-
Title (dcterms:title)
-
Eng
The Extent of Hatchery-Origin Fish Among Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Observed in South Puget Sound Tributary Streams
-
Date (dcterms:date)
-
2008
-
Creator (dcterms:creator)
-
Eng
Kennedy, Kevin M
-
Subject (dcterms:subject)
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
The Extent of Hatchery-Origin Fish Among Fall Chinook Salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Observed in South
Puget Sound Tributary Streams
by
Kevin M. Kennedy
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
June 2008
© 2008 by Kevin M. Kennedy. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Kevin M. Kennedy
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
__________________________________________
Amy Cook, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
__________________________________________
Paul Butler, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
__________________________________________
Scott Steltzner, M.S.
Salmon Biologist
Squaxin Island Indian Tribe
___________________________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
The Extent of Hatchery-Origin Fish Among Fall Chinook Salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Observed in South
Puget Sound Tributary Streams
Kevin M. Kennedy
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) have been observed in small
numbers, for over 50 years, in many of the small tributary streams that feed into Puget
Sound south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Observations do not predate the release of
hatchery-reared Chinook salmon throughout the region, so the origin of the Chinook
salmon presently observed in these streams, as well as any potential role they could serve
in recovery efforts of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit
(ESU), remain unknown. The extent of hatchery-origin fish among the Chinook salmon
observed in South Puget Sound tributary streams was assessed using existing hatchery
release and spawning ground survey records. Hatchery mark rates from the Regional
Mark Information System (RMIS) Database were compared with mark recovery rates
from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Spawning Ground Survey
Database to see if similar mark rates existed between the two groups. Although the
hatchery mark rates exceeded mark recovery rates of fish observed during spawning
ground surveys in most instances, mark recovery data revealed that the majority of
carcasses observed, at three of the four streams with adequate sample sizes, had clipped
adipose fins or coded wire tags, suggesting an extensive presence of hatchery-origin fish
among the Chinook salmon observed at these streams. This might indicate that these fish
are primarily present due to previous or current releases of hatchery Chinook salmon in
South Puget Sound. If this assumption is correct, designating these streams as critical
habitat would not prove beneficial in aiding the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook
salmon ESU and could pose unintended consequences for the co-managers, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes,
responsible for managing the salmonids present in these streams.
Table of Contents
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………...........
vi
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………....
vii
List of Appendices……………………………………………………………………
viii
List of Acronyms……………………………………………………………………..
x
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………
xi
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..
1
Background…………………………………………………………………………..
Chinook Salmon Life History………………………………………………………
Policy……………………………………………………………………………….
The Endangered Species Act and Evolutionary Significant Units………………...
The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team and the 1992 Washington State
Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SaSSI)……………………………….…
Critical Habitat Designation and its Application in South Puget Sound…………
Genetic Samples from Nisqually River and South Puget Sound Tributary Streams
Review of South Puget Sound Hatchery Releases of Chinook Salmon……………
Nisqually River Hatchery Facilities………………………………………………
McAllister Creek Hatchery………………………………………………………..
Chambers Creek Basin Hatchery Facilities………………………………………
Deschutes Basin Hatchery Facilities……………………………………………...
South Sound Net Pens……………………………………………………………..
Elson Creek Hatchery……………………………………………………………..
Minter Creek Hatchery…………………………………………………………....
Coulter Creek Hatchery…………………………………………………………...
Fox Island Net Pens……………………………………………………………….
Mass Marking of South Puget Sound Hatchery Fall Chinook Salmon……………
Historical and Current Escapement Estimates for Nisqually River Chinook Salmon
Historical and Current Abundance Estimates for South Sound Tributaries Chinook
Salmon……………………………………………………………………………..
Comparison of the Physical Characteristics of South Puget Sound Streams with
Known Chinook Salmon Systems…………………………………………………
5
5
7
7
10
16
19
19
24
24
25
25
26
27
27
28
29
29
30
33
35
Methods………………………………………………………………………………
Comparing In-stream Abundance with In-stream Hatchery Releases……………...
Comparing Regionwide Abundance Estimates with Regionwide Hatchery
Releases……………………………………………………………………………
Comparing Mark Recovery Data with Hatchery Mark Rates………………………
41
46
50
54
Results……………………………………………………………………………….
57
iv
Comparing In-stream Abundance with In-stream Hatchery Releases…………….
Comparing Regionwide Abundance Estimates with Regionwide Hatchery
Releases…………………………………………………………………………...
Comparing Mark Recovery Data with Hatchery Mark Rates…..………………….
57
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..
Comparing In-stream Abundance with In-stream Hatchery Releases…………….
Comparing Regionwide Abundance Estimates with Regionwide Hatchery
Releases…………………………………………………………………………...
Comparing Mark Recovery Data with Hatchery Mark Rates…..………………….
69
69
Implications………………………………………………………………………….
Potential Role of South Puget Sound Tributaries Chinook Salmon in Recovery
Efforts of Nisqually River Chinook and the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU
Designation of South Puget Sound Tributaries as Critical Habitat for Nisqually
River Chinook Salmon: Context, Benefits, and Consequences……………..……
87
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..
93
Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………...
95
Appendices...........................................................................……………………
(Use enclosed CD for hard copy; see List of Appendices for electronic copy)
58
61
72
77
87
90
102
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: South Puget Sound study site map…………………………………….…...
4
Figure 2: Areas designated as critical habitat within the Nisqually Sub-basin
for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU………………………………..
18
Figure 3: Hatchery fall Chinook salmon releases in South Puget Sound,
brood years 1952-2004…………………………………………………….
21
Figure 4: Nisqually River Chinook salmon escapement totals for adult hatchery
and naturally spawning fish, 1986-2006…………………………………...
32
Figure 5: Coulter Creek relative presence estimates, 1960-1979…………….….…...
57
Figure 6: Coulter Creek relative presence estimates and hatchery escapement
counts, 1960-2006…………………………………………………….........
58
Figure 7: South Puget Sound AUC and peak abundance estimates, 1987-2006……..
60
Figure 8: South Puget Sound Chinook salmon run reconstruction, 1987-2006……...
61
Figure 9: Hammersley Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006……….
64
Figure 10: Case Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006……………….
64
Figure 11: Carr Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006……………….
65
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of South Puget Sound Chinook salmon hatchery facilities,
brood years 1952-2004……………………………………………………..
22
Table 2: 1991 escapement estimates of Chinook salmon for miscellaneous
South Puget Sound tributary streams………………………………….........
35
Table 3: Comparison of stream characteristics of miscellaneous South Puget
Sound tributary streams with three Puget Sound fall Chinook systems……
39
Table 4: Hatchery fall Chinook salmon releases at Coulter Creek, 1957-1962……… 48
Table 5: Explanation of mark recovery categories used in WDFW spawning
ground surveys……………………………………………………...............
56
Table 6: South Puget Sound hatchery-released Chinook salmon adipose mark
and CWT rates, brood years 1997-2004………………………………........
66
Table 7: Weighted average mark rates for Chinook salmon hatchery brood year
releases that contributed to return years 2002-2006
(South Puget Sound and WRIA 15)………………………………………...
68
Table 8: Coded wire tag recoveries at South Puget Sound streams, 1984-2006...…… 81
vii
List of Appendices
Table Table A-1: Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Nisqually Basin
(WRIA 11), 1952-2004…………………………………………………..
102
Table A-2: Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Tacoma Basin
(WRIA 12), 1952-2004…………………………………………………..
104
Table A-3: Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Deschutes Basin
(WRIA 13), 1952-2004…………………………………………………..
106
Table A-4: Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Shelton Basin
(WRIA 14), 1952-2004…………………………………………………..
108
Table A-5: Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Kitsap Basin
(WRIA 15), and WRIA’s 11-15, 1952-2004…………………………….
110
Table A-6: Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood
year releases in the Nisqually Basin, 1997-2003………………………..
112
Table A-7: Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood
year releases in the Tacoma Basin, 1997-2003………………………….
113
Table A-8: Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood
year releases in the Deschutes Basin, 1997-2003……………………….
114
Table A-9: Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood
year releases in the Shelton Basin, 1997-2003………………………….
115
Table A-10: Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood
year releases in the Kitsap Basin, 1997-2003………………………….
116
Table A-11: Nisqually River fall Chinook salmon run reconstruction, 1986-2006…..
117
Table A-12: Mean monthly stream flow averages (cubic feet per second) for
miscellaneous South Puget Sound streams and three fall Chinook
salmon systems (Lower Skagit, Snohomish, and Nisqually Rivers)........ 118
Table A-13: USGS Stream gaging stations, locations, and years of operation.............
119
Table A-14: Mean monthly average stream temperatures (° C) for three USGS
gaging stations in the Skagit River and Snohomish River Basin.............
120
Table B-1: Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006……...
121
Figure B-2: Coulter Creek spawning ground survey effort- 1960-1979, 2000-2006
127
viii
Figure B-3: Coulter Creek peak observed survey count dates- 1960-1979,
2000-2006…………………………………………………………….
127
Table C-1: Chinook salmon hatchery releases in South Puget Sound tributaries,
brood years 1952-2004………………………………………………..
128
Table C-2: South Puget Sound tributaries peak observed live and dead survey
counts, 1987-2006…………………………………………………….
129
Table C-3: South Puget Sound tributaries AUC relative abundance estimates,
1987-2006.…………………………………………………………….
131
Table C-4: South Puget Sound Chinook salmon run reconstruction, 1987-2006…
133
Table C-5: Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006………………
134
Table C-6: Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006……………………
140
Table C-7: Goldsborough Creek spawning ground surveys, 1998-2006………….
146
Table C-8: Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006…………………...
149
Table C-9: Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006……………...
155
Table C-10: Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006………………….
161
Table C-11: Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006………………….
166
Table D-1: Hammersley Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006…………..
177
Table D-2: Case and Carr Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006…………
180
Table D-3: Hammersley Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.....
183
Table D-4: Case Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006…………..
185
Table D-5: Carr Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006…………..
186
Table D-6: Releases of eyed Chinook salmon eggs in Sherwood Creek by the
Sherwood Creek Cooperative and Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group,
brood years 1990-2003……………………………………………….
187
Table D-7: Estimated return of Chinook salmon at Sherwood Creek due to
eyed egg releases by regional enhancement groups, 1998-2006
188
ix
List of Acronyms
AD
Adipose fin marked
AUC
Area-under-the-curve
CWT
Coded wire tag
DPS
Distinct population segment
EDT
Ecosystem diagnosis treatment
ESA
Endangered Species Act
ESU
Evolutionary significant unit
FPP
Fish per pound
HGMP
Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NWMT
Northwest Marine Tech
RM
River mile
RMIS
Regional Mark Information System
RSI
Remote site incubator
SaSI
Salmonid Stock Inventory
SaSSI
Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory
TRT
Technical Recovery Team
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WDF
Washington Department of Fisheries
WDFW
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDW
Washington Department of Wildlife
WRIA
Water Resource Inventory Area
WWTIT
Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes
x
Acknowledgments
This thesis would not have been possible without the generous input, support, and
guidance of many individuals. First, I would like to thank my thesis advisors for their
help throughout this arduous process. Dr. Amy Cook read over numerous drafts, and
supplied helpful comments and edits through the entire writing process. Dr. Paul Butler
provided edits and suggestions helpful in creating a polished final draft. Scott Steltzner,
Squaxin Island Indian Tribe, was instrumental in developing the premise for this thesis,
and was very helpful in providing proper context for many of the policy aspects therein.
Tremendous support was also provided by two individuals: Kyle Brakensiek,
who spent countless hours providing guidance and suggestions, while simultaneously
listening to my findings and frustrations, and Larry Phillips, Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, who spent extensive amounts of time explaining WDFW data and
policies, and provided feedback that greatly improved the final document.
Assistance was also provided by many local natural resource professionals. Craig
Smith, Nisqually Indian Tribe, promptly provided tribal hatchery release and escapement
data. Amy Callahan, Thurston County Geodata, produced an excellent map of the South
Puget Sound study site and provided the use of an IBM ThinkPad. WDFW personnel,
who are so numerous they cannot be named, provided answers to numerous questions
throughout the process. In addition, advice provided by USFWS personnel, during my
employment with the agency, was also influential.
I would also like to thank friends, roommates, and fellow Evergreen students for
providing humor, and inquiring about my progress and mental state, throughout this long
process.
Finally, I want to thank my loving family, including my loving parents and sister,
for their continued support and encouragement during graduate school and throughout
my life.
xi
Introduction
Wild Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) populations have declined
throughout the Puget Sound region in recent decades. These population declines
prompted the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to designate the Puget Sound
Chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit (ESU) as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), first in 1999 and again in 2005 (NMFS, 1999; NMFS, 2005a). In the
South Puget Sound region, which encompasses all Puget Sound waterways that lie south
of the Tacoma Narrows, there is currently only one independent population of Chinook
salmon in the Puget Sound ESU, located in the Nisqually River. Due to its unique
position, some policymakers and scientists deem this independent population important
for the recovery of the entire Puget Sound ESU (Shared Strategy Development
Committee, 2007). In addition to the Nisqually River population, Chinook salmon have
been observed, in recent times, in the small, independent streams that feed into South
Puget Sound. These small, independent tributaries, defined as individual streams that
drain directly into Puget Sound, will hereafter be referred to as South Puget Sound
tributaries (Figure 1). The number of Chinook salmon observed in South Puget Sound
tributaries is small, in comparison to Chinook abundance in the Nisqually River, and also
intermittent, with tens to hundreds of fish observed in some years but none in other years
(Ruckelshaus et al., 2006). Historical records regarding the abundance and spawning
presence of Chinook salmon in these tributary streams are lacking, so the origin of these
fish, and their potential relationship to independent Puget Sound Chinook salmon
populations, is currently unknown.
The historical presence, or absence, and origin of the Chinook salmon that
currently return to South Puget Sound tributaries is alluded to in a document published by
the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT), a committee designated the task of
identifying independent populations of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region. The
TRT did not assign all groups of Chinook salmon, which are reported to spawn naturally
in Puget Sound streams, to independent populations for two reasons. One reason is that
the small numbers of Chinook, which intermittently return to certain streams, might be
part of larger independent populations and only return to these small streams during years
1
of high abundance or favorable habitat conditions. The second reason why Chinook
salmon that return to these streams are not designated as an independent population is
because the streams may not have supported naturally spawning Chinook populations
historically, and the only reason Chinook return to these streams currently may be due to
returning adults from hatchery production. In the interim, the TRT document suggests
that Chinook salmon that return to these small streams, which are not within the
geographic boundaries of independent Chinook populations, should be given
consideration towards possibly contributing to the population dynamics of independent
Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations (Ruckelshaus et al., 2006). The suggestion
that small numbers of Chinook salmon returning to streams, for which historic presence
or absence is unknown, might contribute to the population dynamics of independent
Chinook populations in the Puget Sound could be an indication that the Chinook in these
small streams might be considered as beneficial towards recovery efforts for the Puget
Sound Chinook salmon ESU. If this hypothesis were proven true, or accepted as policy,
it could potentially mean the designation of these small streams as critical habitat for the
Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU.
The origin of Chinook salmon that return to South Puget Sound tributaries has
been studied from many angles, including genetic analysis comparing fish found in these
small streams with fish from the Nisqually River and various South Puget Sound
hatchery programs, as well as habitat surveys comparing the parameters of these small
streams with known information on Chinook spawning needs and preferences. Another
possible area of study is to summarize historical records of spawning presence, timing,
and abundance of Chinook salmon in the small, independent tributaries of South Puget
Sound in order to determine the origin of these fish (Ruckelshaus et al., 2006). An
analysis of existing spawning ground surveys and hatchery release records pertaining to
the small, independent tributaries of South Puget Sound will be conducted to assess how
extensive the influence of hatchery-origin fish is among the Chinook salmon observed in
these small streams.
This document is designed to test for indications of hatchery influence among the
Chinook salmon using the small, independent tributary streams that feed into South Puget
Sound. It will begin with a general description of Chinook life history, an in-depth
2
review of this issue within the broader policy arena, existing genetic information about
South Sound Chinook stocks, and a review of South Puget Sound hatchery releases of
Chinook salmon. Past abundance estimates for both Nisqually and South Puget Sound
Tributaries Chinook will be summarized, and a comparison of the characteristics of South
Puget Sound streams with known Puget Sound Chinook salmon systems will be
provided. Existing spawning ground survey and hatchery release records will be
analyzed in three scenarios that test for indications of hatchery-origin fish among the
Chinook salmon observed in these streams. These will be followed by results, a
discussion of the results, and the implications of these results in relation to the recovery
of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU.
3
Figure 1. South Puget Sound study site map.
Source: Amy Callahan, Thurston County Geodata, 2008.
4
Background
Chinook Salmon Life History
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are the largest of the five species of
Pacific salmon in the genus Oncorhynchus, and like the other four species Chinook are
anadromous (migrate to sea and return to freshwater to spawn) and semelparous (spawn
only once before dying). They are a commercially valuable species and are highly sought
after by commercial, tribal, and recreational fisheries. There are two recognized forms or
races of Chinook salmon, stream-type and ocean-type, which display differing life history
attributes, including: length of freshwater, estuarine, and oceanic residence, age at
seaward migration, ocean distribution and migratory patterns, and age and time of
spawning migration. The two forms of Chinook salmon, stream-type and ocean-type,
and their typical life history characteristics are summarized in Healey (1991).
Stream-type Chinook have a long freshwater residence time after emerging from
the gravel of their natal streams, spending one or more years in freshwater, as fry, before
migrating to sea as yearlings. While at sea, stream-type Chinook migrate into offshore
waters, and return to their natal river in the spring or summer (typically February through
July) several months prior to spawning. Stream-type Chinook salmon are typically found
in Asia, and North American populations north of 56°N, but are also found in some
headwater tributaries of southern North American populations. Ocean-type Chinook
salmon, unlike stream-type Chinook, have a shorter freshwater residence period. They
migrate to sea during their first year, as subyearlings, within three months of emergence
from the gravel where they were spawned. Ocean-type Chinook typically spend most of
their ocean residence in coastal waters and return to their natal river in late summer or fall
(typically July through December), only a few days or weeks before spawning proceeds.
The ocean form of Chinook salmon is typically found in North American coastal
populations south of 56°N (Healey, 1991). In addition to the variation in life history
characteristics between the two forms or types of Chinook salmon, there exists variation
of life history characteristics within each form as well. Given these life history
characteristics, the coastal and relatively southern latitude of Puget Sound, the tendency
of Puget Sound Chinook to migrate north along the Canadian Coast (Shared Strategy
5
Development Committee, 2007), and because Puget Sound Chinook salmon return to
their natal rivers in late summer or fall, it is presumed that Puget Sound Chinook are
ocean-type; all subsequent references to Chinook salmon from South Puget Sound and
other river systems will be in reference to ocean-type, and particularly fall, Chinook
salmon unless otherwise noted.
Like other ocean-type Chinook, the majority of Puget Sound Chinook salmon
migrate out of their natal, freshwater streams during their first year and make use of the
productive estuarine and nearshore habitats of the Puget Sound. These waters provide an
excellent environment for juvenile Chinook because they provide plenty of food in the
form of insects and forage fish (Fresh et al., 1979), protection from predators (Beamer et
al., 2003), and a place to undergo the physiological transition to saltwater (Simenstad et
al., 1985). It is during their residence in the highly productive estuarine and nearshore
waters that juvenile salmon experience the highest growth rates of their lives (Shared
Strategy Development Committee, 2007). As juvenile Chinook continue to feed and
grow in the estuarine environment of Puget Sound, they venture into deeper, and further
offshore, habitats until they complete their migration to the ocean environment (Fresh,
2006).
Chinook salmon remain at sea from one to six years, but most commonly two to
four years. Some yearling males, also known as “jacks”, either mature exclusively in
freshwater or enter the saltwater environment for only two or three months before
returning to freshwater, but the proportion of these precocious males is normally small
(Myers et al., 1998). The majority of Puget Sound Chinook stocks mature as three- or
four-year olds (Shared Strategy Development Committee, 2007), and the distribution of
age at return for the Nisqually River Chinook stock supports the findings of Myers et al.,
1998. Unpublished hatchery return data from the Nisqually Indian tribe states that age at
return rates of adult Chinook, from 1990-1999, are 49.0% for three-year olds, 48.4% for
four-year olds, and 2.5% for five-year olds (Nisqually Indian Tribe, 2007a). Age at
return data does not exist specifically for South Puget Sound Tributaries Chinook natural
spawners, but is likely similar to that of the Nisqually stock, since 85% of the Green
River Chinook stock, the main hatchery broodstock used throughout Puget Sound during
6
the latter half of the twentieth century, return as three- and four-year olds (Shared
Strategy Development Committee, 2007).
Scientific evidence suggests that the time of year at which adult Chinook salmon
return to freshwater, and to spawn, is related to local temperature and flow regimes
(Miller and Brannon, 1982). Adult Puget Sound Chinook salmon return to freshwater
from late March to early December, with the peak spawning period occurring from midto late August through mid-October (Shared Strategy Development Committee, 2007).
Summer and fall Chinook salmon runs predominate in Puget Sound, as many of the early,
or spring, runs have been extirpated (Myers et al., 1998). In South Puget Sound, both
Nisqually River and South Sound Tributaries Chinook salmon exhibit similar spawning
behavior, with the former returning to the river from late July through mid-September
and spawning from mid-September through October, and the later spawning from lateSeptember through October (WDF et al., 1993). While numerous studies reveal that
adult salmon return to their natal streams with high success (Quinn and Fresh, 1984;
McIsaac and Quinn, 1988), adult salmon do sometimes stray to systems other than their
natal stream. Straying is considered a response to perturbed or unfavorable conditions at
one’s natal stream (Quinn, 1993). Other important reasons why salmon stray include low
competition for colonizing new systems, including newly created habitat following the
recession of glaciers (Milner et al., 2000) or after natural disasters such as volcanic
eruptions (Quinn, 2005).
Policy
The Endangered Species Act and Evolutionary Significant Units
The Endangered Species Act was enacted by Congress in 1973 to allow for the
conservation of species that were in danger of or threatened with extinction (USFWS,
1973). NMFS, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
was assigned the task of designating anadromous salmonids under the ESA, while the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated all non-anadromous fish.
The initial enactment of the ESA only permitted the listing of full species, but the ESA
was amended in 1978 to allow for the listing of distinct population segments (DPS) of
7
vertebrates (including fish), as well as subspecies (Good et al., 2005). Since the ESA was
ambiguous in providing guidelines for determining what constitutes a DPS, NMFS
published a policy describing how the agency would apply the definition of species in the
ESA towards anadromous salmonid species (Good et al., 2005). According to NMFS
policy, a salmon population, or group of populations, is considered distinct for ESA
purposes if it represents an ESU of the biological species (Waples, 1991). An ESU is
defined as a population that 1) is reproductively isolated from conspecific populations
(other population units of the same species), and 2) represents an important component in
the evolutionary legacy of the species (Waples, 1991). Insight into evolutionary
significance can be provided by data on genetic and life history characteristics, habitat
differences, and the effects of supplementation efforts and stock transfers (hatchery
releases). Information useful for determining the degree of reproductive isolation
includes recolonization rates, incidences of straying, degree of genetic differentiation,
and the existence of barriers to migration (Good et al., 2005).
In 1998, NMFS completed a status review of Chinook salmon from Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and California. The Biological Review Team that completed the status
review reported that the overall abundance of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU
had declined substantially from historical levels for a variety of reasons, including
decreased access to spawning habitat, degraded freshwater habitat, and an increasing
reliance on hatchery fish for achieving escapement and harvest goals (Myers et al., 1998).
Following the status review of West Coast Chinook salmon, NMFS listed the Puget
Sound Chinook salmon ESU as a threatened species under the ESA on March 24, 1999
(NMFS, 1999). According to Section 3.19 of the ESA, a threatened species is “any
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range”. Thus, at the time of this listing, the
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU was at risk of becoming endangered, but not at risk of
becoming extinct, in the foreseeable future.
Not long after the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU was listed as threatened
under the ESA, a few factors led NMFS to conduct a systematic update of all listed
Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs. First, a court ruling from September 2001 brought
into question NMFS’ decision not to list several hatchery populations that were
8
considered to be part of the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU (Alsea Valley Alliance v.
Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, D. Oreg.). The Alsea decision, as it will hereafter be
called, held that the ESA does not permit the listing of any unit smaller that a DPS (in
this case an ESU), and that NMFS had violated this provision of the ESA by listing only
part of an ESU. Prior to this decision, NMFS had listed very few hatchery populations
under the ESA, and those listed were either closely associated with natural salmon
populations or ESUs considered at high risk of extinction (Good et al., 2005). In addition
to the Alsea decision, this discrepancy regarding NMFS’ interpretation of the ESA was
raised by two additional, and similar, lawsuits regarding steelhead ESUs in California. In
these lawsuits [EDC v. Evans, SACV-00-1212-AHS (EEA); MID v. Evans, CIV-F-026553 OWW DLB (E.D. Cal.)], it was determined that NMFS had violated the ESA by
listing only the anadromous population of the ESU while excluding the resident
population, part of the same ESU, from listing. The outcome of the Alsea decision, and
steelhead lawsuits, meant that for any subsequent listings of Pacific salmon and
steelhead, NMFS must list, or exclude from listing, an ESU in its entirety. It also meant
that NMFS would now have to consider how to view hatchery populations of salmon that
reside within an ESU containing natural populations.
These court decisions, coupled with the fact that nearly a decade had passed since
the first ESUs were listed in the Sacramento and Snake Rivers and several years of
additional data were available for other ESUs, prompted NMFS to begin an update of all
listed ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead in 2002 (Good et al., 2005). An updated
status review of listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead was completed in 2005,
and the majority of the NMFS Biological Review Team members assigned to the
Chinook salmon species decided that the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU should be
designated as threatened (Good et al., 2005). On June 28, 2005, NMFS reaffirmed
threatened status for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU under the ESA (NMFS,
2005a).
9
The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team and the 1992 Washington State Salmon
and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SaSSI)
Between the timing of NMFS’ first and subsequent listings of the Puget Sound
Chinook Salmon ESU, the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (TRT) was formed.
The TRT was assigned the task, for recovery planning purposes, of identifying
populations that historically existed and currently remain within the geographical
boundaries that encompass the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU (Ruckelshaus et al.,
2006). The TRT, which began work in 2000, included one or more representatives from
the following organizations: Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission, Washington Department of Natural Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service, King Country Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Tulalip
Tribe, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The process the TRT
used to identify populations of Chinook salmon within the Puget Sound ESU was similar
to the process used by NMFS to identify ESUs of Chinook salmon and other salmonids,
in that both processes involved distinguishing a smaller, independent population from a
larger population based on biological and geographical differences.
The TRT defined an independent population using Ricker’s definition of a
“stock” as “a group of fish of the same species that spawns in a particular lake or stream
(or portion thereof) at a particular season and which, to a substantial degree, does not
interbreed with fish from any other group spawning in a different place or in the same
place at a different season” (Ricker, 1972). The significant information necessary to
identify independent populations, under the previously mentioned definition, is migration
rates between groups and their demographic distribution (Ruckelshaus et al., 2006).
Since information regarding salmon straying between streams was lacking, the TRT had
to rely on different types of information to infer the degree of reproductive isolation
between Chinook salmon groups. The TRT decided on six indicators of historical
population structure, ordered by the strength of inference: 1) geographic orientation of
groups 2) migration rates 3) genetic attributes 4) patterns of life history or phenotypic
characteristics 5) population dynamics 6) environmental/habitat characteristics. Not all
of the indicators proved useful in this analysis, and only geography, genetics, and some
10
life history information were used as indicators to distinguish independent populations
within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU (Ruckelshaus et al., 2006).
In making decisions regarding designation of independent populations of Puget
Sound Chinook salmon, the TRT reviewed all Chinook salmon groups that spawned
naturally in Puget Sound streams. Information about Puget Sound Chinook salmon
spawning groups was obtained from the 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead
Stock Inventory (SaSSI); updates to the 1992 version, completed in 2002, were also
considered. (In 1997, SaSSI was renamed SaSI (Salmonid Stock Inventory) and stock
assessments have been updated periodically since that time, with the last update for
Chinook salmon stocks completed in 2002. The 1992 version will be referenced as
SaSSI and be cited as WDF et al., 1993; the latter version will be referred to as SaSI and
will be cited as WDF et al., 1993; updated 2002). SaSSI was written by Washington
Department of Fisheries (WDF), Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW), and
Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes (WWTIT), hereafter referred to as the comanagers. The co-managers were given the task of identifying all existing stocks of
salmon and steelhead that naturally reproduce in Washington waters, regardless of origin,
including native, non-native and mixed stocks (WDF et al., 1993). In SaSSI, a native
stock is defined as an indigenous stock that has not been substantially altered by genetic
interactions with non-native stocks and is still present in all or part of its original range.
A non-native stock is one that has established itself outside of its original range, and a
mixed stock is one whose individuals originated from native and non-native parents. A
mixed stock can also refer to a native stock that has undergone substantial genetic
alteration (WDF et al., 1993). SaSSI also determined that some stocks had insufficient
information to be adequately defined, so these stocks were listed as unknown.
The co-managers used a definition of stock that was very similar to that
developed by Rickers, focused on a group of fish that spawns in a particular place at a
particular season and does not substantially interbreed with other groups spawning in a
different place, or in the same place at a different season (WDF et al., 1993). The comanagers used criteria to define stocks centered on distinct spawning distribution,
temporal distribution, biological characteristics, and genetics. Despite differences in
terminology, it appears that there are similarities in how both parties identified groups of
11
spawning Chinook salmon. The co-manager’s choice of the term “stock” and the TRT’s
use of the term “independent population” both are used to distinguish one group of fish
from other groups on the basis of geography, genetics, and life history characteristics (i.e.
spawning timing, freshwater entry). Given these similarities, it appears that the stock
listings in SaSSI lent themselves well for use by the TRT in its designation of
independent populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
According to SaSSI, the Nisqually summer/fall Chinook stock, as it was referred
to in 1992, was rated as a healthy stock, meaning that production levels were consistent
with its available habitat and within the natural variations expected for survival in that
stock. The origin of the Nisqually stock was listed as mixed, likely because of the
influence of non-native Green River hatchery-origin fish, which, in combination with
habitat loss and high harvest rates, is presumed to have extirpated the natural Nisqually
stock (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team, 2001). The Nisqually production type was
listed as composite, meaning the stock is sustained through a combination of wild
(natural) and artificial production. In 2002, SaSI rated Nisqually Chinook, the current
name for that stock, as depressed. A depressed stock is one whose production level is
below expected levels based on available habitat and natural variations in levels of
survival. (While a “depressed stock” rating suggests that a stock is declining in
abundance, it is not as serious a rating as that given to a critical stock, which is a stock
that has such low production levels that permanent damage to the stock has likely
occurred or will occur. Another way to comprehend this terminology is to view a
depressed stock rating as similar to that of a threatened designation under the ESA, while
a critical stock rating is similar to an ESA designation of endangered.) The Nisqually
stock was rated as depressed because of low stock productivity, meaning the stock
produced fewer returning offspring than would be expected given the estimated number
of spawners. As in 1992, the Nisqually stock was listed as mixed and the production type
was determined to be composite.
Using information regarding stock listings in SaSSI, the Puget Sound Technical
Recovery Team determined that there were 22 historical populations that currently
existed within the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU, and 16 additional spawning
aggregations or populations that were now putatively extinct. The Nisqually River is
12
listed as one of the 22 existing historical populations, and is one of six independent
populations classified in the Central and South Puget Sound Region. The Nisqually
River independent population is the furthest south, geographically, of the 22 Puget Sound
populations.
The TRT noted that both the early- and late-run Nisqually spawning aggregations
are considered to be extinct (Ruckelshaus et al., 2006). Uncertainty over whether these
aggregations of spawners might represent distinct populations led the TRT to term them
as “spawning aggregations”, split into early- and late-run times. While little historical
information regarding early-run Nisqually Chinook salmon is available, Smoker et al.
(1952) noted that historical peak harvest occurred more than a month earlier than the
current harvest on naturalized, nonnative, Green River origin Chinook salmon. This
observation might suggest that an earlier run timing of Nisqually River Chinook existed
historically, and the lack of Chinook returning to the river earlier in the season in recent
decades is presumably what prompted Nehlsen et al. (1991) to consider this early-run
spawning aggregation extinct. It should be noted that Nehlsen et al. referred to the
Nisqually River Chinook early-run spawning aggregation as the Nisqually spring/summer
race, but it is assumed that these two different terms refer to the same spawning
aggregation of Chinook salmon.
Although there is currently a late-run Nisqually River Chinook salmon spawning
aggregation, stock origin is difficult to determine. Research suggests that Nisqually
River Chinook are genetically similar to Green River Chinook (Marshall 1999; Marshall
2000), but genetic samples of Nisqually Chinook were not taken prior to the introduction
of non-native, Soos Creek Hatchery (Green River) origin Chinook into the Nisqually
River. Thus, this could imply that, genetically, either the native Nisqually stock may
have resembled other South Puget Sound Chinook stocks, including Green River
Chinook, or that the indigenous Nisqually River population has been replaced by Green
River origin Chinook salmon (WDF et al,, 1993, updated 2002). Given that early-run
Nisqually Chinook salmon, which may have contributed to the viability of Chinook
salmon in the watershed, are considered to be extinct, and the fact that late-run Nisqually
Chinook spawning aggregations have presumably been replaced by naturalized, nonnative hatchery broodstock, recovery efforts for Nisqually River Chinook are currently
13
focused on developing a locally adapted Chinook population in the long term (Nisqually
Chinook Recovery Team, 2001). This course of action is considered essential to ensure
that the Nisqually River Chinook population will provide a critically important
contribution to the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU (Shared Strategy
Development Committee, 2007).
In reviewing all Puget Sound Chinook salmon spawning groups, the TRT decided
not to assign all of the spawning groups documented in SaSSI as independent populations
for two reasons:
1) Spawning adults are known to occur intermittently in certain streamsspawning in groups of tens to hundreds of fish in some years and none in
others. A plausible explanation for intermittent occurrence of Chinook
salmon in some streams is that those adults are part of a larger independent
population that uses some spawning habitats only during years of high
abundance or favorable habitat conditions. The streams that intermittently
harbor spawning adults also could contain fish from more that one
independent population, depending on their locations relative to the primary
spawning areas of independent populations.
2) It is possible that some streams presently containing Chinook salmon never
supported naturally spawning Chinook salmon historically. In many of these
instances, the origin of the naturally spawning Chinook salmon present is
most likely due to returning adults from hatchery production. Some streams
may therefore contain Chinook salmon only because of the presence of a
hatchery or releases of hatchery fish, and these streams would not have
represented historical Chinook salmon spawning habitat that could sustain an
independent population (Ruckelshaus et al., 2006).
These two statements are representative of the differing theories, referred to in the
introduction, regarding the population structure of Chinook salmon in the small,
independent tributaries of South Puget Sound. The first theory, which suggests that the
Chinook salmon intermittently observed in small tributaries to Puget Sound might be part
of larger independent Puget Sound populations, appears to rely on information from
SaSSI’s 1992 stock list for summer/fall Chinook in South Sound tributaries. The second
population structure theory for these small groups of Chinook salmon suggests that their
current presence in these streams is due to hatchery releases, and appears to rely on the
co-managers 2002 SaSI stock list for South Sound Tributaries Chinook. There exists a
14
significant difference between the 1992 and 2002 stock listing for Chinook salmon from
South Sound tributaries, and these differences are most likely responsible for the
differing theories regarding the population structure of these salmon groups.
The 1992 SaSSI stock list rated Chinook salmon from South Sound tributaries as
a healthy stock of mixed origin and composite production type. This stock was described
as one dependent upon hatchery production, from Green River hatchery stock, with some
sustained natural spawning occurring (WDF et al., 1993). The stock had a listed spawn
timing of September through October, and a spawning distribution that included
Chambers Creek, McAllister Creek, Deschutes River, Carr Inlet Streams, and other South
Sound streams. Another notable statement from the stock listing is a suggestion that
some of these fish may be part of a self-sustainable population of natural spawners, but
no data exists to quantify that statement (WDF et al., 1993).
The co-managers came to a much different conclusion in their 2002 rating of
South Sound Tributaries Chinook. In SaSI, the fall Chinook spawning aggregations, as
they were now referred to, were not rated and were no longer considered a distinct stock.
