes
of
Washington.
University
of
Washington
Press,
Seattle,
WA.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
References
Page
406
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
407
Glossary
Definitions
(
acronyms
and
abbreviations
follow).

Acclimatization
­
A
juvenile
fish
rearing
and
release
process
applied
to
promote
adaptation
and
imprinting
of
a
fish
stock
to
the
environmental
and
geographic
parameters
of
its
home
watershed,
or
desired
watershed
for
adult
return.
Aggradation
­
The
accumulation
of
sediment
in
a
river
channel
resulting
from
changes
in
flow,
sediment
inputs,
or
changes
to
the
adjacent
floodplain.
Alevin
­
Newly
hatched
salmonids
which
remain
in
gravel
until
their
yolk
sacs
have
been
resorbed.
Allele
­
One
of
two
or
more
alternate
forms
of
a
gene.
Alluvial
­
Originating
from
the
transport
and
deposition
of
sediment
by
running
water.
Anadromous
fish
­
Fish
that
are
born
in
freshwater,
migrate
to
the
ocean
to
grow
and
mature,
and
return
to
freshwater
as
adults
to
reproduce.
Area
Under
the
Curve
(
AUC)
­
An
escapement
calculation
methodology
that
converts
the
area
under
a
spawner
abundance
curve
to
a
total
fish
estimate.
Artificial
propagation
­
Any
assistance
provided
by
human
technology
to
animal
reproduction.
In
the
context
of
Pacific
salmonids,
this
assistance
includes
(
but
is
not
necessarily
limited
to)
spawning
and/
or
rearing
in
hatcheries,
captive
broodstock
projects,
or
the
use
of
remote
site
incubators.
Base
Conservation
Regime
(
BCR)
­
The
management
of
the
harvests
of
summer
chum
salmon
at
population
levels
that
provide
incremental
increases
in
escapements
and
are
above
critical
population
thresholds.
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMP)
­
State­
of­
the­
art
environmental
protection
measures.
Biodiversity
­
The
variety
and
abundance
of
species,
their
genetic
composition,
and
the
natural
communities,
ecosystem,
and
landscapes
in
which
they
occur.
Boldt
Decision
­
See
U.
S.
v.
Washington.
Broodstock
­
Those
adult
salmonids
that
are
destined
to
be
the
parents
for
a
particular
stock
or
smaller
group
of
fish.
Bulkhead
­
A
structure
or
wall
constructed
in
or
above
the
intertidal
zone
to
prevent
shoreline
erosion
from
wave
action.
Canadian
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans
(
CDFO)
­
The
national
fishery
management
agency
of
Canada.
Carrying
Capacity
­
The
maximum
number
of
individuals
or
biomass
of
a
given
species
or
complex
of
species
of
fishes
that
a
limited
and
specific
aquatic
habitat
may
support
during
a
stated
interval
of
time.
Cascade
­
A
series
of
small
steep
drops
increasing
the
velocity
of
the
stream.
Catch
­
The
act
of
landing
a
fish
at
which
point
the
fisher
has
the
option
of
release
or
retention.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
408
Catch
Record
Card
(
CRC)
­
A
data
recording
system
for
recreational
salmon
fisheries
that
requires
that
anglers
record
all
sport
caught
salmon
on
a
"
punch"
card,
by
species,
date,
and
location
of
harvest.
Channelized
­
A
portion
of
a
river
channel
that
has
been
enlarged
or
deepened,
and
often
has
armored
banks.
Channel
processes
­
The
interaction
of
elements
that
form
river
habitat
including
riparian
vegetation,
large
woody
debris,
sediment
delivery,
and
hydrology.
Channel
migration
zone
­
The
area
occupied
by
a
stream
channel
under
existing
climate
conditions,
approximated
by
the
100
year
floodplain,
side
channels
and
low
terraces
of
a
river.
Co­
managers
­
The
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
salmon
co­
managers
are
thePoint­
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.
Composite
stock
(
population)
­
A
stock
sustained
by
both
wild
and
artificial
propagation.
Conspecific
­
Individuals
of
the
same
species.
Convention
waters
Critical
Abundance
Threshold
(
CAT)
Critical
Escapement
Threshold
(
CET)
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.
Cubic
feet
per
second
(
cfs)
­
A
measurement
of
stream
flow.
Cultured
stock
­
A
stock
that
depends
upon
spawning,
incubation,
hatching,
or
rearing
in
a
hatchery
or
other
artificial
production
facility.
Cumulative
effect
­
A
change
to
the
environment
caused
by
multiple,
incremental
impacts
interacting
with
natural
ecosystem
processes.
Cumulative
effects
can
result
from
individually
minor
but
collectively
significant
actions
taking
place
over
a
period
of
time.
Decommission
(
a
road)
­
To
remove
those
elements
of
a
road
that
reroute
hillslope
drainage
and
present
slope
stability
hazards.
Deep­
water
­
Defined
in
terms
of
habitat
use
by
summer
chum,
deep­
water
habitat
includes
those
areas
greater
than
2
meters
in
depth
(
6.5
feet,
relative
to
mean
lower
low­
water)
used
by
larger
summer
chum
juveniles
for
feeding
and
out­
migration
and
by
adults
during
their
return
migration.
Delta
­
An
alluvial
landform,
typically
triangular
in
shape,
composed
of
sediment
at
a
river
mouth
that
is
shaped
by
river
discharge,
sediment
load,
tidal
energy,
land
subsidence,
and
sea­
level
changes.
Dendrogram
­
A
graphic
summary
of
the
genetic
relationships
among
populations.
The
horizontal
distance
at
which
the
stock
branches
connect
indicates
the
degree
of
similarity/
dissimilarity.
The
longer
the
distance
at
which
the
branch
points
connect,
the
greater
the
average
genetic
differences
among
stocks.
Depensatory
Mortality
­
Mortality
is
depensatory
when
its
rate
(
i.
e.,
proportion
of
population
affected)
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.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
409
Depressed
stock
­
A
stock
of
fish
whose
production
is
below
expected
levels
based
on
available
habitat
and
natural
variations
in
survival
levels,
but
above
the
level
where
permanent
damage
to
the
stock
is
likely.
Detritus
­
Litter
formed
from
fragments
of
organic
material
(
leaves,
animal
wastes,
carcasses,
etc.).
Diameter
at
breast
height
(
dbh)
­
The
diameter
of
a
tree,
measured
4.5
feet
above
the
ground
on
the
uphill
side
of
the
tree.
Dispersal
­
The
movement
of
plants
and
animals
from
one
habitat
to
another.
Juvenile
chum
disperse
from
freshwater
to
subestuaries,
then
onto
nearshore
and
finally
deep­
water
marine
areas.
Drift
cell
­
A
discrete
shoreline
segment
that,
in
an
unaltered
state,
allows
for
the
uninterrupted
movement
of
beach
materials.
A
drift
cell
includes
a
sediment
source
(
such
as
a
"
feeder
bluff"),
a
driftway
along
which
the
sediment
moves,
and
a
sink
or
site
of
deposition.
Drift
gillnet
­
A
gillnet
of
single
web
construction,
not
anchored,
tied,
staked,
placed,
or
weighted
in
such
a
manner
that
it
cannot
drift
(
WAC
220­
16­
040).
Ecological
interaction
­
The
sum
total
of
impacts
of
one
species
on
another
species,
or
on
other
members
of
the
same
species.
Ecosystem
­
A
complex
of
biological
communities
and
environment
that
forms
a
functioning,
interrelated
unit
in
nature.
Eelgrass
­
A
flowering
plant
(
Zostera
spp.)
that
grows
underwater
in
shallow
estuarine
and
marine
areas
and
that
has
long,
grass­
like
leaves.
Effective
population
size
(
N
)
­
The
effective
number
of
breeders
per
year
times
generation
length.
e
This
can
be
calculated
for
summer
chum
salmon
as;
N
=
Average
escapement
times
0.2
e
(
N
/
N,
the
proportion
of
the
population
assumed
to
effectively
breed),
times
3.6
(
generation
e
length)
where
3.6
is
the
average
age
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon.
Electrophoresis
­
A
process
whereby
charged
molecules
(
such
as
DNA
and
enzymes)
are
separated
in
an
electric
field.
El
Niño­
Southern
Oscillation
(
ENSO)
­
A
climate
event
that
begins
as
a
warming
episode
in
the
tropical
Pacific
zone
that
can
result
in
large
scale
intrusions
of
anomalously
warm
marine
water
northward
along
the
PNW
coastline.
Emergence
­
When
newly­
hatched
salmonids
that
have
fully
absorbed
their
yolk­
sac,
they
emerge
from
the
gravel
and
promptly
migrate
downstream
to
estuaries.
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)
­
A
1973
act
of
congress
that
mandated
that
endangered
and
threatened
species
of
fish,
wildlife,
and
plants
be
protected
and
restored.
Escapement
­
The
number
of
adult
fish
returning
to
a
stream
that
escape
mortality
from
harvest
and
natural
attrition,
and
comprise
a
spawning
population.
Escapement
Distribution
Flag
(
EDF)
­
An
escapement
benchmark
for
checking
the
deviation
of
any
one
stock's
escapement
from
the
overall
pattern
of
escapement
within
the
stock's
management
unit.
Escapement
goal
­
A
predetermined
biologically
derived
number
of
salmonids
that
are
not
harvested
and
will
be
the
parent
spawners
for
a
wild
or
hatchery
stock
of
fish.
Estuarine
landscape
­
The
mosaic
of
deepwater,
nearshore,
and
subestuarine
delta
environments
used
by
summer
chum
as
they
feed,
rear,
and
migrate
through
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
410
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)
­
NMFS
definition
of
a
distinct
population
segment
(
the
smallest
biological
unit
that
will
be
considered
to
be
a
"
species"
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act).
A
population
will
be
is
considered
to
be
an
ESU
if
1)
it
is
substantially
reproductively
isolated
from
other
conspecific
population
units,
and
2)
it
represents
an
important
component
in
the
evolutionary
legacy
of
the
species.
Exploitation
rate
­
The
proportion
of
a
returning
run
or
total
population
of
salmonids
that
is
taken
by
fisheries.
Extinction
­
The
loss
of
a
stock
of
fish
from
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.
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.
Extirpation
­
The
elimination
of
a
species
from
a
particular
area.
Extreme
terminal
fishing
(
management)
area
­
Marine
or
freshwater
areas
where
salmonids
of
a
single
stock
or
management
unit
have
separated
from
fish
of
other
stocks.
F
­
A
genetic
term
representing
first
generation
individuals
reulting
from
a
given
cross
or
breeding.
1
F
­
The
second
generation
resulting
from
the
interbreeding
of
F
individuals.
2
1
Feeder
Bluff
­
An
eroding
shoreline
bluff
that
supplies
sediment
to
beaches
via
longshore
drift.
Fingerling
­
Juvenile
salmonids
up
to
nine
months
of
age
and
generally
two
to
four
inches
in
total
length.
Fishery
­
The
process
of
attempting
to
catch
fish,
which
then
may
be
retained
or
released.
Fitness
­
The
relative
ability
of
an
individual
(
or
population)
to
survive
and
reproduce
in
a
given
environment.
The
`
fit'
of
an
organism
to
its
environment.
Floodplain
­
The
part
of
a
river
valley
composed
of
unconsolidated
river
deposits
that
periodically
floods.
Sediment
is
deposited
on
the
floodplain
during
floods
and
through
the
lateral
migration
of
the
river
channel
across
the
floodplain.
The
100­
year
floodplain
refers
to
that
area
of
a
river
valley
that
is
inundated
during
a
large­
magnitude
flood
occurring,
on
average,
once
every
one
hundred
years.
Forest
Ecosystem
Management
Assessment
Team
(
FEMAT)
­
A
team
of
scientists
organized
by
the
federal
government
in
1993
to
develop
a
management
plan
for
federal
lands
and
rivers
within
the
range
of
the
northern
spotted
owl.
Forest
Practices
Act
­
A
Washington
State
statute
establishing
minimum
standards
for
forest
practices
and
providing
for
necessary
administrative
procedures
and
rules
applicable
to
activities
conducted
on
or
pertaining
to
forests
on
both
state­
managed
and
private
lands.
Fork
length
(
FL)
­
A
fish
length
measurement
from
the
tip
of
the
nose
to
the
fork
of
the
tail
fin.
Fragmentation
­
The
process
of
reducing
the
size
and
connectivity
of
habitats,
especially
with
reference
to
their
use
and
accessibility
by
animal
species
that
must
disperse
through
them.
Fry
­
Young
salmonids
that
have
emerged
from
the
gravel
and
are
up
to
one
month
of
age
or
any
cultured
salmonid
from
hatching
through
fourteen
days
after
being
ponded.
Gear
limits
­
Restrictions
placed
on
sport
or
commercial
fishing
gear,
which
are
used
to
control
the
take
of
fish.
Gene
­
A
specific
unit
of
genetic
material
(
DNA)
that
encodes
the
information
for
a
single
genetic
trait.
1
1
1
1
n
x
x
i
i
n
 
 
=

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
411
Genetic
diversity
­
All
of
the
genetic
variation
within
a
group.
The
genetic
diversity
of
a
species
includes
both
genetic
differences
between
individuals
in
a
breeding
population
(=
withinstock
diversity)
and
genetic
differences
among
different
breeding
populations
(=
among­
stock
diversity).
Genetic
drift
­
Gradual
change
with
time
in
the
genetic
composition
of
a
continuing
population
resulting
from
the
elimination
of
some
genetic
features
and
the
appearance
of
others,
and
appearing
to
be
unrelated
to
the
environmental
benefits
or
detriments
of
the
genes
involved.
Gene
flow
­
The
rate
of
entry
of
non­
native
genes
into
a
population,
measured
as
the
proportion
of
the
alleles
at
a
locus
in
a
generation
that
originated
from
outside
of
the
population.
Can
be
thought
of
as
the
genetically
successful
stray
rate
into
a
population.
See
also
stray
rate
and
homing
rate.
Gene
pool
­
The
total
variety
and
proportions
of
alleles
within
a
population.
Genetic
risk
­
The
probability
of
an
action
or
inaction
having
a
negative
impact
on
the
genetic
character
of
a
population
or
species.
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.
Genome
­
The
total
genetic
composition
of
an
individual.
The
complete
genetic
information
possessed
by
an
organism.
Geographic
Information
System
(
GIS)
­
A
computer
mapping
program.
Geomorphic
processes
­
Landform­
modifying
processes
such
as
erosion,
mass­
wasting,
and
streamflow.
Glide
­
A
gently
flowing,
calm
reach
of
shallow
water
in
a
stream.
Governor's
Salmon
Recovery
Office
­
See
Salmon
Recovery
Office.
Gradient
­
The
amount
of
vertical
drop
a
stream
experiences
over
a
given
distance.
Habitat
­
An
area
that
supplies
food,
water,
shelter,
and
space
necessary
for
a
particular
animal's
existence.
Habitat
complexity
­
Variations
in
stream
or
tidal
flow,
velocity,
and
depth
arising
from
structural
features
like
LWD,
floodplain,
or
estuarine
landforms
that
provide
cover
from
predators,
suitable
gravel
for
spawning,
sufficient
food
resources,
dispersal
corridors,
and
refuge
from
harsh
physical
or
chemical
conditions.
Habitat
Conservation
Plan
(
HCP)
­
A
program
for
the
long­
term
protection
and
benefit
of
a
species
in
a
defined
area;
required
as
part
of
a
Section
10
incidental
take
permit
application
under
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act.
Harmonic
mean
­
The
reciprocal
of
the
arithmetic
mean
of
the
reciprocals
of
a
finite
set
of
numbers;
harmonic
mean
=

