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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hazard III. Reduction of effective population size. a. Hatchery fish are marked to accurately estimate the proportion of hatchery fish spawning naturally in target population. b. Natural spawning is regularly sampled to accurately estimate proportion of hatchery origin fish spawning in target population. c. In the target population, the proportion of natural spawners that are hatchery origin fish will be approximately equal to the proportion of wild fish that were taken into the hatchery the previous generation OR In the target population, the proportion of natural spawners that are hatchery origin fish is larger than the proportion of wild fish that were taken into the hatchery the previous generation and the wild population is increasing in abundance at a rate equal at least to the proportion of naturally spawning hatchery origin fish OR The target population is believed to be in substantial danger of extinction within the next 36 years and the effective number of breeders in the hatchery is as large as possible given the available stock OR The project is to reintroduce fish to a location removed from the target population with likelihood of less than 5 15 % return to the target population. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative April 2000 3.2 Artificial Production Page 150 Table 3.5. Criteria for the assessment of hazards ( continued).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

safe Site Limit Predat.

/

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

Spawners Broodstock Collection Minimum broodstock Mating &

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

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

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

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

b. Sampling record shows objective not reached.

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring from year to year shows any differences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The selection of projects is summarized as follows:

Existing Projects:

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

New Projects:

Supplementation: Jimmycomelately Reintroduction: None Potential Future Projects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tahuya River, and Skokomish River.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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