The co-managers supported this course of action based on the following rationale. First,
the streams in South Puget Sound are not typical Chinook habitat due to their relatively
small size and low flows during the typical fall Chinook spawning season (late
summer/early fall). Second, low escapement numbers from streams without on-site
Chinook hatchery operations likely resulted from past hatchery plants, or straying from
either current South Sound hatchery programs or viable South Puget Sound natural
populations. Third, fall Chinook were likely not historically self-sustaining in South
Sound streams and have little chance of establishing self-sustaining populations through
natural production. The co-managers concluded that Chinook salmon present in South
Sound tributaries in recent times are due to the large, numerous releases of Chinook from
South Sound hatcheries, and suggested that the large escapement numbers that led them
to classify the naturally spawning Chinook aggregations as a stock in 1992 consisted of
hatchery returns released or escaping above hatchery racks (WDF et al., 1993; updated
2002).
15
Critical Habitat Designation and its Application in South Puget Sound
The designation of critical habitat under the ESA is an important conservation
tool for listed species because it designates, and protects, habitat important to the
recovery of that species. Land designated as critical habitat is afforded protection from
human activities, such as development or resource extraction, which could potentially
degrade the condition of the land and further imperil the plight of a listed species.
Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA defines critical habitat for a threatened or endangered species
as:
(i)
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed … on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protection; and
(ii)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the
time it is listed upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the ESA requires the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to
designate critical habitat for listed species, and make revisions thereto, “on the basis of
the best scientific data available”. In deciding which lands to designate as critical habitat,
the Secretary looks at all lands that are eligible for inclusion, under Section 3(5)(A) of the
ESA, minus some lands that are eligible for exclusion due to reasons of economy,
national security, or Tribal/private ownership. Lands eligible for exclusion from critical
habitat designation include Department of Defense Lands, Tribal Lands, and private
landholdings with contractual commitments to conservation. The Secretary can also
exclude lands from critical habitat designation, under Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, on
economic grounds if it is determined that the economic benefits of excluding an area
from critical habitat designation outweigh the conservation benefits of designating that
area. It merits noting that the Secretary is not permitted to exclude an area from critical
habitat designation if such an exclusion would result in the extinction of that species.
In September of 2005, critical habitat was designated for 12 ESUs of salmon and
steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, including the Puget Sound Chinook salmon
ESU. Areas that were designated in the Nisqually Sub-basin include the entire mainstem
16
Nisqually River from its outlet in Puget Sound to the city of La Grande, McAllister
Creek, the nearshore marine area of the Nisqually Sub-basin, and numerous tributaries to
the Nisqually River, many of which serve as spawning grounds for Chinook and other
Pacific salmon species. Those areas of the Nisqually Sub-basin which were excluded
from critical habitat designation include the segment of the lower Nisqually River which
lies adjacent to the Nisqually Indian Reservation and the Fort Lewis Military Reservation
(NMFS, 2005b). Figure 2 provides a detailed map of the areas, within the Nisqually Subbasin, that were included in the final critical habitat designation for the Puget Sound
Chinook salmon ESU. The only other areas of South Puget Sound which were
designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU are the nearshore marine
areas of the Deschutes, Shelton, and Kitsap Sub-basins. Nearshore marine areas are areas
adjacent to the shoreline that span from the line of extreme high tide out to a depth of no
more then 30 meters relative to the mean lower low water. These areas are important to
Puget Sound Chinook because they provide food (aquatic invertebrates and fishes) and
cover (submerged and overhanging trees, aquatic vegetation, and boulders) that permit
juveniles to successfully transition from their natal streams to offshore marine areas
(NMFS, 2005b).
17
Figure 2. Areas designated as critical habitat within the Nisqually
Sub-basin for the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU.
Source: NMFS, 2005b.
18
Genetic Samples from Nisqually River and South Puget Sound Tributary Streams
Very little genetic analysis has been conducted on Nisqually River Chinook
salmon and none has been done for South Sound Tributaries Chinook. An analysis of
Chinook spawning in the mainstem Nisqually River, Mashel River, and Ohop Creek in
1998 through 2000 revealed that the allele frequencies of the combined samples were
similar to those of some South Puget Sound hatchery and wild populations, but the extent
of hatchery-origin fish in the genetic samples is unknown (WDF et al., 1993; updated
2002). While the Nisqually summer/fall Chinook stock is identified as a stock based on
their distinct spawning distribution (WDF et al., 1993), it is currently believed that the
indigenous population may have been replaced by Soos Creek Hatchery (Green River)
origin Chinook salmon (Marshall et al., 1995). Given the massive influx of South Sound
hatchery-origin Chinook salmon in South Puget Sound, and the lack of information
regarding the life history and genetic composition of both the native Nisqually stock and
South Sound tributaries spawning aggregation, the use of these attributes to determine
whether or not these two Chinook spawning aggregations coincided historically, and
potentially shared members of the same population, is not currently relevant.
Review of South Puget Sound Hatchery Releases of Chinook Salmon
Hatchery-origin Chinook salmon have been released in the Nisqually River, and
other South Puget Sound rivers and streams, since at least 1943 (WDFW, 2000). The
Regional Mark Information System (RMIS) is a comprehensive database that summarizes
all known releases and recoveries of hatchery-origin Pacific salmon in the Pacific
Northwest for brood years 1950-2007. The RMIS Database will serve as the main record
for summarizing releases of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon in the South Puget Sound
region for brood years 1952-2004. In compiling these records for summation, certain
assumptions and guidelines were made that will likely result in a negative bias toward
estimating the actual number of Chinook salmon released during this time period. First,
sites where releases of Chinook salmon occurred were only included in this summary if
the total number of fish released exceeded 500,000 for the entire 53 year time period.
Half a million was chosen as an arbitrary number to permit focus on areas with large
and/or consistent releases of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon. Choosing 500,000 as a
19
minimum total release number did exclude many release locations from the summary, but
considering the small number of fish released, and the scarcity of overall releases at many
of these sites, the impact of their exclusion from the summary of hatchery-origin Chinook
salmon released in the South Puget Sound region should be minimal.
Second, although the RMIS Database summarizes releases of Chinook salmon
from WDFW, USFWS, WWTIT, and local salmon enhancement groups, there exists a
likelihood that the actual number of Chinook salmon released exceeds the numbers
reported. Some releases of Chinook salmon may have been misreported or unreported
over this time period, especially towards the beginning of the time period when computer
usage for database management was not prevalent. Another reason to expect that the
actual number of Chinook salmon released in the region may exceed reported releases is
due to the fact that small releases by local salmon enhancement groups, and potential
releases by private citizens, are less likely to be reported than releases made by federal,
state, and tribal resource managers. While these events cannot be accounted for, the
effects of these plantings is likely minimal in comparison to the massive amount of
hatchery-origin Chinook salmon released into Southern Puget Sound since 1953.
The results of this summary are provided in Tables A-1 through A-5 and Figure 3.
Tables A-1- A-5 summarized brood year releases of Chinook salmon by WRIA
(Watershed Resource Inventory Area), while Figure 3 displays annual brood year releases
for the entire South Puget Sound region from 1952-2004. The annual brood year release
totals are included in Table A-5. Since the overwhelming majority of Chinook releases
occurred from hatchery facilities, a summary of the production facilities used by WDFW,
and the Nisqually Indian Tribe, was provided.
WDFW manages or co-manages ten facilities which produced, reared, or served
as release locations for fall Chinook salmon. The Nisqually Indian Tribe currently
manages two facilities which produce, rear, and release Chinook salmon, and the Squaxin
Island Indian Tribe managed or co-managed two facilities which released Chinook
salmon. All WDFW hatcheries, as well as Squaxin Island Indian Tribal facilities,
produce or produced Chinook salmon for the purpose of harvest by tribal, commercial,
and recreational fisheries. One of these facilities, Minter Creek Hatchery, also operates
for the purpose of recovering White River spring Chinook, listed as critical in SaSI
20
(WDF et al., 1993; updated 2002). The Nisqually hatcheries serve the dual purpose of
providing fish for harvest opportunity, while also aiding in the long-term recovery goal of
establishing a self-sustaining, locally adapted spawning population. The hatchery
facilities will be summarized according to the basin they occupy. Of the five basins
summarized, only the Nisqually River Basin is cited as historically supporting native
populations of Chinook salmon, and it is currently believed that the native population has
been replaced by fall Chinook salmon of various hatchery origins (WDFW, 2000). A
table summarizing the individual South Puget Sound Chinook salmon hatchery release
facilities is provided in Table 1.
Figure 3. Hatchery fall Chinook salmon releases in South Puget Sound,
brood years 1952-2004.
Number of Hatchery Chinook
Salmon Released
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
Brood Year
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
21
Table 1. Summary of South Puget Sound Chinook salmon hatchery facilities, brood years 1952-2004.
Year
Program
Established Original Broodstock Source
1980
Green River origin
(Soos Creek, Puyallup,
Tumwater Falls, McAllister
Creek, and George Adams
Hatcheries)
1991
Kalama Creek Hatchery
Basin
Nisqually
Hatchery
Facility
Kalama
Creek
Nisqually
Clear Creek
Nisqually
McAllister
Creek
1982
Green River origin
(Tumwater Falls Hatchery)
Tacoma
Garrison
Springs
1980
Green River origin
(Soos Creek, Tumwater Falls,
and Puyallup Hatcheries)
Tacoma
Chambers
Creek
1998
Green River origin
(Soos Creek, Tumwater Falls,
and Puyallup Hatcheries)
Tacoma
Lakewood
1999
Green River origin
(Soos Creek, Tumwater Falls,
and Puyallup Hatcheries)
Self-sustaining
Egg Take from
Returning Adults
Yes, exclusively
since 1988
On-site Release Goal
600,000 fingerlings
Releases
Still
Occurring
Yes
Yes, exclusively
since 1996
Yes, exclusively
since late 1980’s
3,500,000 fingerlings
Yes
1,000,000 fingerlings,
300,000 yearlings
Yes, but often
supplemented with
Minter Creek and
Tumwater Falls
stocks.
Yes, but often
supplemented with
Minter Creek and
Tumwater Falls
stocks.
Yes, but often
supplemented with
Minter Creek and
Tumwater Falls
stocks.
1,100,000 fingerlings;
850,000 at Chambers
Creek trap, 250,000 at
Steilacoom Lake
No, 2001
last brood
year release
Yes
70,000 yearlings into
Chambers Creek
Yes
330,000 yearlings into
Chambers Creek
Yes
Sources: HSRG, 2004; NMFS, 2003; WDFW, 2000; WDFW, 2002; RMIS Database, 2008.
22
Table 1. Summary of South Puget Sound Chinook salmon hatchery facilities, brood years 1952-2004.
Basin
Deschutes
KennedyGoldsborough
Hatchery
Facility
Tumwater
Falls
South Sound
Net Pens
Year
Program
Established Original Broodstock Source
1946
Green River origin
1972
KennedyGoldsborough
Elson Creek
1980
Kitsap
Minter Creek 1946
Kitsap
Coulter
Creek
1980
Kitsap
Fox Island
Net Pens
1975
Green River origin
(Finch Creek, Coulter Creek,
and Tumwater Falls
Hatcheries)
Green River origin
(Soos Creek, Voight Creek,
and Tumwater Falls
Hatcheries)
Green River origin
(Soos Creek, Samish, and
Tumwater Falls Hatcheries)
Green River origin
(Minter Creek and Tumwater
Falls Hatcheries)
Green River origin
(Minter Creek Hatchery)
Self-sustaining
Egg Take from
Returning Adults
Yes, exclusively
since 1992
No, did not produce
or collect any
returning fish
On-site Release Goal
3,800,000 fingerlings,
200,000 yearlings
Actual releases
averaged ~ 387,000
yearlings
No, 1998
last brood
year release
No, mostly relied
on transfers of
eggs from
Tumwater Falls
stock
Yes, exclusively
since 1999
Acutal releases
averaged ~ 305,000
fingerlings
No, 1986
last brood
year release
1,800,000 fingerlings
Yes
No, often relied on
transfers of Minter
Creek stock to meet
egg take goals
No, did not produce
or collect any
returning fish
1,000,000 fingerlings
No, 2000
last brood
year release
Annual estimate of
240,000 yearlings,
actual releases
averaged ~ 212,000
No,
discontinued
in July 2001
Sources: HSRG, 2004; NMFS, 2003; WDFW, 2000; WDFW, 2002; RMIS Database, 2008.
23
23
Releases
Still
Occurring
Yes
Nisqually River Hatchery Facilities
The earliest recorded releases of fall Chinook salmon in the Nisqually Basin date
back to 1943, and it has been estimated that the total number of Chinook released since
1943 exceeds 65 million (NMFS, 2003). There are currently two hatchery production
facilities in operation in the Nisqually Basin, Clear Creek and Kalama Creek, both of
which are currently managed by the Nisqually Indian Tribe. Kalama Creek Hatchery,
which is located on a left bank tributary at river mile (RM) 9.2 on the Nisqually River,
began releasing Chinook of Soos Creek (Green River) and Puyallup Hatchery origin in
1980 (HSRG, 2004), and has been self-sustaining (able to collect sufficient eggs from
hatchery returns) since 1988 (RMIS Database, 2008). Clear Creek Hatchery, located on a
right bank tributary at RM 6.3 on the Nisqually River, began releases in 1991 using
Kalama Creek Hatchery Chinook stock, and has been self-sustaining since 1996 (HSRG,
2004). Prior to the operation of these two facilities, WDFW released Chinook salmon
into the mainstem Nisqually River from 1956 to 1988, with some gaps between years
(see Table A-1). These Chinook were spawned, incubated, and reared at numerous
WDFW South and Central Puget Sound hatchery facilities (RMIS Database, 2008).
Currently, enough eggs are collected from returning hatchery adults to satisfy the
following hatchery production goals: 3.5 million smolts (sub-yearlings) for the Clear
Creek Hatchery and 600,000 smolts for the Kalama Creek Hatchery (WDFW, 2006;
WDFW 2007a).
McAllister Creek Hatchery
McAllister Creek Hatchery is located at RM 4.0 of McAllister Creek, an
independent stream that flows into the Nisqually River estuary. Chinook were first
released at this hatchery site in 1982 (1981 brood year), and the stock is of Green River
origin and became self-sufficient in the late 1980’s (HSRG, 2004). The McAllister Creek
Hatchery had the following yearly hatchery Chinook production goals: 1.0 million subyearlings and 300,000 yearlings. The presence of a parasite in the watershed required
that fish be sent to other facilities, both in- and out-of-basin, for rearing. Given the
potential for disease transmission to stocks in other basins, the Hatchery Scientific
Review Group recommended that WDFW stop Chinook production at the McAllister
24
Creek Hatchery (HSRG, 2004). WDFW agreed with this recommendation, and Chinook
salmon releases at McAllister Creek ceased after 2002.
Chambers Creek Basin Hatchery Facilities
WDFW has three facilities in the Chambers Creek Basin: Garrison Springs
Hatchery, Chambers Creek Hatchery, and Lakewood Hatchery. The Chambers Creek
Basin hatchery fall Chinook salmon program was established in 1980, at the Garrison
Springs Hatchery, with fish of Green River origin from the Soos Creek, Deschutes, and
Puyallup Hatcheries (HSRG, 2004). Garrison Springs Hatchery, located on a tributary to
Chambers Creek, produces the majority of fish released into Chambers Creek. The stock
is maintained through hatchery returns to the Chambers Trap, located at RM 0.5, but is
often supplemented with Minter Creek and Deschutes stocks (RMIS Database, 2008).
Since the waterway from Garrison Springs Hatchery to Chambers Creek is blocked by
numerous man-made structures, fish from the hatchery are trucked out to Chambers
Creek and released at the Chambers trap (HSRG, 2004). On a yearly basis, the Garrison
Springs Hatchery program produces 850,000 fingerlings (sub-yearlings) for release into
Chambers Creek and 250,000 for release at Steilacoom Lake (RM 5.5) (WDFW, 2007a).
The Chambers Creek and Lakewood Hatcheries began releases of fall Chinook salmon
yearlings in 1998 and 1999, respectively, and receive eggs from the Garrison Springs
Hatchery (NMFS, 2003). These programs currently aim to contribute 400,000 Chinook
yearlings annually to the Chambers Creek Basin (WDFW, 2007a).
Deschutes Basin Hatchery Facilities
Fall Chinook fingerlings, of Green River hatchery origin, were first released into
the lower Deschutes River in 1946. The Tumwater Falls Hatchery fall Chinook salmon
program was established in 1953 with Green River origin stock, and the stock has been
maintained almost exclusively with hatchery returns to the Tumwater Falls trap since
1992 (NMFS, 2003; HSRG 2004; RMIS Database, 2008). Current annual hatchery
production goals for the basin call for the release of 3.8 million sub-yearlings and
200,000 yearlings into Percival Cove/Tumwater Falls Hatchery (WDFW, 2007a).
Tumwater Falls Hatchery is located at RM 2.0 of the Deschutes River, and the Percival
25
Cove Net Pens are located at the mouth of Percival Cove, which flows into Capitol Lake
on its west shore and midpoint. Capitol Lake was previously the mouth of the Deschutes
River, but was dammed and became a lake in the early 1950’s (HSRG, 2004).
The Tumwater Falls Hatchery does not have the capacity to hatch, rear, and raise
the fish that are released on-site, so all sub-yearlings are eyed at McAllister and Minter
Creek Hatcheries, and hatched and reared at Coulter Creek Hatchery (via Minter Creek
Hatchery) and Wallace River Hatchery (Snohomish Drainage). Yearling production is
eyed at McAllister Hatchery and fish are hatched and reared at McKernan Hatchery
(Skykomish drainage) (HSRG, 2004). The need for extensive transfer of fish to in- and
out-of-basin facilities increases the risk of transferring pathogens between basins, causing
the HSRG to recommend that WDFW decrease the number of out-of-basin facilities used
in the hatching and rearing of fish. The HSRG also recommended that WDFW find new
sites for rearing and releasing fish that would eliminate the need to use Percival Cove Net
Pens, which suffer from poor water quality (HSRG, 2004). The Percival Cove Net Pens
subsequently closed in May 2007 after the Washington State Department of Ecology did
not renew permits due to water quality concerns (Ron Warren, personal communication).
Hatchery returns to the Tumwater Falls trap have periodically been passed above
Tumwater Falls, which historically presented a barrier to fish passage. Recent studies
indicate that returning, predominately hatchery-origin Chinook salmon that are passed
upstream have had success spawning naturally in the wild, but since 100% of hatcheryproduced Chinook were not marked during the time of this study, deciphering between
natural-origin and unmarked hatchery adults was not possible, making results
inconclusive (NMFS, 2003).
South Sound Net Pens
The South Sound Net Pens are located on the eastern side of Squaxin Island,
across from Harstine Island, in Peale Passage. The facility is co-managed by WDFW and
the Squaxin Island Indian Tribe, and has released Chinook and coho salmon dating back
to 1972. Chinook salmon of Finch Creek, Deschutes River, and Coulter Creek stock
were reared and released at the South Sound Net Pens in brood years 1971, and 19851998. The releases have consisted mostly of yearling Chinook and have averaged
26
approximately 387,000 in the 15 release years. The fall Chinook program was displaced
by the coho program due to net pen space limitations, and the last releases of yearling
Chinook salmon occurred in April 2000 with 1998 brood year Chinook (RMIS Database,
2008).
Elson Creek Hatchery
Elson Creek Hatchery is located on Elson Creek, a tributary which flows into
Skookum Inlet above Skookum Creek. The facility released Chinook and chum salmon,
and steelhead, from 1979 to 1995, and was managed by the Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.
Chinook salmon stock from the Deschutes River, Soos Creek, Elson Creek, and the
Puyallup/White River Basin, were used for 1979-1986 brood year releases. All releases
were fingerling Chinook salmon and averaged 305,000 during the eight release years.
Elson Creek Hatchery has since been closed, with the last release of chum salmon
occurring in March 1995 (RMIS Database, 2008).
Minter Creek Hatchery
The Minter Creek Hatchery is located on Minter Creek, a tributary to Carr Inlet, at
RM 0.5. Fall Chinook were first released at Minter Creek in 1946, and consisted of
either direct imports of Green River hatchery-origin stock or transfers of Green River
hatchery-origin stocks established at Samish and Tumwater Falls Hatcheries (NMFS,
2003). It is believed that an indigenous fall Chinook salmon stock did not exist
historically at Minter Creek (WDFW, 2002; NMFS, 2003). In the past, fall Chinook
were occasionally passed upstream of the hatchery, but this practice was discontinued
with the 2000 return group. The hatchery currently aims to release 1.8 million fingerlings
into Minter Creek each year (WDFW, 2007).
In addition, Minter Creek Hatchery previously provided small numbers of
Chinook salmon eggs to local schools and regional enhancement groups for release into
other watersheds. Production goals for Minter Creek Hatchery called for the transfer of
10,000 unfed fry (at 1,000 fish per pound (FPP)) for release into Sherwood Creek and
Kingman Creek, a tributary that drains into Case Inlet; WDFW also provided 15,000 fish
at 80 FPP for transfer to Rosedale Pond, and those fish were designated for release into
27
Carr Inlet (WDFW, 2002). These transfer and release goals stated in the Minter Creek
Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan are not documented in the RMIS Database,
except for one record indicating that 10,000 Chinook salmon at 1,000 FPP were released
at Sherwood Creek on November 09, 2002. Minter Creek is also the site of Hupp Springs
Hatchery, where recovery efforts for the ESA listed White River spring Chinook stock
occur. Releases of sub-yearlings and yearlings occur at the Hupp Springs site, which is
located three-quarters of a mile upstream of Minter Creek Hatchery. Since the fish
released at Hupp Springs Hatchery are spring Chinook, they will not be included in this
summary.
Coulter Creek Hatchery
Coulter Creek Hatchery is located at RM 0.25 on Coulter Creek, a tributary to
Case Inlet. Although a few releases of fall Chinook, ranging from 2,805 to 253,640 per
brood year, are documented from the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, a fall Chinook
hatchery program did not begin until releases of Minter Creek and Tumwater Falls
Hatchery stocks (Green River lineage) occurred in 1980 (NMFS, 2003). Coulter Creek
was used as a rearing facility for fry hatched at Minter Creek Hatchery. Fry reared at
Coulter Creek were either transferred to other locations for release, including Tumwater
Falls Hatchery (1.8 million sub-yearlings, annually) and Fox Island Net Pens (numbers
unknown), or released on-site at Coulter Creek (1.0 million sub-yearlings, annually)
(HSRG, 2004). The fall Chinook salmon release program at Coulter Creek was
discontinued in 2000, with the final release of fall Chinook salmon in spring 2001.
Reasons suggested by the HSRG for terminating this program included the limited
contribution the fall Chinook hatchery run provided to a terminal Chinook harvest, and
possible negative interactions posed by returning hatchery Chinook salmon towards a
naturally producing chum stock native to Coulter Creek. Due to the presence of chum in
Coulter Creek, both chum and Chinook salmon returning to Coulter Creek were
permitted to pass upstream, and the large numbers of hatchery Chinook caused problems
to the chum run through either digging up chum salmon redds, or contributing to poor
water quality following large return years (HSRG, 2004). Coulter Creek is still currently
28
used to rear 2.8 million sub-yearlings for release in the Deschutes Basin (WDFW,
2007a).
Fox Island Net Pens
The Fox Island Net Pens are located on the north side of Fox Island, in Echo Bay.
They were established by WDFW in 1975 to augment the South Puget Sound sport
fishery through residualization of both fall Chinook and coho salmon. The program was
discontinued in July of 2001 over concerns posed by the HSRG, including straying in
South Puget Sound and negative interactions, including predation, upon other salmon
stocks (HSRG, 2004). This program was dependent on both Minter Creek and Coulter
Creek Hatcheries: Minter Creek provided eggs, incubation, and hatching, and unfed fry
were subsequently transferred to Coulter Creek for rearing, before finally being
transferred to the net pens. The HSRG states that the Fox Island Net Pens annually
released 240,000 yearling fall Chinook into Echo Bay. Actual Chinook releases from the
Fox Island Net Pens averaged just under 212,000 yearlings for brood years 1974-1999
(RMIS Database, 2008).
Mass Marking of South Puget Sound Hatchery Fall Chinook Salmon
Mass marking of Chinook salmon released from South Puget Sound hatchery
facilities is a relatively recent endeavor. A review of all Chinook hatchery releases from
the RMIS Database, summarized in Tables A-1- A-5, indicated that the overwhelming
majority of fish released in South Puget Sound since 1953 have not been marked, with an
adipose fin clip, and that mass marking on a large scale did not begin at WDFW
hatcheries until the 1998 brood year release, with fingerlings released in the spring of
1999. Prior to the 1998 brood year release, Chinook salmon were almost entirely
unmarked, with rates of marked Chinook salmon- including those unmarked but inserted
with a coded wire tag (CWT), or marked with a clipped adipose fin (with or without a
CWT)- at less than 10%. Adipose mark and tagging rates of all South Puget Sound 19972004 brood year releases is summarized, by WRIA, in Tables A-6- A-10.
Records from the RMIS Database reveal that beginning with the 1998 brood year,
hatchery Chinook salmon released as sub-yearlings and fingerlings were mass-marked
29
(adipose fin clipped) or tagged at rates exceeding 90%, with the exception of a few
release sites in the Nisqually River and Chambers Creek Basins (Clear Creek Hatchery
(1998 and 2000); Kalama Creek Hatchery (1998); Chambers Creek (1998, 2000, and
2001); Steilacoom Lake (Pier) (2001)). These records collaborate with the Hatchery and
Genetic Management Plans for WDFW hatcheries, all completed in 2002, which note that
100% of all hatchery Chinook releases are to be mass-marked (adipose clipped only) for
Tumwater Falls, Minter Creek, Garrison Springs, and Chambers Creek Hatcheries. Also
mentioned is that a portion of each hatcheries annual release group will have coded wire
tags inserted so that studies can be conducted on fishery contributions, survival rates, and
straying levels of hatchery Chinook releases to other Puget Sound watersheds (WDFW,
2002). As for the Nisqually River hatcheries, the Hatchery Genetic Management Plans
for Kalama and Clear Creek Hatcheries state that an effort was made, at both facilities, to
mass mark all hatchery releases of Chinook salmon for brood year 1999 (WDFW, 2000).
The Hatchery Scientific Review Group notes in its 2002 assessment of the Nisqually
River fall Chinook program that all released fish are marked to assess the contribution of
hatchery returns to natural spawning populations, and to allow better assessment of the
status of natural populations (HSRG, 2004). Thus, most brood year releases of hatchery
Chinook salmon in the South Puget Sound region have been adipose marked or tagged at
a rate of 90% or greater since 1998.
Historical and Current Escapement Estimates for Nisqually River Chinook Salmon
There exist no known scientific records of abundance for Nisqually River
Chinook salmon prior to 1956, the year in which Chinook salmon hatchery releases
began in the basin (RMIS Database, 2008). An ecosystem diagnosis treatment (EDT)
analysis of the Nisqually River and its tributaries suggests that the habitat of the
Nisqually system could historically, prior to1850, support 14,000 Chinook adults in the
mainstem, and 5,000 adults in tributaries, primarily the Mashel River and Ohop Creek.
This same analysis suggests that the Nisqually system, in its current habitat condition,
can only support 4,200 adult Chinook in the Nisqually mainstem and 1,500 adults in its
tributaries (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team, 2001). It should be noted that the EDT
analysis merely suggests the number of adult Chinook that historic and current habitat
30
conditions in the Nisqually River could support, and does not account for factors such as
harvest or loss of genetic fitness.
The earliest records of Chinook escapement estimates appear in A Catalog of
Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. This document estimated that Chinook
salmon escapement to the Nisqually system, including main tributaries, ranged from 300
to 3,500 fish from 1966 to 1971, with an annual average of about 1,470. They estimated
a 3:1 catch to escapement ratio, so an average annual escapement of 1,500 Chinook
would relate to a total commercial and sport fisheries catch of approximately 4,500
Chinook salmon (Williams et al., 1975). Another WDF document published a couple of
years later suggested the same Nisqually escapement range of 300 to 3,500 Chinook from
1965-1976, but calculated that escapement in the later years (1970-1976) ranged from
450 to 900. This document reported that escapement in the later years was lower than in
the earlier years because the earlier years had lower levels of in-river harvest, and these
estimates included hatchery-origin fish. (Ames and Phinney, 1977).
Data on natural spawner escapement to the Nisqually system from 1977-2002
comes from SaSSI/SaSI. Natural spawner escapement in the Nisqually system ranged
from 85 to 2,332 for the years 1977 to 1991, and SaSSI states that escapement values are
considered to be a fairly good estimate of relative abundance. Natural spawner
escapement for the Nisqually system from 1992 to 2003 was estimated to be 106 to 1,730
fish. These estimates were based on mainstem Nisqually redd counts (RM 21.8- RM
26.2) and Mashel River peak live plus dead fish counts (RM 0.0- RM 3.2). SaSI notes
that spawning in the Nisqually system occurs in the mainstem Nisqually River (RM 15.0RM 40.0) and numerous tributaries, including the Mashel River, Ohop Creek, Twentyfive Mile Creek, Yelm Creek, Horn Creek, and Muck Creek (WDF et al., 1993, updated
2002).
Escapement data from the Nisqually Indian Tribe estimates natural spawner
escapement in the Nisqually system at 2,788, 2,159, and 2,179, respectively, from 2004
to 2006 (Nisqually Indian Tribe, 2007b). This information is summarized in Table A-11,
which provides the Nisqually River Chinook salmon run reconstruction from 1986
through 2006. Although the last three years of records indicate that natural escapement
in the Nisqually system has increased, this increase has likely been aided by the
31
successful production of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon at the Clear Creek and Kalama
Creek Hatcheries. Figure 4 displays both natural and total adult hatchery escapement for
the Nisqually River from 1986 through 2006. Since Chinook salmon adults began
returning to the Clear Creek Hatchery in 1992, the total run size, which includes all
returning fish headed for the Nisqually River, has steadily increased over that time
period, from a minimum of 730 in 1992 to a maximum of 34,282 in 2006 (Table A-11).
While total run size has increased in recent years to levels above the estimated historical
abundance of 19,000, at least according to the EDT analysis, natural escapement levels,
as a percentage of total run size, remain low due to continued, high in-river harvest rates
by the Nisqually Indian Tribe.
Figure 4. Nisqually River Chinook salmon escapement totals for adult
hatchery and naturally spawning fish, 1986-2006.
Adult Hatchery Escapement
Natural Escapement
Yearly Escapement Total
(by Production Type)
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Return Year
Source: Nisqually Indian Tribe, 2007b.
32
Historical and Current Abundance Estimates for South Sound Tributaries Chinook
Salmon
As with the Nisqually River, there exist no known scientific records of abundance
for South Sound Tributaries Chinook salmon prior to 1953. The earliest known natural
escapement estimates, which date back to 1966, are provided in A Catalog of Washington
Streams and Salmon Utilization and are broken down by Water Resource Inventory Area
(WRIA). Combined escapement estimates for the Deschutes River and Percival Creek, in
WRIA 13 (Deschutes Basin), for 1966 to 1971 averaged 11,355 fish (Williams et al.,
1975). Yet, these systems will not be further analyzed, as it is believed that these fish are
all descendents of hatchery production due to a natural fish passage barrier, in the form of
Tumwater Falls, located at RM 2.0 of the Deschutes River, which prevented passage
upstream before a fish ladder was installed in 1954. Percival Creek, which flows into
Capitol Lake upstream of the historic boundary of the Deschutes River, likely attracts
Chinook salmon due to its location near, but before, Tumwater Falls Hatchery.
In WRIA 14 (Shelton Basin), there are eleven larger salmon producing streams,
but only two of them, Deer and Sherwood Creeks, were considered to have consistent
small runs of fall Chinook salmon (Williams et al., 1975). The stream catalog suggested
minimal use of the systems in WRIA 14 due to the very low flows exhibited during
normal Chinook adult migration and spawning periods. They further suggested that the
Chinook in these streams have had to adapt their specific life history attributes to fit into
these non-typical Chinook salmon environments and successfully perpetuate their kind.
Annual estimates of natural escapement for Chinook salmon in the Shelton Basin systems
ranged from 40 to 220 for the years 1966-1971, with an average of 148 (Williams et al.,
1975).
The Kitsap Basin, WRIA 15, includes systems that drain into both Puget Sound
(Central and South) and Hood Canal, with the majority of systems flowing into Hood
Canal. Only four streams within the basin, that flow into Southern Puget Sound, were
cited as having Chinook present: Coulter, Minter, Rocky, and Burley Creeks (Williams
et al., 1975). For the years 1966-1971, the average annual escapement for East Kitsap
streams was estimated at 1,470. Yet, this estimate includes three streams that flow into
Central Puget Sound, which lie outside of the geographical area of this study, so the
33
estimates for South Puget Sound streams in WRIA 15 was likely less than this total.
Burley Creek was cited as the only stream within its sub-basin, which includes Minter
Creek, as having a wild Chinook stock (Williams et al., 1975), suggesting that all
Chinook returns to Minter Creek are due to the on-site hatchery which produces Chinook
salmon.
Another WDF document, published in 1977, estimated average escapement to
South Puget Sound independent streams at 408 from the period 1965-1976, with a range
of 165 to 910. The independent streams in the estimate included all streams that flowed
into South Puget Sound below the Tacoma Narrows, excluding the Nisqually and
Deschutes systems, with the most significant use occurring in Chambers, Deer,
Sherwood, Coulter, Rocky, and Burley Creeks. These estimates were based on the mean
of peak fish per mile counts from three index areas in Coulter, Rocky, and Burley Creeks,
multiplied by a factor of four- a base year estimate (Ames and Phinney, 1977).
SaSSI provided escapement estimates for the South Sound Tributaries Chinook
stock for the period from 1984-1991 that ranged from 9,600-37,000, with an average of
19,700 (WDF et al., 1993). These estimates included Chinook salmon from the Deschutes
River, McAllister Creek, Minter Creek, additional Carr Inlet streams, Chambers Creek,
Coulter Creek, Gorst Creek, and Grovers Creek. Five of these systems, the Deschutes
River, McAllister Creek, Minter Creek, Chambers Creek, and Coulter Creek, had
Chinook salmon hatchery production facilities in operation at the time of these estimates.
While suggesting that sustained natural production might have occurred in some of these
streams, the co-managers (the authors of SaSSI) acknowledged there was no data to
quantify that statement, and suggested that the status of the stock depended largely on
hatchery production. In an updated stock report in 2002, the co-managers no longer
considered the South Sound Tributaries Chinook spawning aggregation to be a distinct
stock, suggesting that previous high escapement estimates in their prior rating could be
attributed to hatchery fish permitted to spawn above hatchery racks (WDF et al., 1993;
updated 2002).
An additional WDFW document, published in 1994, estimated escapement for
Chinook salmon in various Puget Sound systems, including miscellaneous South Puget
Sound streams. The methodology used in this document centered on taking peak live,
34
dead, or total fish counts multiplied by an expansion factor (Smith and Castle, 1994).
The expansion factor was based on a highly surveyed index reach on Newaukum Creek,
which is a tributary to the Green River. The projected escapement estimates for streams
within WRIA 14 and 15, for 1991, are summarized in Table 2. The escapement estimates
produced from this publication are quite high in comparison to other publications from
the 1970’s. This suggests that either the number of Chinook salmon escaping to these
systems has increased since that time period or that these escapement estimates, which
rely on an out-of-basin expansion factor, overestimate the escapement of Chinook salmon
to miscellaneous streams in South Puget Sound, particularly Burley Creek.
Table 2. 1991 escapement estimates of Chinook salmon for miscellaneous
South Puget Sound tributary streams.
System(s) Surveyed
Burley Creek
Escapement Estimate
1,555 Adults
Johns Creek and Deer Creek
308 Adults
Mill Creek and Kennedy Creek
11 Adults
Coulter Creek, Rocky Creek,
and Sherwood Creek
Source: Smith and Castle, 1994.