Harvest
­
Fish
that
are
caught
and
retained
in
a
fishery
(
consumptive
harvest).
Harvest
project
­
Projects
designed
for
the
production
of
fish
that
are
primarily
intended
to
be
caught
in
fisheries.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
412
Harvest
rate
­
The
proportion
of
the
available
numbers
of
salmonids
that
is
taken
by
fisheries
in
a
specific
time
period.
Hatchery
fish
­
A
fish
that
has
spent
some
part
of
its
life­
cycle
in
an
artificial
environment
and
whose
parents
were
spawned
in
an
artificial
environment.
Hatchery
stock
(
population)
­
A
stock
that
depends
on
spawning,
incubation,
hatching
or
rearing
in
a
hatchery
or
other
artificial
propagation
facility
(
synonymous
with
cultured
stock).
Hatchery
production
­
The
spawning,
incubation,
hatching,
or
rearing
of
fish
in
a
hatchery
or
other
artificial
production
facility
(
e.
g.,
spawning
channels,
egg
incubation
boxes,
or
pens).
Hazard
­
Undesirable
events
that
an
artificial
propagation
program
is
attempting
to
avoid.
Headwaters
­
The
upper
reaches
of
a
stream
or
stream
system.
Healthy
stock
­
A
stock
of
fish
experiencing
production
levels
consistent
with
its
available
habitat
and
within
the
natural
variations
in
survival
for
the
stock.
This
does
not
imply
that
the
habitat
itself
is
necessarily
"
healthy."
Heterozygosity
­
The
proportion
of
individuals
in
a
population
that
possess
two
different
forms
(
alleles)
of
a
single
gene
(
locus).
Homing
rate
­
Of
all
the
fish
from
a
population
that
successfully
return
to
spawn,
the
homing
rate
is
the
proportion
that
return
to
spawn
in
the
same
population
in
which
their
parents
spawned.
See
also
stray
rate
and
gene
flow.
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council
(
HCCC)
­
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.
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group
(
HCSEG)
­
The
HCSEG
is
one
of
twelve
Regional
Fisheries
Enhancement
Groups
established
by
the
Washington
State
legislature
in
1991.
Funds
for
projects
and
administration
are
provided
through
recreational
and
commercial
salmon
license
sales,
and
salmon
carcass
sales
from
state
hatchery
facilities.
Technical
support
for
the
group
is
provided
by
the
WDFW
Volunteer
Program.
The
group
is
volunteerbased
and
is
active
in
salmonid
enhancement
and
habitat
improvement
projects
throughout
the
Hood
Canal
region.
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Management
Plan
(
HCSMP)
­
A
state/
tribal
salmon
management
plan
for
the
Hood
Canal
region
adopted
in
1986
as
a
part
of
U.
S.
v.
Washington.
Hybridization
­
The
interbreeding
of
fish
from
two
or
more
different
stocks
or
species.
Hydraulic
Project
Approval
(
HPA)
­
A
WDFW
permit
that
is
required
for
construction
and
other
work
that
uses,
diverts,
obstructs,
or
changes
the
natural
flow
or
bed
of
fresh­
or
saltwaters
of
the
state.
Hydraulics
code
­
The
primary
authority
that
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
has
to
meet
its
goal
of
protecting
fish
and
wildlife
habitat.
This
code
grants
WDFW
the
authority
to
approve
or
deny
requests
by
landowners
to
carry
out
activities
that
occur
below
the
ordinary
high­
water
line.
Hydrologic
maturity
­
Condition
of
a
forest
stand
in
which
hydrologic
processes
operate
as
they
do
in
a
mature
or
old­
growth
forest.
In
particular,
snow
accumulation
is
typically
lower
in
thick,
dense
forest
(
at
middle
and
lower
elevations)
than
in
openings,
due
to
the
melting
of
snow
caught
in
the
canopy
between
storms.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
413
Impervious
surfaces
­
Areas
covered
by
buildings,
roads,
parking
lots,
and
other
hard
structures
which
reduce
or
prevent
infiltration
of
rain
water
thereby
increasing
runoff
to
streams
which
results
in
a
greater
magnitude
and
frequency
of
peak
flow
events.
Implementation
monitoring
­
Monitoring
done
to
determine
whether
conservation
strategies
are
implemented
as
planned.
Imprinting
­
A
juvenile
fish
rearing
and
release
process
applied
in
an
artificial
propagation
program
to
promote
recognition,
and
high
fidelity,
of
returning
adult
fish
to
the
watershed
of
release..
Inbreeding
­
The
mating
of
related
individuals.
Incidental
harvest
­
The
capture
and
retention
of
species
other
than
those
a
fishery
is
primarily
opened
to
target/
take.
It
can
also
refer
to
marked
fish
of
the
same
species.
Incubation
­
A
salmon
life
stage
prior
to
egg
hatching
during
which
embryos
are
developing
in
the
gravel
where
they
were
spawned.
After
hatching
young
chum
salmon
remain
in
the
gravel
until
their
yolk­
sacs
are
fully
absorbed,
then
emerge
and
migrate
to
estuaries.
Independent
tributary
­
A
small
stream
flowing
directly
into
marine
waters.
Instream
Flow
Incremental
Methodology
(
IFIM)
­
An
analytical
methodology
for
estimating
the
stream
flows
that
will
provide
usable
stream
area
for
various
salmonid
life
stages.
Integrated
project
­
Project
where
artificially
propagated
fish
are
intended
to
spawn
in
the
wild
and
become
fully
reproductively
integrated
into
a
particular
natural
population.
Intertidal
zone
­
The
area
between
the
highest
and
lowest
tidal
levels.
Isolated
project
­
Project
where
artificially
propagated
fish
are
not
intended
to
spawn
in
the
wild
or
be
genetically
integrated
with
any
specific
natural
population.
Joint
Natural
Resources
Cabinet
(
JNRC)
­
A
committee
made
up
of
the
directors
of
13
Washington
State
natural
resource
agencies
that
promotes
interagency
communication,
coordination,
and
policy
direction
on
environmental
and
natural
resource
issues.
Landscape
­
A
large
regional
unit
of
land
or
water
that
is
composed
of
a
mosaic
of
communities
or
ecosystems,
each
changing
through
time
and
affecting
conditions
at
the
larger
landscape
scale.
See
"
estuarine
landscape".
Large
woody
debris
(
LWD)
­
Logs,
limbs,
or
root
wads
4
inches
or
larger
in
diameter,
delivered
to
river
and
stream
channels
from
streamside
forests
(
in
the
riparian
or
upslope
areas)
or
from
upstream
areas.
LWD
provides
streambed
stability
and
habitat
complexity.
LWD
recruitment
refers
to
the
process
whereby
streamside
forests
supply
wood
to
the
stream
channel
to
replenish
what
is
lost
by
decay
or
downstream
transport.
Life
history
­
The
events
that
make
up
the
life
cycle
of
an
animal
including
migration,
spawning,
incubation,
and
rearing.
There
is
typically
a
diversity
of
life
history
patterns
both
within
and
between
populations.
Life
history
can
refer
to
one
such
pattern,
or
collectively
refer
to
a
stylized
description
of
the
`
typical'
life
history
of
a
population.
.
Locally
adapted
population
­
A
population
whose
members
have
genetically
based
characteristics
that
increase
their
fitness
in
their
local
environment
compared
individuals
that
lack
these
characteristics.
Long
Live
The
Kings
(
LLTK)
­
An
independent,
private,
professional
non­
profit
organization
based
in
Seattle,
Washington
dedicated
to
the
perpetuation
and
recovery
of
Washington
salmonid
populations.
The
group
is
active
in
salmon
enhancement
and
habitat
improvement
projects
throughout
the
Puget
Sound
region.
LLTK
is
responsible
for
on­
going
summer
chum
supplementation
projects
on
Lilliwaup
Creek
and
the
Hamma
Hamma
River
in
the
Hood
Canal
region.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
414
Longshore
drift
­
The
movement
of
sediment
along
a
shoreline
by
water
currents
and
waves
breaking
at
an
angle
to
the
shore.
Loss
­
Loss
refers
to
the
consequences
of
a
hazard
occurring.
In
this
risk
assessment,
losses
are
measured
at
the
level
of
individual
populations
and
(
to
some
degree)
the
entire
ESU.
Management
Unit
(
MU)
­
A
stock
or
group
of
stocks
which
are
aggregated
for
the
purpose
of
achieving
a
desired
spawning
escapement
objective.
Maximum
Sustained
Yield
(
MSY)
­
The
maximum
number
of
fish
from
a
stock
or
management
unit
that
can
be
harvested
on
a
sustained
basis,
measured
as
the
number
of
fish
that
would
enter
freshwater
to
spawn
in
the
absence
of
fishing
after
accounting
for
natural
mortality.
Mean
higher
high
water
(
MHHW)
­
A
tidal
elevation
obtained
by
averaging
each
day's
highest
tide
at
a
particular
location
over
a
period
of
nineteen
years.
It
is
measured
from
the
MLLW
=
0.0
tidal
elevation.
Mean
lower
low
water
(
MLLW)
­
A
tidal
elevation
obtained
by
averaging
each
day's
lowest
tide
at
a
particular
location
over
a
period
of
nineteen
years.
It
is
the
tidal
datum
for
vertical
tidal
references
in
saltwater
areas.
Microcomputer
Historic
Catch
and
Landing
Summary
(
MHCLS)
­
A
tribal
data
base
maintained
by
NWIFC.
Migrant
(
or
stray)
­
An
individual
that
breeds
in
a
population
other
than
that
of
its
parents.
Migration
­
The
seasonal
movement
of
an
animal
from
one
area
to
another.
Migration
rate
(
or
stray
rate)
­
The
proportion
of
a
population
that
consists
of
migrants.
Minimum
Escapement
Flag
(
MEF)
­
An
escapement
benchmark
for
checking
if
any
stock's
escapement
is
below
a
critical
abundance
threshold.
Minimum
viable
population
(
MVP)
­
The
size
of
a
population
which,
with
a
given
probability,
will
ensure
the
persistence
of
the
population
for
a
specified
period
of
time.
Mitigation
­
An
action
intended
to
reduce
the
adverse
impact
of
a
specific
project
or
development.
Mixed­
origin
stock
­
A
stock
whose
individuals
originated
from
commingled
native
and
non­
native
parents;
or
a
previously
native
stock
that
has
undergone
substantial
genetic
alteration.
Mixed
stock
­
A
stock
whose
individuals
originated
from
commingled
native
and
non­
native
parents,
and/
or
by
mating
between
native
and
non­
native
fish
(
hybridization);
or
a
previously
native
stock
that
has
undergone
substantial
genetic
alteration.
Mixed­
stock
fisheries
­
Any
fishery
that
catches
fish
from
more
than
one
stock.
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
­
A
branch
of
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration,
Department
of
Commerce
whose
responsibilities
include
administration
of
the
endangered
species
act
for
anadromous
and
marine
fish.
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
­
A
program
under
the
federal
Clean
Water
Act.
Native
population
­
See
Native
stock.
Native
species
­
A
species
of
fish
indigenous
to
Washington
State.
Native
stock
­
An
indigenous
stock
of
fish
that
has
not
been
substantially
impacted
by
genetic
interactions
with
non­
native
stocks
or
by
other
factors,
and
is
still
present
in
all
or
part
of
its
original
range.
In
limited
cases,
a
native
population
may
also
exist
outside
of
its
original
range
(
e.
g.
in
a
captive
broodstock
program).
Natural
fish
­
A
fish
that
has
spent
essentially
all
of
its
life­
cycle
in
the
wild
and
whose
parents
spawned
in
the
wild.
Synonymous
with
natural
origin
recruit
(
NOR).
Natural
Origin
Recruit
(
NOR)
­
See
Natural
fish.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
415
Natural
population
­
See
Natural
stock.
Natural
Return
Rate
(
NRR)
­
The
number
of
native,
naturally
produced
fish
spawning
in
on
generation
divided
by
the
total
number
of
naturally
spawning
fish
(
hatchery
plus
naturally
­
produced
fish)
in
the
previous
generation.
Natural
spawners
(
NS)
­
See
Natural
fish.
Natural
stock
­
A
stock
that
is
sustained
by
natural
spawning
and
rearing
in
the
natural
habitat.
Nearshore
­
Defined
in
terms
of
habitat
use
by
summer
chum,
nearshore
habitat
includes
intertidal
and
shallow
sub­
tidal
areas
(
less
than
2
meters
or
6.5
feet
in
depth
relative
to
mean
lower
low­
water),
and
includes
beaches,
mud­
and
sandflats,
eelgrass,
kelp,
and
macroalgae
beds
used
by
smaller
summer
chum
juveniles
for
feeding
and
migration.
Net
pen
­
A
fish­
rearing
enclosure
used
in
lakes
and
marine
areas.
Non­
native
stock
(
population)
­
A
stock
(
population)
that
has
become
established
outside
of
its
original
range.
Non­
target
population
­
Any
natural
populations
that
is
not
intended
to
be
integrated
with
a
particular
artificial
propagation
program.
North
of
Falcon
(
NOF)
­
An
annual
pre­
season
salmon
management
process
for
fisheries
occurring
between
Cape
Falcon
(
Oregon)
and
the
Canadian
border.
North
Olympic
Salmon
Coalition
(
NOSC)
­
NOSC
is
based
in
Hadlock,
Washington,
and
is
one
of
twelve
Regional
Fisheries
Enhancement
Groups
established
by
the
Washington
State
legislature
in
1991.
Funds
for
projects
and
administration
are
provided
through
sales
of
recreational
and
commercial
salmon
licenses,
and
salmon
carcass
sales
from
state
hatchery
facilities.
Technical
support
for
the
group
is
provided
by
the
WDFW
Volunteer
Program.
NOSC
is
volunteer­
based,
and
is
active
in
salmonid
enhancement
and
habitat
improvement
projects
throughout
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region,
including
the
Salmon
Creek
summer
chum
supplementation
and
Chimacum
Creek
reintroduction
programs,
which
are
operated
co­
operatively
with
Wild
Olympic
Salmon
and
WDFW.
Northwest
Indian
Fisheries
Commission
(
NWIFC)
­
Created
in
1974
by
treaty
Indian
tribes
in
western
Washington,
the
commission's
role
is
to
assist
the
tribes
in
conducting
orderly
and
biologically
sound
fisheries.
Nutrients
­
Chemical
compounds
derived
from
organic
and
inorganic
sources
which
move
through
the
soil,
air,
water,
and
living
organisms.
Many
nutrients,
such
as
carbon
dioxide
(
CO
),
are
2
essential
for
life
but
can
become
harmful
to
organisms
in
excessive
quantities.
Off­
channel
area
­
Any
relatively
calm
portion
of
a
stream
outside
of
the
main
flow.
Ordinary
high
water
mark
­
A
distinctive
change
in
the
character
of
soil,
banks,
and
vegetation
in
the
area
adjoining
a
stream
channel
related
to
typical
and
yearly
high
flow
events.
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.
Pacific
Salmon
Commission
(
PSC)
­
The
Pacific
Salmon
Commission
is
the
bilateral
commission
with
responsibility
for
administering
the
PST.
Pacific
Salmon
Treaty
(
PST)
­
The
Pacific
Salmon
Treaty,
signed
between
the
U.
S.
and
Canada
in
1985,
governs
salmon
interceptions
by
each
country.
Parties
(
to
the
recoverey
plan)
­
The
co­
managers
(
the
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
tribes
and
WDFW)
alnong
with
USFWS,
and
NMFS
are
"
parties"
to
the
recovery
plan.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
416
Peak
flows
­
Extremely
high
winter­
time
flows
which
can
cause
excessive
streambed
scour
and
damage
or
destroy
salmon
eggs
incubating
in
the
gravel.
Peak
flows
can
become
more
severe
as
a
result
of
an
increase
in
impervious
surfaces
and
a
reduction
of
hydrologic
maturity,
both
of
which
increase
the
rate
of
water
delivery
to
stream
channels.
Pieces
per
meter
(
pcs/
m)
­
Refers
to
large
woody
debris
in
streams.
Pinniped
­
Marine
mammals
of
the
suborder
Pinnipedia,
including
seals,
sea
lions,
and
walruses.
Piscivorous
­
Organisms
that
feed
on
fishes.
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Council
(
PNPTC)
­
An
intergovernmental
fisheries
management
agency
serving
the
four
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Tribes
whose
usual
and
accustomed
fishing
areas
include
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
See
also
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Tribes.
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Tribes
(
PNPTT)
­
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Tribes;
including
Jamestown
S'Klallam,
Lower
Elwha
Klallam,
Port
Gamble
S'Klallam,
and
Skokomish.
Pool
­
A
relatively
deep,
still
section
in
a
stream.
Population
­
Synonymous
with
the
term
stock.
Population
Viability
Analysis
(
PVA)
­
A
statistical
analysis
that
provides
an
estimate
of
the
probability
that
a
population
will
become
extinct
over
a
specific
time
frame.
Pre­
terminal
fishing
(
management)
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.
Production
type
­
The
method
of
spawning
and
rearing
that
produced
the
fish
that
constitute
a
stock.
Productivity
­
A
measure
of
a
biological
system's
ability
to
supply
organisms
with
energy
and
resources
to
feed,
grow,
and
survive.
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan
(
PSSMP)
­
A
state/
tribal
salmon
management
plan
for
the
Puget
Sound
region
adopted
in
1985
as
a
part
of
U.
S.
v.
Washington.
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery
(
QNFH)
­
A
fish
culture
station
operated
by
the
USFWS
on
the
Big
Quilcene
River.
Recolonization
­
The
reestablishment
of
a
salmonid
stock
in
a
habitat
that
the
species
previously
occupied.
Recovery
project
­
Artificial
production
projects
primarily
designed
to
aid
in
the
recovery,
conservation
or
reintroduction
of
particular
natural
population(
s).
Recruits
­
The
total
numbers
of
fish
of
a
specific
stock
available
at
a
particular
stage
of
their
life
history.
Redd
­
A
spawning
site
for
a
pair
of
salmon,
where
eggs
are
buried
in
gravels
for
incubation
and
hatching.
Regional
fisheries
enhancement
group
­
One
of
12
regional
fisheries
enhancement
(
volunteer)
groups
funded
under
recreational
and
commercial
salmon
license
fees,
allowed
to
do
habitat
enhancement
projects
plus
rear
and
release
salmon
into
state
waters
under
the
direction
of
WDFW.
Refugia
­
Areas
where
an
animals
can
go
to
escape
predation
or
unfavorable
environmental
conditions.
Remote
Site
Incubator
(
RSI)
­
A
lightweight,
dark
colored
plastic
barrel
incubator
that
employs
plastic
substrate
(
hatching
medium),
and
can
be
sized
to
accommodate
5,000
to
125,000
eggs
per
incubator.
They
are
used
mainly
for
incubating
chum
salmon
eggs.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
417
Resident
fish
­
A
life
history
type
in
which
all
life
stages
(
e.
g.
spawning,
rearing,
growth,
maturation)
occur
in
small
headwater
streams,
often
upstream
from
impassable
physical
barriers.
Resilience
­
The
potential
for
recovery
if
a
loss
occurs.
Riffle
­
A
shallow
gravel
area
of
a
stream
that
is
characterized
by
increased
velocities
and
gradients,
and
is
the
predominate
stream
area
used
by
salmon
for
spawning.
Riparian
­
Referring
to
the
transition
area
between
aquatic
and
terrestrial
ecosystems.
The
riparian
zone
includes
the
channel
migration
zone
and
the
vegetation
directly
adjacent
to
the
CMZ
that
influence
channel
habitat
through
alteration
of
microclimate
or
input
of
LWD.
The
riparian
buffer
refers
to
the
strip
of
vegetation
left
adjacent
to
rivers,
streams,
estuaries,
and
coastlines
following
human
alterations
(
harvest
or
development).
Riparian
function
refers
to
LWD­
recruitment
and
stream­
shading
functions
provided
by
riparian
vegetation,
which
if
removed,
result
in
a
change
in
the
physical,
chemical,
or
biological
properties
to
the
waterbody.
Risk
assessment
­
Evaluating
the
probability
of
an
action
having
a
negative
impact
that
is
not
within
prescribed
limits
or
acceptable
bounds.
River
mile
(
RM)
­
A
statute
mile
measured
along
the
center
line
of
a
river.
River
mile
measurements
start
at
the
stream
mouth
(
RM
0.0)..
Riverine
­
Referring
to
the
entire
river
network,
including
tributaries,
side
channels,
sloughs,
intermittent
streams,
etc.
Run
­
The
sum
of
stocks
of
a
single
salmonid
species
which
migrates
to
a
particular
region,
river,
or
stream
of
origin
at
a
particular
season.
Run
Reconstruction
­
A
post
season
accounting
of
all
salmon
harvest
and
escapement
for
each
individual
stock
or
management
unit.
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Habitat
Inventory
and
Assessment
Project
(
SSHIAP)
­
A
state/
tribal
cooperative
program
to
gather,
analyze,
and
inventory
data
on
the
amount
and
condition
of
salmon
and
steelhead
habitat.
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
SASSI)
­
A
cooperative
program
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife,
and
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes
to
inventory
and
rate
the
status
of
salmon
and
steelhead
stocks
on
a
recurring
basis.
The
1993
SASSI
identified
salmonid
stocks
and
their
status
with
information
on
stock
origin
and
history
and
provided
descriptions
of
the
factors
which
affect
stock
status.
The
inventory
process
is
no
longer
confined
to
just
salmon
and
steelhead,
and
now
encompasses
several
additional
salmonid
species.
Future
inventories
will
be
titled
Salmonid
Stock
Inventory
(
SaSI)
to
accommodate
the
inclusion
of
anadromous
trout
species.
Salmonid
­
Any
member
of
the
taxonomic
family
Salmonidae,
which
includes
all
species
of
salmon,
trout,
char,
whitefish,
and
grayling.
Salmon
Recovery
Office
(
SRO)
­
Also
called
the
Governor's
Salmon
Recovery
Office,
it
is
a
State
work
group
that
coordinates
statewide
efforts
dealing
with
all
aspects
of
salmon
recovery.
Saltmarsh
­
A
grass­
dominated
wetland
periodically
inundated
by
saltwater.
Salvage
­
The
removal
of
snags,
downed
logs,
windthrow,
or
dead
and
dying
material.
Scour
chain
­
A
device
that
is
inserted
into
a
gravel
streambed
and
used
to
measure
scour
or
streambed
instability.
Selective
fishery
­
A
fishery
that
allows
the
release
of
non­
targeted
fish
stocks/
runs,
including
unmarked
fish
of
the
same
species.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
418
Self­
sustaining
population
­
A
population
of
salmonids
that
exists
in
sufficient
numbers
to
replace
itself
through
time
without
supplementation
with
hatchery
fish.
It
does
not
necessarily
produce
surplus
fish
for
harvest.
Set
gillnet
­
A
gillnet
which
is
anchored,
tied,
staked,
laid
in
part
on
shore,
or
whose
lead
line
is
so
heavily
weighted
that
it
cannot
drift
(
WAC
220­
16­
095).
Shoreline
Management
Act
­
A
Washington
State
law
which
establishes
a
process
for
coordinated
planning
to
protect
shorelines
and
public
uses
of
shorelines.
The
act
requires
that
the
Department
of
Ecology
oversee
and
advise
local
governments
in
shoreline
planning.
Local
governments
develop
shoreline
erosion
management
standards
and
permit
structural
and
nonstructural
erosion
control
measures
adjacent
to
shorelines
and
large
waterbodies.
Sinuous
­
Bending,
winding,
or
curving.
Site
potential
tree
height
(
SPTH)
­
The
average
maximum
height
attained
by
a
tree
within
a
specified
time
period,
given
particular
site
conditions.
For
the
purposes
of
this
plan,
this
period
is
200­
300
years,
or
the
time
necessary
for
a
riparian
forest
to
reach
full
maturity.
Skiff
gillnet
­
A
gillnet
of
single
web
construction
with
floats
along
the
corkline
sufficient
to
float
the
net.
A
skiff
gillnet
may
be
laid
in
part
on
shore,
but
may
not
be
anchored,
tied,
or
staked,
nor
have
a
lead
line
so
heavily
weighted
that
the
net
cannot
drift
(
WAC
220­
16­
046).
Smolt
­
A
juvenile
anadromous
salmonid
which
is
undergoing
the
physiological
and
behavioral
changes
required
to
migrate
from
fresh
water
to
salt
water.
Stock
­
The
fish
spawning
in
a
particular
lake
or
stream(
s)
at
a
particular
season,
which
to
a
substantial
degree
do
not
interbreed
with
any
group
spawning
in
a
different
place,
or
in
the
same
place
at
a
different
season.
Stock
origin
­
The
genetic
history
of
a
stock.
Stock
status
­
The
current
condition
of
a
stock,
which
may
be
based
on
escapement,
run­
size,
survival,
or
fitness
level.
Subestuary
­
The
area
at
the
mouth
of
a
river
tributary
to
Hood
Canal
and
the
eastern
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
that
includes
the
delta,
tidal
channels,
mudflats,
marshes,
and
eelgrass
meadows.
See
"
estuarine
landscape".
Substantial
risk
of
extinction
guideline
­
Judgements
regarding
the
acceptability
of
risks
assumed
through
measures
proposed
in
this
plan
may
be
based
on
whether
the
target
population
is
believed
to
be
in
substantial
danger
of
extinction
within
the
next
36
years.
This
duration
is
derived
from
an
average
summer
chum
life
span
of
3.6
years
applied
to
a
10
generation
risk
standard
set
forth
by
the
Federal
Court
in
judging
extinction
risk
(
Oregon
Natural
Resources
Council
v.
NMFS
and
the
State
of
Oregon
1998).
Subtidal
zone
­
Shallow­
water
areas
below
mean
low
water.
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.
Supplementation
­
The
use
of
artificial
propagation
to
maintain
or
increase
natural
production
while
maintaining
the
long­
term
fitness
of
the
target
population,
and
keeping
the
ecological
and
genetic
impacts
to
non­
target
populations
within
specified
biological
limits.
Targeted
fishery
­
A
harvest
strategy
designed
to
catch
a
specific
group
of
fish.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
419
Terminal
fishing
(
management)
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.
These
areas
for
summer
chum
salmon
include
all
marine
waters
of
Hood
Canal,
and
Discovery,
Sequim,
and
Dungeness
bays.
Thalweg
­
A
line
connecting
the
deepest
channel
sections
along
a
stream.
In
fisheries
work
"
thalweg"
commonly
is
used
to
identify
the
deepest
portion
of
the
channel
along
a
stream.
Timber
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
TFW)
­
A
coalition
of
the
timber
industry,
state
and
local
governments,
tribes,
and
recreational
and
environmental
groups
that
addresses
the
interactions
of
timber
management
activities
and
fish.
Total
population
size
(
N)
­
The
number
of
spawners
cumulated
over
a
number
of
years
equivalent
to
one
generation.
For
summer
chum
salmon,
total
population
size
can
be
calculated;
N
=
Average
escapement
times
3.6
(
generation
length).
Trend
­
The
directional
change
in
a
time­
series
data
set.
Tribal
Fish
Ticket
data
base
(
TFT)
­
Maintained
by
the
NWIFC.
Tributary
­
A
stream
feeding,
joining
or
flowing
into
a
larger
stream,
a
lake,
or
saltwater.
Unknown
stock
­
A
stock
for
which
there
is
insufficient
information
to
identify
stock
origin
or
stock
status
with
confidence.
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
­
A
branch
of
the
federal
Department
of
Interior
whose
responsibilities
include
administration
of
the
endangered
species
act
as
it
affects
nonanadromous
fish
and
steelhead,
wildlife
and
plants.
U.
S.
Forest
Service
(
USFS)
­
A
branch
of
the
Department
of
Agriculture.
U.
S.
v.
Washington
­
A
1974
Federal
Court
Decision
that
affirmed
the
fishing
rights
of
western
Washington
Treaty
Indians
Tribes.
Commonly
referred
to
as
the
"
Boldt
Decision".
Viable
population
­
A
population
in
a
state
that
maintains
its
vigor
and
its
potential
for
evolutionary
change.
Washington
Catch
Record
Card
Area
­
A
WDFW
sport
salmon
harvest
reporting
system
that
uses
standard
catch
areas
(
identified
by
number).
Washington
Commercial
Catch
Reporting
Area
­
A
WDFW
commercial
salmon
harvest
reporting
system
that
uses
standard
catch
areas
(
identified
by
number).
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW)
­
Created
by
the
merger
of
the
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF)
and
the
Washington
Department
of
Wildlife
(
WDW)
in
1994.
Water
resource
inventory
area
(
WRIA)
­
Watershed­
based
planning
unit,
defined
by
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology.
WRIAs
are
determined
by
drainages
and
common
water
bodies.
Watershed
­
The
region
drained
by
or
contributing
water
to
a
stream,
lake
or
other
body
of
water,
physically
separated
from
other
watersheds
by
a
drainage
divide..
Watershed
Administrative
Unit
(
WAU)
­
The
State
of
Washington
has
been
divided
into
approximately
800
watersheds
called
Watershed
Administrative
Units,
the
boundaries
of
which
are
described
in
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources
Watershed
Administrative
Unit
Map.
These
are
the
basic
geographic
units
for
the
process
of
watershed
analysis
administered
by
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
Watershed
Analysis
­
A
systematic
procedure
for
characterizing
watershed
and
ecological
processes
to
provide
a
basis
for
resource
management
planning.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
420
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes
(
WWTIT)
­
Indian
tribes
located
west
of
the
Cascade
Crest
that
have
been
recognized
by
the
United
States
government,
with
usual
and
accustomed
fishing
grounds,
and
whose
fishing
rights
were
reserved
under
a
treaty
and
have
been
affirmed
by
a
federal
court.
Wetland
­
An
area
that
is
inundated
or
saturated
by
surface
or
ground
water
at
a
frequency
and
duration
sufficient
to
naturally
support
distinct
soil
and
vegetation
types.
Wetlands
interact
with
surface
and
ground
waters
and
can
regulate
stream
flow,
moderating
extreme
winter
peak
and
summer
low
flow
conditions.
Wild
Olympic
Salmon
(
WOS)
­
Based
in
Chimacum,
Washington,
WOS
is
an
independent,
private
organization
dedicated
to
the
perpetuation
and
recovery
of
Washington
salmonid
populations.
The
group
is
volunteer­
based,
and
is
active
in
salmonid
enhancement
and
habitat
improvement
projects
throughout
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region.
The
group
operates
the
Salmon
Creek
summer
chum
supplementation
and
Chimacum
Creek
reintroduction
programs
co­
operatively
with
North
Olympic
Salmon
Coalition
and
WDFW.
Wild
stock
­
A
stock
that
is
sustained
by
natural
spawning
and
rearing
in
the
natural
habitat,
regardless
of
parentage
(
includes
native).
Wild
Stock
Restoration
Initiative
(
WSRI)
­
A
cooperative
program
between
the
state
and
western
Washington
Indian
tribes
that
is
intended
to
maintain
and
restore
healthy
salmon
ad
steelhead
stocks
and
habitats.
Within­
stock
diversity
­
The
overall
genetic
variability
among
individuals
of
a
single
population
or
stock.