210 Adults
Comparison of the Physical Characteristics of South Puget Sound Streams with
Known Chinook Salmon Systems
The basin size, flows, and temperatures of numerous South Puget Sound streams
are summarized and compared against three other Puget Sound systems with fall Chinook
salmon runs: Lower Skagit River, Snohomish River, and Nisqually River. These three
systems were chosen to allow for comparison of a system from each of the three
geographic regions of Puget Sound: northern, central, and southern. All three of these
systems have their headwaters in the Cascade Mountain Range, are snow pack or glacier
fed, and have the majority of Chinook salmon spawning occurring in the months of
September and October. A brief description of the Skagit and Snohomish systems will be
provided; a description of the main spawning areas and escapement estimates for the
35
Nisqually River have been discussed in a previous section. The Nisqually River has its
headwaters in the Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier.
The Skagit River is the largest river system and drainage basin into Puget Sound,
and has its headwaters are in the Canadian Cascade Range (Williams et al., 1975). It is
the most prolific Chinook system in the Puget Sound Basin, historically and currently.
The majority of spawning for the Lower Skagit Mainstem/Tributaries Chinook Stock
occurs in the mainstem Skagit River (RM 0.0-RM 67.2), and tributaries downstream from
the Sauk River, from early September through mid-November. It is listed as a native
stock with wild production, and escapement estimates range from 400- 5,000 for the
years 1986-2003, with an average escapement of approximately 2,000 (WDF et al., 1993;
updated 2002).
The Snohomish River is the second largest drainage system within Puget Sound.
The system consists of two main rivers, the Skykomish and Snoqualmie, which have their
confluence at RM 20.5 of the Snohomish River. From the confluence, the Snohomish
River continues upstream as the Skykomish River. Both the Skykomish and Snoqualmie
Rivers have their headwaters in the snow packs of the Cascade Mountains. SaSI lists two
different stocks of Chinook salmon in the Snohomish Basin. The SnohomishSnoqualmie Chinook Stock spawns in the Snoqualmie River and some of its major
tributaries, including the Raging and Tolt Rivers, and Tokul Creek, from mid-September
through October. It is listed as a native stock with wild production, and escapement
estimates range from 400- 3,600 for the years 1986-2001, with an average escapement of
1,300 (WDF et al., 1993; updated 2002). The Snohomish-Skykomish Chinook Stock
spawns from September through October throughout the Snohomish and Middle Fork
Skykomish Rivers, as well as many tributaries to this system. The stock is listed as
native with composite production, and escapement estimates range from 1,700- 4,700 for
the years 1986-2001, with an average escapement of 3,200 (WDF et al., 1993; updated
2002).
Unlike these three fall Chinook systems, which have origins in the Cascade
Mountains, the small tributaries that feed into South Puget Sound are exclusively
rainwater and groundwater fed. All of the streams in the Shelton Basin (WRIA 14) are
typical lowland type streams with their headwaters originating from surface water
36
drainages and natural springs, swampy beaver ponds, or small lakes in the foothills; the
streams in the eastern half of the Kitsap Basin (WRIA 15) are also typical lowland type
streams which originate from lakes, ground water run-off, or swamp-like basins
(Williams et al., 1975). Table 3 summarizes basin size and stream length data for the
Skagit, Snohomish, and Nisqually Rivers, as well miscellaneous South Puget Sound
tributaries. Included in this chart are basin size and stream length data for tributaries to
the Skagit, Snohomish, and Nisqually Basins that have Chinook salmon spawners. An
analysis of these data reveal that the basin size of these three systems are at least an order
of magnitude larger than the basin sizes of the South Puget Sound streams listed,
excluding the Deschutes River. The tributaries to the Skagit and Nisqually Rivers also
exhibit basin sizes numerous times larger than the independent tributaries, with only
Goldsborough Creek exceeding the basin size of Ohop Creek. Although data indicating
minimum basin sizes for Chinook salmon does not exist, the large discrepancy between
the basin sizes of these three fall Chinook river systems, and their tributaries, versus the
basin sizes of the small independent tributaries that drain into South Puget Sound might
indicate that these small systems are not typical fall Chinook salmon habitat.
While data indicating basin sizes of South Puget Sound tributaries is ample, data
on stream flows for these systems is harder to locate. Currently, only one of the small
streams which feeds into South Puget Sound has an active stream gage, and that gage is
located on Huge Creek, a small tributary to Minter Creek. Stream flow data from
previous decades does exist for some of these small streams, and these data are
summarized in Tables A-12 and A-13. An analysis of these data show that flows in
South Puget Sound streams are also at least one order of magnitude smaller than those
found in the Nisqually River and, with the exception of Goldsborough Creek, three of the
streams have flows at least two magnitudes smaller than those found in the Skagit and
Snohomish Rivers. One similarity between all of these systems is that they exhibit their
lowest flows in late summer and early fall. All of these rivers and creeks, except for
Woodland Creek, exhibit their lowest mean flows in the months of August and
September. The presence of low flows during the period of adult Chinook salmon
migration (late August to mid-October) would seem to be a larger problem in smaller
systems, such as the tributaries that feed into South Puget Sound, versus larger systems
37
throughout Puget Sound. While no minimum flow requirements exist for Chinook
salmon migration and spawning, the low flows observed in these small streams during
adult Chinook migration could pose problems for returning fish, due to higher stream
temperatures expected with low flows and limited movement through shallow water.
Information regarding specific stream temperatures for many of the South Puget
Sound tributaries was difficult to find, but indications are that many of the streams in the
Shelton basin exhibit warmer temperatures in late summer months than are recorded in
the Skagit and Snoqualmie River basins, and in some parts of the Nisqually River basin.
Temperature data from two United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gages, one
located in the Skagit River near Marblemount and the other two in the Tolt River, a lower
tributary to the Snoqualmie River, indicate that monthly average stream temperatures
generally range from about 4.0°– 12.0° C, with the highest monthly average temperature
occurring in the months of July, August, and September (www.usgs.gov). These results,
and information regarding the location and years of operation for the stream gages, are
summarized in Table A-14. Stream temperature information for the Nisqually River
basin is provided by Whiley and Walter (2000). Summer temperatures in the mainstem
Nisqually River meet Washington State Class AA and Class A water quality standards,
for temperature, most of the time. This report determined that current water temperatures
in lower Nisqually River Basin tributaries are determined primarily by geological setting.
Tributaries which are dependent on groundwater discharge, including Yelm and Muck
Creeks, exhibit temperatures of approximately 12.0° C with little variation during the
months of July through September. Ohop Creek, Tanwax Creek, and the Mashel River,
tributaries which do not receive large contributions from groundwater, exhibited high
water temperatures during summer months, and the Mashel River was found to exceed
state water quality standards for temperature (Whiley and Walter, 2000).
38
Table 3. Comparison of stream characteristics of miscellaneous South Puget
Sound tributary streams with three Puget Sound fall Chinook systems.
Basin
Skagit
System
Skagit River
Skagit River
Skagit River
Tributary
Baker River
Sauk River
Snohomish
Snohomish River
Snohomish River
Skykomish
River
Snoqualmie
River
Snohomish River
Stream Length
(miles)
162.0 1
32.8 3
56.7 1
Drainage Basin
Area (sq. mi.)
3,093.0 3
297.0 3
714.0 3
80.5 1
60.0 1
1,780.0 1
844.0 1
Three forks of
varying lengths
693.0 1
Nisqually
Nisqually River
Nisqually River
Nisqually River
Nisqually River
Muck Creek
Ohop Creek
Mashel River
78.5 1
20.9 1
11.9 1
20.5 1
712.0 4
92.0 1
43.6 1
83.5 1
Deschutes
Deschutes River
-
52.2 1
162.0 4
Shelton
Cranberry Creek
Deer Creek
Johns Creek
Goldsborough Cr.
Kennedy Creek
Mill Creek
Skookum Creek
Sherwood Creek
-
9.4 5
8.5 5
8.3 5
14.0 5
9.6 5
16.0 5
9.0 5
18.3 1
15.2 5
13.7 5
11.2 5
51.4 5
20.3 5
30.0 5
23.6 6
20.2 4
Burley Creek
5.2 1
10.7 4
Coulter Creek
8.0 1
14.1 4
1
Minter Creek
6.3
??
Minter Creek
Huge Creek
7.6 2
6.47 2
Rocky Creek
5.0 1
18.1 4
Sources: (1) Williams et al., 1975; (2)(3) Williams et al., 1985a & 1985b;
(4)
Williams & Riis, 1989; (5) Schuett-Hames et al., 1996;
(6)
Ahmed & Hempleman, 2006.
Kitsap
A report was located which suggested that many of the streams in the Shelton
Basin are not capable of maintaining summer stream temperatures within state water
quality standards, set by the Washington Department of Ecology, due to inadequate
39
canopy closure provided by existing riparian vegetation (Schuett-Hames et al., 1996).
This report mentioned that many stream reaches in Kennedy and Skookum Creeks
exceeded 16° C, while numerous reaches in Deer, Johns, Goldsborough, and Mill Creeks
were expected to exceed 18° C (Schuett-Hames et al., 1996). Stream gaging stations with
capabilities to record water temperature were placed in Mill, Cranberry, Johns, and
Skookum Creeks, and water temperature data was collected from 2000-2004. Although
each of these creeks had numerous stream gages at various locations throughout their
respective watersheds, temperature data from stream gaging stations furthest downstream
was summarized, as these spots are most likely to be occupied by Chinook salmon. All
of these creeks exhibited temperatures in excess of temperature total maximum daily load
standards established by the State of Washington, but the degree to which temperatures
violated standards were variable. Mill Creek exhibited stream temperatures in excess of
18° C for the majority of July and August during all three years surveyed (2000, 2002,
and 2003). Cranberry Creek had temperatures in excess of the state established water
quality standard for the later part of July in three of the four years surveyed (2000, 2002,
and 2003). Johns Creek, on the other hand, only exhibited temperatures in excess of 18°
C for a handful of days in July and August in one of the three years surveyed (2002)
(Ahmed and Hempleman, 2006). Skookum Creek was in excess of 16° C from late June
until early September during the only year surveyed (2004). The same data set also
indicated that Skookum Creek was in excess of 18° C from late July to late August
(Ahmed and Sullivan, 2005). A limiting factors analysis conducted for streams in the
Shelton Basin corroborated these reports, rating water temperatures in Mill Creek, Johns
Creek, Cranberry Creek, and Sherwood Creek as poor. Goldsborough Creek was the
only stream in this basin that received a rating of good for water temperatures (Kuttel,
2002).
The presence of high water temperatures during times of adult salmon migration
and spawning can potentially be detrimental to returning fish. Warmer temperatures can
simultaneously increase the virulence of fish pathogens, and stress, upon fish, thereby
decreasing the ability of a fish to withstand disease (Fryer and Pilcher, 1974; Materna,
2001). State of Washington Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201A) call for 7-day
average of daily maximum (7-DADM) temperatures at the initiation of spawning for
40
salmon, and at fry emergence for salmon and trout, not to exceed 13° C (Ahmed and
Sullivan, 2005). This document noted stocks of chum, coho, and steelhead which utilized
the Oakland Bay/Hammersley Inlet Watershed. Only one stock, Hammersley Inlet
summer Chum, had a listed spawning time of September through October, which means
that fish from this stock might return while elevated stream temperatures are present.
Given that 7-DADM temperatures in Oakland Bay/Hammersley Inlet streams during the
months of August and September are usually in excess of 13° C (Ahmed and Sullivan,
2005), at least in the years surveyed, these stream temperatures could likely pose
problems, in the form of stress and disease, for Chinook returning to these streams at that
time of year. Stream temperatures in excess of 13° C were not noted in the Skagit and
Snohomish River Basins, and likely only exceed this temperature in select tributaries in
the Nisqually River Basin, potentially indicating that streams in the Shelton Basin are not
suitable for Chinook salmon returning in August and September.
Methods
This study is designed to determine the extent of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon
returning to South Puget Sound tributaries based on abundance estimates and mark
recovery data from Chinook salmon observed in these streams. Recent abundance
estimates of Chinook salmon in South Puget Sound streams, generated from spawning
ground surveys, will be compared against regionwide Chinook hatchery releases and run
reconstruction data to reveal whether these abundance estimates might be explained by
the large volume of hatchery releases dating back to the 1950’s. Spawning ground
survey data will be applied in three different scenarios that attempt to determine if the
presence of Chinook salmon in these streams can be attributed to hatchery-origin fish.
The first scenario will attempt to determine whether the presence of Chinook salmon in
specific South Puget Sound streams can be directly attributed to in-stream hatchery
releases. The second scenario is designed to see whether the abundance of Chinook
salmon in streams without extensive hatchery releases is related to regionwide hatchery
releases of Chinook salmon. The third scenario compares mark recovery data from
Chinook spawning ground surveys with mark rates from Chinook hatchery releases to
41
determine if similar rates between the two data sets exist, which could suggest that the
fish observed on the spawning grounds of South Puget Sound streams consist entirely of
hatchery-origin fish. Since WDFW spawning ground surveys of Chinook salmon in
South Puget Sound Streams serve as the main source of evidence for these analyses, a
summary of WDFW surveys, and the procedures employed in their undertaking, is
provided. These procedures are summarized below from a manual written about Puget
Sound Chinook spawning ground survey methods for WDFW employees, (WDF, 1992),
and also include first-hand observations from a spawning ground survey conducted by
WDFW employee Chuck Baranski, at Coulter Creek, in October of 2007.
The WDFW spawning ground surveys included in this analysis are foot surveys,
and each survey is conducted by a pair of WDFW employees. WDFW spawning ground
surveys are species specific and are classified by survey length, with an indicated lower
and upper river mile (RM). The survey stream reach is divided between the two
surveyors, so that one starts at the upper end of the stream reach while the other surveyor
begins at the middle of the stream reach, with both employees walking downstream. As
the surveyors walk downstream, they tally the number of live and dead fish, by species,
that are observed along the way. They also record general observations about the stream
(i.e. flow, water clarity, visibility, redd counts) and make note of any unusual occurrences
(i.e. beaver dams, potential poaching of fish). In the instance that a Chinook salmon
carcass is observed, it is checked for indications of hatchery origin (adipose fin clip or
coded wire tag (CWT)). The presence of a clipped adipose fin is visually observed, while
a CWT is detected using a Northwest Marine Tech (NWMT) handheld wand detector. If
a CWT is present, the snout of the fish is cut off and placed in a bag, along with scale
samples from the carcass, for future laboratory analysis. The tail is then cut off from the
carcass to indicate to future surveyors that the carcass has been previously sampled. If no
CWT is present, the tail is cut off the carcass and no scale samples are taken (WDF,
1992).
The survey length, when coupled with the surveyed species of concern,
determines the type of survey count being conducted. WDFW uses four types of counts,
two of which pertain to this study. An index area survey encompasses an index area that
is counted on a regular basis for a given species. A supplemental survey encompasses
42
either an area outside of the index area, or represents an area which is not regularly
surveyed for a given species (WDF, 1992). Ideally, all Chinook salmon spawning ground
surveys used in this study would consist of index type counts, since this would provide a
consistent study reach focused on Chinook salmon live and dead counts. Unfortunately,
this was not possible because most observations of Chinook salmon were not recorded
during Chinook specific surveys. The majority of Chinook data are incidental
observations documented while surveyors were conducting chum or coho index, or
supplemental, area surveys. For this reason, an emphasis was placed on using surveys
with consistent stream reaches, as opposed to using surveys based on type counts, as this
permitted inclusion of a larger sample of spawning ground surveys in the analysis, while
also insuring consistency of areas surveyed both within and between years.
The use of spawning ground foot surveys to generate abundance estimates for
salmon stocks tends to generate a negative bias for two reasons: observer efficiency and
partial assessment of a larger system. Observer efficiency, defined as the ability of the
observer to identify all live and dead fish present, can be affected by stream
characteristics such as turbidity, deep water and pools, and high discharges, which either
obscure visibility or wash carcasses out of view of the observer (Cousens et al., 1982).
Personnel experience and changes in personnel can also affect observer efficiency, as
inexperienced surveyors tend to greatly underestimate fish counts, while constantly
switching surveyors both within and between years can lead to inconsistency in survey
counts. WDFW avoids using inexperienced personnel for visual surveys and employs a
policy of using experienced personnel to train new personnel before sending them out to
make independent counts (Cousens et al., 1982). These procedures, and conversations
observed while accompanying the aforementioned WDFW surveyor- Chuck Baranski- at
Coulter Creek, suggest that negative bias caused by inexperienced personnel and
personnel changes is minimized for WDFW spawning ground foot surveys. Chuck, who
displayed a very keen eye for spotting fish, mentioned apprehension about the first few
surveys he took part in but stated that he was trained by experienced personnel (Chuck
Baranski, personal communication). Although this same surveyor mentioned that he had
surveyed many of the same sites over the past 20 years, it is not possible to assume that
his experience is broadly applicable to the agency’s other surveyors since information
43
providing the names of surveyors in the spawning ground survey database were not
included until 2002.
Another reason to expect negative bias when using spawning ground foot surveys
to generate abundance estimates is due to the fact that surveys only encompass partial
stretches of the stream. Surveying an entire system, particularly large rivers, by foot
expends lots of agency time and resources, so index and supplemental reaches are set up
to represent the entire watershed. In generating escapement or abundance estimates for
systems with only a portion of the total length surveyed, an expansion factor is often used
to produce an estimate indicative of the entire system. This expansion factor may be
calculated off of a base year, a year in which extensive surveys of a system are
performed, so that a figure can be derived for relating index area totals to watershed
totals. Expansion factors may also be based on out-of-basin systems where extensive
surveys are conducted for a given year, as in the case of the South Puget Sound
abundance estimates for 1991 that were expanded using survey data from Newaukum
Creek. For this study, expansion factors will not be used for generating abundance
estimates for two reasons. First, WDFW did not invest much time or resources towards
generating abundance estimates of Chinook salmon for South Puget Sound tributaries, so
a base-year figure does not exist. Second, a decision was made to exclude Newaukum
Creek because the use of that system as an expansion factor is likely only specific to that
year, making its use in other years improper.
Although calculating abundance estimates based on Chinook salmon index
reaches, without the use of an expansion factor, will likely result in a negative bias, it is
believed that this bias will be minimized for three reasons. First, these streams are
relatively small in size, and have very few tributaries of their own, when compared to
other known Chinook systems, so the areas surveyed represent a larger proportion of the
system in comparison. Second, the areas surveyed tend to be areas in the system where
Chinook are found, or suspected, to be present, so their use to determine presence of
Chinook is likely sufficient. Third, fall Chinook salmon are classified as low river
spawners. A review of Chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin suggests that fall
Chinook tend to spawn in sections of the lower and middle mainstem of the Columbia
River, as well as tributaries in the lower section of the river (Fulton, 1968). Although the
44
Columbia River is several magnitudes larger than the tributaries to southern Puget Sound,
this life history characteristic would likely also apply to Chinook entering streams that
are much smaller. The suggestion that Chinook salmon in certain South Puget Sound
streams, particularly Coulter Creek and Rocky Creek, tend to return to the lower reaches
of those streams was corroborated by a WDFW employee responsible for overseeing that
agency’s spawning ground surveys (Bill Evans- WDFW, personal communication).
Thus, the expectation that not too many live or dead Chinook salmon were missed by
relying on spawning ground surveys confined to commonly surveyed reaches was
presumed.
The three methods chosen to determine if Chinook salmon that return to South
Puget Sound tributary streams are hatchery-origin fish was designed to provide a
complete picture in answering this question. The first two scenarios generated abundance
estimates to determine if trends in abundance followed trends in Chinook hatchery
releases. The first scenario took a small-scale approach by studying whether in-stream
abundance trends at a specific creek followed patterns that would be expected with the
starting and stopping of in-stream hatchery releases. The second scenario took a
regionwide approach in calculating abundance estimates at many South Puget Sound
tributaries. Abundance trends at these streams were compared with regionwide hatchery
release trends to determine whether the two data sets appear similar. The third scenario
searched for indications of hatchery-origin fish by using mark recovery data from
Chinook carcasses observed on spawning ground surveys. The mark recovery data from
carcasses was compared with hatchery mark and tagging rates from Chinook hatchery
releases to determine whether similar mark rates exist between the two groups. The first
two scenarios, which generated abundance estimates at South Puget Sound tributaries,
were intended to reveal whether abundance trends mimicked expected and actual
hatchery release trends on both a small scale and regionwide level. If abundance trends
mimic hatchery release trends, this could indicate that the majority of Chinook observed
at these streams are hatchery-origin fish. Unfortunately, abundance estimates cannot
definitively tell us whether fish observed on spawning grounds are the progeny of
hatchery or naturally produced fish, so mark recovery data from spawning ground
surveys was employed to provide definitive answers for this question. If mark recovery
45
rates closely mimic, or equate, with mark and tagging rates from hatchery-released fish,
this would strongly indicate that the Chinook salmon observed in these streams are
entirely hatchery-origin fish.
Comparing In-stream Abundance with In-stream Hatchery Releases
Calculating abundance estimates in time periods preceding, running concurrently,
and following hatchery releases might indicate whether Chinook returning to these
systems could be attributed to on-site hatchery releases. The rationale for that test was as
follows: if few, or no, fish appeared before hatchery releases, more started appearing
while releases occurred, and fish started declining four to five years after the last hatchery
release, then an inference could be made that fish were only appearing due to hatchery
releases. Systems with both annual hatchery Chinook releases over at least a five year
period, and spawning ground survey records that pre-dated, existed concurrently, and
post-dated hatchery releases, were queried within the RMIS Database. Coulter Creek, the
site of Chinook hatchery releases from brood years 1979 to 2000, was chosen as the site
to test this scenario. This site had spawning ground survey records dating back to 1960,
and has been surveyed every year since, so the conditions existed to test this scenario.
The following trends would likely indicate if the abundance of Chinook salmon
observed at Coulter Creek could be attributed to the on-site hatchery releases which
occurred there from 1980 to 2001. First, little to no abundance of Chinook would be
observed at Coulter Creek from 1960-1981, but abundance of Chinook at Coulter Creek
would increase from 1982 onwards, as hatchery fish started returning. From 2004
onward, the abundance of Chinook at Coulter Creek would begin to decline, as fish
returning in the fall of 2004 would be four-year olds from the last hatchery brood year
release in 2000. Abundance in 2005 and 2006 would decline rapidly, as fish returning
during these years would be attributed to either naturally producing progeny from their
natal stream (of hatchery or wild origin), or straying from other South Puget Sound
hatchery facilities.
It should be noted that a few problems exist with Coulter Creek, and the data
collected on-site, which make this scenario less preferable to the one originally
formulated. First, Coulter Creek was the site of a hatchery production facility, so
46
complications exist regarding the accuracy of spawning ground surveys conducted onsite. Coulter Creek Hatchery is located within a quarter of a mile from the mouth of
Coulter Creek and, like most hatchery facilities, has a trap and fish ladder to control
upstream passage of returning fish. The policy employed during operations at Coulter
Creek Hatchery included collecting returning Chinook salmon as broodstock for future
releases, while simultaneously permitting upstream passage either when enough
broodstock had been collected or when naturally spawning chum returned to the system.
Given that spawning ground surveys at Coulter Creek are conducted entirely upstream of
the hatchery trap, and that the presence of Chinook upstream of the trap was controlled
by trap operations, spawning ground surveys conducted during the years of hatchery
operations were not used in this analysis. Instead, adult hatchery escapement figures
were provided to estimate fish returns for those years.
Second, the RMIS Database indicated that a few releases of Chinook salmon
occurred at Coulter Creek in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s (see Table 4). While it is
important to note these releases, they were not factored into this analysis as significant
hatchery releases for two reasons. First, the overwhelming majority of the fish released,
all but those from the 1954 brood year, were physically small. It has been suggested that
hatchery release groups with fish of a small physical size, groups where the number of
fish per pound measured exceeds 200 fish per pound, have very low survival rates and do
not likely contribute much towards hatchery returns (Larry Phillips- WDFW, personal
communication). Second, releases at Coulter Creek during this time period did not occur
for five consecutive years, so their overall contribution towards on-site returns was likely
minimal. Thus, the small physical size of Chinook releases, and the short time period of
their release, suggests that their contribution towards returning Chinook at Coulter Creek
was not likely significant.
An additional problem with this site is that spawning ground survey records were
sometimes sparse, particularly towards the beginning of the study period. Some years
had only one or two surveys on record. Due to this fact, spawning ground survey
records, at best, provide figures indicative of relative Chinook presence versus relative
abundance. Finally, spawning ground survey records began in 1960, after hatchery
releases of Chinook salmon had already begun in South Puget Sound. This made it
47
difficult to speculate as to the origin of fish observed in those early surveys- specifically
whether they were the progeny of naturally producing fish at Coulter Creek or other
Sound Puget Sound systems, or consisted of strays from South Puget Sound hatchery
releases. Considering all those potential problems, this scenario was designed to show
the relative presence of Chinook salmon at Coulter Creek from 1960-2006, in relation to
on-site hatchery releases from 1980-2001.
Table 4. Hatchery fall Chinook salmon releases at Coulter Creek, 1957-1962.
Brood Year
1954
Release Year
1957
Number
released
2,805
Fish per pound
measured
15.00
1956
1957
175,000
1,007.99
1957
1958
188,020
341.05
1958
1959
253,640
677.01
1961
1962
224,910
458.18
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
Spawning ground surveys from consistently surveyed reaches, within and
between years, were used. At Coulter Creek, the preferred stream survey reach was RM
0.0- RM 1.1, which was identified as the Chinook index reach for this stream (WDF,
1992). Surveys whose stream lengths did not fit exactly within this preferred stream
reach were used if the reach surveyed coincided, even partially, with that of the preferred
stream reach. For each year between 1960-1979 and 2000-2006 at Coulter Creek, the
spawning ground survey with the highest combined live and dead counts of Chinook
salmon was selected. Hatchery escapement figures, from WDFW annual hatchery
escapement reports, were used to estimate returning adult Chinook salmon at Coulter
Creek from 1980-1999 (WDFW, 2008).
A decision was made to use the peak observed live and dead counts to project
relative presence of Chinook salmon at Coulter Creek because of a lack of repeated
spawning ground surveys at this site within a given year, particularly for the earlier
48
survey years. The term “peak observed” was chosen to denote the largest combined live
and dead survey count from a given survey year, and should not be confused with peak
live plus dead count, a term suggesting that a survey is conducted at the time of expected
peak live and dead fish within a system for a given year (Cousens et al., 1982). Given the
minimal number of WDFW spawning ground surveys conducted at Coulter Creek, during
times of expected Chinook presence, from 1960 to 1979, it was not possible to assume
that surveys were conducted with peak Chinook timing in mind. It is likely that surveys
were conducted at times indicative of the presence of other salmonid stocks, primarily
chum and coho salmon, within this same system.
Spawning ground surveys conducted between August 15 and November 15 were
considered, as this provided a buffer of at least two weeks on each end of the expected
presence of Chinook salmon at Coulter Creek- late-September through October. The
spawning ground survey data for Coulter Creek was summarized in Table B-1. Some
parameters were set to clear up discrepancies in this data set. First, if surveys were
conducted on consecutive days, only one was included in the data set. Preference was
given to surveys that indicated a presence of Chinook, and if each survey revealed counts
of Chinook, the survey with the largest count was chosen. If neither survey indicated a
presence of Chinook, the survey with a stream reach nearest to the preferred survey reach
was selected. Second, surveys conducted within the stated Chinook stream reach were
included even if no Chinook were spotted. An assumption was made that surveyors
would tally live and dead counts of Chinook, even if observing Chinook was not the
intention of the survey. When surveys conducted for the purpose of coho or chum
salmon were included in the data set, dashes were placed in the count section to indicate
that no live or dead Chinook salmon were observed. Third, if two separate surveys were
conducted on the same day, they were viewed as one survey and the survey counts were
tallied together. Fourth, observations of Chinook salmon outside of the designated
stream reaches, and before August 15 or after November 15, were included in the data
set, but they were not considered in this analysis. These counts were conducted on an
inconsistent basis and, normally, only excluded large totals of live and dead Chinook
during years with large returns; these surveys were italicized. All surveys were
conducted by WDFW unless otherwise noted. If a survey was conducted by a different
49
agency, a double asterisk was placed next to the date and an explanation appears at the
bottom of the data set.
Comparing Regionwide Abundance Estimates with Regionwide Hatchery Releases
Another potential use of spawning ground surveys as an indicator of whether
Chinook salmon returning to South Puget Sound tributaries could be attributed to
hatchery releases is to generate abundance estimates for these streams, and compare these
estimates to South Puget Sound hatchery release records to see if any trends appear. This
scenario was designed to reveal whether Chinook salmon that appeared at these small
streams might be explained indirectly by out-of-basin hatchery releases. Since it tested
for an indirect relationship between abundance and regional Chinook hatchery releases,
systems that have served as hatchery, or release, sites for Chinook salmon have been
excluded from this analysis, namely the Deschutes River, Percival Creek, McAllister
Creek, Chambers Creek, and Coulter Creek. The streams selected for this analysis did
not have any extensive in-basin hatchery releases between 1953 and 2005; any existing
records of Chinook hatchery releases for these streams was summarized in Table C-1.
It is difficult to correlate hatchery release numbers with subsequent returns of
Chinook salmon for a couple of reasons. First, Chinook salmon usually return to their
natal stream as two- to five-year olds, with the majority of Puget Sound Chinook
returning at ages three and four (Shared Strategy Development Committee, 2007).
Determining the age of a fish on spawning grounds, through only visual observations, is
not possible, which makes attributing a fish to a certain brood year release group difficult.
Second, survival rates of returning adult salmon varies from year to year. Factors such as
ocean conditions and ocean harvest, among others, collectively determine survival return
rates for outgoing brood year releases, making it impossible to use release numbers alone
as a comparative figure.
One way to estimate the impact of hatchery releases is to use run reconstruction
data for the South Puget Sound region. Run reconstruction figures estimate the number
of Chinook salmon that attempt to return to South Puget Sound systems in a given year,
successfully or unsuccessfully. These figures include both hatchery and naturally
produced fish from all South Puget Sound Chinook systems, and provide a regionwide
50
total. Run reconstruction data can account for factors such as ocean survival and marine
harvest, by revealing both how many Chinook salmon successfully returned to the region,
and how many would have returned if not for Puget Sound commercial, tribal, and
recreational fisheries, for a given year. No known statistical tests exist to accurately test
for correlation between these two data sets, so run reconstruction data was visually
compared with abundance estimates of Chinook salmon at South Puget Sound tributaries
to see if any trends between the two data sets appeared.
The intention was to include as many South Puget Sound tributaries as possible in
generating abundance estimates so that a thorough assessment of the region could be
completed. Unfortunately, this was not possible because many of the streams had few, if
any, spawning ground surveys conducted at the expected time of Chinook salmon
presence in these areas, August 15 through November 15. For this reason, numerous
South Puget Sound tributaries were excluded from this analysis, most notably Woodland
Creek and Mill Creek, which were mentioned in SaSSI as sites where Chinook salmon
spawn. The streams that were selected for analysis included: Goldsborough Creek, Johns
Creek, Cranberry Creek, and Deer Creek (Hammersley Inlet), Sherwood Creek and
Rocky Creek (Case Inlet), and Burley Creek (Carr Inlet). The period selected for analysis
was 1987 through 2006, because larger numbers of spawning ground surveys were
conducted in recent times. The stream lengths of surveys used in this analysis were
selected based on consistency of stream reaches within and between years, and favored
surveys that were conducted on lower portions of systems. The selected stream reaches
included: Cranberry Creek (RM 0.0- RM 2.6), Deer Creek (RM 0.0- RM 1.3),
Goldsborough Creek (RM 0.5- RM 2.2), Johns Creek (RM 0.0- RM 1.8), Sherwood
Creek (RM 0.0- RM 0.7), Rocky Creek (RM 0.3- RM 1.6), and Burley Creek (RM 0.0RM 1.9). All sites had sufficient survey data for the years 1987 through 2006 except for
Goldsborough Creek, which only had sufficient data from 1998 to 2006. The spawning
ground survey data for these selected streams was provided in Tables C-5 through C-11.
Two methods for estimating abundance were selected for this analysis. The first
involved collecting the peak combined live and dead counts from each stream for a given
year. As mentioned in the previous section, this method estimates relative presence of
Chinook as opposed to relative abundance, but it will be included for comparison and to
51
provide data for years with few surveys conducted (low survey effort). The second
estimation method, an area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis, estimates relative abundance
of returning Chinook salmon. This methodology uses live counts from surveys to
generate an abundance curve, and relies on multiple survey counts during a spawning
season to ensure accuracy. The AUC method is usually applied as follows: estimates of
fish abundance, generated from live counts in stream surveys, are plotted over the course
of a run and connect to form an escapement curve. The area that falls under this curve
calculates the total number of spawner days, or fish days. This total is divided by an
estimated survey life, defined as the average number of days that a spawning fish is alive
in a survey area, and the result is an estimate of escapement (Hill, 1997; Parken et al.,
2003; Perrin and Irvine, 1990). Although WDFW prefers using redd counts to estimate
escapement in Chinook systems, they have used AUC when difficulties with using redd
counts arose (i.e. visibility problems or overlapping redd construction by other salmonid
species). In these instances, WDFW uses an AUC analysis if live counts are available on
a weekly basis for a given area. The number of live fish is plotted on the Y-axis, while
survey date is plotted on the X-axis. The AUC produces the number of fish days, which is
divided by 10, to generate an escapement estimate for that area. Ten days is a WDFW
convention which estimates the number of days a Chinook salmon remains in a spawning
area, hereafter referred to as survey life (Smith and Castle, 1994).
Estimates of relative abundance for South Puget Sound streams will be calculated
using an area-under-the-curve methodology as it is applied by WDFW. For the available
data set, it is not realistic to use the AUC method to estimate escapement of South Puget
Sound Chinook salmon, as many problems exist. First, spawning ground surveys were
rarely consistently conducted at any of these streams on a weekly basis. This is likely
because many of the surveys were not conducted with Chinook salmon in mind and only
included incidental observances of this species. When surveys are not conducted on a
consistent basis, and include time periods between surveys which exceed the estimated
residence time for a run, the risk of missing returning fish increases (Cousens et al.,
1982). Uncertainty also increases substantially at sites, with a residence time (survey
life) between 8 and 12 days, when surveys are spaced by an interval of greater than 17
days (Hill, 1997). Since the spawning ground surveys for these streams have long time
52
gaps between them (often exceeding 10 days and sometimes 18 or more days), an AUC
analysis that sometimes relies on sparse survey data can produce an estimate of relative
abundance at best. Second, accurate escapement estimates from an AUC analysis require
that survey life be determined on a site specific basis each time the analysis is used
(Perrin and Irvine, 1990). WDFW’s survey life estimate of ten days is very general,
applying to all Puget Sound Chinook salmon stocks. Coupling this with the fact that
survey life and run timing can vary greatly between years, the use of ten days as an
accurate estimate of survey life, with which to generate escapement estimates, is suspect.
Third, problems occur when an AUC analysis relies on surveys with nonzero first or last
counts. In these instances an estimate must be made as to the date(s) at which fish first
enter the stream, and are all deceased. Fourth, as with other escapement estimation
methods that rely on visual observations of fish, a negative bias likely exists because
observers are unlikely to spot all live fish present. Given WDFW’s policy about using
experienced personnel, sources of bias due to observer efficiency are likely minimized.
To account for these potential sources of error in estimating abundance of
Chinook at these streams, the following parameters were set. First, an AUC analysis was
only calculated at a site, for a given year, if a minimum of four spawning ground surveys
existed. Four was chosen as a minimum number because it permitted a beginning, peak,
and end point to complete the curve, but covered a longer time period then three surveys,
thereby minimizing large time gaps between surveys that could increase chances for
error. If three or less surveys existed at a site for a given year, an AUC estimate was not
calculated, and that survey was denoted as NC (not calculated). Second, relative
abundance estimates generated using survey data with large time gaps between surveys
increases chances for error. If time gaps of greater than 14 days existed for a survey year,
that site’s AUC estimate was denoted with an asterisk (*). Third, survey data from the
late 1980’s often lacked early season surveys. Few surveys were conducted in the month
of September, but this occurrence became less prevalent as time progressed. Abundance
estimates from years that lacked early season spawning ground surveys, none prior to
September 25, were denoted with a carrot (^).