Acronyms
and
Abbreviations
AUC
­
Area
Under
the
Curve.
BBC
­
Big
Beef
Creek.
BCR
­
Base
Conservation
Regime.
BMP
­
Best
Management
Practices.
CDFO
­
Canadian
Department
of
Fisheries
and
Oceans
cfs
­
Cubic
feet
per
second.
CMZ
­
Coastal
Management
Zone.
COE
­
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers.
CRC
­
Catch
Record
Card.
CREP
­
Washington
State
Conservation
Enhancement
Program.
CTED
­
Washington
State
Department
of
Community,
Trade
and
Economic
Development.
CWT
­
Coded
Wire
Tag.
dbh
­
Diameter
at
breast
height.
DNA
­
Deoxyribonucleic
acid.
DNR
­
Washington
State
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
DO
­
Dissolved
oxygen.
DOE
­
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology.
DOT
­
Washington
State
Department
of
Transportation.
EDF
­
Escapement
Distribution
Flag.
EHB
­
Engrossed
House
Bill
(
Washington
State
Legislature).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
421
ELJ
­
Engineered
logjam.
ENSO
­
El
Niño­
Southern
Oscillation.
EPA
­
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ESA
­
Endangered
Species
Act.
ESU
­
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit.
FAO/
UN
­
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
of
the
United
Nations.
FEMA
­
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency.
FEMAT
­
Forest
Ecosystem
Management
Assessment
Team.
FERC
­
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission.
fpp
­
fish
per
pound.
fl
­
Fork
length.
GIS
­
Geographic
Information
System.
GSI
­
Genetic
Stock
Identification.
HB
­
House
Bill
(
Washington
State
Legislature).
HC
­
Hood
Canal
.
HCCC
­
Hood
Canal
Coordinating
Council.
HCP
­
Habitat
Conservation
Plan.
HCPEP
­
Hood
Canal
Production
and
Evaluation
Program.
HCSEG
­
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Enhancement
Group.
HCSMP
­
Hood
Canal
Salmon
Management
Plan.
HC­
SJF
­
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
HCWCP
­
Hood
Canal
Wild
Coho
Salmon
Evaluation
and
Rehabilitation
program.
HPA
­
Hydraulic
Project
Approval.
IFIM
­
Instream
Flow
Incremental
Methodology.
JCL
­
Jimmycomelately
Creek.
JNRC
­
Joint
Natural
Resources
Cabinet.
LLTK
­
Long
Live
The
Kings.
LWD
­
Large
Woody
Debris.
MEF
­
Minimum
Escapement
Flag.
MHCLS
­
Microcomputer
Historic
Catch
and
Landing
Summary.
MHHW
­
Mean
higher
high
water.
MLLW
­
Mean
lower
low
water.
MSY
­
Maximum
Sustained
Yield.
MU
­
Management
Unit.
MVP
­
Minimum
viable
population.
N
­
Total
population
size.
NA
­
Not
applicable.
N
­
Effective
population
size.
e
NFH
­
National
Fish
Hatchery.
NMFS
­
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service.
NOF
­
North
of
Falcon.
NOR
­
Natural
Origin
Recruit.
NOSC
­
North
Olympic
Salmon
Coalition.
NPDES
­
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
422
NPS
­
U.
S.
National
Park
Service.
NRC
­
National
Research
Council.
NRR
­
Natural
Return
Rate.
NS
­
Natural
spawners.
NWIFC
­
Northwest
Indian
Fisheries
Commission.
pcs/
m
­
Pieces
per
meter.
PDO
­
Pacific
Decadal
Oscillation.
PFMC
­
Pacific
Fisheries
Management
Commission.
PNPTC
­
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Council.
PNPTT
­
Point­
No­
Point
Treaty
Tribes.
PNW
­
Pacific
Northwest.
PSC
­
Pacific
Salmon
Commission.
PSCRBT
­
Puget
Sound
Cooperative
River
Basin
Team.
PSMFC
­
Pacific
Salmon
Marine
Fisheries
Commission.
PSSFI
­
Puget
Sound
Stream
Flow
Index.
PSSMP
­
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan.
PST
­
Pacific
Salmon
Treaty.
PSWQAT
­
Puget
Sound
Water
Quality
Action
Team.
PUD
­
Public
Utility
District.
PVA
­
Population
Viability
Analysis.
QNFH
­
Quilcene
National
Fish
Hatchery.
RCW
­
Revised
Code
of
Washington.
RM
­
River
Mile.
RSI
­
Remote
Site
Incubator.
SASSI
­
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory.
SEPA
­
State
Environmental
Policy
Act.
SJF
­
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca.
SPTH
­
Site
potential
tree
height.
SR
­
State
Route
highway.
SRO
­
Governor's
Salmon
recovery
Office.
SSHIAP
­
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Habitat
Inventory
and
Assessment
Project.
STC
­
Simpson
Timber
Company.
TFT
­
Tribal
Fish
Ticket
data
base.
TFW
­
Timber
Fish
and
Wildlife.
USFS
­
U.
S.
Forest
Service.
USFWS
­
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
USDA
­
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
USDI
­
U.
S.
Department
of
Interior.
USGS
­
U.
S.
Geological
Survey.
UW
­
University
of
Washington.
WAC
­
Washington
Administrative
Code.
WAU
­
Watershed
Administrative
Unit.
WCVI
­
West
Coast
Vancouver
Island.
WDF
­
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
February
2000
Glossary
Page
423
WFPB
­
Washington
Forest
Practices
Board.
WDFW
­
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife.
WDW
­
Washington
Department
of
Wildlife.
WOS
­
Wild
Olympic
Salmon
WRIA
­
Water
Resource
Inventory
Area.
WSRI
­
Wild
Stock
Restoration
Initiative.
WWTIT
­
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
One
A1.1
Part
One
Appendix
Contents
Page
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
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
to
Part
One
A1.2
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Figures
A1.3
Appendix
Figures
Appendix
Figure
1.1.
UPGMA
clustering
of
Cavali­
Sforza
and
Edwards
(
1967)
chord
distances
among
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer­
run
chum
salmon
populations.

Appendix
Figure
1.2.
Three­
dimensional
scaling
of
genetic
distances
among
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer­
run
chum
salmon
populations.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Figures
A1.4
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Figures
A1.5
Figure
1.1.
UPGMA
clustering
of
Cavali­
Sforza
and
Edwards
(
1967)
chord
distances
among
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer­
run
chum
salmon
populations.

Figure
1.2.
Three­
dimensional
scaling
of
genetic
distances
among
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer­
run
chum
salmon
populations.
Collections
are
as
follows:
1
=
Snow
Creek
1986;
2
=
Salmon
Creek
1986;
3
=
Jimmycomelately
Creek
1986;
4
=
Duckabush
River
1985,
1986,
1992;
5
=
Quilcene
Bay/
National
Fish
Hatchery
1997;
6
=
Hamma
Hamma
River
1985,
1986,
1994,
1995,
1997;
7
=
Quilcene
Bay/
River
1992,
1993,
1994;
8
=
Union
River
1986,
1993,
1995;
9
=
Lilliwaup
Creek
1985,
1986,
1992,
1993,
1997;
10
=
Dosewallips
river
1986,
1992.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Figures
A1.6
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Tables
A1.7
Appendix
Tables
Appendix
Table
1.1.
Summer
chum
salmon
spawning
escapement
estimates
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
(
1968­
1998).

Appendix
Table
1.2.
Big
Quilcene
summer
chum
salmon
return
year
age
samples
collected
in
Quilcene
Bay
fisheries
and
at
the
QNFH
from
1992
to
1998.

Appendix
Table
1.3.
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
return
year
age
samples
collected
in
mixed
stock
fisheries
from
1976
to
1996
(
ages
for
years
with
>
100
fish
sampled
in
bold).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Tables
A1.8
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Tables
A1.9
Appendix
Table
1.1.
Summer
chum
salmon
spawning
escapement
estimates
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
(
1968­
1998).

Excluded
values
=
missing
estimates;
Italicized
=
estimates
based
on
regression
or
extrapolation.

Return
Year
Jimmy
Come
Lately
Snow
Salmon
Natural
Brdstk
Total
Big
Beef
Anderson
Dewatto
Tahuya
Union
Lilliwaup
Hamma
Hamma
Duckabush
Dosewallips
Big
Quilcene
Natural
Brdstk
Total
Little
Quilcene
1968
100
2,275
13,548
4,693
5,797
5,797
897
1969
100
280
3,104
3,871
1,307
1,307
1970
178
65
2,666
1,390
2,301
655
655
12
1971
249
249
159
125
2,012
318
4,282
3,904
1,798
1,798
71
1972
436
534
534
177
225
1,403
4,487
716
5,346
13,546
1,733
2,067
2,067
300
1973
636
636
244
691
5,761
623
3,107
3,107
238
1974
438
818
512
512
75
0
181
880
68
616
2,448
3,581
3,593
795
795
44
1975
348
327
755
755
1,15
195
613
1,389
84
706
7,341
2,245
2,250
1,405
1,405
868
1976
365
608
521
521
1,28
234
741
3,200
100
1,612
7,648
6,095
3,271
2,445
2,445
1,088
1977
405
538
701
701
302
26
225
726
75
420
1,675
2,453
3,215
821
821
773
1978
778
629
1,664
1,664
680
16
544
266
35
1,331
8,215
1,898
1,901
2,978
2,978
1,816
1979
170
133
458
458
191
6
49
117
90
163
3,096
1,190
1,190
345
345
110
1980
1,326
709
3,074
3,074
123
2
117
178
208
247
329
827
1,216
375
375
154
1981
203
242
439
439
90
1
41
140
41
293
926
557
63
138
138
84
1982
599
766
1,386
1,386
0
0
21
86
153
84
801
690
507
156
156
125
1983
254
154
731
731
0
0
15
86
170
18
190
80
64
64
64
176
1984
367
384
828
828
22
1
44
142
194
187
170
299
212
60
60
83
1985
61
20
151
151
0
0
19
122
334
92
231
30
236
44
44
1
1986
292
213
582
582
0
0
20
109
1,892
97
173
177
57
15
15
12
1987
464
465
1,062
1,062
6
0
5
91
497
32
26
12
9
8
8
71
1988
1,052
723
1,915
1,915
0
0
23
145
629
275
440
497
661
120
120
177
1989
173
21
194
194
0
0
2
9
450
43
16
60
16
1
1
1
1990
63
33
245
245
0
0
0
6
275
2
90
42
8
6
6
0
1991
125
12
172
172
0
0
31
5
208
30
68
102
250
49
49
1
1992
616
21
371
62
433
0
0
0
0
140
90
123
617
655
320
414
734
9
1993
110
11
400
52
452
0
0
1
0
251
72
69
105
105
97
50
147
12
1994
15
2
137
24
161
0
0
0
0
738
105
370
263
225
349
393
742
0
1995
223
25
538
53
591
0
0
0
0
721
79
476
825
2,787
4,029
498
4,527
54
1996
30
160
785
109
894
0
0
0
5
494
40
774
2,650
6,976
8,479
882
9,361
265
1997
61
67
724
110
834
0
0
6
0
410
10
104
475
47
7,339
657
7,996
29
1998
98
28
1,013
121
1,134
2
0
12
0
223
4
95
226
336
2,244
544
2,788
265
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Tables
A1.10
Appendix
Table
1.2.
Big
Quilcene
stock
summer
chum
salmon
return
year
ages
from
fish
collected
in
Quilcene
Bay
fisheries
and
at
the
QNFH
from
1992
to
1998.

Return
Year
Number
sampled
%
Age­
2
%
Age­
3
%
Age­
4
%
Age­
5
1992
210
0.0
3.3
98.6
0.0
1993
33
6.1
6.1
18.2
69.7
1994
309
1.0
91.6
6.1
1.3
1995
407
0.0
95.8
4.2
0.0
1996
481
1.9
4.0
94.2
0.0
1997
457
0.4
88.8
6.1
4.6
1998
396
0.3
65.7
33.6
0.5
Appendix
Table
1.3.
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
return
year
age
samples
collected
in
mixed
stock
fisheries
from
1974
to
1998
(
ages
for
years
with
>
100
fish
sampled
in
bold).

Return
Year
Sample
size
%
Age­
3
%
Age­
4
%
Age­
5
1974
0
 
 
 
1975
0
 
 
 
1976
unknown
11.2
88.8
0.4
1977
102
41.3
52.0
6.7
1978
285
51.9
47.7
0.4
1979
167
34.7
61.1
1.8
1980
1,201
59.3
39.9
0.2
1981
691
39.4
55.1
3.9
1982
465
35.9
61.9
1.9
1983
87
65.5
31.0
3.5
1984
72
33.3
61.1
0.0
1985
115
74.8
24.3
0.0
1986
361
55.1
42.7
1.7
1987
180
33.9
61.7
3.3
1988
31
16.1
67.7
16.1
1989
18
5.8
90.5
3.6
1990
11
9.1
81.8
0.0
1991
19
26.3
68.4
5.3
1992
203
3.9
95.6
0.5
1993
58
39.1
15.9
27.5
1994
unknown
91.6
6.1
1.3
1995
0
 
 
 
1996
0
 
 
 
1997
0
 
 
 
1998
0
 
 
 
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.1
A1.11
Appendix
Report
1.1
Methodology
For
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Escapement
Estimation
Introduction
In
response
to
the
populations
trends
and
pending
ESA
review
processes
for
summer
chums
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW),
and
the
member
Tribes
of
the
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council
(
PNPTC)
initiated
a
program
in
1997
to
develop
a
recovery
plan
for
the
summer
chum
populations
in
the
region.
A
co­
manager's
summer
chum
restoration
committee
was
assembled
for
development
of
the
recovery
plan,
and
proceeded
to
identify
several
data
analysis
needs.
One
of
the
identified
needs
was
to
re­
examine
the
historical
escapement
estimations
for
these
populations,
and
develop
a
new
historical
escapement
database
that
applied
consistent
and
well
documented
analytical
techniques
to
the
revised
estimates.

WDFW
and
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes
cooperatively
conduct
annual
escapement
estimation
programs
for
many
Washington
salmon
populations.
The
field
data
collection
and
analysis
methods
used
to
derive
the
escapement
estimates
are
both
species,
and
region
and/
or
stock­
specific.
It
is
assumed
that
escapement
estimates
derived
for
most
salmon
stocks
in
more
recent
years
have
generally
higher
precision
than
those
for
earlier
years
because
field
data
collection,
survey
effort,
and
data
analysis
methods
have
become
more
standardized,
and
increased
knowledge
and
experience
of
the
biologists
conducting
the
estimates
has
resulted
in
more
appropriate
and
consistent
analysis
of
the
annual
field
census
data.

In
1997­
98
revised
estimates
of
escapement
were
derived
for
the
1968
to
1997
return
years,
utilizing
a
uniform
group
of
analytical
techniques
and
assumptions.
An
ordinal
rating
of
the
uncertainty
in
each
estimate
was
also
assigned,
based
on
assessment
uncertainties
associated
with
each
estimate.
The
same
estimation
approaches
were
subsequently
applied
to
the
1998
summer
chum
escapement
estimates
for
watersheds
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
(
and
will
continue
to
be
used
for
future
years).

Review
of
escapement
estimation
methodologies
used
for
Washington
chum
salmon
Puget
Sound
salmon
escapement
census
methods
have
historically
included
fish
and/
or
redd
counts,
fishway
counts,
and
carcass
or
live
fish
tagging
and
recovery
(
Ames
1984).
Assessment
of
spawning
escapements
for
management
purposes
were
most
commonly
done
in
the
time
period
prior
to
the
1
Which
may
not
reflect
the
actual
peak
abundance
of
fish
in
the
index
reach,
since
annual
scheduling
of
the
peak
survey
was
based
upon
professional
judgement,
and
expectations
of
previous
observed
run
timing
patterns.

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.1
A1.12
mid­
1970s
by
calculation
of
"
fish/
mile"
estimates
derived
from
the
peak
survey
counts
of
live
and
1
dead
fish
in
selected
surveyed
stream
reaches
(
WDF
1964).
Estimates
of
total
spawning
escapements
of
naturally
spawning
salmon
to
individual
Washington
streams
(
based
on
defensible
quantitative
methods)
were
rarely
generated
prior
to
the
1970s.
The
exceptions
were
for
the
few
streams
where
weir
or
fishway
count
data
were
available,
or
when
mark­
and­
recapture
escapement
estimation
studies
were
performed.

In
the
late
1970s
the
"
Area­
Under
the­
Curve"
(
AUC)
methodology
was
adopted
for
estimating
escapements
of
many
Washington
pink
and
chum
populations.
This
method
was
used
by
itself
in
smaller
stream
basins,
or
in
conjunction
with
expansion
values
derived
from
tagging
studies
to
derive
basin­
side
estimates
on
some
of
the
larger
Puget
Sound
tributaries,
such
as
the
Skagit,
Stillaguamish,
Snohomish,
and
Nisqually
rivers.
In
1978
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries
(
WDF
 
now
WDFW)
staff
reviewed
the
historical
chum
survey
data
collected
to
date
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
southern
Puget
Sound
regions,
and
derived
new
or
revised
escapement
estimates
for
most
of
the
major
chum
bearing
stream
basins
for
the
time
period
1968
to
1977.
This
process
was
repeated
for
the
northern
Puget
Sound
region
in
1984.
AUC
has
since
been
used
as
a
primary
escapement
estimate
derivation
tool
for
most
Puget
Sound
chum,
pink,
sockeye,
coho,
and
chinook
populations,
where
periodic
live
fish
or
spawning
redd
counts
are
the
primary
population
data
available.
More
detailed
discussions
of
the
AUC
methodology
can
be
found
in
several
publications,
including
Ames
(
1984),
English
et
al.
(
1992),
Haymes
(
2000),
and
Lady
(
1996),
Hilborn
et
al.
(
1999).

Given
there
is
inter­
stream
and
inter­
annual
variability
in
the
quality
of
the
census
data
collected,
and
that
there
are
elements
of
subjectivity
in
application
of
the
AUC
escapement
estimation
method,
it
was
determined
by
the
members
of
the
WDFW/
PNPTC
summer
chum
technical
committee
that
a
comprehensive
review
and
revision
of
the
summer
chum
escapement
estimates
was
needed
to
provide
the
highest
quality
and
most
precise
escapement
database
for
the
recovery
planning
process.
An
ordinal
rating
system
(
Zar
1984)
for
the
relative
quality
of
each
individual
escapement
estimate
was
developed
during
the
revision
process,
to
provide
users
of
the
escapement
data
with
an
indicator
of
the
relative
quality
of
each
estimate
(
good,
fair,
poor,
etc.).

Historical
monitoring
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
escapements
The
first
quantitative
observations
of
summer
chum
spawning
abundance
recorded
in
the
WDFW
spawning
survey
database
were
collected
in
1943
(
J.
Haymes,
WDFW
Olympia
WA,
pers.
comm.).
Early
observation
records
(
1943­
47)
were
confined
to
the
Dosewallips,
Duckabush,
and
Hamma
Hamma
rivers.
Information
in
the
database
for
these
observations
is
mostly
limited
to
summaries
of
the
total
number
of
live
and
dead
fish
observed
in
the
survey
reach,
river
mile
boundaries
of
the
reach
surveyed,
and
the
date
of
observation.
There
were
no
Hood
Canal
or
Strait
summer
chum
stream
observations
recorded
for
the
time
period
1948
to
1950.
In
1951
an
"
index
reach"
survey
system
was
developed
by
WDF
to
monitor
stream
escapements
of
salmon
in
each
region
of
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.1
A1.13
Appendix
Figure
1.1.1.
Annual
reported
distance
surveyed
on
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
1945­
98.
Washington
on
an
annual
basis
(
Egan
1982),
and
the
scope
of
survey
effort
was
expanded
through
the
early
1950s
time
period
to
meet
the
objectives
of
this
program.
The
index
reaches
encompassed
(
somewhat)
fixed
sections
of
selected
streams.
One
to
three
surveys
were
typically
conducted
annually
on
each
index
reach.
It
is
assumed
that
the
selection
of
streams
surveyed,
sections
surveyed,
and
timing
of
the
survey(
s)
were
based
on
review
of
available
information
and
professional
judgment
that
the
survey
reaches
were
representative
of
the
spawning
escapements
of
one
or
more
salmon
species
to
each
geographic
region
of
the
state.

The
Boldt
Decision
in
1974
prompted
WDF
and
Washington
Department
of
Game
(
WDG)
to
revise
many
of
their
salmon
and
steelhead
escapement
estimation
techniques
in
the
mid­
1970s,
due
to
the
need
for
more
accurate
and/
or
precise
estimates
of
escapements
to
meet
new
fishery
management
objectives
and
obligations.
Consequently,
survey
effort
was
greatly
increased
in
this
time
period.
Many
Treaty
Indian
tribes
also
developed
or
expanded
fishery
management
programs
in
this
time
period
and
began
to
participate
more
extensively
in
spawning
survey
efforts.

Appendix
Figure
1.1.1
summarizes
the
historical
reported
annual
chum
spawning
survey
effort
for
summer
chum
streams
in
the
Hood
Canal
region
that
have
received
dedicated,
long­
term
annual
summer
chum
survey
effort
for
the
time
period
1945­
98.
These
are
Anderson
Creek,
Dewatto
Creek,
Tahuya
River,
Union
River,
Hamma
Hamma
River,
Duckabush
River,
Dosewallips
River,
Big
Quilcene
River,
Little
Quilcene
River,
Snow
Creek,
Salmon
Creek,
and
JimmyComeLately
Creek.
Only
surveys
conducted
in
the
annual
time
period
Aug.
1
to
Oct.
31
are
included.
In
general
live
fish
counted
after
~
Oct.
20
are
very
likely
to
be
early
returning
fall
chum
salmon,
and
not
used
in
the
summer
chum
escapement
estimates.
Survey
information
for
late
October
is
included
in
the
field
data
summary
tables
and
charts
because
it
is
a
transitional
period
in
the
streams
from
summer
to
fall
chum
stock
entry.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.1
A1.14
Appendix
Figure
1.1.2.
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
spawning
escapements,
1974­
98.
Summary
of
revised
escapement
estimates
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
wild
summer
chum
populations
Appendix
Figure
1.1.2
summarizes
the
annual
aggregate
natural
spawning
summer
chum
escapement
estimates
for
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions
for
1974­
1998
(
the
1968­
1973
time
period
is
omitted
because
of
the
limited
number
of
individual
stream
escapement
estimates
available
in
this
time
period).

In
summary,
a
period
of
relatively
large
escapements
in
the
Hood
Canal
region
in
the
mid
­
1970s
was
followed
by
a
period
of
very
poor
escapements
in
the
1980s,
a
recent
rebound
in
the
1995­
96
period,
and
then
a
decline
in
the
1997­
98
period.
Unfortunately
during
the
mid­
1980s
period
the
populations
in
several
east
shore
Hood
Canal
tributaries
become
extirpated
(
Anderson
Creek,
Dewatto
River,
Big
Beef
Creek,
and
Tahuya
River).
Since
this
time
period
the
majority
of
the
total
escapement
for
the
Hood
Canal
region
has
occurred
only
in
the
west
shore
Hood
Canal
streams,
with
small
to
moderate
numbers
in
the
Union
R.
(
100­
300
fish).
The
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams
have
experienced
relatively
stable
escapements
overall.
However,
individual
streams
in
this
region,
particularly
Snow
and
Jimmy­
Come­
Lately
creeks
have
periodically
experienced
extremely
low
escapements
through
this
time
period
(<
100
fish).

For
a
longer
term
(
mid­
1900s
to
present)
perspective
on
escapements
to
the
Hood
Canal
region,
Appendix
Figure
1.1.3
summarizes
the
annual
peak
summer
chum
count
(
mid
­
September
to
mid
­
October
period)
for
three
selected
Hood
Canal
streams
that
had
adequate
numbers
of
historical
survey
observations
to
facilitate
a
long
term
trend
analysis
(
Dewatto,
Hamma
Hamma,
and
Duckabush
rivers).
The
peak
counts
are
not
directly
comparable
to
each
other
because
each
observation
may
or
may
not
represent
the
absolute
peak
abundance
for
the
year.
Also,
these
values
should
not
be
rigorously
compared
to
AUC
estimates
of
total
abundance
for
the
years
1974
to
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.1
A1.15
Appendix
Figure
1.1.3.
Peak
live
+
lead
counts
of
summer
chum
in
Dewatto
Creek
(
WRIA
15.0420),
Hamma
Hamma
River
(
WRIA
16.0251),
and
Duckabush
River
(
WRIA
16.0351),
1952­
1998.
present,
because
the
peak
counts
generally
represent
less
than
the
total
escapement
to
the
stream.
However,
these
observations
do
provide
some
indication
on
the
relative
abundance
of
summer
chums
over
a
longer
time
frame
than
the
period
formal
escapement
estimates
have
been
derived.
A
detailed
summary
of
the
escapement
estimates
for
each
summer
chum
stream
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
SJF
region,
and
discussions
of
the
field
data
and
analysis
issues
for
each
estimate
are
presented
in
the
report
Revised
Estimates
of
Escapement
for
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Natural
Spawning
Summer
Chum
Populations
(
Haymes
2000),
available
as
Supplemental
Report
No.
1
to
this
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative.

Summer
chum
presence
in
other
streams
in
the
Region
Summer
chum
have
been
observed
in
several
other
streams
in
the
region,
generally
sporadically
and
in
small
numbers.
These
observations
were
typically
made
during
surveys
targeted
at
other
salmonid
species.
Most
of
these
observations
are
likely
the
result
of
straying
fish
from
other
river
systems,
as
suggested
by
the
sporadic
nature
to
the
observations,
and
the
small
numbers
of
fish
that
were
typically
observed.
However,
review
of
historical
records
did
lead
to
the
addition
of
three
streams
to
the
list
of
watersheds
in
the
region
that
appear
to
have
contained
substantial
summer
chum
populations
historically
and/
or
currently.
These
are
the
Dungeness
River,
Skokomish
River,
and
Finch
Creek
Insufficient
data
exists,
however
to
determine
historical
abundance
in
these
watersheds
in
detail.
The
Dungeness
River
had
sufficient
observations
of
chum
in
the
September/
October
time
period
to
suggest
that
a
self­
sustaining
population
is
present
in
the
river.
There
are
70
historical
survey
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.1
A1.16
observations
of
chum
in
the
Dungeness
River
in
the
annual
time
period
Aug.
1
 
Oct.
31
in
the
WDFW
survey
database
(
Haymes
2000).
The
Skokomish
River
historically
had
a
summer
chum
run
present
in
some
years,
as
indicated
by
historical
in­
river
commercial
fishery
catch
data,
and
spawning
ground
data.
The
most
significant
spawning
ground
observation
was
233
summer
chum
on
Sept.
20,
1976
(
Haymes
2000).
Given
1)
there
are
only
a
limited
number
of
survey
observations
of
summer
chum
in
this
river
basin,
and
2)
there
were
a
fair
number
of
chinook
surveys
conducted
annually
in
the
watershed
during
the
typical
summer
chum
spawning
period
that
would
have
noted
the
presence
of
summer
chums,
the
runsizes
generally
were
likely
typically
fairly
small
in
the
recent
historical
time
period
(
1960s­
present).
Finch
Creek
historically
had
returns
of
up
to
several
hundred
summer
chum
in
the
1950s/
60s
time
period,
as
indicated
by
summer
chum
capture
data
at
the
Finch
Creek
(
Hoodsport)
hatchery
rack
(
Tynan
and
Ames
1997).
Both
the
Skokomish
and
Finch
creeks
stocks
are
considered
currently
extirpated.
Status
of
the
Dungeness
stock
is
unknown.

There
are
further
discussions
of
this
subject
in
Haymes
(
2000),
and
in
the
main
body
of
this
report.

Bibliography
Ames,
J.
1984.
Puget
Sound
chum
escapement
estimates
using
spawner
curve
methodology.
Pp.
133­
148
in
Symons,
P.
E.
K.
and
M.
Waldichuk
(
eds.)
Proceedings
of
the
Workshop
on
Stream
Indexing
for
Salmon
Escapement
Estimation.
Can.
Tech.
Rep.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
No.
1326.

Egan,
R.
1982.
Puget
Sound
salmon
spawning
ground
report
­
Water
Resource
Inventory
Area
1­
19
for
escapement
year
1982­
83.
WDF
prog.
rpt.
no.
194.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
574
p.

English,
K.
K.,
Bocking,
R.
C.,
and
Irvine,
J.
R..
1992.
A
robust
procedure
for
estimating
salmon
escapement
based
on
the
area­
under­
the­
curve
method.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
49:
1982­
1989.

Haymes,
J.
H.
2000.
Revised
estimates
of
escapement
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
natural
spawning
summer
chum
populations.
Supplemental
Report
No.
1
to
the
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

Lady,
J.
1996.
Release­
recapture
models
for
estimating
the
stream
residue
time
of
spawning
salmon.
Masters
Thesis,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle
WA.

Tynan,
T.
and
J.
Ames.
1997.
Memorandum
to
Orlay
Johnson,
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS),
April
10,
1997
(
subject:
Hoodsport
hatchery
chum
timing).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries).
1964.
Report
on
the
Salmon
Escapement
to
the
State
of
Washington,
1962.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
96
p.

Zar,
J.
H.
1984.
Biostatistical
Analysis.
Prentice
Hall
Inc.,
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.2
A
1.17
Appendix
Report
1.2
Methodology
For
Estimation
of
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Escapement
and
Freshwater
Entry
Timing
Introduction
Knowledge
of
run
and
spawning
timing
behaviors
for
migratory
fish
stocks
is
an
important
tool
for
fisheries
management,
and
as
an
indicator
of
adaptive
differences
or
similarities
between
different
populations
to
their
environments.
Typically,
the
migratory
behavior
of
salmonids
is
tracked
through
the
application
and
subsequent
recovery
of
internal
marks
(
binary
code
wire
and
pit
tags),
external
marks
(
fin
marks,
external
tags,
freeze
brands),
or
genetic
stock
identification
(
GSI­
used
to
monitor
for
the
presence
of
genetic
traits
unique
to
particular
populations/
groups
of
populations).
Pacific
salmonids
that
typically
out­
migrate
at
the
fry
stage
(
pinks,
chums)
are
generally
more
difficult
to
mark
with
current
technologies
than
the
other
species,
because
of
their
small
size
during
the
freshwater
residence/
out­
migration
phase;
the
time
at
which
the
mark
application
phase
of
most
Pacific
salmonid
marking
programs
are
conducted.
Because
of
the
difficulty
of
marking
chum
out­
migrants
by
traditional
methods,
and
the
small
runsizes
and
limited
economic
importance
of
the
summer
chum
populations
in
the
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region,
there
historically
have
been
no
significant
marking
or
GSI
analysis
programs.
Some
limited
GSI
data
that
identify
the
presence
of
these
fish
in
certain
commercial
fisheries
has
been
collected
in
recent
years,
and
the
Big
Quilcene
Hatchery
has
begun
to
clip
adipose
fins
of
summer
chum
releases
being
produced
for
the
supplementation
program
(
first
return
of
fin
clipped
fish
to
occur
in
2000).

In
order
to
develop
estimates
of
spawning
timing
and
migratory
timing
through
the
terminal
fishery
areas
for
selected
major
Hood
Canal­
SJF
region
summer
chum
populations,
the
spawning
census
data
from
each
population
was
analyzed
to
determine
average
spawning
timing,
and
assumptions
were
made
from
these
analyses
to
calculate
terminal
marine
migratory
timing.
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
(
WDFW)
and
Point
No
Point
Treaty
Council
(
PNPTC)
staffs
independently
calculated
spawning
timing
and
terminal
area
passage
timing
statistics,
using
somewhat
different
approaches
to
analyzing
the
data
and
deriving
the
timing
statistics.
Each
method
makes
some
unique
assumptions
in
regards
to
analysis
of
the
survey
data,
and
are
discussed
below.

Methods
and
discussion
!
WDFW
analysis
(
Jeff
Haymes,
WDFW)

The
area­
under­
the­
curve
(
AUC)
escapement
estimation
approach
used
for
calculating
the
annual
spawning
escapements
to
each
stream
basin
(
described
in
Appendix
Report
1.1),
provided
the
data
to
do
a
time
density
analysis
of
the
rate
at
which
the
spawning
populations
recruited
to
each
of
the
surveyed
stream
reaches.
This
data
was
used
in
combination
with
assumptions
about
average
migration
time
through
the
terminal
area
was
used
to
derive
estimates
of
average
escapement
timing,
and
run
timing
through
the
terminal
marine
area.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.2
A
1.18
Appendix
Figure
1.2.1.
Average
proportion
of
summer
chum
fish
*
days
accumulated
through
spawning
period
in
Hood
Canal
region
streams.
The
area
defined
by
each
AUC
curve
can
be
described
as
a
time
density
function.
The
proportion
of
the
season
total
fish*
days
accumulated
within
each
of
the
surveyed
stream
reaches
at
any
given
time
point
in
the
spawning
run
can
be
used
as
an
indirect
measure
of
the
proportion
of
escapement
completed
for
the
season.
This
value
is
derived
by
:

Proportion
of
total
fish*
days
accumulated
for
the
season
at
day
i
=
p
=
å
f
/
FD
i
i
T
Where:

f
=
Live
fish
observed
or
estimated
to
have
been
present
in
the
survey
reach
on
the
i
day
i
th
FD
=
Season
total
fish*
days
T
For
each
of
the
major
summer
chum
spawning
populations
(
still
extant)
the
value
p
was
calculated
for
each
i
calendar
day
i
through
the
spawning
run,
for
each
year
that
the
spawning
activity
was
adequately
documented
by
surveys.
These
values
were
averaged
for
each
calendar
day
i
to
provide
an
estimate
of
the
average
proportion
of
total
fish*
days
accumulated
at
each
day
i
in
the
in
the
index
reaches
(
Appendix
Figure
1.2.1
 
Hood
Canal
streams,
and
Appendix
Figure
1.2.2
 
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
streams).
Appendix
Table
1.2.1
summarizes
the
average
WDFW
estimates
of
dates
of
10,
50,
and
90
%
fish*
day
accumulation
(
i.
e.,
estimated
escapement)
in
the
spawning
streams.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.2
A
1.19
Appendix
Figure
1.2.2.
Average
proportion
of
summer
chum
fish
*
days
accumulated
through
spawning
period
in
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
region
streams.

Appendix
Table
1.2.1.
Average
dates
of
10,
50,
and
90
%
completion
of
escapement
for
selected
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations
(
WDFW).

Management
10
%
Std.
(
min.
and
50
%
Std.
Range
(
min.
90
%
Std.
Unit
Stock
N
comp.
dev.
max.)
comp.
dev.
and
max.)
comp.
dev.
Avg.
Range
Avg.
Avg.
Range
(
min.
and
max.)

Sequim
Bay
JimmyCL
15
9/
14
+/­
4
d
9/
6­
9/
23
9/
24
+/­
4
d
9/
17­
10/
2
10/
10
+/­
8
d
9/
28­
10/
25
Discovery
Bay
Snow/
Salmon
20
9/
18
+/­
5
d
9/
10­
10/
2
9/
29
+/­
6
d
9/
18­
10/
13
10/
16
+/­
8
d
9/
29­
10/
26
Area
12B
Dosewallips
13
9/
12
+/­
5
d
9/
7­
9/
25
9/
23
+/­
4
d
9/
18­
10/
3
10/
9
+/­
6
d
9/
28­
10/
18
Duckabush
16
9/
17
+/­
4
d
9/
11­
9/
27
9/
29
+/­
4
d
9/
21­
10/
5
10/
11
+/­
9
d
9/
15­
10/
16
Hamma
Hamma
21
9/
14
+/­
6
d
9/
6­
9/
27
9/
27
+/­
5
d
9/
18­
10/
6
10/
10
+/­
4
d
10/
1­
10/
18
Area
12C
Lilliwaup
13
9/
17
+/­
4
d
9/
10­
9/
26
9/
28
+/­
4
d
9/
21­
10/
6
10/
10
+/­
4
d
9/
30­
10/
16
Area
12A
Big
Quilcene
17
9/
10
+/­
6
d
8/
30­
9/
22
9/
22
+/­
5
d
9/
14­
10/
1
10/
5
+/­
6
d
9/
25­
10/
18
Little
Quilcene
12
9/
13
+/­
4
d
9/
7­
9/
19
9/
23
+/­
4
d
9/
18­
9/
30
10/
4
+/­
6
d
9/
25­
10/
14
Area
12D
Union
16
9/
3
+/­
5
d
8/
28­
9/
14
9/
15
+/­
4
d
9/
8­
9/
25
9/
30
+/­
5
d
9/
22­
10/
7
An
example
of
how
this
information
was
used
for
management
purposes
is
illustrated
by
planning
of
the
1998
terminal
area
fishery
management
periods
for
summer
chum
in
1998.
WDFW
used
the
Hood
Canal
Management
Plan
summer
chinook
management
period
start
dates
in
each
Hood
Canal
terminal
marine
management
area
(
Areas
12­
12D)
as
a
conservative
starting
point
for
summer
chum
management
concerns,
and
for
the
end
period
the
calendar
date
that
the
average
"
p
=
90
%"
values
for
the
streams
entering
each
i
management
unit
occurred
(
Flint
1998).
The
one
exception
was
for
Area
12,
where
the
completion
date
for
the
proposed
summer
chum
management
period
was
derived
by
subtracting
7
days
from
the
90
%
pi
value
for
Area
12B
streams.
Appendix
Table
1.2.2
summarizes
these
dates,
which
are
based
on
the
spawning
timing
information
illustrated
in
Appendix
Figures
1.2.1
and
1.2.2.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.2
A
1.20
Appendix
Table
1.2.2.
WDFW
proposed
1998
marine
and
in­
river
management
unit
fishery
management
periods.

Marine/
In­
river
Management
Unit
Date
Comments
12
7/
12­
10/
9
Beginning
date
matches
summer/
fall
chinook
management
period,
and
ending
date
backs
out
one
week
from
12B.

12A
7/
12­
10/
10
Beginning
date
matches
summer/
fall
chinook
management
period,
and
ending
date
is
average
90%
p
value
for
Big
Quilcene
River.
i
Big
Quilcene
R.
8/
25­
10/
19
Encompasses
earliest
and
latest
dates
summer
chum
have
been
projected
to
have
been
present
in
Big
Quilcene
River.

12B
7/
12­
10/
16
Beginning
date
matches
summer/
fall
chinook
management
period,
and
ending
date
is
average
of
average
90%
p
value
for
Duckabush,
i
Dosewallips,
and
Hamma
Hamma
rivers.

12C
7/
19­
10/
12
Beginning
data
matches
summer/
fall
chinook
management
period,
and
ending
date
is
average
90%
p
value
for
Lilliwaup
River.
i
12D
7/
19­
10/
7
Beginning
date
matches
summer/
fall
chinook
management
period,
and
ending
date
is
average
90%
p
value
for
Union
River.
i
There
are
some
potential
analytical
weaknesses
in
this
approach.
The
first
is
that
the
majority
of
f
values
i
used
to
calculate
p
are
approximated.
Furthermore,
the
p
values
will
not
correspond
directly
to
the
i
i
proportion
of
total
egg
deposition
that
has
occurred
at
time
i
for
the
season
in
the
survey
reach.
For
the
purposes
of
this
exercise
we
are
assuming
there
is
a
correspondence,
but
it
has
not
been
experimentally
measured.
No
data
is
available
for
the
transit
times
of
Hood
Canal
summer
chums
through
the
terminal
marine
areas
to
into
the
surveyed
reaches
of
the
spawning
streams,
so
these
values
are
currently
only
based
on
professional
judgment.

!
PNPTC
analysis
(
Nick
Lampsakis,
PNPTC)

The
estimates
of
run
timing
of
summer
chum
salmon
at
various
locations
were
developed
using
the
probability
distribution
of
the
migratory
time
density.
This
approach
is
based
on
methods
developed
by
numerous
investigators
(
Walters
and
Buckingham,
1975;
Mundy,
1979,
1982;
Fried
and
Hilborn,
1988;
Starr
and
Hilborn,
1988;
Springborn
et
al,
1998;
etc.)
For
further
details
on
the
rationale
of
the
application
of
migratory
time
density,
see
above
citations.

Simply
put,
the
empirical
function
f(
t
)
=
n
/
n
is
the
"
time
density"
of
T,
where
T
is
the
migratory
timing.
i
i
The
expected
value
of
T
is
then:

T
=
t
*
f(
t
),
i
i
where:

i=
1
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.2
A
1.21
In
the
case
of
spawner­
count
data,
the
actual
daily
live
counts
were
converted
to
fish
per
mile,
which,
when
divided
by
the
season's
estimated
gross
escapement
(
fish
entering
the
river),
provided
n
above.
Before
i
proceeding
further,
data
from
individual
years
were
examined
for
continuity
of
sampling,
distribution
across
the
overall
known
time
spectrum
of
entry,
and
total
number
of
samples
with
fish/
mile
>
0.
In
no
cases
were
values
"
filled
in"
or
extrapolated,
or
interpolated
through
any
means.

For
the
selected
years
in
the
record,
the
expected
value
of
T
was
then
estimated.
This
value
varied
between
years,
and
since
this
variation
is
normally
limited
in
salmonid
populations
(
see
above
citations),
any
unusual
deviations
from
the
empirical
mean
of
T
were
examined
for
data
discrepancies.
The
results
can
be
shown
for
the
Big
Quilcene
River
spawner
counts,
which
were
found
to
be:

T
=
09/
22
1974
=
T+
7
1975
=
T+
3
1978
=
T­
5
1979
=
T­
3
1980
=
T+
4
1981
=
T­
1
1982
=
T­
3
1985
=
T+
3
1988
=
T+
2
1991
=
T+
1
1992
=
T­
3
1993
=
T+
3
1994
=
T+
5
1995
=
T­
4
1996
=
T­
7
1997
=
T­
2
Unfortunately
spawning
ground
counts
are
hardly
continuous
(
estimates
sometimes
are
nearly
a
month
apart)
and
therefore
these
estimates
may
indicate
a
level
of
variability
which
is
actually
much
lower.
Regardless,
however
the
above
example
indicates
a
maximum
observed
variability
of
7
days,
and
no
more
than
+/­
4
days
within
one
standard
deviation.
It
is
worth
noting,
that
while
T
may
be
estimated
quite
easily
for
any
given
year,
using
as
few
as
2­
3
observations
(
if
properly
placed
across
the
entry
spectrum),
it
is
not
possible
to
describe
the
full
entry
pattern
in
a
given
year,
without
the
use
of
"
filled­
in"
values
which
would
ultimately
depend
on
subjective
judgment.
Therefore,
in
order
to
generate
a
complete
timing
profile,
it
is
necessary
to
aggregate
information
from
a
number
of
years'
observations,
and
this
of
course
requires
standardization
of
the
data
(
done
above)
as
well
as
elimination
of
the
effects
of
inter­
annual
variability.

The
expected
entry
pattern
was
estimated
by
using
an
average
of
the
above
16
years.
The
previously
estimated
inter­
annual
variability
can
then
be
used
to
predict
future
variation.
The
resulting
pattern
describes
the
expected
distribution
through
time,
of
the
spawner
count
observations.
Results
are
summarized
by
stock
in
Appendix
Table
1.2.3.
The
timings
shown
in
Appendix
Table
1.2.3
are
based
on
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.2
A
1.22
observations
of
spawners
in
the
surveyed
stream
reaches;
they
do
not
describe
the
timing
of
spawner
entry
to
the
observation
locales.
If
surveys
are
spaced
pretty
far
apart,
it
is
quite
possible
that
many
of
the
individuals
observed
entered
the
spawning
grounds
as
far
back
as
two
weeks
previous,
or
more.
However,
for
this
initial
analysis,
we
would
use
the
assumption
of
a
constant
(
across
the
run
entry),
average
stream
life
of
10
days
and
therefore,
assuming
that
some
of
the
observed
spawners
are
recent
arrivals,
and
some
are
near
the
end
of
their
stream
life,
we
would
back­
date
the
spawner
count
profile
by
5
days,
in
order
to
arrive
at
an
estimated
entry
profile.

Appendix
Table
1.2.3
 
Average
dates
of
10,
50,
and
90
%
completion
of
fish
escapement
for
selected
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
populations
(
PNPTC)

Management
Avg.
10%
Avg.
50%
Std.
Range
(
min.
Avg.
90%
Unit
Stock
N
comp.
comp.
dev.
and
max.)
comp.

Sequim
Bay
Jimmycomelately
14
9/
17
9/
26
+/­
4
d
9/
19­
10/
2
10/
9
Discovery
Bay
Snow/
Salmon
20
9/
19
9/
29
+/­
6
d
9/
17­
10/
11
10/
13
Area
12B
Dosewallips
16
9/
13
9/
25
+/­
4
d
9/
16­
10/
4
10/
9
Duckabush
24
9/
19
9/
28
+/­
4
d
9/
20­
10/
6
10/
11
Hamma
Hamma
23
9/
17
9/
27
+/­
4
d
9/
18­
10/
4
10/
8
Area
12C
Lilliwaup
18
9/
15
9/
28
+/­
4
d
9/
19­
10/
5
10/
10
Area
12A
Big
&
Little
Quil.
16
9/
12
9/
22
+/­
4
d
9/
15­
9/
29
10/
1
Area
12D
Union
18
9/
6
9/
16
+/­
3
d
9/
11­
9/
22
9/
29
One
obvious
source
of
potential
error
is
the
assumption
concerning
a
constant
stream
life,
across
the
entire
spectrum
of
the
run.
We
have
no
direct
method
to
correct
for
this,
however
historical
tagging
studies
of
adult
salmon
seem
to
indicate
that
the
stream
life
of
early
arrivals
may
be
much
greater
than
that
of
spawners
arriving
after
the
middle
of
the
run.

Reliable
estimates
for
marine
areas
have
been
developed
for
north
Hood
Canal
(
Area
12)
using
10
years
of
useable
data
(
T
=
9/
14
(
average
50%
complete)
with
maximum
variability
from
9/
8
to
9/
18
and
no
more
than
3
days
within
1
standard
dev.);
and
for
Area
12A
(
Quilcene/
Dabob
bays),
using
8
years
of
useable
data
(
T
=
9/
13
(
average
50%
complete)
with
maximum
variability
from
9/
8
to
9/
15
and
no
more
than
2
days
within
one
standard
dev.).
For
these
marine
areas,
gillnet
catch/
landing
data
were
used
(
this
gear
is
preferred
because
of
its
passive
sampling
nature)
instead
of
spawners/
mile.
Instead
of
gross
escapement,
the
estimated
annual
recruitment
to
the
area
was
used.

An
unique
problem
in
marine
area
samples
involves
the
separation
of
summer
from
fall
chum
salmon.
The
end
of
the
summer
chum
migration
appears
to
slightly
overlap
the
beginning
of
the
fall
migration.
Since
the
fall
populations
are
larger,
by
orders
of
magnitude,
a
small
error
in
the
selection
of
the
last
data
point
for
summer
chum,
can
have
an
enormous
effect
on
f(
t)
above;
that
is,
where
a
very
large
number
of
fall
chum,
relative
to
the
overall
summer
chum
abundance,
control
the
value
of
n
.
In
the
case
of
Area
12A,
this
i
problem
is
not
as
significant
because
the
fall
chum
are
of
a
later
variety.
But
in
Area
12,
despite
our
effort
to
select
a
point
of
consistently
low
chum
abundance,
the
number
of
fish
at
that
point
may
still
include
a
significant
number
of
fall
chum.
The
only
way
to
resolve
this
would
be
through
GSI
sampling
of
the
suspected
overlap
period,
in
order
to
assign
relative
proportions
of
summer
and
fall
chum
to
each
time
segment.
The
period
of
suspected
overlap
is
from
9/
20
through
10/
10.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.2
A
1.23
In
marine
areas
of
Hood
Canal
where
no
robust
samples
exist
(
Area
12B
and
12C)
we
used
the
relationship
developed
between
the
Quilcene
River
entry,
and
the
marine
Area
12A
entry
profile,
to
develop
marine
area
profiles,
using
the
Dosewallips,
Duckabush,
and
Hamma
Hamma
river
entries
for
Area
12B,
and
the
Union
River
(
with
minor
additional
backing
out)
for
Area
12C.

Bibliography
Flint,
T.
1998.
Internal
WDFW
memo
from
Tim
Flint
to
Angelika
Hagen­
Breaux,
March
10,
1998
(
subject:
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
spawning
timing).
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.