Finally, modifications were made to account for problems posed by nonzero first
and last live counts. If a nonzero, first live count did not exist, a point with a live count
53
of zero was plotted ten days before the first live count was recorded. In some rare
instances a first point was plotted seven days back, but this was only done if the number
of dead fish was greater than the number of live fish on the date of first observance. To
account for nonzero last counts, a last point was plotted seven days following the last live
survey count. These figures were chosen because evidence suggests that fish returning
earlier in a run season tend to have a longer survey life than fish returning later in a run
season (Neilson and Geen, 1981). The ten day first live count estimate was chosen
because the area-under-the-curve software program, provided by WDFW (WDFW,
2007b), would not permit placing a point more than ten days before the first observed live
count. Estimating beginning and end points has a minimal effect on abundance estimates
if the first live counts are small in number, but potential for error increases if the first live
count is large. Abundance estimates from survey data with a nonzero beginning or
endpoint, and a first or last survey live count greater than 60, were denoted with a double
asterisk (**). Yearly summaries of both the peak observed survey counts and AUC
abundance estimates for the creeks analyzed are provided in Tables C-2 and C-3.
Comparing Mark Recovery Data with Hatchery Mark Rates
While the first two analyses of spawning ground surveys used live counts to
generate estimates of relative presence and abundance of Chinook salmon in South Puget
Sound tributaries, the last analysis employed data from carcasses observed on the
spawning grounds. Beginning with surveys conducted in 2002, the WDFW spawning
ground survey database included specific data about Chinook carcasses found in these
streams. The data included observations of carcasses, by surveyors, for both hatchery
marks (clipped adipose fins) and the presence of coded wire tags. These data were
compared with hatchery mark and tag rates from hatchery Chinook releases for brood
years 1997-2003 to see if mark and tag rates between the two data sets were similar. This
information could prove useful, since large numbers of hatchery-marked and tagged
Chinook observed at the spawning grounds, at rates similar to hatchery-marked and
tagged Chinook releases, could suggest an extensive hatchery influence on the fish that
return to these streams.
54
This analysis used mark recovery data from spawning ground surveys conducted
between 2002 and 2006. Streams included in this analysis were all streams used in the
previous analysis (Goldsborough, Johns, Cranberry, Deer, Sherwood, Rocky, and Burley
Creeks) as well as Coulter Creek. When carcasses were spotted during spawning ground
surveys, they were tallied into one of many categories. These mark recovery categories
are listed and explained in Table 5. While a larger sample size, in years, would be
preferable, mark recovery data from years prior to 2002 would likely not be very helpful
since mass marking (adipose fin clips) of hatchery Chinook at WDFW facilities was not
implemented until the 1998 brood year. This 1998 brood year release group had fouryear olds returning in 2002, so the timing of the data is nearly in sync to analyze the first
return group of mass-marked hatchery Chinook.
55
Table 5. Explanation of mark recovery categories used in WDFW
spawning ground surveys.
Category
Explanation of Category
Status as Hatchery-Origin Fish
AdClipped,
No Beep
AdClipped,
Beep
AdClipped,
NoHead
Hatchery fish, but unable to track
to a hatchery or release group.
Hatchery fish, ability to track to a
hatchery or release group.
Hatchery fish, but unable to track
to a hatchery or release group.
Unmarked,
no Beep
Fish has a clipped adipose fin,
but no coded wire tag (CWT).
Fish has a clipped adipose fin,
and a coded wire tag (CWT).
Fish has a clipped adipose fin,
but head is missing or
deteriorated so that checking for
CWT is not possible.
Fish has its tail cut off,
indicating that it was previously
sampled.
Presence or absence of adipose
fin could not be positively
determined, no CWT.
Presence or absence of adipose
fin could not be positively
determined, CWT present.
Presence or absence of adipose
fin could not be positively
determined and unable to sample
for CWT; otherwise, the
carcass was not sampled.
Fish has an intact adipose fin,
and no CWT.
Unmarked,
Beep
Unmarked,
No Head
Fish has an intact adipose fin,
and a CWT.
Fish has an intact adipose fin,
but unable to sample for CWT.
Previously
Sampled
Unknown Mark,
No Beep
Unknown Mark,
Beep
Unknown Mark,
No Head
Unknown.
Unknown.
Hatchery fish, ability to track to a
hatchery or release group.
Unknown.
Unlikely. Either an unmarked
hatchery fish or from naturally
producing progeny.
Hatchery fish, ability to track to a
hatchery or release group.
Unlikely. Either an unmarked
hatchery fish or from naturally
producing progeny.
Source: WDF, 1992.
56
Results
Comparing In-stream Abundance with In-stream Hatchery Releases
Relative presence estimates at Coulter Creek from 1960-2006 were summarized
in graphical form in Figures 5 and 6, and the spawning ground surveys for this site were
compiled in Table B-1. Coulter Creek exhibited modest presence of Chinook salmon
from 1960-1979, with peak combined live and dead counts ranging between 1 and 69
(Figure 5). Chinook presence at Coulter Creek increased substantially for the period
from 1982 to 2004, with 1,000 or more Chinook observed through either hatchery
escapement or peak observed counts for all but seven years (Figure 6). In 2004, the
number of returning fish declined to 1,146 from 1,907 in 2003, and dramatic declines in
peak observed counts continued for 2005 (239) and 2006 (105).
Figure 5. Coulter Creek relative presence estimates, 1960-1979.
80
Peak Observed Live
and Dead Survey Count
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
Survey Year
57
Figure 6. Coulter Creek relative presence estimates and hatchery escapement
counts, 1960-2006.
Peak Observed Count
Hatchery Escapement
Number of Chinook Observed
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1960
1966
1972
1978
1984
1990
1996
2002
Survey Year
Comparing Regionwide Abundance Estimates with Regionwide Hatchery Releases
Peak observed live and dead counts in South Puget Sound tributaries were
summarized in graphical form in Figure 7, and in tabular form in Table C-2. Figure 7
revealed a gradually increasing trend in peak counts as time progressed, and an average
peak observed live and dead count of 296. This graph also revealed large fluctuations
over time, with two pronounced peaks (1991-1994 and 1998-2002) and three valleys
(1987-1989, 1995-1997, and 2003-2004). Area-under-the-curve relative abundance
estimates were also summarized graphically in Figure 7, and in tabular form in Table C3. The AUC estimates appeared to follow a trend similar to that of the peak observed
counts, with an overall increase over time and numerous peaks and valleys. There were
58
three pronounced peaks (1992-1994, 1999-2002, and 2006) and three valleys (1987-1991,
1995-1997, 2004-2005).
Run Reconstruction data for the entire Southern Puget Sound region from 1987
through 2006 are displayed in Figure 8, and the data for each South Puget Sound Chinook
salmon run is provided in Table C-4. Much like the abundance estimates for South Puget
Sound streams, the run reconstruction data consisted of many peaks and valleys, and
increased as time progressed. The yearly average from 1987 through 2006 was 44,869.
The first twelve years of this time period exhibited large peaks and valleys, as nine of the
twelve years produced below average adult Chinook returns. The period from 1999
through 2006 revealed increased production, as seven of these eight years achieved above
average production. Also notable is that the large peaks and valleys declined during this
period, with the exception of 2006, the largest Chinook run reconstruction total for the
entire twenty year period.
Visual observations of the trends between the two estimation methods and run
reconstruction figures revealed both similarities and differences. The best way to
describe these trends is by splitting this 20 year time period into two ten-year intervals.
The first ten-year period, 1987-1996, revealed that the two estimation methods did not
mimic the pattern shown by the run reconstruction data. From 1987-1990, both the
estimation methods and run reconstruction figures increased on a yearly basis, but from
1991 to 1995 the two data sets exhibited an inverse relationship. Relative presence
estimates from 1991-1994, and relative abundance estimates from 1992 to 1994,
remained at relatively high levels while run reconstruction figures dropped and remained
below average during this time. In 1995, both relative presence and abundance estimates
dropped dramatically and remained low in 1996; meanwhile, run reconstruction figures
exhibited a large increase in 1995, but then dropped below average in 1996, more in tune
with low presence and abundance estimates for that year.
The second ten-year period, 1997-2006, revealed that the two estimation methods,
and the run reconstruction data, appeared to exhibit similar trends. Both data sets had
low figures in 1997, but increased the following two years, resulting in a peak in 1999.
Except for a sharp decrease in adult Chinook returns in 2000, both estimation methods
and the run reconstruction data remained relatively stable, and above average, through
59
2002. Run reconstruction figures remained above average through 2006, reaching their
largest total in that year. Meanwhile, the two estimation methods loosely followed this
trend, although estimates for 2004 and 2005 displayed lower totals relative to the run
reconstruction data. While the AUC relative abundance estimate for 2006 reached its
highest total for the entire study period, the relative presence estimate did not increase
substantially, but was above the average for the 20 year period.
Figure 7. South Puget Sound AUC and peak abundance estimates, 1987-2006.
Peak Count Totals
AUC Totals
Peak Count Average
800
Abundance Estimate
(by Method)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
Survey Year
60
Figure 8. South Puget Sound Chinook salmon run reconstruction, 1987-2006.
Adult Returns
Average Adult Returns
Adult Chinook Returns
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
Year
Source: WDFW, 2007c.
Comparing Mark Recovery Data with Hatchery Mark Rates
Mark recovery data from spawning ground surveys were summarized by inlet in
Tables D-1 and D-2. Table D-1 contains mark recovery data from four streams
(Cranberry, Deer, Goldsborough, and Johns Creeks) in Hammersley Inlet, while Table D2 summarizes data from three streams in Case Inlet (Coulter, Rocky, and Sherwood
Creeks) and one stream in Carr Inlet (Burley Creek). In addition to indicating the number
of fish observed by mark recovery category, columns indicating sums of live and dead
counts were included to provide an overall indication of the number of Chinook that
returned to a site for a given year. The most important count is the sum of carcasses that
were used in the mark recovery data, since this column included all fish categorized by
mark recovery category. Theoretically the sum of dead counts and carcasses used in
mark recovery should have equated, but that was not always true. In instances where the
two counts did not equate, the carcass count was bolded and italicized.
61
An analysis of the mark recovery categories in Tables D-1 and D-2 revealed that
many fish were tallied as either previously sampled or unknown mark, no head. This
indicated that many of the fish tallied were either mark sampled during a prior survey, or
were not sampled. Fish would be left non-sampled, presumably, for two reasons; either
because the fish was deteriorated beyond the ability of the surveyor to positively identify
the presence or absence of an adipose fin, or due to large numbers of carcasses present on
the spawning grounds. At some sites, Burley Creek and Coulter Creek, the number of
non-sampled carcasses totaled in the hundreds or thousands for some survey years (Table
D-2). Given the large numbers of non-sampled, and previously sampled, carcasses
included in mark recovery counts, it was necessary to analyze the mark recovery data
exclusive of non-sampled and previously sampled fish. Although this shrunk the sample
size, excluding non-sampled and previously sampled fish from the analysis was necessary
to permit a definitive assessment of the carcasses that were adequately identified. By
excluding non-sampled and previously sampled fish from the analysis, an assumption
was made that mark recovery rates of sampled carcasses were the same as the rates of
non-sampled carcasses. While this assumption cannot be scientifically proven
retrospectively, it was assumed so that this analysis could be conducted.
Mark recovery data with three categories excluded- non-sampled, previously
sampled, and carcasses whose adipose marks could not be determined (unknown mark,
no beep)- were summarized in Tables D-3 through D-5. Table D-3 contains revised mark
recovery data for Hammersley Inlet, Table D-4 summarizes this information for Case
Inlet, and Table D-5 for Carr Inlet. The revised mark recovery data summarized
retrievals into four categories: adipose marked, CWT; adipose unmarked, CWT; adipose
marked, no CWT; and adipose unmarked, no CWT. Adipose marked fish have their
adipose fin clipped to indicate that they were released from a hatchery facility. Fish with
an unmarked adipose fin but a coded wire tag are also hatchery-released fish. Fish with
an unmarked adipose fin and no CWT potentially represent either an unmarked hatchery
fish, or a fish that was naturally spawned. These categories are summed, and represented
as percentages in both tabular form, in Tables D-3, D-4, and D-5, and graphical form, in
Figures 9, 10, and 11.
62
The revised mark recovery data revealed that for every year sampled at two of the
three inlets, Case and Carr, the majority of sampled carcasses were of hatchery origin. At
Case Inlet, the percentage of fish that had hatchery marks or CWTs ranged from 69 to
89%, while at Carr Inlet the range was 60 to 97%. In Hammersley Inlet, the percentage
of fish with clipped adipose fins and/or CWTs ranged from 0-100%. The sample size,
defined as number of carcasses sampled, at Hammersley Inlet was much smaller than the
sample size at Case and Carr Inlets; the former’s ranged from 1 to 7 while the later two
inlets’ ranged from 15 to 180 and 20 to 185, respectively. Of the eight streams analyzed
in the three inlets, three exhibited a majority of hatchery fish for every year surveyedCoulter Creek and Rocky Creek in Case Inlet, and Burley Creek in Carr Inlet (Tables D-4
and D-5). Three streams, Cranberry Creek and Deer Creek in Hammersley Inlet, and
Sherwood Creek in Case Inlet, exhibited a greater percentage of non-hatchery fish versus
hatchery fish for some of the survey years (Tables D-3 and D-4). While this trend
occurred at Sherwood Creek for every year from 2002 to 2006, it only occurred at
Cranberry Creek in 2003 and 2006 and at Deer Creek in 2003 and 2004. Two creeks,
Johns Creek and Goldsborough Creek in Hammersley Inlet, did not have any Chinook
carcasses sampled from 2002-2006 (Table D-3). The sample sizes of the six creeks, in
descending order by the largest number of carcasses surveyed, was as follows: Burley
Creek (20-185), Coulter Creek (4-174), Rocky Creek (0-34), Sherwood Creek (2-16),
Deer Creek (1-5), and Cranberry Creek (0-2).
Mark and tagging rates for Chinook salmon released from South Puget Sound
hatchery facilities and streams, for brood years 1997-2004, were summarized by release
location, organized by WRIA, in Tables A-6 through A-10; these same rates, totaled
exclusively by WRIA, are summarized in Table 6. Table 6 revealed that regionwide,
mark and tagging rates for hatchery-released Chinook salmon have increased
substantially since the 1997 brood year, when only a small percentage (10.5 %) of
hatchery Chinook releases were either marked and/or tagged. The rate of marked and/or
tagged fish increased substantially for 1998 brood year releases (78.8 %), and further
increased, and remained at consistently higher rates, for 1999 through 2004 brood year
releases (93.4- 98.0%).
63
Percentage of Fish Recovered
by Mark Sampling Category
Figure 9. Hammersley Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
Adipose marked,
no CWT
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
Adipose marked,
CWT
7
3
3
1
2
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Sample Size and Survey Year
Percentage of Fsh Recovered
by Mark Sampling Category
Figure 10. Case Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
Adipose marked,
no CWT
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
Adipose marked,
CWT
142
180
95
113
15
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Sample Size and Survey Year
64
Percentage of Fish Recovered
by Mark Sampling Category
Figure 11. Carr Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
100%
90%
80%
70%
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
60%
50%
40%
Adipose marked,
no CWT
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
30%
20%
Adipose marked,
CWT
10%
0%
185
61
20
49
132
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Sample Size and Survey year
65
Table 6. South Puget Sound hatchery-released Chinook salmon adipose mark and CWT rates, brood years 1997-2004.
WRIA 11
WRIA 12
Brood Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Unmarked,
no CWT
4,233,637
2,654,823
88,711
354,851
127,932
227,981
120,617
187,302
Total
released
4,859,565
5,670,792
5,503,395
4,777,819
5,469,218
3,514,024
4,166,184
3,443,874
Unmarked,
no CWT (%)
87.12 %
46.82 %
1.61 %
7.43 %
2.34 %
6.49 %
2.90 %
5.44 %
Totals
7,995,854
37,404,871
-
Brood Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Unmarked,
no CWT
23,665
3,210
0
0
0
10,000*
0
0
Total
released
149,950
160,500
0
0
0
10,000*
0
0
26,875
310,450
Unmarked,
no CWT
1,004,020
510,270
37,970
294,103
463,062
29,528
61,494
26,425
Total
released
1,099,511
1,500,386
1,115,495
913,339
2,693,201
1,076,794
1,200,297
1,198,995
Unmarked,
no CWT (%)
91.32 %
34.01 %
3.40 %
32.20 %
17.19 %
2.74 %
5.12 %
2.20 %
Unmarked,
no CWT
3,848,935
103,303
58,012
119,705
26,170
96,069
227,814
123,904
2,426,872
10,798,018
-
4,603,912
WRIA 14
Totals
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
WRIA 13
WRIA 15
Unmarked,
no CWT (%)
15.78 %
2.00 %
100.00 %
-
Total
Unmarked,
released
no CWT (%)
4,052,235
94.98 %
4,153,665
2.49 %
5,940,304
0.98 %
4,051,844
2.95 %
4,392,150
0.60 %
4,130,274
2.33 %
4,286,736
5.31 %
3,732,855
3.32 %
34,740,063
-
South Puget Sound Region
Unmarked,
no CWT
3,406,000
79,709
133,027
69,335
3,658
18,436
6,049
2,502
Total
released
3,664,525
3,636,958
3,194,070
2,947,650
1,892,500
1,876,675
1,714,725
1,869,623
Unmarked,
no CWT (%)
92.95 %
2.19 %
4.16 %
2.35 %
0.19 %
0.98 %
0.35 %
0.13 %
Unmarked,
no CWT
12,516,257
3,351,315
317,720
837,994
620,822
382,014
415,974
340,133
3,718,716
20,796,726
-
18,782,229
* Release of 10,000 unfed fry at 1,000 FPP
Total
Unmarked,
released
no CWT (%)
13,825,786
90.53 %
15,122,301
22.16 %
15,753,264
2.02 %
12,690,652
6.60 %
14,447,069
4.30 %
10,607,767
3.60 %
11,367,942
3.66 %
10,245,347
3.32 %
104,060,128
-
66
In order to compare hatchery release mark and tagging rates with mark recovery
rates, it was necessary to look at brood year hatchery release rates three, four, and five
years prior to the return year being studied. Since Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound
region return primarily as three- and four-year olds (Shared Strategy Development
Committee, 2007), it was necessary to calculate a weighted average for each brood year
release that contributed to a given return year. The weighted average hatchery mark rates
for a given return year were calculated by multiplying each years mark rate by the
expected age of return rate for Nisqually River hatchery fall Chinook, which was 49.04%,
48.43%, and 2.5% for three-, four-, and five-year olds, respectively (Nisqually Indian
Tribe, 2007a). (South Puget Sound tributaries specific distribution of age at return data
could not be located, but Nisqually data were selected because the Nisqually River is
located within the South Puget Sound region and had these data available). The results
for all South Puget Sound hatchery releases, as well as those within WRIA 15, were
summarized in Table 7. Rates for WRIA 15 were provided because this region included
the Case and Carr Inlet streams that were mark sampled. Weighted average mark rates
for WRIA 14 were not calculated due to the small number of recent Chinook hatchery
releases in this area, and because collective recovery rates at Hammersley Inlet streams
were minimal, ranging from 1 to 7 sampled carcasses. Its use in this analysis was
excluded so as not to skew the results.
Hatchery mark and tagging rates from carcasses recovered on the spawning
grounds of South Puget Sound streams were compared with mark and tagging rates from
Chinook salmon released from South Puget Sound hatchery facilities and streams to see
if the rates were similar. A similar rate was defined as a mark recovery rate that was
within ± 3% of the hatchery mark and tagging rate. This number was chosen because the
likelihood that mark rates between the two data sets will match identically is minimal,
given the much smaller numbers of carcasses recovered and sampled on the spawning
grounds. A comparison of hatchery mark and tagging rates from streams, lumped
together by inlet, with mark and tagging rates from hatchery-released Chinook salmon
revealed that the rates of the latter were greater than the rates of the former for all but one
year at both inlets, even with the adjustment rate factored in. In 2002, mark and tag
recovery rates from carcasses sampled at Case Inlet streams was 87.3%, which was
67
within the ± 3% range of the South Puget Sound weighted average mark rate of 86.0%,
but not the WRIA 15 rate of 94.5%. In 2006, the mark and tagging recovery rate at
Burley Creek, the only stream sampled in Carr Inlet, was 97%. This rate was within the
range of both the weighted average mark rates for South Puget Sound and WRIA 15,
which were 96.4% and 99.4% respectively.
Table 7. Weighted average mark rates for Chinook salmon hatchery brood year releases
that contributed to return years 2002-2006 (South Puget Sound and WRIA 15).
Region
South Puget Sound
WRIA 15
Brood Year
Releases
1997, 1998, 1999
1998, 1999, 2000
1999, 2000, 2001
2000, 2001, 2002
2001, 2002, 2003
Weighted Average
Mark Rates for Brood
Year Releases
85.99 %
95.22 %
94.64 %
95.99 %
96.35 %
Return
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1997, 1998, 1999
1998, 1999, 2000
1999, 2000, 2001
2000, 2001, 2002
2001, 2002, 2003
94.54 %
96.77 %
98.66 %
99.37 %
99.35 %
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
The same analysis was also performed with mark recovery rates for individual
streams. A minimum sample size of five carcasses for a given survey year was selected
to prevent small numbers of carcasses from skewing results. Five of the eight streams
surveyed, which fit this criteria, were listed with the number of survey years that met the
minimum sample size - Burley Creek (2002-2006), Coulter Creek (2002-2005), Rocky
Creek (2002, 2005-2006), Sherwood Creek (2003-2005), and Deer Creek (2002). Of the
five streams and sixteen return years studied, only three streams and four return years had
mark recovery rates within the ± 3% range of hatchery-marked Chinook releases. The
mark recovery rate at Rocky Creek in 2002 was 89.3%, which was slightly in excess of
the South Puget Sound weighted average hatchery mark rate of 86.0%, but not within the
adjusted range of the WRIA 15 rate of 94.5%. At Coulter Creek in 2002, the mark
68
recovery rate was 89.0%, which was within range of the South Puget Sound weighted
average hatchery mark rate, but not the WRIA 15 rate. In 2006, mark recovery rates at
Rocky and Burley Creeks were 100% and 97.0%, respectively. The rate at Rocky Creek
was within range of the WRIA 15 rate of 99.4%, but slightly in excess of the South Puget
Sound rate of 96.4%. The rate at Burley Creek was within range of both the South Puget
Sound and WRIA 15 hatchery mark rates.
Discussion
Comparing In-stream Abundance with In-stream Hatchery Releases
The relative presence of Chinook salmon observed at Coulter Creek from 19602006 generally followed the pattern previously described in the methods section. Coulter
Creek exhibited modest presence of Chinook salmon, with peak combined live and dead
counts ranging between 1 and 69, from 1960-1979 (Figure 5), the time period during
which no significant in-stream hatchery releases occurred. Chinook presence at Coulter
Creek increased substantially for the period from 1982 to 2004, with 1,000 or more
Chinook observed by either hatchery escapement totals or peak observed counts for all
but seven years (Figure 6). This increase was not unexpected, as the first brood year
release in 1979 would be expected to produce a group of three-year old hatchery returns
in 1982. Peak observed counts from 2000-2003 ranged from 1,492 to 2,338, with the
peak total occurring in 2002. This trend was also expected, as four-year olds from 1999
brood year releases and three-year olds from the last brood year release in 2000 would be
expected to contribute to 2003 returns. (It merits noting that the hatchery escapement
totals often did not indicate how many Chinook were passed upstream, so it is very likely
that hatchery escapement totals from years during hatchery operations, 1980-1999,
underestimated the true number of fish that attempted to return to Coulter Creek
spawning grounds). In 2004, peak observed counts declined to 1,146, from 1,907 in
2003, as only four-year olds from the 2000 brood year release and, to a much smaller
extent, five-year olds from the 1999 brood year release would be expected to contribute
to 2004 returns. Dramatic declines in peak observed counts continued in 2005 (239), as
only five-year olds from the 2000 brood year would be expected to contribute to 2005
69
returns. The 2006 peak observed counts (105) are the lowest observed since the advent
of hatchery returns in 1982, which is not unexpected as previous hatchery broods no
longer contributed to fish returning in that year.
Although peak observed live and dead survey counts from spawning ground
surveys conducted at Coulter Creek before, during, and after on-site Chinook salmon
hatchery releases revealed that trends in Chinook presence followed a pattern expected
with on-site hatchery releases, it was not possible to presume that Chinook hatchery
releases were the only factor affecting presence estimates at this site. It was deemed
necessary to look at the spawning ground survey data to see if anomalies in this data set
affected the relative presence trends observed at Coulter Creek. An analysis of the
spawning ground survey data from Coulter Creek revealed two problems with this data
set. First, there were many years with very few surveys conducted, especially towards
the beginning of this time period. Second, very few surveys were conducted during the
month of September, suggesting that a significant portion of the expected Chinook
salmon migration and spawning period, September through early November, was missing
from the data set. Both of these problems likely contributed to low presence estimates of
Chinook salmon on spawning grounds and were explored further. Table B-2 displays the
annual survey effort, defined as the number of surveys conducted at a site in a given year,
for Coulter Creek. These data revealed an increasing trend in survey effort as time
progressed. Survey effort at Coulter Creek from 1980 through 1999 was not included
due to hatchery operations at that site, but spawning ground surveys were still conducted
during this time period and generally followed an increasing trend as time progressed.
Table B-3 displays the date of peak observed survey counts at Coulter Creek from 19601979 and 2000-2006.
Table B-2 reveals that survey effort was greater, on an annual basis, from 20002006, ranging from 8-11 surveys, than from 1960-1979, when 1-8 surveys were
completed. Greater survey effort from 2000-2006 corresponded with larger peak
observed survey counts at Coulter Creek, but this relationship lessened in 2005 and 2006.
The large peak observed survey counts from 2000-2004 were likely attributed to Chinook
salmon returning from previous hatchery releases at this site. This likely explains why
peak observed counts for 2004-2006 were lower than counts observed in the years prior,
70
despite that fact that survey effort from 2004-2006 remained at levels similar to, and in
some years greater than, those for 2000-2003, years with much higher peak observed
counts. Although trends in peak observed survey counts from 2000-2006 were more
likely explained by the cessation of in-stream hatchery releases than survey effort, it was
necessary to examine survey data from 1960-1979 to discern how low survey effort
during this time may have affected peak observed counts. Of the five highest peak
observed counts at Coulter Creek- 69, 67, 48, 43, and 36- four of them occurred in years
with only one or two surveys conducted (1966, 1970, 1972 and 1973), while the count of
48 was observed in 1968, which had a survey effort of 5. Also notable is that the three
years with the greatest survey effort-1974 (6), 1975 (6), and 1976 (8)- had respective
peak observed counts of 19, 18, and 24. Thus, although survey effort tended to increase at
Coulter Creek as time progressed, it does not appear that peak observed counts at this site
were affected greatly by the number of surveys conducted. A more likely explanation for
the large peak observed counts documented from 2000-2004 is the in-stream Chinook
hatchery releases that occurred until the spring of 2001.
Table B-3 reveals that the date of peak observed survey counts at Coulter Creek
was earlier from 2000-2006 than it was for 1960-1979. The peak observed survey date in
the 1960’s and 1970’s occurred from mid- to late October, while for the current decade it
occurred in mid- to late September. These data indicated that either the run timing at
Coulter Creek has changed in recent times, with Chinook salmon returning earlier in the
season, or that survey data from earlier decades likely missed a large portion of the
Chinook salmon migration and spawning season. The lack of early season spawning
ground surveys conducted from 1960-1979 likely indicates that WDFW was surveying
other salmon species during these years, meaning that observations of Chinook salmon
were incidental. Given the lack of early season spawning ground surveys conducted at
Coulter Creek from 1960-1979, data from those years are likely inadequate to estimate
past abundance estimates of Chinook salmon at this site, but data from 2000 onward are
likely adequate to perform this task.
One thing that has been revealed through this scenario was that relative presence
of Chinook salmon at Coulter Creek dropped significantly from 2004 to 2006,
presumably as a result of discontinued Chinook salmon hatchery releases at Coulter
71
Creek. These declines in Chinook presence at Coulter Creek likely suggest that hatchery
releases did not create a naturally producing, self-sufficient population. More years of
data are required to see whether Chinook presence in subsequent years returns to levels
seen during the 1960’s and 1970’s, or declines to levels where few, if any, Chinook
return from year to year. If the latter scenario were revealed, this would serve as a strong
indication that Chinook returning to this system in the past were likely attributed to
previous hatchery releases.
Comparing Regionwide Abundance Estimates with Regionwide Hatchery Releases
Visual observations of the trends between the two estimation methods (peak
observed live and dead counts and area-under-the-curve) and run reconstruction figures
revealed both similarities and differences, with the first ten years exhibiting more
differences in trends than the last ten years. The first ten-year period, 1987-1996,
revealed that the two estimation methods did not mimic the pattern shown by the run
reconstruction data. From 1987 to 1990, both of the estimation methods and run
reconstruction figures increased on a yearly basis, but from 1991-1995 the two data sets
appeared to exhibit an inverse relationship, with the two estimation methods indicating
larger abundance estimates through 1994 while run reconstruction figures remained
below average through that same year. In 1995, both relative presence and abundance
estimates dropped dramatically and remained low in 1996; meanwhile, run reconstruction
figures exhibited a large increase in 1995, but then dropped below average in 1996, more
in line with low presence and abundance estimates for that year.
The second ten-year period, 1997-2006, revealed that the two estimation methods
and run reconstruction figures appeared to exhibit similar trends. Both data sets revealed
low figures in 1997, but increased in each of the next two years, resulting in a peak in
1999. Except for a sharp decrease in adult Chinook returns in 2000, both estimation
methods and run reconstruction data remained relatively stable, and above average,
through 2002. Run reconstruction figures remained above average through 2006,
reaching its largest total in that year. Meanwhile, the two estimation methods loosely
followed this trend, although estimates for 2004 and 2005 displayed lower totals than the
run reconstruction figures suggested. While the AUC relative abundance estimate for
72
2006 reached its highest total for the entire period, the relative presence estimate did not
increase substantially, but was above the average for the 20 year period.
Since this method of comparison between the two data sets, abundance estimates
and run reconstruction figures, was not statistically comparable, it was necessary to look
at the raw data from each set to see if that could explain the trends exhibited by the data.
Yearly summaries of both the peak observed survey counts and AUC abundance
estimates for the creeks analyzed are provided in Tables C-2 and C-3. The spawning
ground survey data that were used in calculating both estimation methods at each stream
are provided in Tables C-5 through C-11. Table C-3 reveals that many problems existed
with spawning ground survey data for these streams from 1987 through 1998. Many of
these sites had long gaps (greater than 14 days) between surveys, lacked early season
surveys (prior to September 25), and some sites did not have enough surveys to calculate
an AUC abundance estimate (three or fewer surveys). Burley Creek did not have AUC
abundance estimates calculated for eight of the twelve years between 1987 and 1998,
while Rocky Creek did not have AUC abundance estimates calculated for two of these
years (1989 and 1993). In addition, Goldsborough Creek did not have any spawning
ground surveys conducted during the Chinook run season from 1987 through 1997.
These problems with the spawning ground survey data indicated that six of these
twelve years (1987-1989 and 1995-1997) cumulatively exhibited very poor data for the
study sites. An analysis of Tables C-2 and C-3 indicated that Burley Creek consistently
had the largest returns of Chinook salmon of any creek analyzed. Assuming this
observation to be indicative of actual abundance at this site, the fact that AUC estimates
were not calculated at Burley Creek for eight of the first twelve years analyzed suggested
that AUC estimates for all years, except 1992-1994 and 1996, likely underestimated the
true relative abundance of Chinook salmon in South Puget Sound tributaries from 1987
through 1998. Coupling this with the fact that poor regionwide data existed for two,
three-year periods during these twelve years, it appears that data was only adequate to
predict relative presence estimates from 1990-1994 and in 1998. An analysis of Figure 7
revealed that both estimation methods showed larger estimates during years with better
survey data than years with poor survey data. Given the lack of consistent and adequate
spawning ground survey data from 1987-1998, it was not possible to definitively
73
correlate Chinook abundance estimates at these streams with run reconstruction data
during this time period.
While poor spawning ground data, as a whole, existed from 1987-1998, better
data were available from 1999-2006. Table C-3 indicated that there were fewer problems
with spawning ground survey data (i.e. long gaps between surveys or a lack of early
season surveys) during this time period. These data produced more accurate AUC
relative abundance estimates, making an attempt to correlate relative abundance with run
reconstruction figures more pertinent. AUC estimates from 1999-2003 correlated fairly
well with run reconstruction data during this time, but estimates for 2004, and to some
extent 2005, were lower than run reconstruction data indicated. AUC estimates and run
reconstruction data for 2006 both revealed the highest levels recorded during this 20 year
period. Survey effort at Rocky Creek during 2004 was so low that an AUC abundance
estimate was not calculated for that year (Table C-3). Table C-10 indicated that no
spawning ground surveys were conducted during the majority of the Chinook run season,
evidenced by a large gap between surveys conducted on September 8 and November 10.
A month long gap between surveys in 2005 was also indicated in Table C-10, with most
of September missing from the data set. These data gaps at Rocky Creek in 2004 and
2005 could potentially explain the low abundance estimates regionwide for these years,
considering that Rocky Creek often exhibited the second highest abundance and presence
estimates of the seven streams analyzed. Yet, Table C-3 also indicated that all the other
streams, except for Sherwood Creek, exhibited rather modest abundance estimates as
well, so it was not possible to attribute the low totals in those two years directly to poor
survey data at Rocky Creek.
Although the last eight years (1999-2006) possessed reasonably adequate
spawning ground survey data, and revealed relatively similar trends between relative
abundance estimates and run reconstruction data, the same was not true for the period
from 1987-1998. This conclusion is not surprising, given that spawning ground surveys
at many of these streams were not conducted for the sole purpose of observing Chinook
salmon, and, thereby, merely provided incidental observations of this species. Only
recently, 1999-2006, does it appear that WDFW conducted surveys at times of expected
Chinook presence in these streams. Inconsistent survey data at many of these streams,
74
over the time period surveyed, made the assumption of an indirect correlation between
relative abundance estimates and run reconstruction data, due to visual trends between
the two data sets, inappropriate.
Still, these results reveal useful information regarding Chinook salmon that
returned to South Puget Sound tributaries. First, the abundance estimates revealed that
Chinook salmon returned to these streams in modest numbers for years, usually in the
hundreds of fish. There existed periodic, large fluctuations between years, with peaks
and valleys that often lasted several years. These peaks existed during periods with both
poor and sufficient spawning ground survey data, and seemed to mimic fluctuations often
observed in both naturally produced and hatchery salmon stocks. These fluctuations
likely ranged somewhere from a couple hundred to over a thousand fish, given that true
relative abundance estimates were likely underestimated due to poor data from many of
the years within the study period. Regardless, the relative abundance estimates at these
streams was rather small when compared to both the large number of hatchery Chinook
salmon released regionwide from 1983-2003, approximately 9 to 21 million (Figure 3),
and run reconstruction figures from 1987-2006, estimated at 25,000 to 79,000 adult
Chinook returns (Figure 8).
Second, the majority of the Chinook salmon observed in spawning ground
surveys were found in Case and Carr Inlets, with far fewer spotted in Hammersley Inlet.
Chinook salmon relative abundance estimates for the four streams surveyed within
Hammersley Inlet during this twenty-year period ranged from 2 to 95. Relative
abundance estimates for Case and Carr Inlets were much greater, ranging from 0 to 507
and 16 to 671 respectively, excluding years where relative abundance estimates were not
calculated at Burley Creek due to poor data. Of all the streams analyzed, Burley Creek
exhibited the largest, regular returns. An analysis of spawning ground survey data from
1987-2006 revealed that survey effort and timing at the four streams in Hammersley Inlet
were similar to the streams surveyed in Case and Carr Inlets. The data were poor from
1987-1998, but improved from 1999-2006; thus, it did not appear that the differences in
relative abundance at the streams surveyed could be attributed solely to survey effort and
timing.
75
A look at hatchery release records revealed that Chinook abundance in these three
inlets might have been influenced by the proximate location of hatchery releases.