Fried,
S.
M.,
and
R.
Hilborn.
1988.
In­
season
forecasting
of
Bristol
Bay,
Alaska
sockeye
salmon
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka)
abundance
using
Bayesian
probability
theory.
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
45:
850­
855.

Mundy,
P.
R.
1979.
A
quantitative
measure
of
migratory
timing
illustrated
by
application
to
the
management
of
commercial
salmon
fisheries.
Doctoral
dissertation,
Univ.
of
Wash.,
Seattle,
WA.

Mundy,
P.
R.
1982.
Computation
of
migratory
timing
statistics
for
adult
chinook
salmon
in
the
Yukon
River,
Alaska,
and
their
relevance
to
fisheries
management.
North
Amer.
J.
Fish.
Mgt.
2:
359­
370.

Springborn,
R.
R.,
N.
D.
Lampsakis,
and
V.
F.
Gallucci.
1998.
A
time
density
model
to
estimate
runsize
and
entry
timing
in
a
salmon
fishery.
North.
Amer.
J.
Fish
Mgt.
18:
391­
405.

Starr,
P.
and
R.
Hilborn.
1988.
reconstruction
of
harvest
rates
and
stock
contribution
in
gauntlet
salmon
fisheries:
application
to
British
Columbia
and
Washington
sockeye
(
Oncorhynchus
nerka).
Can.
J.
Fish.
Aquat.
Sci.
45:
2216­
2229.

Walters,
C.
J.,
and
S.
Buckingham.
1975.
A
control
system
for
intra­
season
salmon
management.
Proceedings
of
a
workshop
on
salmon
management.
International
Institute
For
Applied
Systems
Analysis,
Schloss
Laxenburg,
2361
Laxenburg,
Austria.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.2
A
1.24
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.25
Appendix
Report
1.3
Methodology
For
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Run
Reconstruction
Run
re­
construction
is
a
post
season
accounting
procedure
used
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
Tribes
to
assign
catches
to
contributing
populations;
resulting
in
total
annual
run
size
estimates
for
individual
wild
and
hatchery
populations.
Harvests
in
each
management
unit
are
apportioned
to
each
stock
by
timing
and
presumed
migration
route
on
a
proportional
basis,
and
are
sequentially
added
(
from
the
streams
and
extreme
terminal
areas
outward
to
terminal
and
preterminal
areas)
to
population
escapement
estimates
to
arrive
at
total
run
size
estimates.
For
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
salmon
the
previous
co­
manager's
standard
run
re­
construction
model
misallocates
substantial
numbers
of
early
arriving
fall
chum
salmon
to
summer
chum
salmon
run
size
estimates
(
see
discussion
in
Part
One).
For
the
current
recovery
planning
process,
a
separate
run
reconstruction
was
developed
using
earlier
cutoff
dates
for
allocating
harvests
during
the
summer
chum
period
to
reduce
the
influence
of
fall
chum
on
summer
chum
run
size
estimates.
However,
some
mis­
allocation
remains.
The
following
is
a
brief
summary
of
the
methods
used
in
this
run
reconstruction

Escapements
The
escapement
estimates
used
for
this
run
re­
construction
were
from
the
revised
estimates
of
summer
chum
salmon
escapements
prepared
during
the
recovery
planning
process
(
see
Appendix
Report
1.1).

Harvest
Data
Commercial
harvest
data
were
obtained
from
the
Northwest
Indian
Fisheries
Commission
(
NWIFC)
databases
(
TFT
and
MHCLS
),
for
all
fisheries
of
concern
in
U.
S.
waters.
Canadian
harvest
estimates
for
Area
20
were
obtained
from
L.
HopWo
(
CDFO
­
Naniamo).
Only
one
major
correction
was
applied
to
the
data
retrieved
from
these
sources;
catches
by
the
Skokomish
Tribe
in
1976
were
erroneously
coded
as
"
central
Hood
Canal",
and
were
corrected
here
to
"
southern
Hood
Canal"
(
Area
12C).
The
correction
was
made
on
the
basis
of
PNPTC
data
tapes,
previously
submitted
to
WDFW
for
database
correction.
The
run
reconstruction
has
been
updated
to
include
all
years
from
1974
through
1998
(
25
years).
However,
it
is
somewhat
incomplete
at
the
time
of
preparation
because
the
1998
catch
data
from
PST
test
fisheries
in
Area
20
had
not
yet
been
received.
There
were
no
commercial
catches
in
Area
20,
in
1998,
during
the
period
of
interest.
Also,
the
1998
Washington
data
was
at
the
time
still
considered
preliminary,
and
may
be
modified.

Recreational
harvest
data
were
provided
by
WDFW
for
Puget
Sound
fisheries
from
1974
through
1996
(
1997
and
1998)
data
are
unavailable
at
present)
in
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca,
San
Juan
Islands,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.26
Admiralty
Inlet,
and
Hood
Canal.
Additionally,
freshwater
recreational
harvest
data
were
provided
by
WDFW
for
the
Big
Quilcene
and
Skokomish
rivers
for
the
1976­
1994
period.
It
was
not
possible
to
access
data
for
the
remaining
years
in
these
systems,
however,
given
the
low
levels
of
reported
caches
in
other
years,
it
is
not
anticipated
that
there
will
be
a
significant
effect
on
run
re­
construction.
No
data
were
used
from
fisheries
west
of
the
Bonilla­
Tatoosh
line.

Re­
construction
was
accomplished
by
use
of
a
proportional
contribution
assumption
in
all
Hood
Canal
areas,
whereby
the
harvest
in
each
area
was
attributed
proportionally
to
the
stocks
with
streams
of
origin
located
"
upstream"
from
the
harvest
location.
In
all
cases,
random
distribution
of
the
available
populations
was
assumed.
No
Hood
Canal
summer
chum
were
presumed
to
have
been
harvested
in
Area
10.
Summer
chum
returning
to
both
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
were
presumed
to
be
subject
to
harvest
in
Area
9.
U.
S.
Convention
areas'
harvest
was
added
to
each
management
unit,
with
no
assumption
of
any
separate
migratory
pathway.
Finally,
Canadian
harvests
were
added
to
the
entire
region,
and
its
management
units.

The
results
of
the
reconstruction
are
shown
in
the
attached
tables;
summarized
by
individual
management
unit
and
include
total
run
size
estimates
for
the
Hood
Canal
and
the
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
regions.

Run
reconstruction
details:

Data
­
Inconsistent
and
insufficient
data
were
found
for
some
years
preceding
1974.
Therefore,
because
of
data
limitations,
run
reconstruction
was
limited
to
the
1974­
to­
thepresent
period.
The
data
used
in
the
summer
chum
reconstruction
are
as
follows:

Spawning
escapements
­
as
re­
assessed
in
1998,
for
each
stock
where
counts
existed.
For
some
stocks,
as
well
as
reaches
within
units,
where
no
direct
estimates
were
possible,
estimates
were
"
filled
in",
using
a
variety
of
methods
(
interpolation,
extrapolation,
regression
statistics,
etc.)
More
details
can
be
found
in
the
description
of
escapement
estimation
methods
(
Appendix
Report
1.1).
In
two
cases
(
Dungeness
and
Skokomish
rivers)
no
estimates
are
available
for
any
year.
Therefore,
the
reconstruction
is
incomplete,
and
biased
to
a
certain
degree.

Catch
data
­
initially
include
all
reported,
or
estimated,
commercial
and
recreational
catches
of
chum
salmon
in
the
following
areas
and
time
periods:

Canadian
Area
20:
July
1
through
September
15
Washington
Areas
4B,
5,
6,
6A,
6B,
6C,
7:
July
1
through
September
15
Washington
Area
9:
July
1
through
September
8
Washington
Area
10:
July
1
through
September
1
Washington
Areas
12,
9A:
July
1
through
September
27
Washington
Areas
12B,
12C,
12D:
July
1
through
September
30
Washington
Area
12A:
July
1
through
October
5
Big
Quilcene
R.
and
Skokomish
R.:
July
1
through
October
10
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.27
Commercial
catches
were
available
on
a
daily
basis.
Recreational
catches
are
estimated
on
a
monthly
basis
and
we
used
a
straight
line
proportion,
for
reconstruction
periods
of
less
than
a
month.
The
time
periods
were
generally
based
on
reviews
of
the
data
series,
and
establishment
of
cutoff
dates
to
separate
summer
from
fall
chum,
in
an
effort
to
equalize
the
number
of
summer
chum
after
the
cutoff
date,
with
the
number
of
fall
chum
before
the
cutoff
date.
This
was
done
to
avoid
an
assessment
bias
in
either
direction.
No
precise
information
concerning
the
relative
proportions
of
each
segment,
on
each
date
and
area,
is
currently
available.
However,
we
believe
that
any
remaining
bias
may
be
quite
small.

Commercial
and
recreational
catches
in
each
area
were
further
apportioned
between
the
summer
chum
of
this
region,
and
other
commingled
populations,
using
the
following
methods:

Canadian
Area
20
and
Washington
Areas
4B,
5,
6,
6A,
6B,
6C:
7­
day
segments
were
assigned
stock
composition
proportions,
based
on
Area
20
GSI
samples
of
recent
years.

Washington
Areas
9,
10:
All
chum
before
9/
8
(
Area
9)
and
9/
1
(
Area
10)
were
assumed
to
be
HCSJF
summer
chum,
and
all
chum
following
this
date,
were
assumed
to
be
from
other
Puget
Sound
regions
(
cutoff
date
method).
For
instance
in
Area
10,
the
higher
abundance
of
South
Sound
early
fall
chum
was
assumed
to
far
outweigh
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
abundance
after
9/
1,
and
the
reverse
was
assumed
for
earlier
periods.

Washington
Areas
9A,
12.
12A,
12B,
12C,
12D,
82F,
82G:
all
chum
during
the
specified
period
were
assumed
to
be
of
HC­
SJF
summer
chum.

Methods
­
The
annual
reconstruction
of
runs
was
accomplished
using
a
series
of
incremental
additive
steps,
starting
from
spawning
escapements
and
ending
with
the
addition
of
near­
ocean
catches,
with
the
intent
to
reconstruct
the
total
annual
recruitment
of
each
management
unit
(
MU),
to
all
fisheries
and
escapement.

Assumptions
­
Major
assumptions
used
in
the
reconstruction
are
included
the
following:

Catches
in
each
reporting
area
and
fishery
were
assumed
to
be
a
random
mix
of
all
stocks
and
management
units
passing
through
the
area.
For
individual
stocks,
this
assumption
was
only
used
within
the
terminal
areas
of
Hood
Canal.

All
passing
populations
were
assumed
to
be
equally
available
for
harvest
in
each
area,
regardless
of
their
entry
timing.
For
instance,
SE
Hood
Canal
(
Union
River)
chum
were
assumed
to
be
equally
available
at
all
times,
along
with
other
management
units,
despite
their
somewhat
earlier
timing.
This
assumption
probably
biased
upwards
the
estimates
of
the
population
size
and
exploitation
rates
on
it.
At
the
same
time,
it
probably
biased
low
the
population
sized
and
exploitation
rates
on
commingled
populations,
in
all
preceding
fisheries.
This
effect
obviously
becomes
more
pronounced
in
fisheries
where
lesser
numbers
of
other
populations
are
present,
and/
or
where
exploitation
(
as
a
proportion
of
the
total)
is
higher.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.28
A
straight­
line
migratory
pathway
was
assumed
in
all
cases.
That
is,
stocks
whose
river
of
origin
lies
further
"
out",
were
assumed
to
have
no
contribution
to
catches
further
"
inshore".
If
this
assumption
were
incorrect,
to
a
significant
degree,
it
would
result
in
misapportionment
of
catches,
to
individual
MUs
and
a
downward
bias
in
our
estimates
of
abundance
of
units
further
"
out",
with
the
reverse
being
true
for
units
returning
to
streams
further
"
inshore".

The
final
estimates,
are
not
true
"
recruitment"
estimates
because
we
have
not
attempted
to
estimate,
or
add
certain
components,
including:
natural
mortality
in
the
year
of
maturity,
non
landed
mortalities
(
drop­
offs,
predation
from
gear,
etc.),
catches
in
Canadian
fisheries
outside
of
Area
20,
or
US
fisheries
in
ocean
areas,
or
Area
7A.
Some
of
these
catches
may
be
quite
small
and
nearly
insignificant,
however
if
HC­
SJF
summer
chum
salmon
migrate
to
US
waters
through
the
Canadian
"
inside
passage",
mortalities
in
Canadian
Areas
11­
13
and
29
could
be
significant.
All
of
the
above
were
excluded
from
the
present
reconstruction
because
of
the
complete
lack
of
appropriate
data
(
see
following
run
reconstruction
tables
for
the
years
1974­
98).

Reconstruction
Steps
:

1.
SE
Hood
Canal
escapements
expanded
to
Area
12D
whose
catches
were
apportioned
by
population
strength.
The
total
provided
estimated
return
to
Area
12D
2.
Area
82G
escapements
(
zero)
were
added
to
catches
in
82G.

3.
Escapements
to
Area
12C
tributaries,
including
fish
taken
for
supplementation,
and
any
prespawning
mortalities,
and
the
totals
from
1.
and
2.
above,
were
used
to
apportion
Area
12C
catches
to
each
component,
by
population
strength,
and
expand
these
components
to
obtain
the
run
size
entering
Area
12C.

4.
Escapements
to
Area
12A
streams,
including
pre­
spawning
mortalities
and
fish
taken
for
supplementation,
were
added
to
any
in­
river
catches,
to
obtain
in­
river
run
sizes.
Catches
in
Area
12A
were
apportioned
to
each
stock
by
population
strength
and
expanded
them
to
obtain
run
sizes
entering
Area
12A.

5.
Escapements
to
Area
12B
rivers,
and
the
totals
from
3.
and
4.
above,
were
used
to
apportion
Area
12B
catches
to
each
component,
by
population
strength,
and
expand
these
components
to
obtain
the
run
size
entering
Area
12B.

6.
Escapements
to
Area
12
streams,
and
the
total
from
5.
above,
were
used
to
apportion
Area
12
catches
(
including
Hood
Canal
marine
recreational)
to
each
component,
by
population
strength,
and
expand
these
components
to
obtain
the
run
size
entering
Area
12.

7.
Catches
in
Area
9A
were
apportioned
by
population
strength
and
added
to
the
totals
from
6.
above,
to
obtain
the
total
terminal
area
return
of
each
stock
and
management
unit
originating
in
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.29
Hood
Canal.
Each
Hood
Canal
management
unit
was
further
expanded
by
apportioning
to
it
catches
from
Area
10.

8.
The
terminal
run
sizes
of
the
Sequim
and
Discovery
management
units
were
estimated
by
adding
catches
in
Sequim
and
Discovery
bays
to
their
escapements
and
fish
taken
for
supplementation.

9.
Commercial
and
recreational
catches
in
Area
9,
Washington
Areas
4B,
5,
6,
6A,
6B,
6C,
7,
and
Canadian
Area
20
were
apportioned
to
the
management
units
in
7.
and
8.
above,
by
management
unit
strength,
to
expand
these
units,
and
obtain
estimates
of
MU
strength
entering
Area
9
(
Admiralty),
Washington
waters,
and
Canadian
waters,
respectively.
The
sum
total
of
these,
provided
an
annual
estimate
of
region's
recruits
to
all
fisheries
and
escapements.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.30
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1974
Harvest
356
0
0
0
0
12
12
0
0
0
0
190
188
1,399
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
356
356
356
357
357
357
357
361
366
401
12D
Tahuya
880
880
880
881
882
882
950
950
962
975
1,067
Union
68
68
68
68
68
68
12A
L.
Quilcene
44
44
44
44
44
841
841
852
863
944
B.
Quilcene
795
795
795
796
797
797
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
75
75
75
75
10,515
10,515
10,654
10,791
11,810
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
3,593
3,596
3,600
3,600
Duckabush
3,581
3,585
3,588
3,588
HammaHamma
2,448
2,451
2,453
2,453
Lilliwaup
616
616
617
617
617
Dewatto
181
181
181
181
181
Discovery
Snow
818
818
1,330
1,348
1,365
1,494
Salmon
512
512
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
438
438
438
443
449
492
Totals
14,049
0
356
948
2,101
795
839
12,650
12,662
12,662
1,330
438
14,430
12,662
14,620
14,808
16,207
Hood
Canal
12,281
0
12,662
12,662
12,829
12,994
14,222
E.
Strait
Portion
1,768
0
1,768
1,791
1,814
1,985
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.31
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1975
Harvest
1,118
54
4,010
0
372
3,664
78
0
205
0
0
54
546
1,064
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
1,118
2,249
2,595
2,601
2,601
2,601
2,601
2,605
2,654
2,749
12D
Tahuya
1,389
1,440
2,897
3,342
3,352
3,352
3,555
3,555
3,561
3,628
3,757
Union
84
87
175
202
203
203
12A
L.
Quilcene
868
1,010
1,166
1,169
1,169
3,061
3,061
3,066
3,124
3,235
B.
Quilcene
1,405
1,405
1,635
1,887
1,892
1,892
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
1,152
1,329
1,333
1,333
18,326
18,326
18,360
18,703
19,371
Anderson
195
225
226
226
Dosewallips
2,250
2,596
2,604
2,604
Duckabush
2,245
2,591
2,598
2,598
HammaHamma
7,341
8,471
8,495
8,495
Lilliwaup
706
1,420
1,639
1,643
1,643
Dewatto
613
1,233
1,423
1,427
1,427
Discovery
Snow
327
389
1,287
1,289
1,313
1,360
Salmon
755
898
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
348
348
348
348
355
368
Totals
19,678
0
1,118
1,527
7,974
1,405
2,645
27,466
27,541
27,541
1,287
348
29,176
27,541
29,230
29,776
30,840
Hood
Canal
18,248
0
27,541
27,541
27,592
28,108
29,112
E.
Strait
Portion
1,430
0
1,635
1,638
1,668
1,728
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.32
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1976
Harvest
991
618
26,150
0
5,704
4,046
86
0
0
0
968
1,486
929
5,705
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
991
4,560
4,861
4,865
4,865
4,865
4,937
5,045
5,113
5,529
12D
Tahuya
3,200
3,799
17,480
18,636
18,661
18,661
19,244
19,530
19,958
20,225
21,869
Union
100
119
546
582
583
583
12A
L.
Quilcene
1,088
2,845
3,033
3,037
3,037
9,861
10,007
10,227
10,364
11,206
B.
Quilcene
2,445
2,445
6,392
6,815
6,824
6,824
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
1,281
1,366
1,368
1,368
31,339
31,803
32,500
32,936
35,613
Anderson
234
249
250
250
Dosewallips
3,271
3,487
3,492
3,492
Duckabush
6,095
6,498
6,507
6,507
HammaHamma
7,648
8,154
8,165
8,165
Lilliwaup
1,612
7,417
7,907
7,918
7,918
Dewatto
741
3,409
3,635
3,640
3,640
Discovery
Snow
608
608
1,129
1,154
1,169
1,264
Salmon
521
521
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
365
365
365
373
378
409
Totals
29,209
0
991
3,918
33,412
2,445
9,237
65,225
65,309
65,309
1,129
365
66,803
66,277
69,256
70,186
75,891
Hood
Canal
27,715
0
65,309
66,277
67,730
68,638
74,218
E.
Strait
Portion
1,494
0
1,494
1,527
1,547
1,673
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.33
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1977
Harvest
320
7
3,015
0
24
590
488
0
0
0
1
73
711
913
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
320
864
900
921
921
921
921
925
964
1,014
12D
Tahuya
726
732
1,978
2,061
2,129
2,129
2,349
2,349
2,359
2,459
2,587
Union
75
76
204
213
220
220
12A
L.
Quilcene
773
785
817
845
845
1,742
1,742
1,750
1,823
1,918
B.
Quilcene
821
821
833
868
897
897
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
302
315
325
325
10,134
10,135
10,179
10,608
11,159
Anderson
26
27
28
28
Dosewallips
3,215
3,350
3,461
3,461
Duckabush
2,453
2,556
2,641
2,641
HammaHamma
1,675
1,745
1,803
1,803
Lilliwaup
420
1,134
1,182
1,221
1,221
Dewatto
225
608
633
654
654
Discovery
Snow
538
538
1,239
1,244
1,297
1,364
Salmon
701
701
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
405
405
405
406
424
446
Totals
12,355
0
320
808
4,788
821
1,618
14,667
15,146
15,146
1,239
405
16,790
15,147
16,864
17,575
18,488
Hood
Canal
10,711
0
15,146
15,147
15,213
15,855
16,679
E.
Strait
Portion
1,644
0
1,644
1,651
1,720
1,810
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.34
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1978
Harvest
130
0
2,036
0
1
386
1,817
6
0
0
0
167
552
701
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
130
243
248
261
261
261
261
262
268
275
12D
Tahuya
266
266
498
507
548
548
680
680
684
698
716
Union
64
64
120
122
132
132
12A
L.
Quilcene
1,816
1,816
1,848
1,999
2,000
5,279
5,279
5,311
5,418
5,554
B.
Quilcene
2,978
2,978
2,979
3,031
3,279
3,279
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
680
692
748
749
17,858
17,858
17,968
18,331
18,791
Anderson
16
16
18
18
Dosewallips
1,901
1,935
2,093
2,093
Duckabush
1,898
1,931
2,089
2,090
HammaHamma
8,215
8,360
9,043
9,045
Lilliwaup
1,331
2,492
2,536
2,742
2,743
Dewatto
544
1,018
1,036
1,121
1,121
Discovery
Snow
629
629
2,293
2,307
2,354
2,413
Salmon
1,664
1,664
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
787
787
787
791
807
828
Totals
22,789
0
130
330
4,371
2,978
4,795
22,263
24,073
24,078
2,293
787
27,158
24,078
27,324
27,876
28,576
Hood
Canal
19,710
0
24,078
24,078
24,226
24,715
25,336
E.
Strait
Portion
3,080
0
3,080
3,098
3,161
3,240
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.35
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1979
Harvest
31
0
950
0
137
218
146
0
0
0
2
134
889
591
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
31
95
98
100
100
100
100
101
111
118
12D
Tahuya
117
117
360
370
377
377
690
690
701
771
817
Union
97
97
299
307
313
313
12A
L.
Quilcene
110
143
147
150
150
620
620
630
692
734
B.
Quilcene
345
345
449
462
470
470
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
191
196
200
200
6,627
6,628
6,729
7,399
7,844
Anderson
6
6
6
6
Dosewallips
1,190
1,224
1,246
1,246
Duckabush
1,190
1,224
1,247
1,247
HammaHamma
3,096
3,185
3,244
3,244
Lilliwaup
163
502
516
526
526
Dewatto
49
151
155
158
158
Discovery
Snow
133
133
591
600
660
699
Salmon
458
458
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
170
170
170
173
190
201
Totals
7,315
0
31
214
1,407
345
592
7,891
8,037
8,037
591
170
8,798
8,039
8,934
9,823
10,413
Hood
Canal
6,554
0
8,037
8,039
8,161
8,973
9,513
E.
Strait
Portion
761
0
761
773
849
900
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.36
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1980
Harvest
17
0
773
18
156
2,912
4,280
1
0
0
6
97
474
980
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
17
34
55
78
78
78
78
79
81
85
12D
Tahuya
179
179
359
580
904
904
1,955
1,956
1,967
2,021
2,134
Union
208
208
417
674
1,050
1,051
12A
L.
Quilcene
154
198
319
498
498
1,770
1,770
1,780
1,830
1,932
B.
Quilcene
375
393
505
815
1,271
1,271
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
123
199
310
310
8,124
8,128
8,174
8,400
8,868
Anderson
2
3
5
5
Dosewallips
1,216
1,963
3,061
3,061
Duckabush
827
1,335
2,082
2,082
HammaHamma
329
531
828
828
Lilliwaup
247
496
800
1,247
1,248
Dewatto
117
235
379
591
591
Discovery
Snow
709
709
3,783
3,804
3,910
4,127
Salmon
3,074
3,074
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
1,326
1,326
1,326
1,334
1,371
1,447
Totals
8,886
0
17
387
1,541
393
703
7,652
11,925
11,926
3,783
1,326
17,036
11,932
17,138
17,613
18,592
Hood
Canal
3,777
0
11,926
11,932
12,000
12,332
13,018
E.
Strait
Portion
5,109
0
5,109
5,138
5,281
5,574
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.37
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1981
Harvest
116
0
158
2
137
466
1,294
3
0
0
6
63
597
915
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
116
145
169
219
219
219
220
222
246
283
12D
Tahuya
140
140
175
204
286
286
369
370
374
415
477
Union
41
41
51
60
84
84
12A
L.
Quilcene
84
135
158
221
221
589
590
597
662
761
B.
Quilcene
138
140
226
263
368
368
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
90
105
147
147
3,354
3,359
3,398
3,767
4,334
Anderson
1
1
2
2
Dosewallips
63
74
103
103
Duckabush
557
650
909
909
HammaHamma
926
1,081
1,511
1,512
Lilliwaup
293
366
428
598
598
Dewatto
41
51
60
84
84
Discovery
Snow
242
242
681
689
764
879
Salmon
439
439
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
203
203
203
205
227
261
Totals
3,258
0
116
181
789
140
361
3,253
4,529
4,532
681
203
5,416
4,538
5,485
6,081
6,997
Hood
Canal
2,374
0
4,532
4,538
4,591
5,090
5,857
E.
Strait
Portion
884
0
884
894
991
1,140
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.38
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1982
Harvest
90
0
245
0
304
726
2,485
0
0
0
0
132
296
2,219
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
90
141
172
253
253
253
253
257
265
326
12D
Tahuya
86
86
135
164
267
267
743
743
753
777
956
Union
153
153
240
293
476
476
12A
L.
Quilcene
125
260
318
516
516
1,161
1,161
1,177
1,215
1,495
B.
Quilcene
156
156
325
397
644
644
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
4,291
4,291
4,352
4,490
5,525
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
507
620
1,006
1,006
Duckabush
690
844
1,369
1,369
HammaHamma
801
979
1,589
1,589
Lilliwaup
84
131
161
261
261
Dewatto
21
33
40
65
65
Discovery
Snow
766
766
2,152
2,183
2,252
2,771
Salmon
1,386
1,386
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
599
599
599
608
627
771
Totals
5,374
0
90
239
679
156
585
3,988
6,447
6,447
2,152
599
9,198
6,447
9,330
9,626
11,845
Hood
Canal
2,623
0
6,447
6,447
6,540
6,747
8,302
E.
Strait
Portion
2,751
0
2,751
2,790
2,879
3,543
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.39
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1983
Harvest
23
0
209
276
1,131
105
664
9
0
0
2
131
146
28
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
23
38
40
45
45
45
45
47
48
49
12D
Tahuya
86
86
144
150
188
188
560
561
577
596
599
Union
170
170
284
296
371
372
12A
L.
Quilcene
176
562
585
734
736
2,157
2,158
2,222
2,293
2,307
B.
Quilcene
64
340
1,085
1,131
1,419
1,421
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
510
510
526
542
546
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
64
67
84
84
Duckabush
80
83
105
105
HammaHamma
190
198
248
249
Lilliwaup
18
30
31
39
39
Dewatto
15
25
26
33
33
Discovery
Snow
154
154
885
911
941
946
Salmon
731
731
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
254
254
254
262
270
272
Totals
2,002
0
23
256
521
340
1,647
2,607
3,266
3,272
885
254
4,411
3,274
4,544
4,690
4,718
Hood
Canal
863
0
3,272
3,274
3,372
3,480
3,500
E.
Strait
Portion
1,139
0
1,139
1,173
1,210
1,218
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.40
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1984
Harvest
70
0
80
75
902
112
458
2
0
0
5
3
65
314
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
70
79
82
91
91
91
91
91
92
98
12D
Tahuya
142
142
160
167
196
196
463
464
464
471
502
Union
194
194
218
228
267
268
12A
L.
Quilcene
83
426
445
522
522
1,372
1,374
1,375
1,394
1,486
B.
Quilcene
60
135
694
724
849
849
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
22
23
27
27
1,181
1,183
1,184
1,200
1,279
Anderson
1
1
1
1
Dosewallips
212
221
260
260
Duckabush
299
312
366
366
HammaHamma
170
178
208
208
Lilliwaup
187
210
220
258
258
Dewatto
44
50
52
61
61
Discovery
Snow
384
384
1,212
1,213
1,230
1,311
Salmon
828
828
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
367
367
367
367
372
397
Totals
2,993
0
70
336
717
135
1,120
2,654
3,105
3,107
1,212
367
4,686
3,112
4,694
4,759
5,073
Hood
Canal
1,414
0
3,107
3,112
3,114
3,157
3,365
E.
Strait
Portion
1,579
0
1,579
1,580
1,602
1,708
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.41
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1985
Harvest
70
0
56
40
274
288
648
10
0
0
2
40
445
1,620
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
70
76
90
111
111
111
111
113
131
197
12D
Tahuya
122
122
133
157
213
214
799
800
812
943
1,420
Union
334
334
363
431
583
585
12A
L.
Quilcene
1
4
5
7
7
577
578
586
681
1,026
B.
Quilcene
44
84
355
421
569
570
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
995
996
1,011
1,174
1,768
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
236
280
379
380
Duckabush
30
36
48
48
HammaHamma
231
274
371
372
Lilliwaup
92
100
119
161
161
Dewatto
19
21
25
33
33
Discovery
Snow
20
20
171
174
202
304
Salmon
151
151
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
61
61
61
62
72
108
Totals
1,341
0
70
456
693
84
359
1,837
2,473
2,483
171
61
2,715
2,485
2,757
3,202
4,822
Hood
Canal
1,109
0
2,483
2,485
2,521
2,929
4,411
E.
Strait
Portion
232
0
232
235
273
412
Note:
Values
in
bold
italics
were
estimated
indirectly
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.42
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1986
Harvest
35
0
55
22
561
1,348
2,432
4
0
0
0
21
146
796
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
35
36
51
68
68
68
68
68
69
76
12D
Tahuya
109
109
112
159
243
243
4,460
4,460
4,472
4,552
4,991
Union
1,892
1,892
1,940
2,751
4,215
4,217
12A
L.
Quilcene
12
149
212
324
325
1,325
1,325
1,329
1,353
1,483
B.
Quilcene
15
37
461
653
1,000
1,001
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
1,145
1,145
1,148
1,169
1,282
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
57
81
124
124
Duckabush
177
251
384
385
HammaHamma
173
245
376
376
Lilliwaup
97
99
141
216
216
Dewatto
20
21
29
45
45
Discovery
Snow
213
213
795
797
811
890
Salmon
582
582
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
292
292
292
293
298
327
Totals
3,639
0
35
2,001
2,208
37
610
4,573
6,995
6,998
795
292
8,085
6,998
8,106
8,253
9,049
Hood
Canal
2,552
0
6,998
6,998
7,017
7,143
7,832
E.
Strait
Portion
1,087
0
1,087
1,090
1,109
1,217
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.43
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1987
Harvest
43
0
56
31,603
302
860
4
0
0
0
0
147
390
Management
Broo
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admira
US
Cana
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapeme
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Disco
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
43
47
52
61
61
61
61
61
63
67
12D
Tahuya
91
91
99
111
145
145
939
939
939
964
1,029
Union
497
497
539
605
793
794
12A
L.
Quilcene
71
1,459
1,638
2,148
2,149
2,482
2,482
2,482
2,547
2,719
B.
Quilcene
8
11
226
254
333
333
12­
12B­
12
Big
Beef
6
7
9
9
137
137
137
141
150
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
9
10
13
13
Duckabush
12
13
18
18
HammaHam
26
29
38
38
Lilliwaup
32
35
39
51
51
Dewatto
5
5
6
8
8
Discovery
Snow
465
465
1,527
1,527
1,567
1,673
Salmon
1,062
1,062
Sequim
Jimmycomelat
464
464
464
464
476
508
Totals
2,748
0
43
588
724
11
1,685
2,764
3,616
3,619
1,527
464
5,610
3,619
5,610
5,757
6,147
Hood
Canal
757
0
3,619
3,619
3,619
3,714
3,965
E.
Strait
1,991
0
1,991
1,991
2,043
2,181
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.44
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1988
Harvest
43
0
30
17
1,897
93
30
12
0
0
5
0
305
738
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
43
44
45
45
45
45
45
45
47
51
12D
Tahuya
145
145
149
152
153
153
816
817
817
846
914
Union
629
629
646
658
662
664
12A
L.
Quilcene
177
1,246
1,270
1,277
1,279
2,269
2,271
2,271
2,350
2,541
B.
Quilcene
120
137
965
983
989
990
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
1,956
1,958
1,958
2,026
2,190
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
661
673
677
679
Duckabush
497
506
509
511
HammaHamma
440
448
451
452
Lilliwaup
275
282
288
289
290
Dewatto
23
24
24
24
24
Discovery
Snow
723
723
2,638
2,638
2,730
2,951
Salmon
1,915
1,915
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
1,052
1,052
1,052
1,052
1,089
1,177
Totals
6,657
0
43
774
1,145
137
2,211
5,047
5,077
5,086
2,638
1,052
8,776
5,091
8,781
9,086
9,825
Hood
Canal
2,967
0
5,086
5,091
5,091
5,268
5,696
E.
Strait
Portion
3,690
0
3,690
3,690
3,818
4,128
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.45
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1989
Harvest
18
0
49
29
339
606
536
11
0
0
1
4
421
2,273
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
18
20
31
38
38
38
38
38
44
78
12D
Tahuya
9
9
10
16
21
21
1,063
1,063
1,065
1,239
2,179
Union
450
450
492
781
1,036
1,042
12A
L.
Quilcene
1
12
19
25
25
781
782
783
911
1,602
B.
Quilcene
1
30
358
568
754
756
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
299
299
299
348
613
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
16
25
34
34
Duckabush
60
95
126
127
HammaHamma
16
25
34
34
Lilliwaup
43
47
75
99
100
Dewatto
2
2
3
5
5
Discovery
Snow
21
21
215
215
251
441
Salmon
194
194
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
173
173
173
173
202
355
Totals
986
0
18
459
571
30
370
1,640
2,171
2,181
215
173
2,569
2,182
2,574
2,994
5,267
Hood
Canal
598
0
2,181
2,182
2,185
2,542
4,472
E.
Strait
Portion
388
0
388
389
452
795
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.46
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1990
Harvest
58
0
43
29
307
36
48
67
0
0
0
0
45
696
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
58
65
68
70
75
75
75
75
78
116
12D
Tahuya
6
6
7
7
7
8
372
372
372
384
577
Union
275
275
310
323
340
364
12A
L.
Quilcene
0
0
0
0
0
389
389
389
402
604
B.
Quilcene
6
35
342
356
375
389
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
167
167
167
173
259
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
8
8
9
9
Duckabush
42
44
46
49
HammaHamma
90
94
99
106
Lilliwaup
2
2
2
2
3
Dewatto
0
0
0
0
0
Discovery
Snow
33
33
278
278
287
431
Salmon
245
245
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
63
63
63
63
65
98
Totals
770
0
58
281
384
35
342
902
948
1,003
278
63
1,344
1,003
1,344
1,389
2,085
Hood
Canal
429
0
1,003
1,003
1,003
1,037
1,556
E.
Strait
Portion
341
0
341
341
352
529
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.47
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1991
Harvest
3
0
13
31
751
0
6
66
0
0
0
59
171
483
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
12D
Tahuya
5
5
5
5
5
5
233
233
241
262
321
Union
208
208
218
218
219
228
12A
L.
Quilcene
1
10
10
10
11
853
853
879
956
1,172
B.
Quilcene
49
80
822
822
825
843
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
507
507
523
569
697
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
250
250
251
262
Duckabush
102
102
102
107
HammaHamma
69
69
69
72
Lilliwaup
30
31
31
32
33
Dewatto
31
32
32
33
34
Discovery
Snow
12
12
184
190
206
253
Salmon
172
172
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
125
125
125
129
140
172
Totals
1,054
0
3
213
290
80
832
1,543
1,549
1,597
184
125
1,906
1,597
1,965
2,136
2,620
Hood
Canal
745
0
1,597
1,597
1,647
1,790
2,195
E.
Strait
Portion
309
0
309
319
346
425
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.48
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1992
Harvest
7
0
0
9
199
0
0
8
0
0
1
44
84
980
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
12D
Tahuya
0
0
0
0
0
0
140
140
142
145
183
Union
140
140
140
140
140
140
12A
L.
Quilcene
9
11
11
11
11
952
953
964
986
1,241
B.
Quilcene
320
414
743
940
940
940
941
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
1,490
1,490
1,508
1,542
1,941
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
655
655
655
657
Duckabush
617
617
617
619
HammaHamma
123
123
123
123
Lilliwaup
90
90
90
90
90
Dewatto
0
0
0
0
0
Discovery
Snow
21
21
454
459
470
591
Salmon
371
62
433
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
616
616
616
623
637
802
Totals
2,962
476
7
140
237
743
951
2,583
2,583
2,590
454
616
3,660
2,591
3,705
3,788
4,769
Hood
Canal
1,954
414
2,590
2,591
2,622
2,681
3,375
E.
Strait
Portion
1,008
62
1,070
1,083
1,107
1,394
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.49
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1993
Harvest
2
0
1
0
15
0
0
2
0
0
0
46
53
67
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
12D
Tahuya
0
0
0
0
0
0
252
252
261
271
284
Union
251
251
252
252
252
252
12A
L.
Quilcene
12
13
13
13
13
163
163
169
175
183
B.
Quilcene
97
39
136
150
150
150
150
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
353
353
365
379
397
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
105
105
105
105
Duckabush
105
105
105
105
HammaHamma
69
69
69
69
Lilliwaup
72
72
72
72
72
Dewatto
1
1
1
1
1
Discovery
Snow
11
11
463
479
497
520
Salmon
400
52
452
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
110
110
110
114
118
124
Totals
1,233
91
2
251
327
136
163
769
769
771
463
110
1,344
771
1,389
1,442
1,509
Hood
Canal
712
39
771
771
797
827
866
E.
Strait
Portion
521
52
573
592
615
644
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.50
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1994
Harvest
1
0
0
0
20
0
0
13
0
0
0
26
54
451
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12D
Tahuya
0
0
0
0
0
0
742
742
749
765
892
Union
738
738
738
738
738
742
12A
L.
Quilcene
0
0
0
0
0
744
744
751
767
894
B.
Quilcene
349
373
722
742
742
742
744
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
968
968
978
998
1,164
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
225
225
225
226
Duckabush
263
263
263
264
HammaHamma
370
370
370
372
Lilliwaup
105
105
105
105
106
Dewatto
0
0
0
0
0
Discovery
Snow
2
2
163
165
168
196
Salmon
137
24
161
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
15
15
15
15
15
18
Totals
2,204
397
1
738
844
722
742
2,444
2,444
2,455
163
15
2,633
2,455
2,660
2,714
3,165
Hood
Canal
2,050
373
2,455
2,455
2,480
2,530
2,951
E.
Strait
Portion
154
24
178
180
183
214
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.51
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1995
Harvest
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
32
0
0
0
0
68
458
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12D
Tahuya
0
0
0
0
0
0
723
723
723
728
760
Union
721
721
721
721
721
723
12A
L.
Quilcene
54
54
54
54
54
4,589
4,589
4,589
4,619
4,822
B.
Quilcene
4,029
491
4,520
4,527
4,527
4,527
4,535
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
4,181
4,181
4,181
4,209
4,394
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
2,787
2,787
2,787
2,796
Duckabush
825
825
825
828
HammaHamma
476
476
476
478
Lilliwaup
79
79
79
79
79
Dewatto
0
0
0
0
0
Discovery
Snow
25
25
616
616
620
647
Salmon
538
53
591
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
223
223
223
223
224
234
Totals
9,757
544
0
721
800
4,520
4,581
9,469
9,469
9,493
616
223
10,332
9,493
10,332
10,400
10,858
Hood
Canal
8,971
491
9,493
9,493
9,493
9,556
9,977
E.
Strait
Portion
786
53
839
839
845
882
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.52
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1996
Harvest
35
0
0
0
51
24
24
40
0
0
0
23
80
338
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
36
12D
Tahuya
5
5
5
5
5
5
501
501
502
503
511
Union
494
494
494
495
495
496
12A
L.
Quilcene
265
266
267
267
267
9,597
9,597
9,607
9,643
9,792
B.
Quilcene
8,479
771
9,250
9,300
9,310
9,321
9,330
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
10,544
10,544
10,555
10,594
10,758
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
6,976
6,984
6,992
7,005
Duckabush
2,650
2,653
2,656
2,661
HammaHamma
774
775
776
777
Lilliwaup
40
60
100
100
100
100
Dewatto
0
0
0
0
0
Discovery
Snow
160
160
1,054
1,055
1,059
1,075
Salmon
785
109
894
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
30
30
30
30
30
31
Totals
20,658
940
35
499
634
9,250
9,566
20,624
20,647
20,678
1,054
30
21,762
20,678
21,785
21,865
22,202
Hood
Canal
19,683
831
20,678
20,678
20,700
20,776
21,097
E.
Strait
Portion
975
109
1,084
1,085
1,089
1,106
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.53
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1997
Harvest
0
0
77
0
100
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
198
Management
Broo
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12D
Tahuya
0
0
0
0
0
0
482
482
482
484
493
Union
410
410
481
482
482
482
12A
L.
Quilcene
29
29
29
29
29
8,006
8,006
8,006
8,042
8,199
B.
Quilcene
7,339
535
7,874
7,974
7,976
7,976
7,976
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
664
664
664
667
680
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
47
47
47
47
Duckabush
475
475
475
475
HammaHamma
104
104
104
104
Lilliwaup
10
16
31
31
31
31
Dewatto
6
7
7
7
7
Discovery
Snow
67
67
901
901
905
923
Salmon
724
110
834
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
61
61
61
61
61
62
Totals
9,272
661
0
410
519
7,874
8,003
9,151
9,151
9,151
901
61
10,113
9,151
10,113
10,159
10,357
Hood
Canal
8,420
551
9,151
9,151
9,151
9,193
9,372
E.
Strait
Portion
852
110
962
962
966
985
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.54
Reconstruction
of
the
HC­
SJF
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Runs
Year:
1998
Harvest
5
21
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
98
Management
Unit
Brood
**********
Run
Abundance
by
Location
**********
Seattle
Admiralt
US
Canadi
Mgmt
Unit
Prod.
Unit
Escapement
stock
82G/
J
12D
12C
82F
12A
12B
12
9A
Discov
Sequi
Term.
(
Area
(
Area
9)
Conv.
Area
Skokomish
Skokomish
N/
A
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12D
Tahuya
0
0
0
0
0
0
244
244
244
246
250
Union
223
244
244
244
244
244
12A
L.
Quilcene
265
266
266
266
266
3,066
3,066
3,066
3,090
3,146
B.
Quilcene
2,244
547
2,791
2,800
2,800
2,800
2,800
12­
12B­
12C
Big
Beef
0
0
0
0
741
741
741
747
760
Anderson
0
0
0
0
Dosewallips
336
336
336
336
Duckabush
226
226
226
226
HammaHamma
143
143
143
143
Lilliwaup
4
20
24
24
24
24
Dewatto
12
12
12
12
12
Discovery
Snow
28
28
1,172
1,172
1,181
1,203
Salmon
1,023
121
1,144
Sequim
Jimmycomelatel
98
98
98
98
99
101
Totals
4,602
688
5
244
285
2,791
3,066
4,056
4,056
4,056
1,172
98
5,326
4,056
5,326
5,367
5,466
Hood
Canal
3,453
567
4,056
4,056
4,056
4,087
4,162
E.
Strait
Portion
1,149
121
1,270
1,270
1,280
1,303
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.3
A
1.55
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.55
Appendix
Report
1.4
Summary
of
SASSI
Definitions
And
Criteria
The
following
material
describes
the
approaches
and
methods
used
in
the
1992
Washington
State
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory
(
SASSI);
developed
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries,
Washington
Department
of
Wildlife,
and
Western
Washington
Indian
Tribes.
For
a
more
detailed
treatment
of
the
SASSI
process
see
WDF
et
al.
(
1993),
and
additionally,
a
more
complete
discussion
of
the
application
of
genetic
stock
identification
techniques
is
presented
in
pages
13­
15
of
WDFW
et
al.
(
1994).

Stock
Definition
The
first
task
in
developing
salmonid
resource
inventories
is
to
arrive
at
a
meaningful
definition
of
the
units
of
fish
on
which
to
base
the
assessment.
Stocks
were
chosen
as
the
basis
for
SASSI
for
several
reasons.
They
provide
the
finest
resolution
of
all
the
units
considered
and
allow
assessment
of
larger
units
by
combination;
stocks
form
the
basic
building
blocks
of
Northwest
salmonid
management,
and
stock
units
are
widely
accepted
within
the
scientific
community
as
a
basis
for
evaluating
fish
populations.

The
definition
of
the
term
"
stock"
and
its
application
frequently
present
difficulties
because
the
distinctions
between
different
groups
of
organisms
are
often
difficult
to
measure,
and
because
the
term
is
used
for
a
variety
of
purposes.
For
example,
as
applied
in
bottomfish
management,
a
stock
is
a
group
of
fish
that
exhibits
a
homogeneous
response
to
fishing
effort
in
an
area,
and
may
be
made
up
of
several
breeding
populations,
or
be
part
of
a
population.
However,
in
salmonid
management
a
stock
is
generally
considered
a
discrete
breeding
population.
Ricker
(
1972)
defined
salmon
stocks
as
temporally
or
spatially
separated
breeding
populations.
The
Puget
Sound
Salmon
Management
Plan
refers
to
the
fish
of
a
single
species
that
migrate
at
a
particular
season
to
a
specific
hatchery
or
independent
river
system
as
a
stock.
For
the
purpose
of
this
inventory
the
authors
of
SASSI
adopted
the
following
definition
which
is
essentially
the
same
as
that
proposed
by
Ricker.

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.

It
should
be
noted
that
some
differing
views
likely
will
surround
any
specific
definition
of
stock.
The
inventory
did
not
attempt
to
resolve
these
views
or
their
applications.
The
purpose
of
the
SASSI
definition
is
simply
to
provide
a
clear,
consistent
and
meaningful
basis
for
conducting
an
inventory
of
the
salmonid
resources
in
Washington,
and
does
not
imply
that
this
definition
should
be
applied
for
other
uses,
that
even
smaller
units
of
production
are
unimportant,
or
that
the
management
of
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.56
fisheries
or
fish
habitat
should
be
on
this
basis.
Where
reproductive
isolation
was
shown
or
presumed
to
exist
in
the
inventory,
it
may
or
may
not
indicate
genetic
uniqueness
from
other
stocks.
The
terms
stock
and
spawning
population
are
used
synonymously
in
the
inventory.

Even
with
SASSI's
basic
stock
definition,
considerable
uncertainty
often
occurs
in
applying
it
to
any
specific
spawning
group
because
limited
direct
data
exist
to
evaluate
the
degree
of
reproductive
isolation
among
spawning
groups.
Fish
management
entities
have
inventoried
fish
populations
annually
as
an
integral
part
of
the
management
process.
Data
collection
programs
focus
primarily
on
gathering
information
necessary
to
manage
various
salmonid
fisheries.
Consequently
the
detailed
information
needed
to
identify
and
evaluate
Washington's
wild
stocks
is
often
quite
limited.
This
lack
of
detailed
data
has
imposed
some
restrictions
on
the
development
and
use
of
the
inventory.
It
is
impossible
to
ensure
that
SASSI
accurately
defines
all
wild
salmonid
stocks
in
the
state.
Many
stocks
listed
in
this
inventory
have
not
been
studied
in
enough
detail
to
be
designated
as
discrete
stocks
with
great
certainty.
Many
others
need
more
refined
data
to
determine
whether
observed
differences
in
timing
or
distribution
actually
represent
stock
differentiation.
The
inventory
must
be
viewed
as
a
starting
point,
and
its
list
of
stocks
should
be
expected
to
evolve
with
future
updates.
The
stock
inventory
process
will
continue
to
be
conducted
and,
as
more
information
is
assembled,
stocks
will
be
added
or
deleted
based
on
additional
information.