Hatchery release records indicated that Hammersley Inlet did not have extensive in-basin
hatchery releases during the past 55 years (Table A-4). Meanwhile, Case Inlet had
Chinook hatchery releases from Coulter Creek Hatchery from 1980-2001, and Carr Inlet
is the location of Minter Creek Hatchery, one of the larger Chinook salmon production
facilities, which has been releasing Chinook salmon since 1953 (Table A-5). Abundance
estimates were larger in streams that were in close proximity to, or within the same inlet
of, hatchery Chinook salmon release sites. Research suggests that salmon reared in
hatcheries tend to stray more than their wild counterparts. A study of a wild stock of
autumn (fall) Chinook salmon in the Lewis River (Southwest Washington) indicated that
wild fish that were caught, tagged, and reared at a hatchery site strayed at a greater rate
(10.3% versus 3.2%) than wild fish from the same stock that were caught, tagged, and
released. The same study also found that when hatchery fish strayed, approximately 55%
of them strayed to an adjacent river, defined as one tributary above or below the Lewis
River (McIsaac, 1990). The results of this study on straying might help explain why
Chinook salmon abundance estimates were greater at streams in close proximity to
hatchery Chinook salmon release sites than streams that are further away.
If small numbers of Chinook salmon annually stray from nearby hatcheries, they
could be responsible for the numbers of Chinook observed at these streams. Another
question, which is very difficult to answer, is whether some of these hatchery Chinook
salmon, which might stray, spawn successfully at these streams and produce natural
progeny. A possibility exists that a combination of Chinook production, consisting of
hatchery strays and hatchery-origin recruits from strays that successfully spawn, is
responsible for the abundance of Chinook salmon observed at these streams. There could
be other explanations as to why more Chinook are spotted in Case Inlet and Carr Inlet
streams as opposed to Hammersley Inlet (i.e. basin size, flow regimes, and temperatures).
Although data regarding the stream characteristics of South Puget Sound tributaries,
particularly stream flow and temperature data from Case and Carr Inlet streams, are
lacking, it is presumed that the majority of the streams in these two inlets exhibit
relatively similar flow and temperature regimes to streams located in Hammersley Inlet,
76
due to the relatively small basin sizes of all these streams. Thus, it is unlikely that stream
characteristics could explain the differences in Chinook salmon abundance observed in
the streams within these three inlets.
Comparing Mark Recovery Data with Hatchery Mark Rates
Although the mark recovery rates from carcasses sampled at selected South Puget
Sound streams fell within the adjusted weighted average hatchery release mark rates only
a minority of the time, these results revealed some trends that might be useful in
assessing the extent of hatchery-origin fish among the carcasses observed in these
streams. Two of the three inlets exhibited a majority of hatchery-marked carcasses for
every year survey from 2002-2006, with carcass mark recovery rates ranging from 6989% at Case Inlet, and 60-97% at Carr Inlet. Carcass mark recovery rates at Hammersley
Inlet were more variable, ranging from 0-100%. In this inlet, a majority of hatcherymarked carcasses were observed in 2002 and 2005, a majority of unmarked hatchery
carcasses were observed in 2003 and 2004, and an equal number of both were observed
in 2006. The sample sizes at Case and Carr Inlet , ranging from 15- 180 and 20- 185,
respectively, were much larger than those observed at Hammersley Inlet, which ranged
from only 1- 7. These results suggest that consistently greater hatchery mark recovery
rates were observed on carcasses at the two inlets with larger sample sizes versus the inlet
with much smaller sample sizes.
The same trend seems to apply to individual streams, but to a lesser degree than
with inlets. The three streams with the largest sample sizes, defined as the largest
individual observed carcass count, had consistently higher hatchery mark recovery rates
than the three streams with the smallest sample sizes. Burley Creek, Coulter Creek, and
Rocky Creek, which had respective sample sizes ranging from 20-185, 4-174, and 0-34,
exhibited carcass hatchery mark recovery rates of 60-97%, 75-91%, and 82-100%,
respectively. Meanwhile, Sherwood Creek, Deer Creek, and Cranberry Creek, which had
respective sample sizes ranging from 2-16, 1-5, and 0-2, exhibited carcass hatchery mark
recovery rates ranging from 0-25%, 0-100%, and 0-50% respectively. Goldsborough
Creek and Johns Creek had no sampled carcasses from 2002-2006.
77
Yet, it is not possible to presume that sample size was largely responsible for the
percentage of hatchery-marked and tagged carcasses observed at spawning grounds in
South Puget Sound streams. First, Rocky Creek exhibited a larger percentage of
hatchery-marked carcasses than Coulter Creek for each of the four years that carcasses
were observed at Rocky Creek (2002-2003, 2005-2006). When compared to Burley
Creek, Rocky Creek had a larger percentage in three of these four years (2002-2003,
2006). These results are observed despite the fact that Rocky Creek had a smaller sample
size than Burley Creek for every year surveyed, and for every year surveyed at Coulter
Creek, except 2006. Second, streams and inlets with smaller sample sizes, with the
exception of Sherwood Creek, exhibited a larger variation in the percentage of hatcherymarked carcasses recovered. This was likely due to the fact that the number of sampled
carcasses at Hammersley Inlet streams, ranging from 0-2 at Cranberry Creek and 1-5 at
Deer Creek, skewed the results when viewed as percentages. For example, the 100%
hatchery mark rate observed at Deer Creek, and Hammersley Inlet as a whole, in 2005
was attributable to the fact that the only carcass recovered in that year was adipose
marked. Results from streams with sample sizes so small tell us little when compared
with hatchery release mark rates, other than the fact that few carcasses, or live fish, were
observed at these four streams from 2002-2006.
Perhaps the reason why the streams and inlets with larger numbers of recovered
carcasses tended to have a higher percentage of hatchery-marked carcasses could be
better explained by those streams’ proximity to Chinook salmon hatchery facilities and
release locations. Carr and Case Inlet streams, which consistently exhibited a greater
number and percentage of hatchery-marked carcasses than Hammersley Inlet streams, are
much closer to former and current hatchery Chinook salmon release sites than are
Hammersley Inlet streams. Burley Creek shares the same inlet, and is located
approximately seven miles northeast of Minter Creek, the site of a salmon hatchery
facility that has annually released Chinook salmon since 1953. Coulter Creek is currently
the site of a rearing pond for juvenile Chinook salmon, and also was a release site for
Chinook salmon from 1980-2001. Coulter Creek shares Case Inlet with Rocky Creek and
Sherwood Creek, which are located approximately five miles southeast and three miles
south of Coulter Creek, respectively. The closest hatchery release site to the four streams
78
in Hammersley Inlet is the South Sound Net Pens, located on the eastern side of Squaxin
Island. The proximity of the South Sound Net Pens to Hammersley Inlet streams is as
follows: Goldsborough Creek (12 miles), Johns Creek (14 miles), Cranberry Creek (16
miles), and Deer Creek (16 miles). Releases of yearling Chinook salmon from the South
Sound Net Pens have since been discontinued, with the last release group in April of
2000 using 1998 brood year Chinook salmon. Presuming that hatchery Chinook salmon
released from South Puget Sound hatchery facilities strayed to South Puget Sound
streams, and tended to stray to streams within close proximity at a greater rate than
streams located further away, the expectation would be to find larger numbers and
percentages of hatchery-marked carcasses on the spawning grounds of streams located
closer to these release sites versus further away.
One way to test this theory is to analyze coded wire tag recoveries from South
Puget Sound streams to ascertain from which hatchery sites these fish strayed. A review
of CWT recoveries for South Puget Sound streams was conducted using the RMIS
Database. CWTs have been recovered at six of the eight streams studied (Burley Creek,
Coulter Creek, Rocky Creek, Sherwood Creek, Deer Creek, and Goldsborough Creek).
These data, along with recoveries from four additional South Puget Sound streams
(Skookum Creek, Moxlie Creek, Percival Creek, and Woodland Creek), are summarized
in Table 8. CWT recoveries from hatcheries outside of South Puget Sound are italicized.
CWT recoveries indicated that fish strayed to these ten streams from nearby South
Puget Sound hatchery production facilities, Fox Island and South Sound Net Pens, and
hatcheries located outside of South Puget Sound, including many located in Hood Canal.
Of the 34 CWTs recovered at Burley Creek, 16 were recovered from Minter Creek
Hatchery and Hupp Springs Rearing Pond, both located on Minter Creek. Six CWTs
were recovered from South Puget Sound Net Pens, five from nearby Fox Island Net Pens,
and one from South Sound Net Pens. Twelve CWTs were recovered from outside South
Puget Sound, including eleven from Grovers Creek Hatchery and one from the Sund
Rock Net Pens, located in Central Puget Sound and Hood Canal, respectively. Coulter
Creek had 18 CWT recoveries and of these, nine were from Minter Creek facilities and
six were from Fox Island Net Pens. The other three were recovered from two Hood
Canal hatcheries, George Adams and Hoodsport. Rocky Creek had only four CWT
79
recoveries, two from both the Fox Island and South Sound Net Pens. The two CWT
recoveries from Sherwood Creek were both from Hood Canal hatcheries, George Adams
and Long Live the Kings in Lilliwaup, a regional salmon enhancement group. Deer
Creek had two CWT recoveries, one from South Sound Net Pens and the other from
George Adams Hatchery in Hood Canal. Meanwhile, Goldsborough Creek had one CWT
recovery from South Sound Net Pens. CWT recoveries from Skookum Creek and Moxlie
Creek indicate that three and nine recoveries from South Sound Net Pens were made at
each stream, respectively. The six CWTs recovered at Percival Creek were from sites
within the Deschutes Basin, including Capitol Lake Rearing Pond, Allison Springs
Rearing Pond, and Percival Cove Net Pens. One CWT was recovered at Woodland
Creek and this came from Fox Island Net Pens.
The CWT results from the RMIS Database indicated three general characteristics
of tagged, hatchery Chinook salmon that strayed to South Puget Sound streams. First,
most Chinook straying from South Puget Sound hatchery facilities, excluding net pen
releases, were recovered at streams in close proximity to their release site. This occurred
at Burley Creek, where nearly half of the CWTs recovered, 16 out of 34, came from
Chinook released at nearby Minter Creek. This also occurred at Percival Creek, where all
six of the CWTs recovered came from fish released at sites within the Deschutes River
Basin. Nine of the 18 CWTs recovered at Coulter Creek came from Minter Creek
facilities. While Coulter Creek is not in close proximity to Minter Creek, located one
inlet over in Carr Inlet, straying by Minter Creek and Hupp Springs Hatchery Chinook
salmon might be explained by the fact that the two hatchery facilities occasionally
transferred eggs in the 1980’s and 1990’s (RMIS Database, 2008).
80
Table 8. Coded wire tag recoveries at South Puget Sound streams, 1984-2006.
Inlet
Stream
Hatchery Release
Location
Carr
Burley Creek
Hupp Springs Rearing
13
Minter Creek
Fox Island Net Pens
South Sound Net Pens
Grovers Creek
3
5
1
11
Sund Rock Net Pens
1
Coulter Creek
Hupp Springs Rearing
7
Rocky Creek
Minter Creek
Fox Island Net Pens
George Adams
Hoodsport
Fox Island Net Pens
South Sound Net Pens
George Adams
Long Live the KingsLilliwaup
2
6
2
1
2
2
1
1
1990, 1993, 2000,
2005
2005
1993-1995, 2000
1993, 2004
2001
1999, 2001
1992
2004
1999
Goldsborough
South Sound Net Pens
George Adams
South Sound Net Pens
1
1
1
1993
2000
1999
Little
Skookum
Skookum
South Sound Net Pens
3
1989
Budd
Moxlie Creek
Percival
South Sound Net Pens
Capitol Lake Rearing
Allison Springs
Rearing
Percival Cove Net Pens
Fox Island Net Pens
9
3
1
1993, 1994, 2001
1989
1989
2
1
1999, 2000
1999
Case
Sherwood
Hammersley
Deer Creek
Woodland
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
CWTs
Recovered
Recovery
Year(s)
1991, 1993, 1994,
1996, 2005
1984, 2006
1992, 1993
1993
1989, 1993, 1996,
2001-2003, 2006
2001
Second, Chinook salmon released from Fox Island and South Sound Net Pens
were recovered at streams throughout the South Puget Sound region, indicating that they
strayed to sites both and close and far from their release site. CWTs released from the
two net pen sites were recovered at all but two of the streams, Sherwood Creek and
Percival Creek. Chinook salmon released from Fox Island Net Pens strayed to locations
81
both in close (Burley Creek) and far (Coulter Creek, Rocky Creek, and Woodland Creek)
proximity from their release site. The same was observed for Chinook released from
South Sound Net Pens, which were recovered at streams within close proximity (Deer
Creek, Goldsborough Creek, and Skookum Creek) as well as further proximity (Rocky
Creek and Burley Creek) from the net pens. Third, some Chinook salmon released from
hatcheries outside of South Puget Sound were recovered in South Puget Sound streams.
Most of these recoveries were from Chinook released at Hood Canal facilities, although
11 CWTs from Grovers Creek Hatchery, located in Central Puget Sound on the North
Kitsap Peninsula, were recovered at Burley Creek.
Although it is difficult to account for Chinook salmon from outside the South
Puget Sound region that strayed to streams within the region, CWT recoveries from these
streams suggested that most straying within the region occurred from either nearby
hatchery releases sites, or net pen release sites. Releases of yearling Chinook salmon
from both South Sound and Fox Island Net Pens have been discontinued, with the last
brood year release group of 1998 for the former and 1999 for the latter. With the
cessation of hatchery releases from these net pen sites, the number of Chinook straying
from net pen sites would be expected to diminish after 2003, the year that four-year olds
from the 1999 brood year returned. Thus, most straying of post 1999 brood year hatchery
Chinook released within South Puget Sound would be expected to come from fish
released at sites in close proximity to the streams where the fish strayed. Yet, if
proximity to a Chinook hatchery release site were primarily responsible for the number
and percentage of hatchery-marked carcasses observed at South Puget Sound streams,
then all streams within close proximity to a Chinook salmon hatchery release site should
have exhibited larger numbers and percentages of hatchery-marked carcasses than
streams that are located further away from a hatchery release site. While this rationale
might explain the numbers and percentages of hatchery-marked carcasses observed in
Burley Creek, Rocky Creek, Coulter Creek, and the four Hammersley Inlet streams, it
does not explain the low numbers and percentages of hatchery-marked carcasses
observed at Sherwood Creek.
Despite being in closer proximity to Coulter Creek than is Rocky Creek,
Sherwood Creek had a smaller sample size and much lower percentage of hatchery-
82
marked carcasses than the other two nearby streams located in Case Inlet. This might
imply that fish straying from Coulter Creek preferred Rocky Creek to Sherwood Creek.
Yet, the most recent releases of hatchery Chinook from Coulter Creek, brood years 19982000, were entirely untagged, so there exists no definitive way to prove this theory.
Another possible explanation for the unexpected trend observed at Sherwood Creek
might be unmarked hatchery Chinook salmon releases within Sherwood Creek itself.
The Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan for Minter Creek stated that 10,000 unfed
fry, at 1,000 FPP, were provided to regional enhancement groups for release into
Sherwood Creek in April or May of the following year (WDFW, 2002). Hatchery release
records from the RMIS Database indicated that at least one release of 10,000 unmarked,
unfed fry, at 1,000 FPP, occurred at Sherwood Creek in November of 2002, through a
RSI Cooperative project. RSI stands for remote site incubator and is a device that
permits on-site rearing of salmonid eggs in remote stream reaches.
A conversation with John McAllister, a volunteer with the Sherwood Creek
Cooperative, which later merged with the Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group (ASEG),
revealed that these organizations received eyed Chinook salmon eggs from WDFW’s
Minter Creek Hatchery for release into Sherwood Creek in 1990, and from 1995-2003.
The mission and objectives of the Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group include enhancing,
protecting, and recovering indigenous populations of North Bay salmon, including
Sherwood Creek, where they still occur (Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group, 2008).
Eyed eggs were placed inside corrugated plastic tubes, with crushed rock above and
below the eggs and metal screening covering the top of the tube, at locations throughout
Sherwood and Schumocher Creek to permit the release of Chinook salmon fry directly
into the watershed (John McAllister- ASEG, Personal Communication). A summary of
these releases of eyed Chinook salmon eggs from the Sherwood Creek Cooperative and
Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group, which ranged from 10,000-100,000 per release year,
are summarized in Table D-6. A search of WDFW Future Brood Documents for 20042007 indicated no transfers of unfed fry from Minter Creek to regional enhancement
groups for release into Sherwood Creek (WDFW, 2004- WDFW, 2006; WDFW, 2007a).
There exists a possibility that at least some of the small numbers of mostly
unmarked fish observed at Sherwood Creek could be attributed to the on-site release of
83
unfed fry. The number of Chinook salmon returning to Sherwood Creek as a result of
tube and RSI releases from 1995-2003 is likely minimal, given that survival of groups of
fish released in excess of 200 FPP are considered to have very low survival rates (Larry
Phillips- WDFW, personal communication). Yet, given the small numbers of Chinook
carcasses observed at Sherwood Creek from 2002-2006, even a small contribution from
these releases might explain the low percentage of unmarked hatchery carcasses
observed. A calculation of expected returns of eyed eggs released at Sherwood Creek
from 1995-2003 revealed that 1.4 and 1.3 unmarked fish would be expected to return as
three- and four-year olds following a release of 10,000 eyed eggs in years prior.
Expected contributions from five-year olds are so small from a release group of 10,000
(<0.1 fish) that it was ignored in this analysis. These figures, documented in Table D-7,
were calculated using Nisqually River fall Chinook salmon return rates per pounds of
hatchery fish released. This method of calculation is different than that used for
Nisqually River Chinook, which averages the projected return numbers that are
calculated using both fish returning per number released and fish returning per pounds of
fish released. The latter figure was chosen to calculate return rates in this instance,
because using the return rate per number released would project a much larger number of
returns than would be expected from a group of such a small physical size.
Assuming that these projected return rates for releases from 1995-2003 are
relatively accurate, expected contributions to returning Chinook salmon would be as
follows: two to three fish from 1999-2003, four fish in 2004 and 2005, and 15 fish in
2006 (Table D-7). While four fish returning per year, due to eyed egg releases, would not
explain the 13 unmarked carcasses observed at Sherwood Creek in 2004 and 2005, it
would definitely seem more plausible in years such as 2002 and 2003, when three and
four unmarked carcasses were recovered. The year 2006 appears to be an anomaly as
only two unmarked carcasses were recovered, although 15 fish were expected to return
due to the large, and last, release of 100,000 eyed eggs in Sherwood Creek. Still, it is
unlikely that the numbers of unmarked hatchery carcasses observed at Sherwood Creek
could be attributed solely to unmarked releases of fed fry, since AUC estimates at
Sherwood Creek from 2002-06 suggested larger numbers of live Chinook in the system,
ranging from 10-103, than observations of carcasses accounted for (Table C-3). This
84
indicated that greater numbers of live versus dead Chinook were observed in Sherwood
Creek from 2002-2006, which could be attributed to scavenging by predators, poaching
by humans, or carcasses being washed downstream or above the creek bank due to high
flows. Although all of the unmarked carcasses observed in Sherwood Creek cannot be
directly attributed to releases of unfed fry into the watershed from 1995-2003 by regional
enhancement groups, the expected contribution of Chinook returning due to these
releases could account for some of the unmarked carcasses observed during these years.
Unmarked carcasses observed at Sherwood Creek, and other South Puget Sound
tributaries, could be attributed to three groups of Chinook salmon: unmarked and
untagged hatchery strays, hatchery-origin recruits, or strays from naturally producing,
self-sustained populations within Puget Sound. There exits a distinct possibility that
unmarked carcasses recovered on South Puget Sound spawning grounds could be
attributed to one or all of these groups of unmarked Chinook salmon. With the advent of
mass marking of hatchery Chinook released from South Puget Sound hatchery facilities,
beginning with the 1998 brood year, an effort has been made to mark or tag 100% of all
fish released. Yet, hatchery release records from the RMIS Database indicate that a
100% mark or tagging rate has never been achieved at any South Puget Sound hatchery
facility. Rates of marked and tagged hatchery releases have ranged from 77.8- 98.0% at
all South Puget Sound hatchery facilities and from 95.8- 99.9% for WRIA 15 facilities
for brood years 1998-2003 (Table 6). Despite the high percentage of hatchery-released
fish marked and tagged, large numbers of unmarked releases have occurred during these
years, ranging from 318,000- 3,351,000 for all South Puget Sound hatchery facilities and
2,500- 133,000 for WRIA 15 facilities (Table 6).
Given the numbers of unmarked hatchery Chinook salmon released from WRIA
15 hatchery facilities during these brood years, and the small numbers of unmarked fish
observed in Hammersley, Case, and Carr Inlet streams, cumulatively ranging from 8 to
80 fish (Tables D-3 through D-5), the contribution of unmarked hatchery fish towards
unmarked carcasses observed at these streams could be significant. Yet, assuming that
both marked and unmarked hatchery-released fish strayed to these streams at the same
rate, it must also be assumed that unmarked hatchery Chinook strayed to these streams at
a rate equal to their proportion of overall hatchery-released Chinook salmon. Given the
85
recent high percentages of marked hatchery releases from WRIA 15 hatchery facilities,
an expectation would be to observe only one to four unmarked hatchery carcasses per 9699 hatchery-marked carcasses observed on the spawning grounds, depending on the
hatchery mark release rates from brood years three, four, and five years prior. The mark
recovery data revealed very few instances where this occurred, other than at Rocky Creek
and Burley Creek in 2006, so it was not possible to attribute all of the unmarked
carcasses observed to unmarked and untagged hatchery-released fish.
The other two options explaining how unmarked Chinook salmon could return to
South Puget Sound streams- attributing their presence to hatchery-origin recruits, or
strays from naturally producing, self-sustained populations within Puget Sound- are more
difficult to account for. There exists a possibility that hatchery strays that returned to the
spawning grounds in these streams could have successfully spawned, but it is difficult to
prove this with existing data. As for determining whether Chinook salmon from naturally
producing, self-sustained Puget Sound populations are returning to South Puget Sound
tributaries, CWT recoveries of Chinook from these populations could help answer this
question. Yet, only one naturally producing Chinook salmon population exists in South
Puget Sound, in the Nisqually River, and this population currently depends on hatchery
returns for the large numbers of Chinook returning to the system in recent years. A
search for CWT releases from Clear Creek and Kalama Creek Hatcheries in the Nisqually
River Basin was made using the RMIS Database. This search indicated that no CWTs
from Nisqually River hatchery Chinook salmon, out of 23,940 recoveries throughout
Puget Sound, were recovered in any South Puget Sound tributary streams located in
WRIAs 14 or 15. While this information only indicates that tagged releases of Nisqually
River hatchery Chinook salmon have not strayed to South Puget Sound tributaries located
in other inlets within the greater region, an inference could be made that the same would
hold true for other Chinook salmon which are released or spawned naturally in the
Nisqually River Basin.
86
Implications
Potential Role of South Puget Sound Tributaries Chinook Salmon in Recovery
Efforts of Nisqually River Chinook and the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU
An attempt to establish the extent of hatchery-origin fish among Chinook salmon
observed in South Puget Sound streams has been made. While mark recovery rates and
certain abundance trends observed in these streams suggest a large influence of hatchery
Chinook straying from South Puget Sound hatchery facilities and release sites, the current
data are insufficient to attribute all the fish observed at spawning grounds to these
hatchery releases. The unmarked carcasses observed at South Puget Sound tributaries
were likely the result of unmarked hatchery releases, hatchery-origin recruits, or strays
from independent populations. Given these collective results, and the relatively small
size of these streams in comparison to other Puget Sound Chinook systems, it is unlikely
that the Chinook salmon observed in South Puget Sound tributaries could realistically
contribute to the recovery of Chinook salmon in South Puget Sound, and to further
extent, the recovery of the entire Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU.
It is not possible to determine whether the presence of small numbers of
unmarked and untagged Chinook salmon observed in South Puget Sound tributary
streams could be attributed to fish that strayed from larger independent populations such
as the Nisqually River. Even if it were determined that these small aggregations of
unmarked and untagged fish strayed from the Nisqually River, two potential problems
exist which might suggest that Chinook salmon in small tributary streams could not likely
aid in the recovery of the Nisqually River Chinook salmon population. The first problem
is the current genetic state of the Nisqually River Chinook salmon stock. As previously
stated, genetic analysis suggests that the historic Nisqually fall Chinook salmon
population is likely now extant, as recent evidence revealed that this stock was
genetically similar to Green River hatchery-origin broodstock. Presuming that the
historically present Nisqually Chinook salmon stock, from which these small
aggregations of Chinook salmon theoretically strayed, is likely extant due to hatchery
releases of out-of-basin Chinook salmon stocks, an expectation should exist that these
fish, which may have historically strayed from the Nisqually River, would also be extant.
87
It appears that the only way that these small numbers of Chinook, which supposedly
strayed from the Nisqually River, could have served this historic role is if they managed
to avoid 50 plus years of hatchery supplementation within a basin with extensive records
of Chinook hatchery releases. The fact that no tagged Chinook salmon released from
Nisqually River hatcheries have been recovered at any of the South Puget Sound tributary
streams, which are not currently hatchery release sites, suggests that this theory is not
currently plausible.
Another reason to expect that small numbers of Chinook salmon that return to
South Puget Sound tributaries could not realistically contribute to recovery efforts for the
Nisqually River Chinook salmon independent population can be explained by population
viability. Theories on population viability suggest that salmon populations require
numbers of returning salmon above immediate replacement levels in order to prevent
extinction and ensure genetic integrity. NOAA fisheries generally employs a 50 fish
quasi-extinction threshold and 500 fish minimum population viability level to ensure that
normal environmental variation (i.e. floods, volcanic eruptions, and poor ocean
conditions) does not result in critically low return numbers for independent salmon
populations (McElhany, et al., 2003). Quasi-extinction is defined as abundance at a low
level which does not guarantee extinction, but cannot ensure recovery of the population
(Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, 2004). This “50/500 rule” is a general guideline
for minimum effective population size, identified in Thompson (1991), which relies on
studies by Soule (1980) and Franklin (1980), respectively. Since these minimum
numbers serve merely as rules of thumb that are used in relation to independent salmon
populations, or ESUs, their use to interpret minimum population viability of a potential
sub-population of a larger independent population is problematic. Yet, the numbers of
unmarked carcasses observed at South Puget Sound streams from 2002-2006 were quite
small, collectively ranging from 8 to 80 (Tables D-3 through D-5). These numbers
indicate that even if all of these unmarked carcasses observed could be attributed to
naturally produced Chinook that strayed from larger independent Puget Sound
populations, these numbers are often less than the 50 fish required to prevent abundance
from falling below levels from which recovery cannot be assured, raising doubt over the
recovery role that these small aggregations of Chinook salmon could potentially serve.
88
The role that small aggregations of Chinook salmon that appear in South Puget
Sound streams might provide towards the recovery of Nisqually River Chinook salmon
can also be questioned due to current management practices within the Nisqually River
itself. The Nisqually River Chinook stock is currently managed to provide for tribal
treaty and non-treaty sport and commercial harvest opportunities, with a long-term goal
of establishing a locally adapted Chinook salmon population. Yet, an analysis of recent
hatchery releases and harvest rates by the Nisqually Indian Tribe suggests that only the
former goal is currently being met. Recent in-river harvest rates by the Nisqually Indian
Tribe are indicative of harvest rates normally attributed to hatchery-managed runs, not
stocks managed for natural production (WDFW, 2000). Current hatchery and harvest
practices in the Nisqually River Basin suggest that the goal of establishing a locally
adapted Chinook salmon population will not be met in the near future. One way to
accomplish this goal would be to continue with in-basin hatchery releases, but cut harvest
rates so that larger numbers of Chinook salmon could naturally spawn. Once numbers of
naturally spawning fish reached a level where hatchery releases could be discontinued,
harvest of Chinook salmon could proceed. Yet complications in establishing a locally
adapted Chinook population in the Nisqually River Basin exist. The Nisqually Indian
Tribe currently has an annual in-river harvest management goal of 10,000- 15,000
Chinook salmon (WDFW, 2000). This a legally protected tribal treaty obligation granted
to the tribe through the Boldt decision of 1974 [U.S. vs. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312
(W.D. Wash.)]. The level of Chinook production to meet this tribal harvest goal, as well
as provide for recreational harvest opportunities in the South Puget Sound region, cannot
currently be met without artificial production of Chinook salmon.
It is also unlikely that the Nisqually River Basin could produce enough Chinook
salmon to provide these levels of harvest, even if Chinook were returning at historic
levels. The EDT analysis previously mentioned suggests that the Nisqually River could
potentially support 19,000 Chinook salmon if the estuarine and riparian habitat within the
basin were restored to historic levels (Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team, 2001). Even
assuming that the conditions of the Nisqually River Basin could be restored to historic
conditions, it is unlikely that this number of returning Chinook salmon (19,000) would
support current levels of Chinook salmon in-river and sport harvest, which ranged from
89
11,000- 21,000 (Table A-11) and 1,200- 2,700 (WDFW, 2007d) for 2003-2006,
respectively. Thus, it appears that current harvest practices for fish returning to the
Nisqually River Basin and the goal of establishing a locally adapted Chinook salmon
population are mutually exclusive. Given the current management system in place for the
Nisqually River, it does not appear that small aggregations of Chinook salmon observed
at South Puget Sound streams, which may or may not have historically strayed from the
Nisqually River Basin, could aid in the recovery of the Nisqually River Chinook salmon
independent population.
Designation of South Puget Sound Tributaries as Critical Habitat for Nisqually
River Chinook Salmon: Context, Benefits, and Consequences
Although critical habitat designation of South Puget Sound tributary streams for
the sake of recovering the Nisqually River Chinook salmon independent population has
not been proposed as legislation, the issue remains unresolved, as evidenced by the two
theories of origin outlined in the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team document. In
addition to uncertainty among policy makers, there also appears to be a belief held by
certain citizens, including some regional salmon enhancement groups, that Chinook
utilized these streams historically. This is likely evidenced by the recovery efforts of the
Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group in the Sherwood Creek watershed. This organization,
which aims to recover indigenous salmon populations in North Bay streams where they
still occur, might have requested and planted eyed Chinook salmon eggs, supplied from
WDFW, in Sherwood Creek from 1995-2003 in the belief that these efforts could restore
a historically present Chinook salmon population within this watershed. Thus, a lack of
historical evidence as to the presence or absence of Chinook salmon in these small
streams, combined with political pressure from certain private citizens, regional salmon
enhancement groups, and policy makers who believe that these fish may have been
present in these streams historically, suggests that designation of South Puget Sound
tributary streams as critical habitat for the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon
ESU could remain a pertinent issue for years to come.
Considering the speculation over whether or not South Puget Sound tributaries
Chinook salmon could aid in the recovery of the Nisqually River Chinook independent
90
population, and to some extent the entire Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU, it is
necessary to discuss how critical habitat designation of these small streams would affect
both the people and biota that utilize these ecosystems. There are certainly some benefits
that would come with listing these streams as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook
salmon. Federal funds would be provided which could be used to either restore degraded
riparian areas or protect existing, in-tact riparian areas from further development. This
could provide benefits not only to Chinook salmon that return to these streams, but also
for other salmon stocks and animal species that currently reside in or use these habitats.
Critical habitat designation could also prove beneficial to citizens and government
officials concerned with the pressures that residential or commercial development pose to
salmon and their ecosystems. Yet, protections provided to ecosystems through critical
habitat designation only apply to a specific habitat during the interval that the listed
species is recovering, so these protections would likely disappear if the listed species
successfully recovered.
Despite the benefits of critical habitat designation for organisms that utilize South
Puget Sound tributary streams, unintended consequences could result from designating
these streams as critical habitat for the recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon. One
potential drawback to designating these small streams as critical habitat is that funds
granted to these sites might subsequently take money away from existing, and proven,
Chinook salmon recovery efforts in the greater Puget Sound region. Recovery efforts for
Chinook salmon populations in systems where Chinook occurred both historically and
presently could be negatively affected by recovery efforts in streams where historical
presence of Chinook salmon is currently unknown. A second concern with listing South
Puget Sound streams as critical habitat for the recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon
is that these listings would make the co-managers, including WDFW and the Squaxin
Island Indian Tribe, legally responsible for recovering Chinook salmon in these streams.
This could prove to be a large burden, since the co-managers would be legally mandated
to recover Chinook salmon in streams that may not have historically provided habitat
suitable to this species.
Another concern with listing these small streams as critical habitat for the sake of
recovering the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU is the potential precedent it could
91
establish in regards to listing hatchery-origin fish under the ESA. NOAA currently
defines fish returning to spawning grounds as either hatchery-origin or natural-origin
fish; a natural-origin fish is defined as the progeny of naturally spawning fish
(Ruckelshaus, et al., 2006). This means that hatchery-origin recruits, which are the
progeny of hatchery-origin fish that successfully spawn in natural habitats, are considered
to be natural-origin fish, whether or not the place where they were spawned historically
had salmon populations. There presently exists no evidence suggesting that Chinook
salmon historically returned to these small streams. Listing these streams as critical
habitat for the recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon, without sufficient historic or
current evidence suggesting that these fish represent a sub-population of a larger
independent population, could potentially allow the inclusion of South Puget Sound
Chinook hatchery strays under the ESA. This could set a bad precedent of permitting the
listing of salmon populations or sub-populations that may or may not have historically
existed. Although the Endangered Species Act does permit the listing and inclusion of
independent salmon populations in basins where that species was not historically present
(USFWS, 1973), this clause is meant to be used only if it is determined that the existing
habitat available to the species is so limited, or degraded, that recovery of the species
confined to those areas could potentially contribute to the permanent extinction of that
species. Given the current status of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU, and the doubt
surrounding whether or not Chinook salmon historically appeared in South Puget Sound
tributaries, it would appear to be both a violation and misuse of the ESA, in its current
state, to designate these streams as critical habitat for the sake of recovering the Puget
Sound Chinook salmon ESU.
92
Conclusion
An attempt has been made to establish the extent of hatchery-origin fish among
Chinook salmon observed in South Puget Sound streams. While mark recovery rates,
and certain abundance trends, suggest that large numbers and percentages of Chinook
salmon observed in these streams can be attributed to Chinook released from South Puget
Sound hatchery facilities and release sites, it is not possible to attribute all the fish
observed at spawning grounds to hatchery releases. The small numbers of unmarked
carcasses observed at South Puget Sound streams might be attributed to unmarked
hatchery fish, hatchery-origin recruits, or fish that stray from independent Puget Sound
populations. Based on the data presently available, it is difficult to account for the origin
of the unmarked fish observed in these streams. Many attributes that would prove helpful
in identifying the origin of unmarked Chinook observed in these streams, including
historic evidence indicating the abundance or presence of Chinook, current and historic
genetic information, and consistent spawning ground survey data, are lacking.
Meanwhile, hatchery records from South Puget Sound production facilities indicate that
millions to tens of millions of unmarked hatchery Chinook salmon have been released
throughout the region for at least 50 years, with mass marking of hatchery-released fish
becoming a regionwide practice as recently as 1999.
Mark recovery data from WFDW spawning ground surveys conducted between
2002 and 2006 revealed a rather large (majority) presence of hatchery markings on
Chinook salmon carcasses. Relative presence and abundance estimates generated from
spawning ground surveys indicated that the numbers of fish returning to these streams
was rather modest in comparison to both the large numbers of hatchery-released Chinook
salmon, and run reconstruction figures for South Puget Sound Chinook salmon. The
abundance of Chinook tended to be greater in streams with previous or current hatchery
releases of Chinook salmon within the same inlet (Case and Carr Inlets) versus streams
flowing into inlets that did not have records indicating extensive hatchery releases
(Hammersley Inlet). Mass marking or tagging of 100% of all future hatchery releases,
combined with consistent or increased spawning ground surveys by WDFW at the small
streams where these fish return, could prove useful in providing information on the
93
numbers and percentages of hatchery-origin Chinook salmon that return to South Puget
Sound tributary streams. Presence and abundance trends could assist policy makers in
making tough decisions about when and where to survey to effectively estimate Chinook
salmon abundance in South Puget Sound streams, given limited resources of time and
money. In the interim, given the large numbers and percentages of hatchery-marked and
tagged Chinook salmon observed in South Puget Sound streams, and the lack of
definitive evidence to discern either the origin of the unmarked carcasses or the historic
presence of Chinook salmon in these streams, it would be imprudent to suggest listing
these streams as critical habitat to aid in the recovery of the Puget Sound Chinook salmon
ESU.