The
SASSI
process
emphasizes
naturally­
reproducing
stocks
of
salmonids
regardless
of
origin
(
native,
non­
native
and
mixed
parentage).
Future
reports
may
include
hatchery
stocks
as
well.
Only
those
stocks
that
spawn
within
Washington
State
are
included.
Past
extinctions
are
not
included
in
the
status
assessment
because
it
is
a
current
resource
inventory,
and
the
historic
information
on
lost
stocks
is
incomplete
and
often
anecdotal.
Where
reliable
information
is
available,
reference
may
be
made
to
extinctions
in
general
terms
in
introductory
sections
only.

Stock
Definition
Criteria
The
criteria
for
defining
stocks
are:

Distinct
spawning
distribution.

Distinct
temporal
distribution
(
including
spawning
or
run­
timing).

Distinct
biological
characteristics
(
e.
g.
size,
age
structure,
gene
frequency
differences,
etc.)

Each
of
these
criteria
is
an
attribute
that
can
be
used
to
determine
whether
a
group
of
fish
is
displaying
substantial
reproductive
isolation.
A
population
meeting
any
one
of
the
above
criteria
is
initially
classified
as
a
SASSI
stock
until
additional
information
shows
that
it
should
not
be
considered
distinct.
The
term
distinct
is
not
intended
to
imply
complete
isolation
from
other
stocks.
The
SASSI
stock
definition
recognizes
that
some
interchange
between
populations
is
a
natural
part
of
salmonid
biology.

Distinct
spawning
distribution
is
the
most
commonly
used
criterion
for
identifying
individual
stocks
in
the
SASSI
process
because
general
information
on
the
geographic
location
of
spawning
and
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.57
spawning
habitat
is
the
most
readily
available.
However,
spawning
distribution
often
does
not
show
distinct
separation
and
can
be
difficult
to
assess.
A
number
of
factors
must
be
considered
such
as:
degree
of
isolation,
interchange
between
spawning
groups,
and
the
relationships
between
spawners
in
adjacent
streams.
It
is
also
difficult
to
measure
directly
because
it
requires
that
spawning
distribution
of
several
generations
of
fish
be
tracked
(
i.
e.,
do
offspring
of
each
generation
return
to
spawn
in
the
same
areas
that
are
substantially
separated
from
areas
used
by
other
spawning
groups).
This
criterion
must
usually
be
assumed
since
empirical
data
are
often
unavailable
and
are
difficult
to
collect.

Distinct
temporal
distribution
identifies
stock
differences
based
on
variations
in
timing
of
critical
life
stages
(
e.
g.,
spawn
timing).
Such
differences
are
sometimes
very
distinct
with
no
overlap
between
adjacent
stocks.
Differences
are
then
generally
quite
obvious
and
easy
to
assess
from
readily­
collected
information.
Many
cases
occur,
however,
where
timing
does
overlap,
and
the
difference
between
within­
stock
variation
and
distinct
stocks
becomes
less
clear.

Distinct
biological
characteristics
can
include
any
observable
distinctions
between
stocks
in
size,
color,
age
structure,
scale
patterns,
parasites,
or
genetic
differences.
For
some
stocks,
the
stock
differentiation
is
based
on
observable
physical
attributes.
An
example
would
be
the
distinction
between
tule
and
bright
fall
chinook
from
the
upper
Columbia
River.
These
two
types
of
chinook
exhibit
differences
in
spawning
timing,
but
can
also
be
characterized
by
differences
in
skin
and
flesh
color.
In
this
case,
tule
and
bright
fall
chinook
are
designated
as
separate
stocks
based
on
both
spawning
timing
and
biological
characteristics.

Genetic
distinctions
are
the
most
common
biological
characteristic
used
in
the
inventory.
There
are
indirect
and
direct
approaches
in
SASSI
for
using
genetic
characterizations
to
distinguish
among
stocks.
The
indirect
approach
assumes
that
in
some
cases
the
genetic
makeup
of
a
group
of
fish
has
been
substantially
changed
by
past
or
continuing
introductions
of
non­
native
stocks.
If
these
introductions
represent
a
major
impact
on
the
native
gene
pool,
it
is
sometimes
assumed
that
the
resulting
fish
are
probably
hybridized
and
are
a
single
genetic
stock.
In
some
areas,
the
introduction
of
hatchery
origin
fish
(
in
particular
chinook
and
coho
salmon)
has
impacted
the
genetic
character
of
stocks
in
a
region
which
includes
several
streams,
and
it
is
assumed
that
the
impact
of
these
releases
has
resulted
in
one
genetic
stock.

The
direct
approach
is
based
on
genetic
stock
identification
(
GSI),
which
is
a
method
that
can
be
used
to
characterize
populations
of
organisms
using
the
genetic
profiles
of
individuals.
The
GSI
methodology
relies
on
the
combined
use
of
biochemical,
genetic,
and
statistical
procedures
to
discriminate
among
populations.
While
the
GSI
characterization
of
stocks
and
testing
of
stock
structure
provide
a
direct
measure
of
genetic
interrelationships,
it
is
important
to
be
aware
of
this
approach's
limitations.
Geneticists
can
investigate
only
a
tiny
and
restricted
fraction
of
the
genetic
traits
of
salmonids
by
the
electrophoretic
analysis
of
proteins.
To
the
extent
that
characteristics
investigated
do
not
represent
the
entire
genome,
the
view
of
genetic
interrelationships
could
be
incomplete.
Also,
while
statistically
significant
differences
among
samples
provide
evidence
for
the
existence
of
distinct
gene
pools
(
i.
e.
separate
stocks),
the
absence
of
significant
differences
does
not
constitute
proof
that
only
a
single
stock
exists.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.58
The
Stock
Identification
Process
To
arrive
at
a
preliminary
list
of
stocks,
biologists
identify
individual
stocks
based
on
the
first
two
criteria;
known
differences
in
spatial
or
temporal
distribution.
These
distinctions
are
difficult
to
determine
in
some
cases,
particularly
in
situations
where
the
amount
of
interchange
among
adjacent
groups
of
fish
was
unknown.
This
preliminary
list
of
stocks
is
then
examined
using
available
information
on
unique
biological
characteristics
(
principally
genetic
stock
identification
data).
This
review
can
result
in
a
number
of
changes
to
the
stock
list,
where
additional
groups
of
fish
are
identified
based
on
observed
genetic
differences
or
other
biological
characteristics.
More
detailed
analysis
during
future
inventories
likely
will
change
some
stock
designations.

Stock
Origin
An
understanding
of
the
genetic
background
of
salmonid
stocks
in
Washington
State
is
important
for
the
development
of
any
future
efforts
to
restore
and
maintain
these
resources.
Regardless
of
species,
the
SASSI
process
recognizes
three
categories
of
stock
origin:
1)
those
stocks
of
fish
that
are
thought
to
represent
native
gene
pools,
2)
those
stocks
that
resulted
from
the
introductions
of
non­
native
fish,
and
3)
those
stocks
that
are
a
mix
of
native
and
non­
native
fish,
or
are
substantially
genetically
altered
native
fish.
A
great
deal
of
uncertainty
often
exists
about
the
genetic
histories
of
many
salmon
and
steelhead
stocks,
and
the
contributions
of
hatchery­
origin
salmonids
to
native
Washington
populations
have
not
been
rigorously
evaluated.

The
definitions
for
stock
origin
used
in
SASSI
are:

Native
­­
An
indigenous
stock
of
fish
that
has
not
been
substantially
impacted
by
genetic
interactions
with
non­
native
stocks,
or
by
other
factors,
and
is
still
present
in
all
or
part
of
its
original
range.
In
limited
cases,
a
native
stock
may
also
exist
outside
of
its
original
habitat
(
e.
g.,
captive
brood
stock
programs).

Non­
native
­­
A
stock
that
has
become
established
outside
of
its
original
range.

Mixed
­­
A
stock
whose
individuals
originated
from
commingled
native
and
non­
native
parents,
and/
or
by
mating
between
native
and
non­
native
fish
(
hybridization);
or
a
previously
native
stock
that
has
undergone
substantial
genetic
alteration.
This
may
include
species
cross
such
as
hybrids
between
cutthroat
and
steelhead,
or
rainbow
trout.

Unknown
­­
This
description
is
applied
to
stocks
where
there
is
insufficient
information
to
identify
stock
origin
with
confidence.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.59
Production
Type
The
inventory
describes
the
naturally­
reproducing
salmonids
in
the
state.
The
origin
of
a
stock
or
stock
refers
only
to
the
genetic
background
of
that
specific
group
of
fish.
To
understand
more
about
the
nature
of
an
individual
stock,
it
is
also
necessary
to
describe
the
type
of
spawning
and
rearing
that
produced
the
fish.
For
example,
a
stock
of
fish
may
be
a
genetic
mixture
of
native
and
non­
native
fish,
but
in
the
absence
of
continuing
hatchery
releases,
the
stock
may
be
self­
sustaining
as
the
result
of
natural
spawning
and
rearing.
These
fish
would
be
identified
as
a
stock
with
a
mixed
origin
and
a
wild
production
type.
A
native
stock
of
fish
in
a
rehabilitation
program
also
can
be
sustained
entirely
by
fish
culture
techniques.
This
situation
is
typified
by
Baker
River
sockeye
salmon,
a
stock
that
is
currently
being
restored
by
placing
most
spawners
in
an
artificial
spawning
beach.
This
stock
would
be
characterized
as
a
native
stock
with
a
cultured
production
type.

The
terms
defining
production
type
are:

Wild
­­
A
stock
that
is
sustained
by
natural
spawning
and
rearing
in
the
natural
habitat,
regardless
of
parentage
(
includes
native).

Cultured
­­
A
stock
that
depends
upon
spawning,
incubation,
hatching,
or
rearing
in
a
hatchery
or
other
artificial
production
facility.

Composite
­­
A
stock
sustained
by
both
wild
and
artificial
production.

Stock
Status
Once
the
stocks
are
identified,
the
current
status
of
each
is
assessed
based
primarily
on
trends
in
fish
population
size
or
spawner
abundance,
or
survival.
Detailed
abundance
data
for
individual
stocks
are
sometimes
not
available.

A
two­
step
process
is
used
to
evaluate
the
status
of
the
state's
salmonid
stocks.
First,
five
separate
criteria
(
see
the
Stock
Screening
section
below
for
a
description
of
these
criteria)
were
developed
to
describe
changes
in
stock
status
and
fitness,
and
each
stock
is
screened
to
identify
negative
changes
in
abundance,
production
or
survival.
Stocks
that
met
none
of
the
criteria
and
are
judged
to
be
experiencing
production
levels
within
natural
variations
in
survival
and
consistent
with
their
available
habitat
were
rated
as
"
Healthy."
Second,
any
stock
that
met
one
or
more
of
the
five
negative
performance
criteria
is
examined
further
and
subsequently
rated
in
Depressed
or
Critical
status
categories
to
identify
the
probable
level
of
damage
suffered
by
the
stock.
An
"
Unknown"
category
is
used
for
stocks
if
trend
information
is
unavailable
or
could
not
be
used
to
assess
stock
status.

There
are
several
circumstances
that
complicate
the
rating
process.
When
a
wild
stock
experiences
an
extremely
low
survival,
it
is
sometimes
difficult
to
know
if
that
survival
is
within
the
normal
range
for
the
stock,
or
if
it
is
entering
a
depressed
state
caused
by
human
impacts
(
e.
g.,
habitat
destruction
or
over­
fishing).
Naturally­
produced
salmonid
stocks
exhibit
wide
variations
in
survival,
caused
in
part
by
changes
in
freshwater
stream
flows
(
droughts
and
flooding),
ocean
conditions
(
e.
g.,
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.60
El
Niño
events)
and
biological
interactions
such
as
competition
and
predation
(
Cooper
and
Johnson
1992).
It
is
not
uncommon
for
wild
stocks
to
experience
one
or
two
extremely
low
survival
years
each
decade,
resulting
in
low
adult
returns.
This
type
of
natural
variation
also
provides
years
of
above
average
production.

Some
stocks
are
experiencing
survivals
that
are
so
low
that
they
are
clearly
below
the
level
of
natural
variation.
The
survivals
of
other
stocks
are
intermediate
between
obviously
healthy
stocks
and
clearly
depressed
stocks
and
are
the
most
challenging
to
evaluate
because
they
could
be
experiencing
low
survivals
within
the
normal
range
for
the
stock.
Short­
term
databases
often
exacerbate
the
rating
problem
because
with
only
a
few
years
of
observation
it
is
unlikely
that
the
lowest
natural
survivals
have
been
documented.
The
evaluation
of
stocks
with
intermediate
survivals
was
based
on
the
collective
judgment
of
technical
agency
staff
members
most
familiar
with
each
stock.

The
possibility
of
cycling
in
the
survival
rates
of
various
stocks
also
can
create
difficulty
in
rating
stock
status.
These
cycles
may
be
associated
with
weather­
related
impacts
on
freshwater
spawning
and
rearing
success.
The
apparent
existence
of
cycles
in
survival
and
production
data
complicates
the
task
of
identifying
depleted
stocks,
since
poor
stock
performance
could
be
the
result
of
natural
cyclic
variation.
Wherever
possible,
the
existence
of
survival
cycles
is
considered
during
the
stock
evaluation
process
and
stocks
with
production
levels
within
normal
ranges
of
variation
(
including
cyclic
variation)
are
rated
healthy.

Stock
Screening
The
best
available
escapement,
population
size,
and
survival
data
are
used
to
screen
each
stock
for
indications
of
negative
production
or
survival
trends.
Only
stock­
specific
data
are
used,
which
sometimes
limits
the
available
data
to
a
short
span
of
recent
years.
These
data
are
plotted
and
qualitatively
examined
for
changes
in
abundance
or
survival.
Often,
only
a
single
stock­
specific
statistic
is
available
to
analyze
the
production
trend
of
a
stock.
When
multiple
types
of
data
can
be
used
to
examine
individual
stock
status,
the
available
production
or
survival
data
sets
are
examined
individually,
and
each
stock's
rating
is
based
on
the
data
that
best
described
current
status.

Five
stock
screening
criteria
were
developed
and
are
used
in
the
initial
evaluation
of
each
stock
for
trends
in
survival,
escapement,
or
production.
These
criteria
do
not
currently
incorporate
quantitative
formulas
because
the
available
stock
specific
information
is
often
too
limited
for
statistical
evaluation.
More
subjective
criteria
were
applied,
and
decisions
are
based
on
the
collective
judgment
of
the
technical
reviewers
most
familiar
with
each
stock.
While
this
approach
likely
can
be
improved
in
the
future
with
additional
and
better
information,
it
facilitates
the
initial
stock
status
classification
process.
The
status
of
each
stock
will
be
subject
to
ongoing
review
and
refinement
in
subsequent
inventories.

The
five
stock
screening
criteria
are:

Long­
Term
Negative
Trend
­­
This
criterion
reflects
ten
years
of
data
showing
a
consistent
drop
in
a
survival
or
production
parameter.
The
negative
trend
is
the
important
factor
and
several
high
values
would
not
eliminate
a
stock
from
being
categorized
under
this
criterion.
Most
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.61
Washington
salmon
and
steelhead
escapement
and
production
data
bases
span
periods
of
ten
to
twenty­
five
years.

Short­
Term
Severe
Decline
­­
A
short­
term
drop
in
escapement
or
production
is
often
difficult
to
distinguish
from
the
amount
of
natural
variation
displayed
by
all
naturally
produced
stocks
of
fish.
It
is
important,
however,
to
attempt
to
identify
declining
stocks
as
early
as
possible,
so
that
limiting
factors
can
be
recognized
and,
if
possible,
corrected
before
serious
damage
occurs.
The
most
recent
five
years
of
production
data
were
examined
for
evidence
of
any
significant
drop
in
escapement,
population
size,
or
survival.
If
two
of
the
five
years
display
significant
production
decreases,
the
stock
is
included
in
this
category.

Chronically
Low
­­
Stocks
in
this
category
are
sustaining
themselves
at
levels
significantly
below
their
potential.
The
determination
that
a
stock
is
chronically
low
may
be
based
on
observed
past
production
levels,
or
on
an
assessment
that
stock
performance
does
not
meet
expected
levels
based
on
available
habitat.
Chronically
low
stocks
may
display
declining,
stable,
or
even
increasing
trends.
For
stocks
that
have
displayed
chronically
low
production
for
an
extended
period,
it
may
be
necessary
to
examine
any
available
data
for
the
years
before
current
stock
assessment
databases
were
developed.

Decreases
In
Fitness
­­
The
ability
of
wild
salmonid
stocks
to
sustain
themselves
can
be
significantly
affected
by
changes
in
the
fitness
of
the
individuals
that
make
up
a
given
stock.
These
changes
can
be
subtle
and
include
factors
like
changes
in
adult
size
or
age
structure,
inbreeding
associated
with
small
numbers
of
spawners,
changes
in
spawn
timing,
or
other
reduction
in
genetic
variability.
Any
significant
changes
in
fitness
may
justify
the
inclusion
of
a
stock
in
this
category.
Currently
no
information
is
included
in
the
inventory
that
allows
any
quantitative
assessment
of
change
in
fitness.

Unknown
­­
Many
salmonid
stocks
have
not
been
monitored
or
enumerated
over
a
sufficient
period
of
years
to
enable
determination
of
status.
Stocks
in
this
category
will
have
an
Unknown
status
rating.
Evaluation
of
their
status
for
future
inventories
will
require
more
intensive
stock
assessment
work.

Stock
Status
Rating
The
stock­
screening
process
is
used
to
place
stocks
into
five
status
categories.
Stocks
with
escapement,
population
size
or
survival
levels
within
normal
ranges
are
rated
as
Healthy.
Those
stocks
that
currently
display
low
production
or
survival
values
are
assigned
to
one
of
two
separate
rating
categories:
Depressed
or
Critical,
depending
on
the
current
condition
of
the
stock.
Stocks
are
also
rated
as
Unknown
when
data
limitations
did
not
allow
assessment
of
current
status.
A
rating
category
for
Extinct
stocks
is
also
included.
Definitions
and
discussions
of
each
of
these
rating
categories
are
provided
below.
The
rating
of
stock
status
was
done
during
a
technical
review
process.
The
amount
and
quality
of
stock
data
vary
among
regions
within
the
state,
which
can
result
in
some
differences
in
the
application
of
the
rating
categories.
These
ratings
represent
the
collective
judgment
of
the
technical
staff
most
familiar
with
the
individual
stocks.
The
iterative
nature
of
the
inventory
process
will
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.62
allow
these
ratings
to
be
changed
in
the
future
as
more
detailed
information
becomes
available,
or
because
of
changes
in
stock
status.

Healthy
Stocks
Healthy
­­
A
stock
of
fish
experiencing
production
levels
consistent
with
its
available
habitat
and
within
the
natural
variations
in
survival
for
the
stock.

Healthy
stocks
are
those
currently
experiencing
stable
escapement,
survival,
and
production
trends
and
not
displaying
a
pattern
of
chronically
low
abundance.
Because
wild
salmonid
stocks
experience
large
natural
fluctuations
in
survival
(
caused
by
environmental
variations),
it
is
not
unusual
for
even
the
most
robust
stock
to
experience
occasional
low
abundance
or
even
fail
to
meet
escapement
goals.
Such
fluctuations
would
not
necessarily
warrant
a
change
in
status
unless
the
stock
experiences
a
consistent
declining
trend,
or
a
sudden
significant
drop
in
production.
The
Healthy
category
covers
a
wide
range
of
stock
performance
levels,
from
consistently
robust
production
to
those
stocks
that
may
be
maintaining
sustainable
levels
without
providing
any
surplus
production
for
directed
harvests.
In
other
words,
the
fact
that
a
stock
may
be
classified
as
Healthy
in
the
inventory
process
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
managers
have
no
current
concerns
about
its
production
status.
State
and
tribal
fishery
managers
believe
very
strongly
that
habitat
protection
and
restoration
needs
exist
for
many
of
the
stocks
classified
as
Healthy
in
SASSI
as
well
as
for
Critical
and
Depressed
stocks.
In
addition,
due
to
a
lack
of
information
on
changes
in
fitness,
some
stock
were
classified
as
Healthy
that
may
have
been
significantly
influenced
by
interactions
with
non­
native
species.
Much
current
resource
management
activity
focuses
on
resolving
problems
for
productive
stocks
to
ensure
they
remain
healthy
and
continue
to
provide
harvest
opportunity.

Approaches
to
considering
habitat
degradation,
or
loss,
in
assessing
the
status
of
individual
stocks
presents
a
particularly
difficult
problem.
It
is
probable
that
all
wild
salmonid
stocks
in
Washington
State
have
been
affected
by
some
level
of
habitat
loss.
It
might
be
argued
that
if
a
stock
has
suffered
any
habitat
loss,
it
cannot
be
judged
to
be
Healthy.
Such
an
argument
is
unrealistic,
but
it
would
still
be
desirable
to
identify
some
level
at
which
the
cumulative
impacts
of
habitat
loss
have
taken
a
stock
out
of
the
Healthy
category.
Unfortunately,
it
is
difficult
to
accomplish
this
task,
because
individual
stocks
are
faced
with
such
a
wide
range
of
different
habitat
impacts.
The
SASSI
report
rates
the
current
status
of
each
stock
based
primarily
on
trends
in
survival
rates
and
population
size,
and
does
not
focus
directly
on
causative
factors.
Habitat
loss,
over­
fishing,
or
other
factors,
may
be
the
reason
that
a
stock
is
Depressed
or
Critical,
but
the
rating
is
based
on
actual
stock
performance.

The
consideration
of
available
habitat
is
included
in
the
stock
rating
definitions
for
Healthy
and
Depressed
stocks.
This
approach
is
an
effort
to
recognize
that
there
have
been
irreversible
losses
of
habitat
and
that
if
stock
status
were
rated
against
a
pristine
habitat
base,
virtually
every
stock
could
be
rated
depressed
or
worse.
Such
a
result
would
be
of
little
help
in
addressing
the
current
need
to
restore
our
wild
salmonid
stocks.
To
provide
a
meaningful
assessment
of
current
stock
status,
a
flexible
definition
of
"
available"
habitat
is
needed.
In
SASSI,
"
available"
habitat
may
be
habitat
that
is
currently
accessible
to
wild
salmonids
or
in
some
cases
may
include
all
habitat
that
salmonids
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
utilize,
even
if
currently
inaccessible.
For
example,
if
a
stock
lost
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.63
access
to
and/
or
was
blocked
from
utilizing
a
substantial
proportion
of
the
available
habitat
in
a
stream,
this
may
have
been
considered
in
the
rating
of
stock
status.

This
definition
is
not
meant
to
imply
that
a
stock
rating
will
remain
healthy
in
the
face
of
continuing
habitat
loss,
even
if
the
stock
remains
in
balance
with
declining
habitat.
Future
inventories
will
identify
those
Healthy
stocks
that
are
in
need
of
attention
to
help
ensure
they
remain
at
healthy
levels.
SASSI
will
also
serve
as
a
baseline
against
which
any
future
changes
in
stock
performance
or
habitat
availability
can
be
measured.

Depressed
Stocks
Depressed
­­
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.

The
category
of
Depressed
stocks
is
used
to
identify
those
stocks
that
are
experiencing
difficulties
that
contribute
to
lower
than
expected
abundance.
These
stocks
meet
one
or
more
of
the
negative
performance
criteria,
but
are
likely
above
the
level
where
permanent
damage
has
occurred
to
the
stock.
These
stocks
may
currently
be
producing
relatively
large
numbers
of
fish
but
have
experienced
a
substantial
drop
in
production
or
are
producing
well
below
their
potential.
Other
stocks
may
be
represented
by
relatively
small
numbers
of
individuals
and
are
chronically
depressed;
forced
to
a
low
production
level
by
some
combination
of
biological,
environmental,
or
human­
caused
factors.
It
is
not
unusual
for
a
stock
to
stabilize
at
a
low
production
level
by
achieving
a
balance
with
the
particular
set
of
survival
pressures
controlling
its
success.
While
Depressed
stocks
may
not
immediately
be
pushed
to
Critical
status
or
face
extinction,
they
are
vulnerable
to
any
additional
negative
impacts
and
can
potentially
change
status
very
rapidly.
Additionally,
these
stocks
often
constrain
fishery
harvest
opportunity
because
of
their
low
abundance.

Critical
Stocks
Critical
­­
A
stock
of
fish
experiencing
production
levels
that
are
so
low
that
permanent
damage
to
the
stock
is
likely
or
has
already
occurred.

The
Critical
stock
category
is
reserved
for
those
stocks
that
have
declined
to
a
level
where
the
stock
is
in
jeopardy
of
significant
loss
of
within­
stock
diversity
or,
in
the
worst
case,
could
face
extinction.
The
loss
of
within­
stock
diversity
includes
such
factors
as
a
reduction
of
range
(
e.
g.,
spawning
and/
or
rearing
distribution),
shifts
in
age
at
maturity,
changes
in
body
size,
reduction
in
genetic
variability,
or
lowered
disease
resistance.
Major
shifts
in
these
or
other
attributes
can
all
lead
to
significant
reductions
in
a
stock's
ability
to
respond
to
changing
conditions.
The
usual
result
is
reduced
survival
and
population
size.
Such
stressed
stocks
can
be
caught
in
a
downward
spiral
of
ever­
increasing
negative
impacts
that
can
lead
to
eventual
extinction.
In
contrast,
stocks
in
this
category
might
reach
an
equilibrium
with
those
factors
controlling
their
performance
and
could
display
consistent
population
size
and
escapements
for
an
extended
period.
While
such
stocks
would
appear
to
be
stable,
they
could
be
delicately
balanced,
awaiting
just
one
additional
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.64
negative
impact
to
push
them
into
failure.
The
Critical
stocks
are
in
need
of
immediate
restoration
efforts
to
ensure
their
continued
existence
and
to
return
them
to
a
productive
state.

Unknown
Stocks
Unknown
­­
There
is
insufficient
information
to
rate
stock
status.

If
sufficient
trend
information
is
not
available
or
can
not
be
used
to
assess
status,
stocks
are
rated
as
Unknown.
Stocks
rated
as
Unknown
may
be
rated
as
Healthy,
Depressed,
Critical,
or
Extinct
once
more
information
is
available.
It
is
not
known
to
what
extent
the
Unknown
stocks
represent
historically
small
populations.
There
is
an
immediate
need
to
collect
information
on
Unknown
stocks.
Historically
small
populations
or
currently
small
populations
could
be
especially
vulnerable
to
any
negative
impacts.

Extinct
Stocks
Extinct
­­
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
SASSI
process
identifies
extant
salmonid
stocks
and
makes
no
effort
to
identify
and
assess
past
extinctions.
The
past
loss
of
stocks
is
an
important
historical
fact
that
challenges
resource
management
effectiveness.
It
would
be
difficult,
however,
to
assemble
any
kind
of
comprehensive
listing
of
past
extinctions
because
many
of
these
losses
occurred
prior
to
the
time
that
enumeration
programs
were
initiated.
Since
SASSI
is
an
inventory
of
the
current
status
of
wild
salmonid
stocks,
the
inclusion
of
known
past
extinctions
was
not
emphasized.
The
Extinct
rating
is
included
here
to
identify
any
current
and
future
losses
of
stocks
identified
during
the
inventory
process.
The
Extinct
category
is
applied
in
the
inventory
if
a
stock
that
is
currently
being
tracked
in
escapement
or
fishery
management
data
bases
is
found
to
have
been
extirpated
within
its
native
range.

References
Cooper,
R.
and
T.
H.
Johnson.
1992.
Trends
in
steelhead
abundance
in
Washington
and
along
the
Pacific
Coast
of
North
America.
Wash.
Dept.
of
Wildlife,
Fisheries
Management
Division.
Rept.
No.
92­
20.
90p.
Ricker,
W.
E.
1972.
Hereditary
and
environmental
factors
affecting
certain
salmonid
populations.
In
Simon,
R,
C.
and
P.
A.
Larkin
(
eds.)
The
Stock
Concept.
of
Pacific
Salmon.
MacMillian
Lectures
in
Fisheries,
University
of
British
Columbia,
Vancouver
B.
C.
(
need
page
numbers).

WDF
(
Washington
Department
of
Fisheries),
Washington
Department
of
Wildlife,
and
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes.
1993.
1992
Washington
State
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Stock
Inventory.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
212
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.65
WDFW
(
Washington
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife)
and
WWTIT
(
Western
Washington
Treaty
Indian
Tribes).
1994.
1992
Washington
State
salmon
and
steelhead
stock
inventory­
Appendix
One
­
Puget
Sound
stocks
­
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
vol.
Wash.
Dept.
Fish
and
Wild.,
Olympia,
WA.
424
p.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.4
A
1.66
1
Note
that
"
critical
status"
in
the
context
used
here
has
a
different
definition
(
as
described
in
section
1.7.3
and
in
detail
within
this
appendix)
than
the
critical
definition
for
SASSI
stocks
(
shown
in
section
1.7.2).

Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.5
A
1.67
Appendix
Report
1.5
Derivation
of
Critical
Status
Thresholds
for
Management
Units
and
Escapement
Distribution
and
Minimum
Escapements
Flags
for
Stocks
It
is
necessary
to
annually
evaluate
the
abundance
(
total
return)
and
the
escapement
of
the
summer
chum
salmon
of
the
region
to
ensure
that
timely
adaptive
management
will
occur
if
recovery
objectives
are
not
met.
However,
reliable
data
do
not
currently
exist
on
the
age
composition
of
summer
chum
stocks
and
on
the
distribution
of
harvest
among
the
stocks
of
summer
chum.
Thus,
it
is
not
possible
to
develop
stock
specific
spawner/
recruit
functions
for
use
in
evaluating
specific
fisheries
effects
for
individual
management
units
or
stocks.
This
limits
the
fisheries
managers'
ability
to
assess
incidental
harvest
impacts
on
the
summer
chum
of
the
management
units
and
stocks.

Because
of
these
data
limitations,
the
Base
Conservation
Regime
is
designed
to
be
conservative
in
its
approach
and
is
believed
to
be
sufficient
to
protect
summer
chum
stocks
for
all
immediately
foreseeable
conditions
(
see
section
3.5.6.1
for
a
description
of
the
specific
conduct
of
fisheries).
However,
to
ensure
the
protection
and
restoration
of
individual
stocks,
and
also
to
ensure
the
health
and
diversity
of
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
as
a
whole,
specific
criteria
have
been
developed
to
serve
as
critical
thresholds
(
or
flags)
to
identify
individual
management
units
and
stocks
that
may
be
performing
poorly.
In
a
post­
season
review,
annually
estimated
abundances
(
total
adult
recruitments)
and
escapements
are
compared
with
the
critical
status
thresholds
and
flags
to
assess
the
status
of
individual
management
1
units
and
stocks.
Also,
in
preparation
for
the
next
fishing
season,
the
forecast
run
sizes
and
their
parental
brood
run
sizes
and
escapement
are
reviewed.
If
the
estimated
population
parameters
fall
below
the
thresholds,
or
flags,
then
additional
management
measures
beyond
those
provided
in
the
Base
Conservation
Regime
may
be
warranted.
The
application
of
these
thresholds
and
flags
is
described
in
sections
1.7.3,
3.5.7.1
and
3.6.4,
and
their
derivation
is
described
below.

Critical
Thresholds
for
Management
Units
The
critical
management
unit
thresholds
for
abundance
and
escapement
are
based
on
the
lowest
levels
observed
in
the
historical
data.
A
"
buffer"
is
added
to
the
lowest
observed
values
to
obtain
the
thresholds.
The
"
buffers"
were
determined
as
follows.
First,
the
annual
recruit
abundances
of
each
management
unit,
including
all
currently
existing
stocks,
were
examined
for
statistical
outliers
(
using
Hadi
outlier
detection
procedure
of
SYSTAT,
version
9.0).
This
procedure
was
applied
to
all
summer
chum
salmon
management
units
for
return
years
from
1974
through
1998
(
25
years).
Exceptions
were
made
for
the
Discovery
Bay
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.5
A
1.68
and
Quilcene/
Dabob
Bay
management
units,
where
the
years
1995­
1998
were
excluded
(
leaving
a
total
of
21
years)
because
of
substantial
adult
returns
in
that
time
period
from
summer
chum
supplementation
projects.

The
highest
two
detected
abundance
outliers
of
each
management
unit
were
removed
with
two
exceptions.
In
the
Discovery
Bay
Management
Unit,
only
one
outlier
was
found
and
removed,
while
in
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
(
12B),
three
outliers
were
removed
because
there
was
no
significant
difference
between
the
second
and
third
detected
outliers.

Once
the
abundance
outliers
were
removed,
the
"
buffer"
was
calculated
for
each
management
unit
as
25%
of
the
range
between
the
minimum
and
maximum
abundance
values.
(
The
exception
is
Discovery
Bay
where
20%
of
the
range
was
used
because
of
the
distribution
of
the
abundance
values.)
As
indicated
previously,
the
calculated
"
buffer"
was
added
to
the
lowest
abundance
value
of
each
management
unit
to
obtain
each
critical
abundance
threshold
level.
The
critical
escapement
threshold
levels
were
then
calculated
by
multiplying
each
abundance
threshold
by
the
estimated
escapement
rate
for
each
management
unit.
(
The
escapement
rate
was
calculated
by
subtracting
the
Base
Conservation
Regime's
estimated
bycatch
rate
for
each
management
unit
from
1.0.)
Data
used
and
results
of
this
procedure
are
shown
in
Appendix
Table
1.5.1.
The
results
are
summarized
as
follows
(
values
rounded
to
nearest
10):

Management
Unit
Threshold
Critical
Abundance
Critical
Escapement
Threshold
Sequim
Bay
220
200
Discovery
Bay
790
720
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
2,980
2,660
Quilcene/
Dabob
1,260
1,110
SE
Hood
Canal
340
300
Total
5,590
4,990
Escapement
Distribution
Flags
and
Minimum
Escapement
Flags
within
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
Each
management
unit
currently
corresponds
to
one
summer
chum
stock
with
the
exception
of
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit,
in
which
four
individual
stocks
are
represented.
The
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit's
thresholds
(
described
above),
provide
criteria
for
assessing
the
management
unit
as
a
whole
but
do
not
address
the
possibility
of
poor
performance
by
its
individual
stocks.
For
example,
in
a
given
year,
one
or
more
stocks
within
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
may
have
a
dangerously
low
escapement
level
that
is
not
detectable
by
the
management
unit's
threshold
because
other
stocks
in
the
unit
may
have
a
relatively
high
escapement
level.
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.5
A
1.69
To
address
this
problem,
specific
criteria
were
developed
to
detect
when
significant
deviations
occur
from
the
expected
distribution
of
escapement
among
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit's
stocks,
and
to
assist
in
determining
when
an
individual
stock's
escapements
fall
below
a
critical
level.
These
criteria
are
respectively
called
escapement
distribution
flags
and
minimum
escapement
flags.

The
escapement
distribution
flags
were
computed
in
the
following
manner.
The
average
proportional
contribution
of
each
stock
to
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
was
calculated
for
the
period
of
1974
through
1980.
Then,
for
each
stock,
one
standard
deviation
was
subtracted
from
the
average
contributed
proportion
to
arrive
at
the
value
that
would
serve
as
the
escapement
distribution
flag
for
that
stock.
The
computation
of
the
escapement
distribution
flag
is
shown
in
the
following
equation.

Escapement
Distribution
Flags
1980
3
x=
1974
Escapements
EscapementHCMMU
Standard
Deviation
of
Average
'
­
N
where,

S
=
stock
within
the
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Unit
HCMMU
=
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Unit
N
=
number
of
years
between
1974­
1980
The
years
1974
through
1980
were
used
in
the
above
computation
because
that
was
a
period
of
relatively
high
abundance
prior
to
the
decline
of
the
1980s,
and
there
was
relatively
stable
distribution
of
escapements
among
the
stocks
within
the
Mainstem
Management
Unit.
It
was
assumed
that
setting
the
flag
one
standard
deviation
below
the
average
proportion
of
escapement
would
provide
adequate
detection
of
potentially
dangerous
deviation
from
the
historical
distribution
pattern.

The
minimum
escapement
flags
were
calculated
by
simply
multiplying
the
above
described
average
escapement
proportions
for
each
stock
by
the
critical
escapement
threshold
for
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
as
shown
in
the
following
equation.

Minimum
Escapement
Flag
'
Threshold
x
Average
1974­
1980
proportion
s
Critical
Escapement
HCMMU
s
where,

HCMMU
=
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Unit
S
=
individual
stock
within
HCCMU
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.5
A
1.70
It
was
assumed
that
the
minimum
escapement
flags,
based
on
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit's
threshold
and
the
escapement
distribution
of
the
individual
stocks,
would
provide
adequate
detection
of
dangerously
low
escapements
for
each
stock.

The
immediately
following
table
describes
for
each
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit
stock,
the
mean
proportion
of
escapement
in
the
non­
critical
years
of
1974
through
1980,
the
standard
deviation,
the
escapement
distribution
flag
and
the
minimum
escapement
flag.

Critical
Status
Flags
for
Individual
Stocks
of
the
Hood
Canal
Mainstream
Unit
Stock
non­
Critical
Years
Deviation
EDF
MEF
Mean
Proportion
in
Sample
Standard
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
1.000
2,660
Appendix
Table
1.5.2
describes
results
of
applying
the
flags
to
estimated
stock
escapements
over
the
years
1974
through
1998.
This
table
also
shows
where
the
Mainstem
Hood
Canal
Management
Unit's
total
escapements
were
above
and
below
the
critical
escapement
threshold
over
the
same
years.

How
the
Mainstem
Management
Unit
threshold
and
escapement
flags
function
when
they
are
applied
to
abundances
and
escapements
of
past
years
is
shown
in
Appendix
Table
1.5.2.
The
results
of
these
applications
demonstrate
how
the
critical
thresholds
and
the
EDFs
work
together
to
ensure
that
a
flag
will
be
raised
whenever
the
Hood
Canal
Mainstem
Management
Unit,
or
the
stocks
within
it,
experience
severe
abundance
or
escapement
problems.
They
also
demonstrate
that
the
method
used
to
derive
the
EDFs
is
conservative.
EDFs
are
triggered
in
some
years,
but
a
closer
examination
reveals
escapements
to
some
stocks
were,
in
fact,
sufficient.
Given
the
conservativeness
of
the
approach,
the
triggering
of
an
EDF
requires
an
evaluation
of
the
associated
stock(
s),
but
does
not
mandate
that
action
be
taken
if
it
can
be
shown
that
the
additional
actions
are
not
necessary
(
see
section
3.6.1).
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.5
A
1.71
Appendix
Table
1.5.1.
Hood
Canal
and
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
summer
chum
salmon
escapements
(
1974­
98)
used
to
calculate
critical
thresholds
for
management
unit
abundance
and
escapement.

Run
Year
Discovery
Sequim
Strait
of
Juan
de
Fuca
Mainstem
HC
Quilcene
SE
HC
Hood
Canal
ESU
Esc
Harv
Total
Esc
Harv
Total
Esc
Harv
Total
Esc
Harv
Total
Esc
Harv
Total
Esc
Harv
Total
Esc
Harv
Total
Esc
Harv
Total
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1,330
1,082
1,129
1,239
2,293
591
3,783
681
2,153
885
1,212
171
795
1,527
2,638
215
278
184
454
463
163
616
1,054
901
1,172
164
278
135
125
120
108
344
198
619
61
99
133
95
146
313
226
153
69
137
57
33
31
21
22
31
1,494
1,360
1,264
1,364
2,413
699
4,127
879
2,771
946
1,311
304
890
1,673
2,951
441
431
253
591
520
196
647
1,075
923
1,203
438
348
365
405
787
170
1,326
203
599
254
367
61
292
464
1,052
173
63
125
616
110
15
223
30
61
98
54
20
44
41
41
31
121
59
172
18
30
47
35
44
125
182
35
47
186
14
3
11
113
492
368
408
446
828
201
1,447
261
771
272
397
108
327
508
1,177
355
98
172
802
124
18
234
31
62
101
1,768
1,430
1,494
1,644
3,080
761
5,109
884
2,751
1,139
1,579
232
1,087
1,991
3,690
388
341
309
1,070
573
178
839
1,084
962
1,270
218
298
179
166
161
140
465
257
791
79
129
180
130
190
438
407
188
116
324
71
36
43
22
23
34
1,986
1,728
1,672
1,810
3,240
900
5,574
1,140
3,542
1,218
1,708
412
1,217
2,181
4,128
795
529
425
1,394
644
214
882
1,106
985
1,304
10,23
8
12,54
2
18,62
6
7,763
13,34
6
5,639
2,619
1,839
2,082
352
868
589
504
79
1,873
135
142
451
1,485
351
963
4,167
10,50
0
652
729
1,284
3,673
11,01
3
2,287
3,460
1,773
5,260
2,195
3,359
159
315
1,120
728
53
290
468
117
200
456
44
201
227
258
21
31
11,52
2
16,21
5
29,63
9
10,05
0
16,80
6
7,412
7,879
4,034
5,441
511
1,183
1,709
1,232
132
2,163
603
259
651
1,941
395
1,164
4,394
10,75
8
673
760
839
2,273
3,533
1,594
4,794
455
529
222
281
240
143
45
27
79
297
26
50
743
148
722
4,574
9,515
7,903
3,056
105
962
7,673
324
760
279
1,403
539
1,214
2,067
1,343
981
1,456
2,640
2,244
1,600
598
1,122
498
35
172
248
277
296
90
944
3,235
11,20
6
1,918
5,554
734
1,932
761
1,495
2,307
1,486
1,026
1,483
2,719
2,541
1,602
604
1,172
1,241
183
894
4,822
9,792
8,199
3,146
68
84
100
75
64
97
208
41
153
170
194
334
1,892
497
629
450
275
208
140
251
738
721
494
410
223
9
130
563
167
75
273
939
67
459
228
96
706
2,827
373
114
1,686
289
105
43
33
154
39
12
83
27
77
214
663
242
139
370
1,147
108
612
398
290
1,040
4,719
870
743
2,136
564
313
183
284
892
760
506
493
250
11,14
5
14,89
9
22,25
9
9,432
18,20
4
6,191
3,356
2,102
2,516
762
1,205
968
2,423
655
2,799
587
423
709
2,368
750
2,423
9,462
20,50
9
8,965
4,008
1,398
4,765
19,24
9
2,778
4,295
2,326
7,602
2,801
5,032
2,453
1,754
2,806
5,012
3,066
2,648
3,755
1,004
1,427
998
112
526
515
547
400
148
12,54
3
19,66
4
41,50
8
12,21
0
22,49
8
8,517
10,95
8
4,903
7,548
3,215
2,959
3,774
7,435
3,721
5,447
4,342
1,427
2,136
3,366
862
2,949
9,977
21,05
6
9,365
4,156
12,91
3
16,32
9
23,75
3
11,07
6
21,28
3
6,952
8,465
2,986
5,267
1,901
2,784
1,200
3,510
2,646
6,489
975
764
1,018
3,438
1,323
2,601
10,30
1
21,59
3
9,927
5,278
1,616
5,063
19,42
8
2,944
4,455
2,465
8,067
3,057
5,823
2,532
1,882
2,986
5,141
3,256
3,086
4,162
1,192
1,543
1,322
183
562
557
569
423
182
14,529
21,392
43,181
14,020
25,739
9,417
16,532
6,043
11,090
4,433
4,666
4,186
8,651
5,902
9,575
5,137
1,956
2,561
4,760
1,506
3,163
10,858
22,162
10,350
5,460
Avg
Max
Min
Max­
Min
1,280
2,951
253
2,698
400
828
18
810
1,736
5,501
11,52
2
132
11,39
0
2,145
3,235
604
2,631
721
1,147
77
1,070
8,666
10,402
Buffer
540
202
2,848
658
268
Min+
Buffer=
Crit
Abun
793
220
2,979
1,262
345
Sum
Recr
5,600
Crit
Esc.
Using
BCR
723
201
2,655
1,108
301
Sum
Esc.
4,990
Rounded
Crit
Abund.

Rounded
Crit
Esc.
790
720
220
200
2,980
2,660
1,260
1,110
340
300
Ttl
ER
0.109
Summer
Chum
Salmon
Conservation
Initiative
April
2000
Appendix
Report
1.5
A
1.72
Appendix
Table
1.5.2.
Summer
chum
salmon
escapements
of
the
mainstem
Hood
Canal
stocks
and
the
occurrence
of
critical
status
flags
for
the
years
1974­
98.

Escapements
Status
and
Flags
Proportions
Year
Lilliwaup
Hamma
Hamma
Duckabush
Dosewallips
MU
Total
MU
Status
Threshold
2,660
Lilliwaup
Hamma
Hamma
Duckabush
Dosewallips
Lilliwaup
Hamma
Hamma
Duckabush
Dosewallips
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
616
706
1,612
420
1,331
163
247
293
84
18
187
92
97
32
275
43
2
30
90
72
105
79
100
26
24
2,448
7,341
7,648
1,675
8,215
3,096
329
926
801
190
170
231
173
26
440
16
90
69
123
69
370
476
774
104
143
3,581
2,245
6,095
2,453
1,898
1,190
827
557
690
80
299
30
177
12
497
60
42
102
617
105
263
825
2,650
475
226
3,593
2,250
3,271
3,215
1,901
1,190
1,216
63
507
64
212
236
57
9
661
16
8
250
655
105
225
2,787
6,976
47
336
10,238
12,542
18,626
7,763
13,346
5,639
2,619
1,839
2,082
352
868
589
504
79
1,873
135
142
451
1,485
351
963
4,167
10,500
652
729
Above
Crit
Above
Crit
Above
Crit
Above
Crit
Above
Crit
Above
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Crit
Above
Crit
Above
Crit
Crit
Crit
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Check
Ok
Ok
Check
Check
Ok
Check
Check
Check
Ok
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Ok
Ok
Check
Check
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Check
Ok
Ok
Check
Check
0.060
0.056
0.087
0.054
0.100
0.029
0.094
0.159
0.040
0.051
0.215
0.156
0.192
0.405
0.147
0.319
0.014
0.067
0.061
0.205
0.109
0.019
0.010
0.040
0.033
0.239
0.585
0.411
0.216
0.616
0.549
0.126
0.504
0.385
0.540
0.196
0.392
0.343
0.329
0.235
0.119
0.634
0.153
0.083
0.197
0.384
0.114
0.074
0.160
0.196
0.350
0.179
0.327
0.316
0.142
0.211
0.316
0.303
0.331
0.227
0.344
0.051
0.351
0.152
0.265
0.444
0.296
0.226
0.415
0.299
0.273
0.198
0.252
0.729
0.310
0.351
0.179
0.176
0.414
0.142
0.211
0.464
0.034
0.244
0.182
0.244
0.401
0.113
0.114
0.353
0.119
0.056
0.554
0.441
0.299
0.234
0.669
0.664
0.072
0.461
74­
98
Mean
0.109
0.311
0.292
0.288
74­
80
Mean
SD
0.069
0.026
0.392
0.199
0.263
0.083
0.277
0.130
EDF
MEF
0.043
182
0.193
1,042
0.180
700
0.147
736