94
Literature Cited
Ahmed, A., and C. Hempleman. 2006. Tributaries to Totten, Eld, and Little Skookum
Inlets - Fecal coliform bacteria and temperature total maximum daily load. Water
Quality Improvement Report, Publication No. 06-03-007. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program, Olympia.
Ahmed, A., and L. Sullivan. 2005. Total maximum daily load analysis for temperature in
tributaries to Oakland Bay-Hammersley Inlet: Mill Creek, Cranberry Creek, and
Johns Creek. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Publication No. 05-03-107.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program,
Olympia.
Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group. 2008. Allyn Community Association website. Online
at http://www.allynaca.com [accessed 13 March 2008].
Ames, J., and D.E. Phinney. 1977. 1977 Puget Sound summer-fall Chinook methodology:
escapement goals, run size forecasts, and in-season run size updates. Technical
Report No. 29. Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Olympia.
Baranski, Chuck. 2007. District Fish Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW). Personal communication.
Beamer, E., Henderson, R., McBride, A., and K.W. Wolf. 2003. The importance of nonnatal pocket estuaries in Skagit Bay to wild Chinook salmon: an emerging priority
for restoration. Skagit System Cooperative Research Department, LaConnor, WA.
Cousens, N.B.F., G.A. Thomas, C.G. Swann, and M.C. Healey. 1982. A review of
salmon escapement estimation techniques. Canadian Technical Report of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 1108. Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
Nanaimo, BC. 122 p.
Evans, Bill. 2007. Fish Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). Personal communication.
Franklin, I. R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. In: M.E. Soulé and B.A.
Wilcox (editors). Conservation biology, an evolutionary-ecological perspective.
Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. p 135-49.
Fresh, K.L., Rabin, D., Simenstad, C., Salo, E.O., Garrison, K., and L. Matheson. 1979.
Fish ecology studies in the Nisqually Reach area of Southern Puget Sound,
Washington. Final Report, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-7904.
University of Washington, Seattle.
Fresh, K.L. 2006. Juvenile Pacific salmon in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore
Partnership Report No. 2006-06. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle.
95
Fryer, J.L. and K.S. Pilcher. 1974. Effects of temperature on diseases of salmonid fishes.
Ecological Research Series, EPA-660/3-73-202. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development.
Fulton, L.A. 1968. Spawning areas and abundance of Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus
tschawytscha, in the Columbia River Basin- past and present. Special Scientific
Report- Fisheries, No. 57126. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Good, T.P., R.S. Waples, and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed
ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce,
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66. 598 p.
Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) – Lars Mobrand (chair), John Barr, Lee
Blankenship, Don Campton, Trevor Evelyn, Tom Flagg, Conrad Mahnken,
Robert Piper, Paul Seidel, Lisa Seeb and Bill Smoker. April 2004. Hatchery
Reform: Principles and Recommendations of the HSRG. Long Live the Kings,
1305 Fourth Avenue, Suite 810, Seattle, WA 98101 (available from
www.hatcheryreform.org).
Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In: C.
Groot and L. Margolis (editors). Pacific salmon life histories. University of
British Columbia Press, Vancouver. p 311-93.
Hill, R.A. 1997. Optimizing aerial count frequency for the area-under-the-curve method
of estimating escapement. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
17(2): 461-66.
Kuttel, M. (Jr). 2002. Salmonid habitat limiting factors, Water Resource Inventory Area
14, Kennedy-Goldsborough Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission,
Olympia.
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2004. Lower Columbia salmon recovery and Fish
& Wildlife sub-basin plan.
Marshall, A., C. Smith, R. Brix, W. Dammers, J. Hymer and L. LaVoy. 1995. Genetic
diversity units and major ancestral lineages for Chinook salmon in
Washington. In: C.B. Busack and J.B. Shaklee (editors). Genetic diversity units
and major ancestral lineages of salmonid fishes in Washington. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Fish Management Program, Resource
Assessment Division, Olympia. p D1-62.
Marshall, A.R. 1999. Genetic diversity analysis of Bear Creek/Cottage Lake Creek
naturally spawning fall-run Chinook salmon. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW), Olympia.
96
Marshall, A.R. 2000. Genetic diversity analysis of Cottage Lake Creek/Bear Creek and
Issaquah Creek naturally spawning fall-run Chinook salmon. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Olympia.
Materna, E. 2001. Issue paper 4: temperature interaction. Prepared as part of EPA Region
10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. EPA-910D-01-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, Seattle.
McAllister, John. 2008. Volunteer, Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group. Personal
communication.
McElhany, P., M.H. Ruckleshaus, M.J. Ford, T.C. Wainwright, and E.P. Bjorkstedt.
2000. Viable salmonid populations and the recovery of evolutionary significant
units. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSNWFSC-42. 156 p.
McEhlany, P., and 11 coauthors. 2003. Interim report on viability criteria for Willamette
and Lower Columbia Basin Pacific salmonids. Willamette/Lower Columbia
Technical Recovery Team Interim Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, Portland.
McIsaac, D.O., and T.P. Quinn. 1988. Evidence for a hereditary component in homing
behavior of Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
45(12):2201-05.
McIsaac, D.O. 1990. Factors affecting the abundance of 1977-1979 brood wild fall
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Lewis River, Washington.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Miller, R.J. and E.L. Brannon. 1982. The origin and development of life-history patterns
in Pacific Salmon. In: E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo (editors). Proceedings of the
salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium. University of Washington
Press, Seattle. p 296-309.
Milner, A.M., E.E. Knudsen, C. Soiseth, A.L. Robertson, D. Schell, I.T. Phillips, and K.
Magnusson. 2000. Colonization and development of stream communities across a
200-year gradient in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, U.S.A. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(11):2319-35.
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S.
Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status
review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-35,
443 p.
97
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Endangered and threatened species;
threatened status for three chinook salmon evolutionary significant units (ESUs)
in Washington and Oregon, and endangered status for one chinook salmon ESU
in Washington. Federal Register 64:14308-28.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003. Hatchery broodstock summaries and
assessments for chum, coho and chinook salmon and steelhead stocks within
evolutionarily significant units listed under the Endangered Species Act. Salmon
and Steelhead Hatchery Assessment Group (SSHAG). National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, Northwest and Southwest
Fisheries Science Centers.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005a. Endangered and threatened species:
final listing determinations for 16 ESUs of west coast salmon, and final 4(d)
protective regulations for threatened salmonid ESUs. Federal Register 70:37160204.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005b. Endangered and threatened species:
designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionary significant units of west coast
salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Federal Register
70:52630-858.
Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the
crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.
Fisheries 16(2):4-21.
Neilson, J.D., and G.H. Geen. 1981. Enumeration of spawning salmon from spawner
residence time and aerial counts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
110(4):554-56.
Nisqually Chinook Recovery Team. 2001. Nisqually Chinook Recovery Plan.
Nisqually Indian Tribe. 2007a. 2006 preliminary Nisqually River hatchery fall Chinook
salmon forecast. Nisqually Indian Tribe. Unpublished document.
Nisqually Indian Tribe. 2007b. Nisqually River Chinook salmon escapement 1986-2006.
Nisqually Indian Tribe. Unpublished document.
Parken, C.K., R.E. Bailey, and J.R. Irvine. 2003. Incorporating uncertainty into areaunder-the-curve and peak count salmon escapement estimation. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 23(1): 78-90.
Perrin, C.J., and J.R. Irvine. 1990. A review of survey life estimates as they apply to the
area-under-the-curve method for estimating the spawning escapement of Pacific
salmon. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, No. 1733.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nanaimo, BC. 29 p.
98
Phillips, Larry. 2007. Fish Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). Personal communication.
Quinn, T.P. and K. Fresh. 1984. Homing and straying in Chinook salmon from Cowlitz
River Hatchery, Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
41(7):1078-82.
Quinn, T.P. 1993. A review of homing and straying of wild and hatchery-produced
salmon. Fisheries Research 18(1-2):29-44.
Quinn, T. P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon & trout. University of
Washington Press, Seattle. 378 p.
Regional Mark Information System Database [online database]. Updated continuously
since 1977. Portland (OR): Regional Mark Processing Center, Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Online at http://www.rmpc.org.
Ricker, W.E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid
populations. In: R.C. Simon and P.A. Larkin (editors). The stock concept in
Pacific salmon. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. p 27-160.
Ruckelshaus, M.H., K.P. Currens, W.H. Graeber, R.R. Fuerstenberg, K. Rawson, N.J.
Sands, and J.B. Scott. 2006. Independent populations of Chinook salmon in Puget
Sound. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSNWFSC-78, 125 p.
Schuett-Hames, D., H. Flores, and I. Child. 1996. An assessment of salmonid habitat and
water quality for streams in the Eld, Totten-Little Skookum and Hammersley
Inlet-Oakland Bay Watersheds in Southern Puget Sound, Washington, 1993-1994.
Squaxin Island Tribe.
Shared Strategy Development Committee. 2007. Puget Sound salmon recovery plan.
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, Seattle.
Simenstad, C.A., Fresh, K.L., and E.O. Salo. 1985. The role of Puget Sound and
Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an
unappreciated function. In V.S. Kennedy (editor). Estuarine comparisons.
Academic Press, New York. p 343-63.
Smith, C.J., and P. Castle. 1994. Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) escapement estimates and methods – 1991. Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Olympia.
Smoker, W.A., H.M. Jensen, D.R. Johnson, and R. Robison. 1952. The Skokomish
Indian fishery. Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Olympia.
99
Soulé, M.E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary
potential. In: M.E. Soulé and B.A. Wilcox (editors). Conservation Biology.
Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA. p 151-70.
Spawning Ground Survey Database [disk]. 2007 (last update). Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Olympia.
Thompson, G.G. 1991. Determining minimum viable populations under the Endangered
Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-198. 78 p.
United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. Endangered Species Act. United
States Department of the Interior.
Waples, R.S. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhymchus spp., and the definition of “species”
under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review 53(3): 11-21.
Warren, R. 2008. Hatchery Divisions Manager, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW). Personal communication.
Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). 1992. A manual for Puget Sound Chinook
spawning ground surveys. Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Olympia.
Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western
Washington Treaty Indian Tribes (WDF, WDW, and WWTIT). 1993. 1992
Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SaSSI). WDFW,
Olympia. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sassi/sassi.htm [accessed 10 January
2008].
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2000. Hatchery and genetic
management plan (HGMP)- Kalama Creek Hatchery, Clear Creek Hatchery.
WDFW, Olympia. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hat/hgmp [accessed 17 January
2008].
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2002. Hatchery and genetic
management plan (HGMP)- Chambers Creek Hatchery, Garrison Springs
Hatchery, Tumwater Falls Hatchery, Minter Creek Hatchery. WDFW, Olympia.
Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hat/hgmp [accessed 17 January 2008].
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2004. 2004 future brood
document. WDFW, Olympia. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hat/hgmp [accessed
12 March 2008].
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2005. 2005 future brood
document. WDFW, Olympia. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hat/hgmp [accessed
12 March 2008].
100
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2006. 2006 future brood
document. WDFW, Olympia. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hat/hgmp [accessed
12 March 2008].
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2007a. 2007 future brood
document. WDFW, Olympia. Online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hat/hgmp [accessed
12 March 2008].
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2007b (last update). Area-underthe-curve for stream survey data [Computer software]. Version 2.01. WDFW,
Olympia.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2007c. Run reconstruction
estimates for Chinook salmon in Washington State, 1987-2006. WDFW,
Olympia. Unpublished document.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2007d. Freshwater salmon catch
estimates from catch record card information, 2003-2006. WDFW, Olympia.
Unpublished document.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Annual hatchery
escapement reports- 1980-1981 through 1999-2000. WDFW, Olympia. Online at
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hat/escape/escape.htm [accessed 10 March 2008].
Whiley, A.J., and G. Walter. 2000. The review and analysis of water quality for the
Nisqually River and the major lakes of the Nisqually Basin. Technical Report No.
6. Nisqually Indian Tribe, Natural Resources Water Quality Program, Olympia.
Williams, J.R., H.E. Pearson, and J.D. Wilson. 1985a. Streamflow statistics and drainagebasin characteristics for the Puget Sound Region, Washington: volume 1,
Western and Southern Puget Sound. U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma.
Williams, J.R., H.E. Pearson, and J.D. Wilson. 1985b. Streamflow statistics and drainagebasin characteristics for the Puget Sound Region, Washington: volume 2, Eastern
Puget Sound from Seattle to the Canadian Border. U.S. Geological Survey,
Tacoma.
Williams, J.R., and S.A. Riis. 1989. Miscellaneous streamflow measurements in the State
of Washington, January 1961 to September 1985. U.S. Geological Survey,
Tacoma.
Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams
and salmon utilization: volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department
of Fisheries (WDF), Seattle.
101
Table A-1. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Nisqually Basin (WRIA 11), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Nisqually R
Clear Cr
Kalama Cr
McAllister Cr
Mashel R
Ohop Cr
Schorno Cr Schorno Pond WRIA Total
500
150,000
100,000
76,782
175,230
149,800
205,350
648,591
499,380
726,160
933,006
150,142
150,000
841,888
2,076,304
1,317,760
400,000
50,000
146,000
1,000,000
439,000
601,381
491,011
1,388,500
300,000
815,810
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
102
Table A-1. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Nisqually Basin (WRIA 11), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Nisqually R
1,407,789
1,002,718
Totals
WRIA Total
15,689,005
1,251,490
282,035
193,900
682,300
Clear Cr
McAllister Cr
940,000
1,094,040
536,000
985,000
2,222,400
2,269,599
3,293,000
2,704,000
3,135,000
3,187,514
2,708,308
3,463,953
2,864,133
3,539,184
2,942,414
Kalama Cr
308,900
762,893
730,965
753,275
1,920,576
1,688,664
1,035,072
1,045,000
900,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
648,000
527,000
802,000
913,500
589,900
1,102,000
553,000
1,047,042
1,089,381
567,599
633,513
649,891
627,000
501,460
76,000
1,320,984
1,373,600
1,321,000
1,602,565
1,488,750
1,226,500
1,501,912
1,371,752
3,400
6,000
36,113,745
22,412,441
28,828,096
2,727,547
738,898
229,200
Mashel R
Ohop Cr
Schorno Cr Schorno Pond WRIA Total
193,008
67,555
216,435
193,900
1,634,800
1,837,000
2,087,600
894,000
1,868,200
193,900
3,872,633
3,246,100
1,391,400
1,286,300
1,232,200
1,648,300
1,205,800
1,257,200
1,065,300
1,339,800
371,800
778,235
476,100
12,000
1200000
850000
2,050,000
9,515,500
118,075,232
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
103
Table A-2. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Tacoma Basin (WRIA 12), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
American Lk (pier)
Chambers Cr
Lake Sequalitchew
496,200
466,550
225,000
45,000
1,000
Steilacoom Lk
Steilacoom Lk (pier)
Titlow Lagoon
WRIA Total
83,975
119,280
313,500
90,720
80,520
82,560
37,102
162,300
2,000
717,922
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
104
Table A-2. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Tacoma Basin (WRIA 12), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
American Lk (pier)
Totals
WRIA Total
691,550
Chambers Cr
798,471
866,378
1,336,900
834,700
775,900
1,032,240
888,600
837,895
853,410
994,132
967,800
839,060
864,850
735,720
922,300
885,631
954,275
1,099,511
1,423,886
861,167
689,844
1,087,330
1,076,794
1,200,297
1,198,995
Lake Sequalitchew
24,954,308
533,302
Steilacoom Lk
72,930
Steilacoom Lk (pier)
Titlow Lagoon
WRIA Total
102,000
9,300
50,000
100,250
88,350
285,800
139,900
298,240
314,000
321,000
1,172,603
76,500
254,328
223,495
433,268
2,319,373
1,622,591
770,555
30,891,679
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
105
Table A-3. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Deschutes Basin (WRIA 13), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Capitol Lake
Deschutes River
McLane Cr
Percival Cr
Silver Spring Cr
Woodland Cr
WRIA Total
281,820
1,854,033
2,075,801
2,842,008
5,560,652
1,529,000
1,501,550
1,544,794
2,296,080
3,012,795
3,616,412
5,678,072
5,544,446
5,415,940
10,555,127
7,868,185
13,601,564
11,398,816
7,741,005
635,646
2,656,500
5,371,155
1,181,283
8,002,757
1,016,743
762,427
1,520,070
1,035,050
500,800
498,870
500,500
1,542,474
703,000
1,074,920
599,866
232,868
41,880
146,633
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
106
Table A-3. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Deschutes Basin (WRIA 13), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Capitol Lake
5,629,449
9,781,826
9,022,900
7,075,400
7,036,100
7,595,900
8,108,668
8,165,340
5,710,375
4,963,000
6,563,850
5,414,400
6,000,070
3,770,600
6,205,250
4,028,248
2,450,188
2,980,110
3,272,945
2,016,177
4,041,800
4,308,000
691,750
1,303,600
Deschutes River
Totals
WRIA Total
237,619,567
33,315,081
1,625,900
McLane Cr
75,582
71,599
128,100
140,100
136,000
121,000
34,000
1,918,200
1,149,100
795,500
1,482,100
Percival Cr
Silver Spring Cr
1,000,000
Woodland Cr
WRIA Total
746,600
82,000
969,400
1,002,000
470,000
1,006,125
691,830
3,924,127
10,044
84,150
3,438,524
2,983,136
3,732,855
12,000
740,000
54,000
188,890
2,191,162
1,982,890
1,035,050
746,600
276,890,350
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
107
Table A-4. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Shelton Basin (WRIA 14), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Goldsborough Cr Sherwood Cr Schumocher Cr
Johns Cr
Kennedy Cr
Elson Cr
Cranberry Cr
South Sound
Net Pens
WRIA Total
630,000
316,260
251,600
505,050
286,000
254,375
508,335
467,200
203,770
249,796
263,700
466,480
353,933
552,218
44,500
231,919
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
108
Table A-4. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Shelton Basin (WRIA 14), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Totals
WRIA Total
Goldsborough Cr Sherwood Cr Schumocher Cr
Johns Cr
Kennedy Cr
44,800
1,198,500
Elson Cr
222,641
559,902
293,208
221,227
299,300
276,640
334,478
Cranberry Cr
2,439,315
754,846
South Sound
Net Pens
WRIA Total
63,080
776,500
814,860
838,800
821,850
494,112
591,400
170,850
81,000
191,700
185,860
114,700
149,950
160,500
824,400
11,000
10,000
2,918,180
1,133,640
641,000
552,218
1,088,100
5,809,095
15,336,394
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
109
Table A-5. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Kitsap Basin (WRIA 15), and WRIA’s 11-15, 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Minter Cr
4,659
123,568
380,767
130,805
1,972,083
1,380,327
2,495,457
1,360,348
2,013,588
2,075,650
2,728,261
1,863,181
2,571,060
2,287,775
2,178,552
2,751,600
2,840,424
3,043,394
850,511
840,751
1,646,260
1,292,424
2,293,341
1,869,798
1,689,453
2,808,558
1,705,982
4,902,078
Coulter Cr
Burley Cr
Fox Island
Net Pens
Huge Cr
Hupp Springs
Rearing
2,805
175,000
188,020
253,640
224,910
1,424,208
92,555
73,575
210,733
188,346
258,042
390,184
100,000
91,728
WRIA Total
Yearly totals
(All WRIA's)
4,659
405,388
383,572
1,148,048
3,689,510
5,508,510
5,442,605
6,146,707
8,922,790
5,456,256
5,789,736
5,432,376
5,334,340
5,504,340
5,794,964
10,122,288
8,384,870
8,459,334
13,177,706
11,139,173
16,711,584
13,557,790
10,434,003
3,580,019
5,698,686
10,839,528
4,832,282
18,156,239
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
110
Table A-5. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Kitsap Basin (WRIA 15), and WRIA’s 11-15, 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Minter Cr
3,085,850
1,126,846
1,949,200
1,700,800
1,763,000
2,010,000
1,820,400
1,471,000
1,910,700
2,705,700
2,006,800
2,105,000
Totals
WRIA Total
97,626,272
2,073,000
2,042,800
2,135,600
2,084,100
2,091,748
1,975,600
2,113,950
1,892,500
1,876,675
1,714,725
1,869,623
Coulter Cr
2,068,718
1,249,532
685,343
761,100
1,071,500
1,009,000
1,173,000
1,186,200
1,140,000
1,273,000
1,057,000
900,000
1,082,500
1,117,500
1,098,300
1,286,000
1,230,000
1,337,000
1,294,000
989,270
833,700
Burley Cr
299,000
777,200
50,000
26,111,246 1,126,200
Fox Island
Net Pens
176,551
181,006
181,000
157,500
187,100
162,600
219,500
193,500
205,700
198,899
204,400
303,082
270,553
226,624
237,170
212,100
252,600
243,425
251,210
228,750
5,506,705
Huge Cr
Hupp Springs
Rearing
85,464
WRIA Total
236,000
224,300
299,600
227,000
276,000
603,000
Yearly totals
(All WRIA's)
13,932,345
19,520,133
16,064,416
16,972,502
18,761,684
17,830,269
18,767,323
16,948,695
15,465,535
19,819,731
16,406,262
15,200,582
11,232,163
7,803,844
16,500,604
13,421,738
14,339,363
13,825,786
15,122,301
15,752,814
12,690,652
14,447,069
10,607,767
11,367,942
10,245,347
937,092
131,910,515
573,104,170
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
111
Table A-6. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Nisqually Basin, 1997-2003.
Clear Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
207,617
0
11,389
2,484,994
1998
202,103
192,165
1,088,683
1,652,049
1999
199,030
194,985
2,764,867
28,632
2000
169,143
176,207
2,068,077
294,881
2001
214,490
215,639
2,943,702
90,122
2002
180,294
192,554
2,280,038
211,247
2003
207,975
204,889
3,007,493
118,827
2004
208,724
211,107
2,354,207
168,376
Total
released
2,704,000
3,135,000
3,187,514
2,708,308
3,463,953
2,864,133
3,539,184
2,942,414
CWT &
AD Clipped
7.68%
6.45%
6.24%
6.25%
6.19%
6.29%
5.88%
7.09%
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.42%
91.90%
6.13%
34.73%
52.70%
6.12%
86.74%
0.90%
6.51%
76.36%
10.89%
6.23%
84.98%
2.60%
6.72%
79.61%
7.38%
5.79%
84.98%
3.36%
7.17%
80.01%
5.72%
Kalama Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
0
0
0
553,000
1998
94,723
0
7,239
945,080
1999
88,949
0
1,000,432
0
2000
83,178
3,655
471,237
9,529
2001
82,860
6,951
532,428
11,274
2002
95,101
1,758
536,298
16,734
2003
96,131
342
528,737
1,790
2004
56,177
2,859
423,498
18,926
Total
released
553,000
1,047,042
1,089,381
567,599
633,513
649,891
627,000
501,460
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
9.05%
8.17%
14.65%
13.08%
14.63%
15.33%
11.20%
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.69%
90.26%
0.00%
91.83%
0.00%
0.64%
83.02%
1.68%
1.10%
84.04%
1.78%
0.27%
82.52%
2.57%
0.05%
84.33%
0.29%
0.57%
84.45%
3.77%
McAllister Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
397,306
8,053
1,563
1,195,643
1998
79,782
873
1,350,401
57,694
1999
0
0
1,166,421
60,079
2000
240,320
0
1,211,151
50,441
2001
0
0
1,345,216
26,536
Total
released
1,602,565
1,488,750
1,226,500
1,501,912
1,371,752
CWT &
AD Clipped
24.79%
5.36%
0.00%
16.00%
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.50%
0.10%
74.61%
0.06%
90.71%
3.88%
0.00%
95.10%
4.90%
0.00%
80.64%
3.36%
0.00%
98.07%
1.93%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
112
Table A-7. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Tacoma Basin, 1997-2003.
Chambers Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year
AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
92,884
1,910
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
2000
0
0
2001
0
0
2002
262,038
3,348
2003
404,162
24,429
2004
436,675
7,733
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped
697
1,004,020
913,616
510,270
827,808
33,359
405,128
284,716
919,672
167,658
781,880
29,528
710,212
61,494
728,162
26,425
Total
released
1,099,511
1,423,886
861,167
689,844
1,087,330
1,076,794
1,200,297
1,198,995
CWT &
AD Clipped
8.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
24.34%
33.67%
36.42%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.17%
0.06%
0.00%
64.16%
0.00%
96.13%
0.00%
58.73%
0.00%
84.58%
0.31%
72.61%
2.04%
59.17%
0.64%
60.73%
No
AD Clipped
91.32%
35.84%
3.87%
41.27%
15.42%
2.74%
5.12%
2.20%
Steilacoom Lake (Pier)
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year
AD Clipped AD Clipped
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
2000
0
0
2001
0
0
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped
76,500
0
249,717
4,611
214,108
9,387
184,768
248,500
Total
released
76,500
254,328
223,495
433,268
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
98.19%
0.00%
95.80%
0.00%
42.65%
No
AD Clipped
0.00%
1.81%
4.20%
57.35%
Steilacoom Lake
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year
AD Clipped AD Clipped
2001
0
0
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped
1,125,699
46,904
Total
released
1,172,603
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
96.00%
No
AD Clipped
4.00%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
113
Table A-8. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Deschutes Basin, 1997-2003.
Capitol Lake
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
190,356
0
944
2,788,810
1998
0
0
3,182,830
90,115
1999
67,926
1,965
1,943,211
3,075
2000
178,011
2,814
3,741,270
119,705
2001
72,937
0
4,208,893
26,170
2002
0
0
681,582
10,168
2003
0
0
1,229,483
74,117
Total
released
2,980,110
3,272,945
2,016,177
4,041,800
4,308,000
691,750
1,303,600
Percentages
CWT &
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
6.39%
0.00%
0.03%
93.58%
0.00%
0.00%
97.25%
2.75%
3.37%
0.10%
96.38%
0.15%
4.40%
0.07%
92.56%
2.96%
1.69%
0.00%
97.70%
0.61%
0.00%
0.00%
98.53%
1.47%
0.00%
0.00%
94.31%
5.69%
Deschutes River
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
0
0
0
1,006,125
1998
0
0
679,131
12,699
1999
0
0
3,869,190
54,937
2000
0
10,044
0
0
2001
0
0
84,150
0
2002
266,087
18,430
3,068,106
85,901
2003
257,134
10,224
2,562,081
153,697
2004
272,010
2,175
3,334,766
123,904
Total
released
1,006,125
691,830
3,924,127
10,044
84,150
3,438,524
2,983,136
3,732,855
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7.74%
8.62%
7.29%
Total
released
54,000
188,890
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
39.97%
Deschutes River
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
0
0
54,000
1998
75,498
329
112,574
489
McLane Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
10,800
0
1,200
0
Total
released
12,000
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
98.16%
1.84%
0.00%
98.60%
1.40%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.54%
89.23%
2.50%
0.34%
85.89%
5.15%
0.06%
89.34%
3.32%
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.17%
59.60%
0.26%
Percentages
CWT &
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
90.00%
0.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
114
Table A-9. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Shelton Basin, 1997-2003.
Sherwood Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
2002
0
0
AD Clipped
0
No
AD Clipped
10,000
Total
released
10,000
Percentages
CWT &
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
No
AD Clipped
100.00%
South Sound Net Pens
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
126,032
0
1998
0
0
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped
253
23,665
157,290
3,210
Total
released
149,950
160,500
Percentages
CWT &
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
84.05%
0.00%
0.17%
0.00%
0.00%
98.00%
No
AD Clipped
15.78%
2.00%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
115
Table A-10. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Kitsap Basin, 1997-2003.
Coulter Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
0
0
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
2000
0
0
Fox Island Net Pens
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
239,089
4,336
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
Minter Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
13,496
302
1997
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
2000
0
0
2001
0
0
192,690
2,407
2002
196,942
810
2003
199,863
1,395
2004
AD Clipped
0
1,269,229
947,237
819,428
No
AD Clipped
1,337,000
24,771
42,033
14,272
Total
released
1,337,000
1,294,000
989,270
833,700
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
AD Clipped
0.00%
98.09%
95.75%
98.29%
No
AD Clipped
100.00%
1.91%
4.25%
1.71%
AD Clipped
0
249,395
213,967
No
AD Clipped
0
1,815
14,783
Total
released
243,425
251,210
228,750
CWT &
AD Clipped
98.22%
0.00%
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped
1.78%
0.00%
0.00%
AD Clipped
0.00%
99.28%
93.54%
No
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.72%
6.46%
AD Clipped
1,302
2,038,625
1,899,839
2,058,887
1,888,842
1,663,142
1,510,924
1,665,863
No
AD Clipped
2,069,000
53,123
76,211
55,063
3,658
18,436
6,049
2,502
Total
released
2,084,100
2,091,748
1,976,050
2,113,950
1,892,500
1,876,675
1,714,725
1,869,623
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.65%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
10.27%
11.49%
10.69%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.13%
0.05%
0.07%
AD Clipped
0.06%
97.46%
96.14%
97.40%
99.81%
88.62%
88.11%
89.10%
No
AD Clipped
99.28%
2.54%
3.86%
2.60%
0.19%
0.98%
0.35%
0.13%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
116
Table A-11. Nisqually River fall Chinook salmon run reconstruction, 1986-2006.
Run Clear Creek Kalama Creek
Year
Adults
Adults
1986
281
1987
117
1988
735
1989
794
1990
700
1991
201
1992
12
311
1993
629
743
1994
401
1703
1995
1,607
2,016
1996
1,826
875
1997
2,853
398
1998
2,894
1,173
1999
11,132
2,349
2000
3,759
1,164
2001
7,094
518
2002
8,025
1,316
2003
6,235
1,462
2004
7,255
970
2005
11,557
913
2006
10,003
532
Total Adult Hatchery
Escapement
281
117
735
794
700
201
323
1,372
2,104
3,623
2,701
3,251
4,067
13,481
4,923
7,612
9,341
7,697
8,225
12,470
10,535
Natural
Commercial
Escapement
Catch
300
1,025
85
2,100
1,342
1,573
2,332
4,008
994
4,606
953
428
106
301
1,655
4,163
1,730
6,123
817
7,171
606
5,365
340
4,309
834
7,990
1,399
14,614
1,253
6,836
1,079
14,098
1,542
11,737
627
14,583
2,788
13,850
2,159
11,066
2,179
21,443
Sports
Catch
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
73
90
125
125
Total Runsize without
Jacks and Sports Catch
1,606
2,302
3,650
7,134
6,300
1,582
730
7,190
9,957
11,611
8,672
7,900
12,891
29,494
13,012
22,789
22,636
22,980
24,953
25,820
34,282
No data for sports catch but Nisqually harvest management biologist, Craig Smith, estimates 1,000- 1,500 for 2003-2006.
Data for hatchery jacks excluded.
Source: Nisqually Indian Tribe, 2007b.
117
Table A-12. Mean monthly stream flow averages (cubic feet per second) for miscellaneous South Puget Sound streams and
three fall Chinook salmon systems (Lower Skagit, Snohomish, and Nisqually Rivers).
River/Creek
Huge Creek
Jan.
24
Feb.
22
Mar.
16
Apr.
10
May
7.4
Jun.
6.0
Jul.
5.0
Aug.
4.6
Sep.
4.6
Oct.
5.6
Nov.
10
Dec.
18
Goldsborough
Creek
Kennedy
Creek
Woodland
Creek
256
236
190
133
73
45
30
25
25
52
138
197
170
130
108
60
27
12
5.4
3.9
4.8
17
77
134
41
47
44
36
28
22
17
15
13
14
19
29
Deschutes
River
778
801
590
462
296
191
129
104
98
160
480
710
Nisqually
River
Mashel River
2,180
2,180
1,570
1,320
1,140
890
571
438
521
822
1,610
2,280
376
377
305
280
211
147
55
25
35
109
313
427
Ohop Creek
126
116
91
81
56
41
20
12
16
34
86
124
Snohomish
River
13,200
10,900
9,230
10,300
12,900
12,400
6,680
2,990
3,390
6,140
12,400
13,200
Skagit River
17,900
16,700
14,200
15,000
20,200
24,300
19,900
11,600
9,380
12,400
18,200
18,700
Source: USGS website (www.usgs.gov).
118
Table A-13. USGS Stream gaging stations, locations, and years of operation.
River/Creek
Stream Gaging Station
Huge Creek
12073500
Location of Stream Gage
Huge Creek (RM 0.2),
upstream of outlet to Minter Creek
Goldsborough Creek
12076500
Goldsborough Creek (RM 5.8),
near Shelton, WA
Kennedy Creek
12078400
Kennedy Creek (RM 2.2),
near Kamilche, WA
Woodland Creek
12081000
Woodland Creek (RM 1.3),
near Olympia, WA
Deschutes River
12080010
Deschutes River (RM 3.5)
at E St Bridge at Tumwater, WA
Nisqually River
12089500
Nisqually River (RM 21.7)
at McKenna, WA
Mashel River
12087000
Mashel River (RM 3.0),
near La Grande, WA
Ohop Creek
12088000
Ohop Creek (RM 6.1),
near Eatonville, WA
Snohomish River
12150800
Snohomish River, near Monroe, WA
Skagit River
12200500
Skagit River, near Mt. Vernon, WA
Sources: USGS website (www.usgs.gov); Williams et al., 1975.
Years of operation
1947-Present
1951-1971
1960-1971
1949-1969
1945-1964, 1990-Present
1947-1968, 1978-Present
1940-1957, 1991-Present
1941-1971, 1993-Present
1963-Present
1940-Present
119
Table A-14. Mean monthly average stream temperatures (° C) for three USGS gaging stations in the Skagit River and
Snohomish River Basins.
River/Creek
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Skagit River
4.7
4.2
4.4
5.7
7.2
8.7
10.1
11.2
10.6
9.4
7.7
5.8
North Fork
5.1
5.0
5.6
6.5
Tolt River
South Fork
4.4
4.6
5.5
7.2
Tolt River
Source: USGS website (www.usgs.gov).
7.9
9.7
11.7
11.7
10.5
8.6
6.4
5.3
8.8
10.3
11.4
11.9
11.6
10.4
7.4
5.3
USGS Stream gaging stations, locations, and years of operation.
River/Creek
Stream Gaging Station
Skagit River
12181000
North Fork Tolt River
12148000
South Fork Tolt River
120148300
Location of Stream Gage
Skagit River at
Marblemount, WA
North Fork Tolt River
near Carnation, WA
South Fork Tolt River
near Carnation, WA
Years temperature data
collected
1986-2003
1994-2007
1994-2007
Sources: USGS website (www.usgs.gov).
120
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
10/31/1960
RunYear
1960
RMLower
0.0
RMUpper
0.9
Length
0.9
Species
CHIN
Live Count
1
Dead Count
0
Total Count
1
10/19/1961
11/6/1961
1961
1961
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
1
1
0
0
1
1
10/15/1962
1962
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
13
0
13
11/4/1963
1963
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
2
3
5
10/14/1964
10/29/1964
1964
1964
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
20
22
1
6
21
28
10/22/1965
1965
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
5
22
27
10/21/1966
1966
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
59
8
67
10/5/1967
10/20/1967
1967
1967
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
4
10
0
5
4
15
9/28/1968
10/7/1968
10/18/1968
10/30/1968
11/13/1968
1968
1968
1968
1968
1968
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.4
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
18
41
9
-
0
7
13
-
18
48
22
-
10/15/1969
11/5/1969
1969
1969
0.0
0.9
0.9
2.9
0.9
2.0
CHIN
CHIN
27
8
6
17
33
25
10/14/1970
10/14/1970
11/10/1970
1970
1970
1970
0.0
0.9
2.3
0.9
1.4
3.2
0.9
0.5
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
41
13
-
12
3
-
53
16
-
121
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
10/12/1971
RunYear
1971
RMLower
0.0
RMUpper
1.4
Length
1.4
Species
CHIN
Live Count
22
Dead Count
6
Total Count
28
10/20/1972
10/27/1972
1972
1972
0.9
0.0
4.0
0.9
3.1
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
27
32
9
11
36
43
10/12/1973
1973
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
35
1
36
9/26/1974
10/8/1974
10/18/1974
10/24/1974
10/30/1974
10/30/1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.9
0.9
1.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
1
15
3
8
1
0
4
0
0
0
1
19
3
8
1
9/30/1975
10/3/1975
10/10/1975
10/20/1975
10/27/1975
11/1/1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
0
9
5
17
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
9
6
18
1
9/13/1976
9/23/1976
9/29/1976
10/6/1976
10/13/1976
10/13/1976
10/27/1976
11/1/1976
11/15/1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.9
0.9
2.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.4
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
5
1
12
18
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
6
1
5
0
1
5
1
12
24
1
7
3
1
122
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
9/28/1977
10/13/1977
10/26/1977
11/10/1977
RunYear
1977
1977
1977
1977
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
Length
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
Species
CHUM
CHIN
COHO
COHO
Live Count
15
-
Dead Count
0
-
Total Count
15
-
9/15/1978
10/6/1978
10/20/1978
11/6/1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
1
11
2
0
2
1
1
13
3
10/5/1979
11/9/1979
11/13/1979
1979
1979
1979
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.3
0.9
0.9
1.4
CHIN
COHO
COHO
4
-
0
-
4
-
9/1/2000
9/11/2000
9/18/2000
9/28/2000
10/5/2000
10/12/2000
10/19/2000
10/27/2000
11/6/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
341
1135
917
1280
776
282
110
5
0
8
66
355
605
565
1577
385
0
1
349
1201
1272
1885
1341
1859
495
5
1
123
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
9/5/2001
9/11/2001
9/20/2001
10/1/2001
10/9/2001
10/18/2001
10/18/2001
10/26/2001
11/5/2001
11/13/2001
RunYear
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
Length
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
Live Count
754
883
1213
497
321
123
23
9
-
Dead Count
76
171
279
491
351
81
101
0
-
Total Count
830
1054
1492
988
672
204
124
9
-
9/17/2002
9/27/2002
9/27/2002
10/4/2002
10/14/2002
10/24/2002
10/24/2002
11/1/2002
11/8/2002
11/15/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
2.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
COHO
1846
529
73
734
36
1
3
0
-
492
1028
87
1355
1386
10
4
1
-
2338
1557
160
2089
1422
11
7
1
-
8/22/2003
9/3/2003
9/10/2003
9/18/2003
9/25/2003
10/2/2003
10/2/2003
10/10/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
66
926
1771
1450
695
336
65
65
0
6
121
457
842
1180
345
20
66
932
1892
1907
1537
1516
410
85
124
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
10/24/2003
10/29/2003
11/3/2003
11/7/2003
11/13/2003
RunYear
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
RMLower
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
Length
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
Species
COHO
CHIN
COHO
COHO
COHO
Live Count
1
-
Dead Count
0
-
Total Count
1
-
8/26/2004
9/3/2004
9/13/2004
9/20/2004
9/20/2004
9/27/2004
10/6/2004
10/13/2004
10/20/2004
10/28/2004
10/28/2004
11/4/2004
11/10/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
199
383
569
1053
460
624
118
31
1
0
1
-
5
2
9
93
59
395
304
204
385
578
1146
519
1019
422
-
-
9/30/2005
10/7/2005
10/14/2005
10/14/2005
10/21/2005
10/26/2005
11/2/2005
11/9/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.3
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
190
83
11
0
8
0
-
49
63
43
0
9
0
-
239
146
54
0
17
0
-
0
125
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
8/21/2006
9/1/2006
9/11/2006
9/18/2006
9/26/2006
10/3/2006
10/11/2006
10/19/2006
10/23/2006
10/23/2006
10/23/2006
11/1/2006
11/9/2006
RunYear
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
Length
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
0
5
68
84
103
35
16
4
0
0
-
Dead Count
0
0
0
3
2
10
4
1
0
0
-
Total Count
0
5
68
87
105
45
20
5
0
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
126
Figure B-2. Coulter Creek spawning ground survey effort- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Number of Surveys Conducted
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Survey Year
Figure B-3. Coulter Creek peak observed survey count dates- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
1960-1969
1970-1979
2000-2006
Yearly Peak Observed Live
and Dead Survey Counts
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
15-Sep
25-Sep
5-Oct
15-Oct
25-Oct
4-Nov
Survey Dates
127
Table C-1. Chinook salmon hatchery releases in South Puget Sound tributaries,
brood years 1952-2004.
Release Location
Release Year
Burley Creek
Burley Creek
Burley Creek
Brood
Year
1989
1990
1991
1990
1991
1992
Number of fish
released
430,800
645,400
50,000
Fish per pound
Measured
1,008
965- 1,008
945
Cranberry Creek
Cranberry Creek
1959
1961
1960
1962
505,050
249,796
648
782
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1989
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1989
286,000
254,375
508,335
467,200
203,770
1,198,500
440
401- 477
234- 477
639
354
1,463
Johns Creek
1978
1980
1,118,058
15
Schumocher Creek*
Schumocher Creek
1956
1991
1957
1992
630,000
11,000
1008
100- 597
Sherwood Creek*
1957
1958
Sherwood Creek
1958
1959
Sherwood Creek
1970
1971
Sherwood Creek
1979
1980
Sherwood Creek
1981
1982
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
316,260
251,600
466,480
44,500
48,800
251- 488
677
840
889
1,163
* Note: Sherwood Creek and Schumocher Creek are part of the same system. Sherwood
Creek is the name of the stream below Mason Lake (RM 0.0- RM 8.5), and
Schumocher Creek is the name of the stream above Mason Lake
(RM 12.9- RM 18.3).
128
Table C-2. South Puget Sound tributaries peak observed live and dead survey counts, 1987-2006.
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Hammersley
Cranberry
1
1
5
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
Deer
20
13
12
34
68
13
4
3
0
1
Goldsborough
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Johns
0
1
13
21
22
14
5
0
6
2
Totals
21
15
30
58
90
27
11
3
6
3
Case
Sherwood
11
7
12
28
28
6
2
11
9
0
Rocky
4
17
9
30
14
39
3
2
9
0
Totals
15
24
21
58
42
45
5
13
18
0
Carr
Burley
16
160
98
196
396
385
307
414
84
47
Totals
16
160
98
196
396
385
307
414
84
47
South Sound
Totals
52
199
149
312
528
457
323
430
108
50
NS- No surveys conducted for that year.
129
Table C-2. South Puget Sound tributaries peak observed live and dead survey counts, 1987-2006.
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Hammersley
Cranberry
3
3
4
3
2
16
2
4
6
2
Deer
2
10
7
5
16
14
23
15
8
2
Goldsborough
NS
9
8
14
9
6
1
3
2
0
Johns
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
Totals
7
22
19
24
28
36
26
22
17
4
Case
Sherwood
0
8
22
9
12
30
13
80
29
8
Rocky
19
360
196
397
132
43
2
0
77
16
Totals
19
368
218
406
144
73
15
80
106
24
Carr
Burley
25
121
257
33
191
350
160
42
83
341
Totals
25
121
257
33
191
350
160
42
83
341
South Sound
Totals
51
511
494
463
363
459
201
144
206
369
NS- No surveys conducted for that year.
130
Table C-3. South Puget Sound tributaries AUC relative abundance estimates, 1987-2006.
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Hammersley
Cranberry
1^
0^
8
2
0
0*
2
0
0*
0*
Deer
22^
16^
21
57
83
19*
9
5
0*
1*
Goldsborough
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Johns
0*
1*
10
7
12
10
3
0
6*
1
Totals
23
17
39
66
95
29
14
5
6
2
Case
Sherwood
3^
8
15^
37
30
6
2
12
4*
0*
Rocky
0^
18
NC
0*
9^*
33
NC
0
5*
0*
Totals
3
26
15
37
39
39
2
12
9
0
Carr
Burley
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
487*
535
640**
NC
74
Totals
0
0
0
0
0
487
535
640
0
74
South Sound
Totals
26
43
54
103
134
555
551
657
15
76
* Data includes a gap of more than 14 days between surveys
** Data includes a first or last survey with a live count of 60 or greater
^ Data does not include a survey prior to September 25
NC- AUC not calculated because less than four surveys conducted.
NS- No surveys conducted for that year.
131
Table C-3. South Puget Sound tributaries AUC relative abundance estimates, 1987-2006.
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Hammersley
Cranberry
7^
1
4
3
4
17
2
6
7
1
Deer
2
12
21
5
33
19
20
17
11
4
Goldsborough
NS
10^
5^*
16*
21
4
1
6^
2
0
Johns
2
0
0
2
1
0
0*
0
1
0
Totals
11
23
30
26
59
40
23
29
21
5
Case
Sherwood
0*
11
33
12
28
36
24
103
61
10
Rocky
36*
368
220
495
72
29
2
NC
70*
16*
Totals
36
379
253
507
100
65
26
103
131
26
Carr
Burley
NC
NC
285
65
316
468
387*
103
181
671*
Totals
0
0
285
65
316
468
387
103
181
671
South Sound
Totals
47
402
568
598
475
573
436
235
333
702
* Data includes a gap of more than 14 days between surveys
** Data includes a first or last survey with a live count of 60 or greater
^ Data does not include a survey prior to September 25
NC- AUC not calculated because less than four surveys conducted.
NS- No surveys conducted for that year.
132
Table C-4. South Puget Sound Chinook salmon run reconstruction, 1987-2006.
Run Year
Run Area
Misc. 13- McAllister Creek
Chambers Creek
Nisqually River
Mics 13A- Minter Creek
Deschutes River
Misc 13B Streams- Coulter C reek
Total Run Size
Run Year
Run Area
Misc. 13- McAllister Creek
Chambers Creek
Nisqually River
Mics 13A- Minter Creek
Deschutes River
Misc 13B Streams- Coulter C reek
Total Run Size
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
5,345
3,272
2,679
4,494
9,913
2,334
8, 670
4, 079
4, 273
4, 744
15, 645
2, 857
4,326
2,378
7,860
5,261
25,877
4,639
5, 464
3, 737
6, 670
7, 011
27, 757
12, 735
2,849
3,784
1,719
5,914
12,310
4,197
2,944
3,961
791
4,963
10,106
4,091
2,523
2,767
7,494
3,157
9,173
5,276
3,931
2,303
10,454
4,624
13,046
3,551
9,032
4,517
11,528
1,730
29,025
3,115
4,281
3,441
8,746
366
18,014
3,478
28,037
40, 268
50,341
63, 374
30,773
26,856
30,390
37,909
58,947
38,326
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3,898
2,708
8,267
3,665
4,237
2,216
3, 699
3, 140
11, 958
8, 635
4, 348
2, 909
3,454
1,212
24,499
14,608
7,947
7,312
3, 805
1, 994
12, 024
9, 904
9, 007
4, 467
4,414
969
19,091
13,741
6,005
3,833
863
1,418
27,730
10,835
8,559
5,884
0
1,750
26,294
7,174
8,412
4,692
0
5,044
24,895
5,904
13,419
2,718
0
5,052
26,785
6,843
12,250
568
0
8,934
34,333
15,155
20,288
0
24,991
34, 689
59,032
41, 201
48,053
55,289
48,322
51,980
51,498
78,710
Source: WDFW, 2007b.
133
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/12/1987**
10/15/1987
10/29/1987
11/5/1987
11/13/1987
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
R MUpper
0.2
0.4
0.5
3.5
3.5
Length
0.2
0.4
0.5
3.5
3.5
Species
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
1
-
Dead Count
0
-
Total Count
1
-
10/11/1988
10/21/1988
10/24/1988**
11/4/1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
COHO
0
-
1
-
1
-
9/19/1989
9/29/1989
10/10/1989
10/17/1989
10/25/1989
10/30/1989**
11/10/1989**
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
0.9
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
3
5
1
-
0
0
3
-
3
5
4
-
9/21/1990
10/4/1990
10/16/1990
10/25/1990
10/25/1990
11/2/1990
11/8/1990
11/15/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
3.5
3.5
2.6
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.6
1.0
3.5
3.5
2.5
0.9
3.5
2.6
2.6
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
COHO
0
2
-
1
1
-
1
3
-
** Survey conducted by Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.
134
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/1991
10/2/1991
10/11/1991
10/22/1991
10/31/1991
11/7/1991
RunYear
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.5
2.5
Length
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.5
2.5
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/11/1992
9/21/1992
10/2/1992
10/19/1992
10/28/1992
11/5/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.2
0.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
0.8
0.2
0.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
0
-
0
-
0
-
9/13/1993
9/20/1993
10/4/1993
10/11/1993
10/20/1993
11/1/1993
11/10/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.5
0.7
2.6
3.0
3.5
2.6
0.8
3.5
0.7
2.6
3.0
3.5
2.6
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
2
-
0
-
2
-
9/21/1994
10/3/1994
10/11/1994
10/18/1994
10/28/1994
11/8/1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
135
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/12/1995
9/27/1995
10/12/1995
10/20/1995
11/2/1995
RunYear
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.8
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
Length
0.8
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/17/1996
9/26/1996
10/3/1996
10/14/1996
10/29/1996
11/8/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
9/26/1997
10/8/1997
10/21/1997
10/29/1997
11/12/1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
3
3
-
0
0
-
3
3
-
9/9/1998
9/17/1998
9/25/1998
10/5/1998
10/15/1998
10/22/1998
10/30/1998
11/9/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
1
-
2
-
3
-
136
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/10/1999
9/17/1999
9/28/1999
10/6/1999
10/13/1999
10/20/1999
10/27/1999
11/3/1999
11/15/1999
RunYear
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
3.5
2.6
0.8
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Length
3.5
2.6
0.8
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Species
CHUM
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
4
0
-
Dead Count
0
1
-
Total Count
4
1
-
9/5/2000
9/12/2000
9/21/2000
9/29/2000
10/6/2000
10/16/2000
10/25/2000
11/2/2000
11/14/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
3
-
0
-
3
-
9/12/2001
9/19/2001
9/28/2001
10/8/2001
10/17/2001
10/25/2001
11/2/2001
11/13/2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
1
2
-
0
0
-
1
2
-
137
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/2002
9/30/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/16/2002
10/23/2002
11/1/2002
11/8/2002
RunYear
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
2.6
3.5
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Length
2.6
3.5
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
15
4
0
0
-
Dead Count
1
1
0
1
-
Total Count
16
5
0
1
-
9/17/2003
9/23/2003
9/23/2003
10/1/2003
10/8/2003
10/8/2003
10/15/2003
10/28/2003
11/5/2003
11/12/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.9
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
-
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
-
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
9/22/2004
9/28/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/21/2004
10/21/2004
10/28/2004
11/8/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.8
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
-
138
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/2005
9/27/2005
10/5/2005
10/12/2005
10/20/2005
10/20/2005
10/27/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/14/2005
11/14/2005
RunYear
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
RMUpper
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
2.6
0.8
Length
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
1.8
0.8
1.8
0.8
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
-
Dead Count
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total Count
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
-
9/6/2006
9/12/2006
9/25/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/12/2006
10/19/2006
10/19/2006
10/26/2006
10/26/2006
11/2/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.5
2.6
0.8
2.6
2.6
0.8
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.5
2.6
0.8
1.8
2.6
0.8
1.8
0.9
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
139
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/12/1987
10/12/1987**
10/12/1987
10/15/1987
10/29/1987
11/5/1987
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.5
0.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
Length
0.2
0.3
0.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
Live Count
0
1
9
13
0
Dead Count
1
11
2
7
3
Total Count
1
12
11
20
3
9/30/1988
10/11/1988
10/11/1988
10/11/1988
10/21/1988
10/24/1988**
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
6
9
-
3
4
-
9
13
-
9/19/1989
9/29/1989
10/10/1989
10/17/1989
10/25/1989**
10/30/1989**
11/8/1989**
11/14/1989**
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
11
9
-
0
3
-
11
12
-
9/21/1990
10/4/1990
10/16/1990
10/25/1990
11/2/1990
11/8/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.1
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
33
20
0
0
-
1
7
1
1
-
34
27
1
1
-
** Survey conducted by Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.
140
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/1991
10/2/1991
10/11/1991
10/22/1991
10/31/1991
11/7/1991
RunYear
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Length
0.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
20
61
3
0
-
Dead Count
0
7
5
3
-
Total Count
20
68
8
3
-
9/11/1992
9/21/1992
10/6/1992
10/14/1992
10/20/1992
10/28/1992
11/5/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
13
7
4
-
0
4
3
-
13
11
7
-
9/13/1993
9/20/1993
10/1/1993
10/4/1993
10/11/1993
10/20/1993
11/1/1993
11/12/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
4
3
-
0
1
-
4
4
-
9/21/1994
10/3/1994
10/11/1994
10/18/1994
10/28/1994
11/8/1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.3
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
2
-
1
-
3
-
141
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/12/1995
9/27/1995
10/12/1995
10/20/1995
10/31/1995**
11/2/1995
RunYear
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.5
1.3
Length
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.5
1.3
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/13/1996
9/17/1996
9/26/1996
10/3/1996
10/14/1996
11/4/1996
11/14/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.7
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
1
-
0
-
1
-
9/26/1997
10/9/1997
10/13/1997**
10/13/1997**
10/13/1997**
10/20/1997
10/28/1997
11/6/1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
0.6
0.4
4.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
0.2
0.4
3.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
COHO
CHUM
0
2
-
1
0
-
1
2
-
9/8/1998
9/16/1998
9/25/1998
10/2/1998
10/15/1998
10/22/1998
10/29/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
2
1
4
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
1
3
2
1
4
1
1
10
142
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/5/1998
11/12/1998
RunYear
1998
1998
RMLower
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.3
1.1
Length
1.3
1.1
Species
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/10/1999
9/17/1999
9/29/1999
10/5/1999
10/13/1999
10/20/1999
10/27/1999
11/3/1999
11/15/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.1
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
1
7
6
2
-
0
0
0
0
-
1
7
6
2
-
9/6/2000
9/13/2000
9/21/2000
9/29/2000
10/6/2000
10/16/2000
10/25/2000
11/2/2000
11/14/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
0
1
4
-
1
0
1
-
1
1
5
-
9/11/2001
9/19/2001
9/27/2001
10/5/2001
10/15/2001
10/25/2001
11/2/2001
11/9/2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
COHO
4
6
12
16
1
-
2
0
1
0
0
-
6
6
13
16
1
-
143
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/2002
9/30/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/16/2002
10/23/2002
11/1/2002
11/8/2002
RunYear
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
2.6
3.5
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Length
2.6
3.5
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
15
4
0
0
-
Dead Count
1
1
0
1
-
Total Count
16
5
0
1
-
9/17/2003
9/23/2003
9/23/2003
10/1/2003
10/8/2003
10/8/2003
10/15/2003
10/28/2003
11/5/2003
11/12/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.9
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
-
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
-
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
9/22/2004
9/28/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/21/2004
10/21/2004
10/28/2004
11/8/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.8
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
-
144
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/2005
9/27/2005
10/5/2005
10/12/2005
10/20/2005
10/20/2005
10/27/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/14/2005
11/14/2005
RunYear
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
RMUpper
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
2.6
0.8
Length
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
1.8
0.8
1.8
0.8
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
-
Dead Count
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total Count
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
-
9/6/2006
9/12/2006
9/25/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/12/2006
10/19/2006
10/19/2006
10/26/2006
10/26/2006
11/2/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.5
2.6
0.8
2.6
2.6
0.8
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.5
2.6
0.8
1.8
2.6
0.8
1.8
0.9
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
145
Table C-7. Goldsborough Creek spawning ground surveys, 1998-2006.
Date
9/29/1998
10/8/1998
10/14/1998
10/22/1998
10/27/1998
11/2/1998
11/9/1998
RunYear
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
RMLower
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
RMUpper
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
Length
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.7
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
1
8
2
2
-
Dead Count
1
1
0
1
-
Total Count
2
9
2
3
-
9/28/1999
10/5/1999
10/13/1999
10/15/1999**
10/15/1999**
10/21/1999
10/25/1999**
10/25/1999**
11/10/1999**
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.0
0.7
1.7
0.7
1.0
1.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
6
0
2
-
2
0
0
-
8
0
2
-
9/15/2000**
9/28/2000**
10/4/2000
10/6/2000**
10/11/2000
10/19/2000**
10/19/2000**
11/3/2000**
11/15/2000**
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
2
1
0
14
7
5
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
2
1
0
14
7
5
-
** Survey conducted by R2 Resource Consultants
146
Table C-7. Goldsborough Creek spawning ground surveys, 1998-2006.
Date
8/27/2001**
9/4/2001
9/10/2001**
9/17/2001
9/25/2001**
9/27/2001
10/9/2001
10/11/2001**
10/11/2001**
10/18/2001
10/25/2001**
RunYear
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
RMLower
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
RMUpper
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
3.4
2.3
2.2
2.3
Length
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.1
1.8
1.7
1.8
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
3
3
4
8
9
1
3
1
-
Dead Count
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total Count
4
3
4
8
9
1
3
1
-
8/28/2002
9/11/2002
9/20/2002
9/30/2002
10/3/2002
10/10/2002
10/14/2002
10/17/2002
10/24/2002
10/28/2002
10/31/2002
11/6/2002
11/11/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
COHO
COHO
CHUM
0
2
0
1
5
0
-
0
0
1
0
1
1
-
0
2
1
1
6
1
-
9/9/2003
9/22/2003
9/29/2003
10/8/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
** Survey conducted by R2 Resource Consultants
147
Table C-7. Goldsborough Creek spawning ground surveys, 1998-2006.
Date
10/15/2003
10/29/2003
11/6/2003
RunYear
2003
2003
2003
RMLower
0.5
0.5
0.5
RMUpper
2.2
2.2
2.2
Length
1.7
1.7
1.7
Species
COHO
COHO
COHO
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/7/2004
9/21/2004
10/6/2004
10/21/2004
10/28/2004
11/8/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
0
1
3
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
1
3
0
-
9/7/2005
9/13/2005
9/19/2005
9/28/2005
10/6/2005
10/17/2005
10/25/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
9/6/2006
9/12/2006
9/20/2006
9/26/2006
10/4/2006
10/13/2006
10/20/2006
10/27/2006
11/1/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
148
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/8/1987**
9/15/1987**
9/22/1987**
9/30/1987**
10/15/1987
10/30/1987
11/2/1987**
11/11/1987**
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.6
1.8
0.4
Length
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.6
1.8
0.4
Species
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/8/1988
9/30/1988
9/30/1988
10/11/1988
10/21/1988
10/21/1988
11/4/1988
11/15/1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.6
1.7
1.6
0.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.3
1.6
0.1
1.6
0.4
1.2
1.6
1.6
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
1
-
0
-
1
-
9/19/1989
9/29/1989
9/29/1989
10/10/1989
10/17/1989
10/25/1989**
10/25/1989**
11/3/1989**
11/3/1989**
11/10/1989**
11/10/1989**
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.6
0.4
1.6
1.6
0.4
1.6
0.4
1.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.6
0.4
1.6
1.2
0.4
1.2
0.4
1.2
0.4
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
3
6
2
0
-
0
0
11
10
-
3
6
13
10
-
** Survey conducted by Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.
149
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/21/1990
10/4/1990
10/4/1990
10/16/1990
10/19/1990
10/19/1990
10/30/1990
10/30/1990
11/8/1990
11/8/1990
11/15/1990
11/15/1990
RunYear
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
RMUpper
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.8
0.4
1.8
0.4
1.8
0.4
1.8
Length
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.4
0.4
1.4
0.4
1.4
0.4
1.4
Species
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live_Count
6
0
0
0
-
Dead_Count
3
1
3
18
-
Total_Count
9
1
3
18
-
9/18/1991
10/2/1991
10/11/1991
10/22/1991
10/31/1991
11/7/1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
1.6
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
1
8
3
0
-
0
7
19
2
-
1
15
22
2
-
9/11/1992
9/21/1992
10/2/1992
10/9/1992
10/19/1992
10/28/1992
11/5/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
4
5
2
1
-
7
1
9
13
-
11
6
11
14
-
9/1/1993
9/13/1993
9/20/1993
10/4/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
1.6
1.6
0.5
0.4
1.6
1.6
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
0
0
1
2
1
2
150
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/11/1993
10/20/1993
11/1/1993
11/10/1993
RunYear
1993
1993
1993
1993
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
Length
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
Species
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live_Count
4
-
Dead_Count
1
-
Total_Count
5
-
9/14/1994
9/21/1994
10/3/1994
10/11/1994
10/18/1994
10/28/1994
11/8/1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
8/30/1995
9/13/1995
9/27/1995
10/12/1995
10/20/1995
10/30/1995
11/2/1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
6
-
0
-
6
-
9/3/1996
9/13/1996
9/17/1996
9/26/1996
10/3/1996
10/14/1996
10/28/1996
11/8/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.4
0.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
1
-
1
-
2
-
151
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/29/1997
10/9/1997
10/21/1997
10/29/1997
11/12/1997
RunYear
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Length
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Species
CHUM
C HIN
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
Live_Count
2
-
Dead_Count
0
-
Total_Count
2
-
9/11/1998
9/18/1998
10/2/1998
10/15/1998
10/23/1998
11/2/1998
11/9/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
9/1/1999
9/10/1999
9/17/1999
9/28/1999
10/6/1999
10/13/1999
10/20/1999
10/27/1999
11/3/1999
11/15/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
9/5/2000
9/12/2000
9/21/2000
9/29/2000
10/6/2000
10/16/2000
10/25/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
COHO
CHUM
2
-
0
-
2
-
152
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/2/2000
11/14/2000
RunYear
2000
2000
RMLower
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.8
1.8
Length
1.8
1.8
Species
CHUM
CHUM
Live_Count
-
Dead_Count
-
Total_Count
-
9/4/2001
9/12/2001
9/19/2001
9/28/2001
10/8/2001
10/17/2001
10/25/2001
11/2/2001
11/11/2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
C HIN
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
1
1
-
-
-
1
1
-
9/10/2002
9/20/2002
9/30/2002
10/7/2002
10/16/2002
10/24/2002
11/1/2002
11/8/2002
11/15/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
9/8/2003
9/23/2003
10/1/2003
10/9/2003
10/24/2003
10/31/2003
11/7/2003
11/14/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
-
-
-
-
153
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/1/2004
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
9/22/2004
9/30/2004
10/7/2004
10/14/2004
10/21/2004
10/29/2004
11/4/2004
RunYear
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Length
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
Live_Count
0
0
0
0
Dead_Count
0
0
0
0
Total_Count
0
0
0
0
9/8/2005
9/13/2005
9/20/2005
9/27/2005
10/5/2005
10/12/2005
10/20/2005
10/27/2005
11/4/2005
11/14/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
0
0
0
0
1
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
1
0
-
9/6/2006
9/12/2006
9/19/2006
9/21/2006
9/29/2006
10/9/2006
10/18/2006
10/26/2006
11/1/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.8
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.6
1.8
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
0
-
0
-
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
154
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/15/1987
10/29/1987
11/3/1987
11/9/1987**
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
R MUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
Species
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
Live Count
3
0
-
Dead Count
8
2
-
Total Count
11
2
-
9/19/1988
9/28/1988
10/6/1988
10/18/1988
10/27/1988
11/4/1988**
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
1
5
0
-
0
2
1
-
1
7
1
-
9/27/1989
10/10/1989
10/17/1989
10/25/1989
11/1/1989
11/3/1989**
11/10/1989**
11/13/1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
2
11
-
0
1
-
2
12
-
9/21/1990
10/4/1990
10/16/1990
10/25/1990
11/2/1990
11/8/1990
11/15/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.7
3.5
0.7
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
3.5
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.7
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
COHO
28
6
0
-
0
5
1
-
28
11
1
-
** Survey conducted by Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.
155
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/1991
10/2/1991
10/11/1991
10/22/1991
10/31/1991
11/4/1991
11/7/1991
11/12/1991
RunYear
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
Live Count
5
21
3
2
0
-
Dead Count
2
7
17
8
2
-
Total Count
7
28
20
10
2
-
9/11/1992
9/21/1992
10/2/1992
10/9/1992
10/19/1992
10/28/1992
11/5/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
3
0
4
0
-
1
1
2
5
-
4
1
6
5
-
9/1/1993
9/13/1993
9/20/1993
10/4/1993
10/11/1993
10/20/1993
11/1/1993
11/12/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
2
0
0
-
0
2
1
-
2
2
1
-
156
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/22/1994
10/3/1994
10/11/1994
10/18/1994
10/28/1994
11/8/1994
RunYear
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
3
9
3
-
Dead Count
2
2
2
-
Total Count
5
11
5
-
8/30/1995
9/12/1995
9/27/1995
10/12/1995
10/20/1995
11/2/1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
4
-
5
-
9
-
9/3/1996
9/13/1996
10/1/1996
10/8/1996
10/17/1996
10/29/1996
11/8/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
-
-
-
9/19/1997
10/8/1997
10/20/1997
10/28/1997
11/6/1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
COHO
-
-
-
157
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/3/1998
9/16/1998
9/25/1998
10/5/1998
10/13/1998
10/20/1998
10/28/1998
11/5/1998
11/12/1998
RunYear
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
RMLower
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
COHO
Live Count
3
8
1
0
0
-
Dead Count
0
0
5
5
1
-
Total Count
3
8
6
5
1
-
9/1/1999
9/13/1999
9/23/1999
9/30/1999
10/7/1999
10/13/1999
10/20/1999
10/27/1999
11/4/1999
11/15/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
10
22
9
0
-
0
0
6
1
-
10
22
15
1
-
9/6/2000
9/13/2000
9/21/2000
9/29/2000
10/6/2000
10/16/2000
10/24/2000
10/31/2000
11/9/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
2
7
3
1
1
-
0
0
2
1
0
0
-
0
2
9
4
1
1
-
158
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/7/2001
9/14/2001
9/24/2001
10/4/2001
10/15/2001
10/25/2001
11/1/2001
11/9/2001
RunYear
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
Live Count
7
9
8
4
0
-
Dead Count
0
0
4
3
3
-
Total Count
7
9
12
7
3
-
9/10/2002
9/17/2002
9/27/2002
10/3/2002
10/10/2002
10/16/2002
10/23/2002
10/31/2002
11/7/2002
11/15/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
COHO
9
1
26
7
3
0
-
1
0
4
1
1
1
-
10
1
30
8
4
1
-
9/2/2003
9/10/2003
9/17/2003
9/25/2003
10/3/2003
10/9/2003
10/14/2003
10/27/2003
11/3/2003
11/6/2003
11/14/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
COHO
COHO
1
0
7
13
7
7
-
0
0
0
0
3
4
-
1
0
7
13
10
11
-
159
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/1/2004
9/8/2004
9/13/2004
9/22/2004
9/27/2004
10/6/2004
10/13/2004
10/21/2004
10/28/2004
11/4/2004
11/11/2004
RunYear
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
0
0
2
40
73
23
2
4
-
Dead Count
0
0
0
2
7
11
4
0
-
Total Count
0
0
2
42
80
34
6
4
-
9/6/2005
9/12/2005
9/20/2005
9/27/2005
10/4/2005
10/11/2005
10/18/2005
10/25/2005
11/7/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
5
11
17
27
20
6
0
-
0
0
2
0
2
7
11
3
-
0
5
13
17
29
27
17
3
-
9/12/2006
9/22/2006
10/2/2006
10/12/2006
10/23/2006
10/31/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
1
3
6
0
-
0
0
2
0
-
1
3
8
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
160
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/15/1987
10/29/1987
11/5/1987
11/12/1987
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.7
0.8
1.6
1.6
Length
0.4
0.5
1.3
1.3
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
Live Count
0
0
0
Dead Count
4
2
0
2
T otal Count
4
2
0
2
9/8/1988
9/19/1988
9/28/1988
10/6/1988
10/18/1988
10/28/1988
11/4/1988
11/11/1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
COHO
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
2
8
8
0
-
0
0
9
6
-
2
8
17
6
-
9/6/1989
9/27/1989
11/2/1989
11/9/1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
8
-
1
-
9
-
9/23/1990
10/16/1990
10/23/1990
10/31/1990
11/1/1990
11/7/1990
11/15/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
0
0
0
-
4
30
2
-
4
30
2
-
10/9/1991
10/11/1991
10/18/1991
10/21/1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.6
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
9
8
1
0
3
6
3
3
12
14
4
3
161
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/8/1991
11/15/1991
RunYear
1991
1991
RMLower
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
Length
1.3
1.3
Species
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
T otal Count
-
9/22/1992
9/30/1992
10/7/1992
10/14/1992
10/21/1992
10/28/1992
11/9/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
13
14
4
3
7
1
-
2
25
31
17
31
9
-
15
39
35
20
38
10
-
9/20/1993
9/20/1993
11/2/1993
11/9/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
3
0
-
0
3
-
3
3
-
9/20/1994
10/4/1994
10/12/1994
10/19/1994
11/2/1994
11/8/1994
11/15/1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
0
0
-
1
2
-
1
2
-
9/11/1995
10/3/1995
10/13/1995
10/25/1995
10/27/1995
11/3/1995
11/10/1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
5
1
-
4
0
-
9
1
-
162
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/23/1996
10/8/1996
10/16/1996
10/25/1996
11/1/1996
11/8/1996
RunYear
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
RMLower
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Length
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
T otal Count
-
9/15/1997
10/3/1997
10/20/1997
11/4/1997
11/4/1997
11/11/1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.1
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
3
18
0
0
-
0
1
2
1
-
3
19
2
1
-
9/15/1998
9/23/1998
10/2/1998
10/12/1998
10/21/1998
10/30/1998
11/6/1998
11/13/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
14
78
267
30
4
3
0
-
2
44
93
271
110
149
15
-
16
122
360
301
114
152
15
-
9/8/1999
9/16/1999
9/24/1999
10/5/1999
10/12/1999
10/19/1999
10/26/1999
11/2/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
5
29
117
85
6
0
0
-
2
8
28
111
107
36
21
-
7
37
145
196
113
36
21
-
163
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/4/1999
11/9/1999
RunYear
1999
1999
RMLower
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
Length
1.3
1.3
Species
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
0
-
Dead Count
5
-
T otal Count
5
-
9/1/2000
9/11/2000
9/18/2000
9/28/2000
10/5/2000
10/12/2000
10/19/2000
10/27/2000
11/6/2000
11/8/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
19
140
107
187
90
45
18
1
-
1
40
70
210
108
276
125
20
-
20
180
177
397
198
321
143
21
-
9/5/2001
9/11/2001
9/20/2001
10/1/2001
10/9/2001
10/18/2001
10/26/2001
11/1/2001
11/6/2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.1
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.8
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
0
0
18
29
27
4
0
0
-
1
2
8
103
84
41
6
4
-
1
2
26
132
111
45
6
4
-
9/17/2002
9/30/2002
10/8/2002
10/16/2002
10/24/2002
11/4/2002
11/12/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
16
9
1
0
0
-
4
34
18
14
1
-
20
43
19
14
1
-
164
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/15/2003
9/25/2003
10/3/2003
10/10/2003
10/24/2003
10/31/2003
10/31/2003
11/7/2003
11/14/2003
RunYear
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
RMLower
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.1
1.6
1.6
Length
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
0
0
0
0
1
0
-
Dead Count
0
2
1
1
0
0
-
T otal Count
0
2
1
1
1
0
-
9/8/2004
9/8/2004
11/10/2004
2004
2004
2004
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
1.6
0.3
0.3
1.3
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
0
-
0
-
0
-
9/6/2005
10/3/2005
10/11/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/26/2005
11/3/2005
11/10/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
0
51
32
0
0
0
-
0
23
45
18
0
7
-
0
74
77
18
0
7
-
9/12/2006
9/26/2006
10/12/2006
10/23/2006
11/1/2006
11/9/2006
11/14/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
COHO
1
10
0
-
2
6
11
-
3
16
11
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
165
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/5/1987
11/13/1987
RunYear
1987
1987
RMLower
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.4
1.4
Length
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
COHO
Live Count
0
-
Dead Count
16
-
Total Count
16
-
10/21/1988
11/15/1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.3
1.9
1.4
1.9
1.1
CHIN
CHUM
29
-
131
-
160
-
10/17/1989
11/6/1989
1989
1989
0.0
0.3
1.9
1.4
1.9
1.1
CHIN
CHUM
5
-
93
-
98
-
10/5/1990
10/5/1990
10/5/1990
10/5/1990
10/12/1990
11/7/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1.4
0.5
1.7
1.9
0.0
0.3
1.7
1.4
1.9
2.5
1.4
1.4
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.6
1.4
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
43
35
51
48
0
0
18
33
16
27
122
1
61
68
67
75
122
1
10/1/1991
10/1/1991
10/1/1991
10/1/1991
10/10/1991
10/10/1991
10/10/1991
10/10/1991
10/15/1991
10/15/1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1.4
0.5
0.0
1.9
1.4
0.5
0.0
1.9
0.5
0.0
1.9
1.4
0.5
2.2
1.9
1.4
0.5
2.2
2.2
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.3
1.7
0.5
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
92
195
19
156
33
30
50
77
28
25
18
71
1
48
76
92
90
91
236
98
110
266
20
204
109
122
140
168
264
123
9/17/1992
9/17/1992
9/17/1992
1992
1992
1992
1.9
0.0
0.5
2.6
0.5
1.9
0.7
0.5
1.4
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
56
4
68
1
0
10
57
4
78
166
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/24/1992
9/24/1992
10/1/1992
10/1/1992
10/1/1992
10/8/1992
10/8/1992
10/8/1992
10/15/1992
10/15/1992
11/3/1992
11/12/1992
RunYear
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
RMLower
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.9
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
2.6
1.9
0.5
1.9
2.6
2.6
0.5
1.9
1.9
2.6
1.4
1.4
Length
0.7
1.9
0.5
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.5
1.4
1.4
0.7
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
111
295
5
234
158
34
1
63
18
7
-
Dead Count
17
15
1
145
65
85
0
233
85
90
-
Total Count
128
310
6
379
223
119
1
296
103
97
-
9/16/1993
9/16/1993
9/16/1993
9/23/1993
9/23/1993
9/23/1993
9/30/1993
9/30/1993
9/30/1993
9/30/1993
10/7/1993
10/7/1993
10/14/1993
10/14/1993
10/21/1993
10/21/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.5
1.4
1.7
2.5
0.5
0.0
1.7
1.4
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.7
1.9
3.7
2.5
0.5
1.9
1.7
1.4
2.5
2.6
1.9
2.6
1.9
1.9
2.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
1.2
2.0
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
1.4
0.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
4
3
7
38
177
17
71
71
139
84
49
187
38
71
17
0
3
1
0
15
15
1
4
8
14
10
25
112
41
210
155
40
7
4
7
53
192
18
75
79
153
94
74
299
79
281
172
40
167
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/15/1994
9/15/1994
9/21/1994
9/21/1994
9/28/1994
9/28/1994
10/5/1994
10/5/1994
RunYear
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
RMLower
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
RMUpper
1.9
2.6
1.9
2.6
1.9
2.6
1.9
2.6
Length
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.7
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
Live Count
226
104
214
124
247
74
211
20
Dead Count
9
11
15
12
97
55
203
61
Total Count
235
115
229
136
344
129
414
81
9/13/1995
9/13/1995
9/19/1995
9/19/1995
9/26/1995
9/26/1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.5
1.9
2.6
1.9
2.6
2.6
1.9
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.7
1.4
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
0
11
74
2
0
1
0
2
10
2
0
6
0
13
84
9/20/1996
9/20/1996
9/26/1996
9/26/1996
9/26/1996
10/1/1996
10/1/1996
10/1/1996
10/10/1996
10/10/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1.9
0.5
0.0
1.9
0.5
0.0
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
2.6
1.9
0.5
2.6
1.9
0.5
2.6
1.9
2.6
1.9
0.7
1.4
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
50
31
0
44
41
0
50
29
10
8
4
8
0
10
6
0
14
15
31
32
54
39
0
54
47
0
64
44
41
40
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
1997
1997
1997
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
2.5
0.5
1.4
0.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
2
20
27
0
3
0
2
23
27
5
168
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/13/1997
10/13/1997
10/13/1997
11/14/1997
RunYear
1997
1997
1997
1997
RMLower
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.9
2.5
1.4
Length
0.5
1.4
0.6
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
0
2
4
2
Dead Count
0
7
1
10
Total Count
0
9
5
12
9/14/1998
9/14/1998
9/14/1998
9/22/1998
9/22/1998
9/30/1998
9/30/1998
11/2/1998
11/9/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.9
2.2
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
0
74
14
1
86
2
70
-
1
6
1
0
34
0
35
-
1
80
15
1
120
2
105
-
9/7/1999
9/7/1999
9/7/1999
9/7/1999
9/13/1999
9/13/1999
9/20/1999
9/20/1999
9/30/1999
9/30/1999
10/2/1999**
10/11/1999
10/11/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.9
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
1.4
0.5
1.3
0.5
1.4
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
0
0
6
3
4
29
3
105
191
3
60
0
17
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
60
3
43
3
105
0
0
6
4
5
29
3
109
251
6
103
3
122
** Survey conducted by Suquamish Indian Tribe.
169
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/18/1999
10/18/1999
10/26/1999
11/2/1999
11/15/1999
RunYear
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
RMLower
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
Length
0.5
1.4
0.9
1.4
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
0
1
0
-
Dead Count
1
114
5
-
Total Count
1
115
5
-
9/6/2000
9/6/2000
9/13/2000
9/13/2000
9/13/2000
9/13/2000
9/22/2000
9/22/2000
10/3/2000
10/3/2000
10/11/2000
10/11/2000
10/11/2000
10/11/2000
10/18/2000
10/18/2000
10/18/2000
10/18/2000
10/31/2000
11/9/2000
11/14/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.9
1.4
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
16
0
29
0
12
11
1
0
1
2
0
-
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
2
1
2
0
0
1
3
-
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
20
0
33
0
14
12
3
0
1
3
3
-
170
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/10/2001
9/10/2001
9/18/2001
9/18/2001
9/27/2001
9/27/2001
10/5/2001
10/5/2001
10/16/2001
10/16/2001
10/16/2001
10/16/2001
10/23/2001
10/23/2001
11/1/2001
11/8/2001
RunYear
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
RMLower
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.4
Length
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.5
1.4
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
0
11
3
57
11
165
2
92
1
9
4
3
0
-
Dead Count
1
2
0
3
1
14
1
48
2
13
11
18
0
10
-
Total Count
1
13
3
60
12
179
3
140
3
22
15
21
0
10
-
9/9/2002
9/9/2002
9/9/2002
9/9/2002
9/19/2002
9/19/2002
9/19/2002
9/19/2002
9/19/2002
9/26/2002
9/26/2002
9/26/2002
9/26/2002
9/26/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
1
23
22
6
0
2
43
50
50
0
3
129
82
49
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
29
37
21
1
24
23
6
0
2
44
59
50
0
3
158
119
70
171
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/4/2002
10/4/2002
10/4/2002
10/4/2002
10/11/2002
10/11/2002
10/11/2002
10/11/2002
10/11/2002
10/18/2002
10/28/2002
11/5/2002
11/14/2002
RunYear
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
RMLower
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Length
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
3
71
40
12
0
0
2
0
3
0
-
Dead Count
4
62
36
42
1
2
60
53
46
25
-
Total Count
7
133
76
54
1
2
62
53
49
25
-
8/28/2003
8/28/2003
8/28/2003
8/28/2003
8/28/2003
9/8/2003
9/8/2003
9/8/2003
9/8/2003
9/8/2003
9/15/2003
9/15/2003
9/15/2003
9/15/2003
9/15/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
1.7
0.3
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.3
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.7
1.4
0.3
0.3
1.7
0.5
1.9
1.4
0.3
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
0
1
1
5
0
0
23
0
9
45
3
43
11
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
0
0
0
1
1
5
0
0
23
0
9
45
4
47
12
0
25
172
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/24/2003
9/24/2003
9/24/2003
9/24/2003
9/24/2003
10/3/2003
10/3/2003
10/3/2003
10/3/2003
10/3/2003
10/13/2003
10/13/2003
10/13/2003
10/13/2003
10/13/2003
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
11/5/2003
11/10/2003
RunYear
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
RMLower
0.0
1.4
1.7
0.5
0.3
0.0
1.7
0.3
0.5
1.4
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.7
1.4
0.3
1.4
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.3
1.7
1.9
1.4
0.5
0.3
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.9
1.7
0.5
1.7
1.9
1.4
0.3
1.4
1.4
Length
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
0
34
35
77
0
0
16
0
57
14
0
0
4
10
10
0
0
0
1
0
-
Dead Count
0
8
2
4
0
0
16
2
23
16
0
0
19
10
15
0
0
0
3
0
-
Total Count
0
42
37
81
0
0
32
2
80
30
0
0
23
20
25
0
0
0
4
0
-
8/27/2004
8/27/2004
8/27/2004
8/27/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.5
0.3
1.4
1.7
1.4
0.5
1.7
1.9
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
4
0
4
5
2
0
0
0
6
0
4
5
173
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/9/2004
9/9/2004
9/9/2004
9/9/2004
9/9/2004
9/20/2004
9/20/2004
9/20/2004
9/20/2004
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/21/2004
11/5/2004
11/15/2004
RunYear
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
RMLower
0.5
0.3
1.4
0.0
1.7
0.5
1.7
0.3
1.4
0.0
0.3
1.4
0.5
1.7
1.4
0.3
1.7
0.5
0.3
1.7
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.4
0.5
1.7
0.3
1.9
1.4
1.9
0.5
1.7
0.3
0.5
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.4
0.5
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
Length
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.3
1.1
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
6
0
8
1
3
5
5
0
5
0
0
4
11
23
4
9
8
4
0
0
0
2
-
Dead Count
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
5
11
3
0
10
0
2
-
Total Count
9
0
8
1
3
5
5
0
5
0
0
4
14
24
8
14
19
7
0
10
0
4
-
9/1/2005
9/1/2005
9/1/2005
9/1/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
1
1
5
1
0
3
1
0
1
4
6
1
174
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/15/2005
9/15/2005
9/15/2005
9/15/2005
9/21/2005
9/21/2005
9/21/2005
9/21/2005
10/3/2005
10/3/2005
10/3/2005
10/3/2005
10/11/2005
10/11/2005
10/11/2005
10/11/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/26/2005
11/10/2005
RunYear
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
RMLower
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
1.7
0.3
1.4
0.5
1.7
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
0.3
1.4
0.5
1.7
0.0
1.7
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.5
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.7
1.4
1.9
0.3
1.9
1.7
1.4
0.5
1.4
1.4
Length
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
4
2
2
7
28
5
22
6
26
3
34
3
22
16
0
20
0
3
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
-
Dead Count
0
1
0
2
4
0
1
0
6
2
2
1
4
8
0
13
0
18
5
15
0
3
13
2
0
-
Total Count
4
3
2
9
32
5
23
6
32
5
36
4
26
24
0
33
0
21
9
18
0
3
13
2
0
-
175
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/6/2006
9/6/2006
9/6/2006
9/6/2006
9/13/2006
9/13/2006
9/13/2006
9/13/2006
9/20/2006
9/20/2006
9/20/2006
9/20/2006
9/27/2006
9/27/2006
9/27/2006
9/27/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/11/2006
10/11/2006
10/11/2006
10/11/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
11/1/2006
RunYear
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
RMLower
0.3
1.4
1.7
0.5
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
1.4
1.7
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
1.7
1.4
0.5
1.7
1.4
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.7
1.9
1.4
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.4
0.5
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.7
0.5
1.4
Length
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
Live Count
4
8
24
15
3
18
48
43
67
91
8
81
118
73
6
104
52
44
5
76
16
0
14
14
5
2
2
0
1
Dead Count
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
8
2
1
10
22
11
1
13
24
39
1
33
43
0
25
34
25
22
14
0
0
Total Count
4
8
24
15
3
18
49
46
75
93
9
91
140
84
7
117
76
83
6
109
59
0
39
48
30
24
16
0
1
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
176
Table D-1. Hammersley Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
Sum of
live counts
Sum of
dead counts
ADClippedNoBeep
ADClippedBeep
ADClippedNoHead
0
0
0
0
0
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
0
0
0
1
0
-
-
-
Cranberry
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
19
3
7
9
1
3
1
0
0
1
3
1
1
1
-
-
-
Deer
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
20
27
24
11
5
7
3
4
3
1
7
3
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
-
-
Goldsborough
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
8
1
4
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
-
-
-
-
Hammersley Inlet
Totals
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
47
31
35
23
6
13
4
4
3
2
12
4
4
1
2
4
1
1
1
-
-
Hammesley Inlet
Johns
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
177
Table D-1. Hammersley Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
PreSampled
UnknownMarkN oBeep
(Adipose unknown)
UnknownMarkBeep
UnknownMarkNoHead
(No Head or non-sampled)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
-
Johns
-
-
-
-
Cranberry
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
Deer
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
7
3
4
1
1
-
-
-
2
1
1
-
Goldsborough
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
Hammersley Inlet
Totals
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
12
4
4
1
2
1
-
-
-
4
1
1
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
178
Table D-1. Hammersley Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
UnMarkNoBeep
UnMarkBeep
UnMarkNoHead
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
-
Johns
-
-
-
Cranberry
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
Deer
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
7
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
-
-
1
-
Goldsborough
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2
-
-
-
-
Hammersley Inlet
Totals
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
12
4
4
1
2
2
3
2
1
-
1
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
179
Table D-2. Case and Carr Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
Sum of
live counts
Sum of
dead counts
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
46
35
144
86
10
Rocky
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Coulter
Case Inlet
Sherwood
Carr Inlet
Burley
ADClippedNoBeep
ADClippedBeep
ADClippedNoHead
8
7
24
25
2
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
8
7
24
21
2
1
1
2
2
-
1
-
-
26
1
0
83
11
71
4
0
93
19
71
4
55
14
22
28
9
-
3
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3146
5309
2979
727
315
4272
2626
808
180
20
4272
2626
808
91
8
97
159
69
45
3
2
-
1
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
591
424
111
218
942
430
124
44
104
332
430
123
44
77
222
121
37
12
42
125
1
2
4
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
180
Table D-2. Case and Carr Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
PreSampled
UnknownMarkNoBeep
(Adipose unknown)
UnknownMarkBeep
UnknownMarkNoHead
(No Head or non-sampled)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
8
7
24
21
2
2
2
2
6
-
-
-
2
6
-
Rocky
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
71
4
55
14
12
21
5
-
-
31
3
-
Coulter
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4272
2626
808
91
8
21
89
9
26
4
1
-
-
4141
2363
720
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
430
123
44
77
222
62
14
6
28
88
7
2
-
176
48
18
-
Case Inlet
Sherwood
Carr Inlet
Burley
Year
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
181
Table D-2. Case and Carr Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
UnMarkNoBeep
UnMarkBeep
UnMarkNoHead
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
8
7
24
21
2
3
4
13
13
2
-
-
Rocky
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
71
4
55
14
1
1
6
-
-
2
-
Coulter
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4272
2626
808
91
8
12
15
9
15
1
1
1
-
1
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
430
123
44
77
222
59
23
8
6
4
1
1
1
-
Case Inlet
Sherwood
Carr Inlet
Burley
Year
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
182
Table D-3. Hammersley Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
carcasses sampled
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose marked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose marked,
no CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Johns
Cranberry
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
Deer
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
5
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
Goldsborough
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
183
Table D-3. Hammersley Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Year
Hammersley
Inlet Totals
(by count)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Hammersley
Inlet Totals
(percentages)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
carcasses sampled
7
3
3
1
2
Adipose marked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose marked,
no CWT
4
0
1
1
1
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
3
3
2
0
1
Number of
carcasses sampled
7
3
3
1
2
Adipose marked,
CWT
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Adipose marked,
no CWT
57.14%
0.00%
33.33%
100.00%
50.00%
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
42.86%
100.00%
66.67%
0.00%
50.00%
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
184
Table D-4. Case Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
carcasses sampled
4
5
16
15
2
Adipose marked,
CWT
0
0
1
0
0
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose marked,
no CWT
1
1
2
2
0
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
3
4
13
13
2
Sherwood
Rocky
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
28
1
0
34
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
28
9
3
1
0
6
0
Coulter
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
110
174
79
64
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
98
159
69
45
3
12
15
9
16
1
Year
Number of
carcasses sampled
142
180
95
113
15
Adipose marked,
CWT
0
0
1
2
0
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
0
1
1
0
Adipose marked,
no CWT
124
160
71
75
12
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
18
20
22
35
3
Number of
carcasses sampled
142
180
95
113
15
Adipose marked,
CWT
0.00%
0.00%
1.05%
1.77%
0.00%
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0.00%
0.00%
1.05%
0.88%
0.00%
Adipose marked,
no CWT
87.32%
88.89%
74.74%
66.37%
80.00%
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
12.68%
11.11%
23.16%
30.97%
20.00%
Case Inlet
Totals
(by count)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Case Inlet
Totals
(percentages)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
185
Table D-5. Carr Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
Burley
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Carr Inlet
Totals
(by count)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Carr Inlet
Totals
(percentages)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
carcasses sampled
185
61
20
49
132
Adipose marked,
CWT
1
0
0
0
2
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
1
0
1
1
Adipose marked,
no CWT
125
37
12
42
125
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
59
23
8
6
4
Number of
carcasses sampled
185
61
20
49
132
Adipose marked,
CWT
1
0
0
0
2
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
1
0
1
1
Adipose marked,
no CWT
125
37
12
42
125
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
59
23
8
6
4
Number of
carcasses sampled
185
61
20
49
132
Adipose marked,
CWT
0.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.52%
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0.00%
1.64%
0.00%
2.04%
0.76%
Adipose marked,
no CWT
67.57%
60.66%
60.00%
85.71%
94.70%
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
31.89%
37.70%
40.00%
12.24%
3.03%
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
186
Table D-6. Releases of eyed Chinook salmon eggs in Sherwood Creek by the Sherwood Creek Cooperative
and Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group, brood years 1990-2003.
Brood Year
Number of Chinook salmon released
1990
10,000
1991
0
1992
0
1993
0
1994
0
1995
10,000
1996
10,000
1997
10,000
1998
10,000
1999
10,000
2000
10,000
2001
20,000
2002
10,000
2003
100,000
Source: John McAllister, Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group; personal communication.
187
Table D-7. Estimated return of Chinook salmon at Sherwood Creek due to
eyed egg releases by regional enhancement groups, 1998-2006.
Brood Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Pounds of eyed eggs
released
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
100
Expected contribution
1998
1.39
1.39
1999
1.34
1.39
2.73
2000
0.06*
1.34
1.39
2.73
2001
0.06*
1.34
1.39
2.73
2002
0.06*
1.34
1.39
2.73
2003
0.06*
1.34
1.39
2.73
2004
0.06*
1.34
2.77
4.11
2005
0.06*
2.68
1.39
4.07
2006
0.12*
1.34
13.86
15.20
* Expected contributions from five-year olds were not included in the totals.
Expected contribution rates were calculated using number of hatchery returns per pounds of hatchery fish released rates for Nisqually
Indian Tribe hatchery facilities. The rates for three-, four-, and five-year old returns from a contributing brood year release are as
follows: 0.138583, 0.133796, and 0.005939. The weight of eyed eggs released at Sherwood Creek was estimated at 1,000 FPP.
188
Table A-1. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Nisqually Basin (WRIA 11), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Nisqually R
Clear Cr
Kalama Cr
McAllister Cr
Mashel R
Ohop Cr
Schorno Cr Schorno Pond WRIA Total
500
150,000
100,000
76,782
175,230
149,800
205,350
648,591
499,380
726,160
933,006
150,142
150,000
841,888
2,076,304
1,317,760
400,000
50,000
146,000
1,000,000
439,000
601,381
491,011
1,388,500
300,000
815,810
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
102
Table A-1. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Nisqually Basin (WRIA 11), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Nisqually R
1,407,789
1,002,718
Totals
WRIA Total
15,689,005
1,251,490
282,035
193,900
682,300
Clear Cr
McAllister Cr
940,000
1,094,040
536,000
985,000
2,222,400
2,269,599
3,293,000
2,704,000
3,135,000
3,187,514
2,708,308
3,463,953
2,864,133
3,539,184
2,942,414
Kalama Cr
308,900
762,893
730,965
753,275
1,920,576
1,688,664
1,035,072
1,045,000
900,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
648,000
527,000
802,000
913,500
589,900
1,102,000
553,000
1,047,042
1,089,381
567,599
633,513
649,891
627,000
501,460
76,000
1,320,984
1,373,600
1,321,000
1,602,565
1,488,750
1,226,500
1,501,912
1,371,752
3,400
6,000
36,113,745
22,412,441
28,828,096
2,727,547
738,898
229,200
Mashel R
Ohop Cr
Schorno Cr Schorno Pond WRIA Total
193,008
67,555
216,435
193,900
1,634,800
1,837,000
2,087,600
894,000
1,868,200
193,900
3,872,633
3,246,100
1,391,400
1,286,300
1,232,200
1,648,300
1,205,800
1,257,200
1,065,300
1,339,800
371,800
778,235
476,100
12,000
1200000
850000
2,050,000
9,515,500
118,075,232
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
103
Table A-2. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Tacoma Basin (WRIA 12), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
American Lk (pier)
Chambers Cr
Lake Sequalitchew
496,200
466,550
225,000
45,000
1,000
Steilacoom Lk
Steilacoom Lk (pier)
Titlow Lagoon
WRIA Total
83,975
119,280
313,500
90,720
80,520
82,560
37,102
162,300
2,000
717,922
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
104
Table A-2. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Tacoma Basin (WRIA 12), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
American Lk (pier)
Totals
WRIA Total
691,550
Chambers Cr
798,471
866,378
1,336,900
834,700
775,900
1,032,240
888,600
837,895
853,410
994,132
967,800
839,060
864,850
735,720
922,300
885,631
954,275
1,099,511
1,423,886
861,167
689,844
1,087,330
1,076,794
1,200,297
1,198,995
Lake Sequalitchew
24,954,308
533,302
Steilacoom Lk
72,930
Steilacoom Lk (pier)
Titlow Lagoon
WRIA Total
102,000
9,300
50,000
100,250
88,350
285,800
139,900
298,240
314,000
321,000
1,172,603
76,500
254,328
223,495
433,268
2,319,373
1,622,591
770,555
30,891,679
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
105
Table A-3. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Deschutes Basin (WRIA 13), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Capitol Lake
Deschutes River
McLane Cr
Percival Cr
Silver Spring Cr
Woodland Cr
WRIA Total
281,820
1,854,033
2,075,801
2,842,008
5,560,652
1,529,000
1,501,550
1,544,794
2,296,080
3,012,795
3,616,412
5,678,072
5,544,446
5,415,940
10,555,127
7,868,185
13,601,564
11,398,816
7,741,005
635,646
2,656,500
5,371,155
1,181,283
8,002,757
1,016,743
762,427
1,520,070
1,035,050
500,800
498,870
500,500
1,542,474
703,000
1,074,920
599,866
232,868
41,880
146,633
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
106
Table A-3. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Deschutes Basin (WRIA 13), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Capitol Lake
5,629,449
9,781,826
9,022,900
7,075,400
7,036,100
7,595,900
8,108,668
8,165,340
5,710,375
4,963,000
6,563,850
5,414,400
6,000,070
3,770,600
6,205,250
4,028,248
2,450,188
2,980,110
3,272,945
2,016,177
4,041,800
4,308,000
691,750
1,303,600
Deschutes River
Totals
WRIA Total
237,619,567
33,315,081
1,625,900
McLane Cr
75,582
71,599
128,100
140,100
136,000
121,000
34,000
1,918,200
1,149,100
795,500
1,482,100
Percival Cr
Silver Spring Cr
1,000,000
Woodland Cr
WRIA Total
746,600
82,000
969,400
1,002,000
470,000
1,006,125
691,830
3,924,127
10,044
84,150
3,438,524
2,983,136
3,732,855
12,000
740,000
54,000
188,890
2,191,162
1,982,890
1,035,050
746,600
276,890,350
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
107
Table A-4. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Shelton Basin (WRIA 14), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Goldsborough Cr Sherwood Cr Schumocher Cr
Johns Cr
Kennedy Cr
Elson Cr
Cranberry Cr
South Sound
Net Pens
WRIA Total
630,000
316,260
251,600
505,050
286,000
254,375
508,335
467,200
203,770
249,796
263,700
466,480
353,933
552,218
44,500
231,919
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
108
Table A-4. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Shelton Basin (WRIA 14), 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Totals
WRIA Total
Goldsborough Cr Sherwood Cr Schumocher Cr
Johns Cr
Kennedy Cr
44,800
1,198,500
Elson Cr
222,641
559,902
293,208
221,227
299,300
276,640
334,478
Cranberry Cr
2,439,315
754,846
South Sound
Net Pens
WRIA Total
63,080
776,500
814,860
838,800
821,850
494,112
591,400
170,850
81,000
191,700
185,860
114,700
149,950
160,500
824,400
11,000
10,000
2,918,180
1,133,640
641,000
552,218
1,088,100
5,809,095
15,336,394
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
109
Table A-5. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Kitsap Basin (WRIA 15), and WRIA’s 11-15, 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Minter Cr
4,659
123,568
380,767
130,805
1,972,083
1,380,327
2,495,457
1,360,348
2,013,588
2,075,650
2,728,261
1,863,181
2,571,060
2,287,775
2,178,552
2,751,600
2,840,424
3,043,394
850,511
840,751
1,646,260
1,292,424
2,293,341
1,869,798
1,689,453
2,808,558
1,705,982
4,902,078
Coulter Cr
Burley Cr
Fox Island
Net Pens
Huge Cr
Hupp Springs
Rearing
2,805
175,000
188,020
253,640
224,910
1,424,208
92,555
73,575
210,733
188,346
258,042
390,184
100,000
91,728
WRIA Total
Yearly totals
(All WRIA's)
4,659
405,388
383,572
1,148,048
3,689,510
5,508,510
5,442,605
6,146,707
8,922,790
5,456,256
5,789,736
5,432,376
5,334,340
5,504,340
5,794,964
10,122,288
8,384,870
8,459,334
13,177,706
11,139,173
16,711,584
13,557,790
10,434,003
3,580,019
5,698,686
10,839,528
4,832,282
18,156,239
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
110
Table A-5. Hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Kitsap Basin (WRIA 15), and WRIA’s 11-15, 1952-2004.
Brood Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Minter Cr
3,085,850
1,126,846
1,949,200
1,700,800
1,763,000
2,010,000
1,820,400
1,471,000
1,910,700
2,705,700
2,006,800
2,105,000
Totals
WRIA Total
97,626,272
2,073,000
2,042,800
2,135,600
2,084,100
2,091,748
1,975,600
2,113,950
1,892,500
1,876,675
1,714,725
1,869,623
Coulter Cr
2,068,718
1,249,532
685,343
761,100
1,071,500
1,009,000
1,173,000
1,186,200
1,140,000
1,273,000
1,057,000
900,000
1,082,500
1,117,500
1,098,300
1,286,000
1,230,000
1,337,000
1,294,000
989,270
833,700
Burley Cr
299,000
777,200
50,000
26,111,246 1,126,200
Fox Island
Net Pens
176,551
181,006
181,000
157,500
187,100
162,600
219,500
193,500
205,700
198,899
204,400
303,082
270,553
226,624
237,170
212,100
252,600
243,425
251,210
228,750
5,506,705
Huge Cr
Hupp Springs
Rearing
85,464
WRIA Total
236,000
224,300
299,600
227,000
276,000
603,000
Yearly totals
(All WRIA's)
13,932,345
19,520,133
16,064,416
16,972,502
18,761,684
17,830,269
18,767,323
16,948,695
15,465,535
19,819,731
16,406,262
15,200,582
11,232,163
7,803,844
16,500,604
13,421,738
14,339,363
13,825,786
15,122,301
15,752,814
12,690,652
14,447,069
10,607,767
11,367,942
10,245,347
937,092
131,910,515
573,104,170
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
111
Table A-6. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Nisqually Basin, 1997-2003.
Clear Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
207,617
0
11,389
2,484,994
1998
202,103
192,165
1,088,683
1,652,049
1999
199,030
194,985
2,764,867
28,632
2000
169,143
176,207
2,068,077
294,881
2001
214,490
215,639
2,943,702
90,122
2002
180,294
192,554
2,280,038
211,247
2003
207,975
204,889
3,007,493
118,827
2004
208,724
211,107
2,354,207
168,376
Total
released
2,704,000
3,135,000
3,187,514
2,708,308
3,463,953
2,864,133
3,539,184
2,942,414
CWT &
AD Clipped
7.68%
6.45%
6.24%
6.25%
6.19%
6.29%
5.88%
7.09%
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.42%
91.90%
6.13%
34.73%
52.70%
6.12%
86.74%
0.90%
6.51%
76.36%
10.89%
6.23%
84.98%
2.60%
6.72%
79.61%
7.38%
5.79%
84.98%
3.36%
7.17%
80.01%
5.72%
Kalama Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
0
0
0
553,000
1998
94,723
0
7,239
945,080
1999
88,949
0
1,000,432
0
2000
83,178
3,655
471,237
9,529
2001
82,860
6,951
532,428
11,274
2002
95,101
1,758
536,298
16,734
2003
96,131
342
528,737
1,790
2004
56,177
2,859
423,498
18,926
Total
released
553,000
1,047,042
1,089,381
567,599
633,513
649,891
627,000
501,460
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
9.05%
8.17%
14.65%
13.08%
14.63%
15.33%
11.20%
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.69%
90.26%
0.00%
91.83%
0.00%
0.64%
83.02%
1.68%
1.10%
84.04%
1.78%
0.27%
82.52%
2.57%
0.05%
84.33%
0.29%
0.57%
84.45%
3.77%
McAllister Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
397,306
8,053
1,563
1,195,643
1998
79,782
873
1,350,401
57,694
1999
0
0
1,166,421
60,079
2000
240,320
0
1,211,151
50,441
2001
0
0
1,345,216
26,536
Total
released
1,602,565
1,488,750
1,226,500
1,501,912
1,371,752
CWT &
AD Clipped
24.79%
5.36%
0.00%
16.00%
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.50%
0.10%
74.61%
0.06%
90.71%
3.88%
0.00%
95.10%
4.90%
0.00%
80.64%
3.36%
0.00%
98.07%
1.93%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
112
Table A-7. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Tacoma Basin, 1997-2003.
Chambers Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year
AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
92,884
1,910
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
2000
0
0
2001
0
0
2002
262,038
3,348
2003
404,162
24,429
2004
436,675
7,733
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped
697
1,004,020
913,616
510,270
827,808
33,359
405,128
284,716
919,672
167,658
781,880
29,528
710,212
61,494
728,162
26,425
Total
released
1,099,511
1,423,886
861,167
689,844
1,087,330
1,076,794
1,200,297
1,198,995
CWT &
AD Clipped
8.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
24.34%
33.67%
36.42%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.17%
0.06%
0.00%
64.16%
0.00%
96.13%
0.00%
58.73%
0.00%
84.58%
0.31%
72.61%
2.04%
59.17%
0.64%
60.73%
No
AD Clipped
91.32%
35.84%
3.87%
41.27%
15.42%
2.74%
5.12%
2.20%
Steilacoom Lake (Pier)
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year
AD Clipped AD Clipped
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
2000
0
0
2001
0
0
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped
76,500
0
249,717
4,611
214,108
9,387
184,768
248,500
Total
released
76,500
254,328
223,495
433,268
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
98.19%
0.00%
95.80%
0.00%
42.65%
No
AD Clipped
0.00%
1.81%
4.20%
57.35%
Steilacoom Lake
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year
AD Clipped AD Clipped
2001
0
0
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped
1,125,699
46,904
Total
released
1,172,603
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
96.00%
No
AD Clipped
4.00%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
113
Table A-8. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Deschutes Basin, 1997-2003.
Capitol Lake
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
190,356
0
944
2,788,810
1998
0
0
3,182,830
90,115
1999
67,926
1,965
1,943,211
3,075
2000
178,011
2,814
3,741,270
119,705
2001
72,937
0
4,208,893
26,170
2002
0
0
681,582
10,168
2003
0
0
1,229,483
74,117
Total
released
2,980,110
3,272,945
2,016,177
4,041,800
4,308,000
691,750
1,303,600
Percentages
CWT &
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
6.39%
0.00%
0.03%
93.58%
0.00%
0.00%
97.25%
2.75%
3.37%
0.10%
96.38%
0.15%
4.40%
0.07%
92.56%
2.96%
1.69%
0.00%
97.70%
0.61%
0.00%
0.00%
98.53%
1.47%
0.00%
0.00%
94.31%
5.69%
Deschutes River
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
0
0
0
1,006,125
1998
0
0
679,131
12,699
1999
0
0
3,869,190
54,937
2000
0
10,044
0
0
2001
0
0
84,150
0
2002
266,087
18,430
3,068,106
85,901
2003
257,134
10,224
2,562,081
153,697
2004
272,010
2,175
3,334,766
123,904
Total
released
1,006,125
691,830
3,924,127
10,044
84,150
3,438,524
2,983,136
3,732,855
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7.74%
8.62%
7.29%
Total
released
54,000
188,890
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
39.97%
Deschutes River
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
0
0
54,000
1998
75,498
329
112,574
489
McLane Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
No
Brood Year AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
10,800
0
1,200
0
Total
released
12,000
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
98.16%
1.84%
0.00%
98.60%
1.40%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.54%
89.23%
2.50%
0.34%
85.89%
5.15%
0.06%
89.34%
3.32%
Percentages
CWT, no
No
AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.17%
59.60%
0.26%
Percentages
CWT &
CWT, no
No
AD Clipped AD C lipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
90.00%
0.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
114
Table A-9. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Shelton Basin, 1997-2003.
Sherwood Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
2002
0
0
AD Clipped
0
No
AD Clipped
10,000
Total
released
10,000
Percentages
CWT &
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
No
AD Clipped
100.00%
South Sound Net Pens
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
126,032
0
1998
0
0
No
AD Clipped AD Clipped
253
23,665
157,290
3,210
Total
released
149,950
160,500
Percentages
CWT &
CWT, no
AD Clipped AD Clipped AD Clipped
84.05%
0.00%
0.17%
0.00%
0.00%
98.00%
No
AD Clipped
15.78%
2.00%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
115
Table A-10. Adipose mark and CWT rates for hatchery Chinook salmon brood year releases in the Kitsap Basin, 1997-2003.
Coulter Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
0
0
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
2000
0
0
Fox Island Net Pens
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
1997
239,089
4,336
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
Minter Creek
CWT &
CWT, no
Brood Year AD Clipped AD Clipped
13,496
302
1997
1998
0
0
1999
0
0
2000
0
0
2001
0
0
192,690
2,407
2002
196,942
810
2003
199,863
1,395
2004
AD Clipped
0
1,269,229
947,237
819,428
No
AD Clipped
1,337,000
24,771
42,033
14,272
Total
released
1,337,000
1,294,000
989,270
833,700
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
AD Clipped
0.00%
98.09%
95.75%
98.29%
No
AD Clipped
100.00%
1.91%
4.25%
1.71%
AD Clipped
0
249,395
213,967
No
AD Clipped
0
1,815
14,783
Total
released
243,425
251,210
228,750
CWT &
AD Clipped
98.22%
0.00%
0.00%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped
1.78%
0.00%
0.00%
AD Clipped
0.00%
99.28%
93.54%
No
AD Clipped
0.00%
0.72%
6.46%
AD Clipped
1,302
2,038,625
1,899,839
2,058,887
1,888,842
1,663,142
1,510,924
1,665,863
No
AD Clipped
2,069,000
53,123
76,211
55,063
3,658
18,436
6,049
2,502
Total
released
2,084,100
2,091,748
1,976,050
2,113,950
1,892,500
1,876,675
1,714,725
1,869,623
CWT &
AD Clipped
0.65%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
10.27%
11.49%
10.69%
Percentages
CWT, no
AD Clipped
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.13%
0.05%
0.07%
AD Clipped
0.06%
97.46%
96.14%
97.40%
99.81%
88.62%
88.11%
89.10%
No
AD Clipped
99.28%
2.54%
3.86%
2.60%
0.19%
0.98%
0.35%
0.13%
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
116
Table A-11. Nisqually River fall Chinook salmon run reconstruction, 1986-2006.
Run Clear Creek Kalama Creek
Year
Adults
Adults
1986
281
1987
117
1988
735
1989
794
1990
700
1991
201
1992
12
311
1993
629
743
1994
401
1703
1995
1,607
2,016
1996
1,826
875
1997
2,853
398
1998
2,894
1,173
1999
11,132
2,349
2000
3,759
1,164
2001
7,094
518
2002
8,025
1,316
2003
6,235
1,462
2004
7,255
970
2005
11,557
913
2006
10,003
532
Total Adult Hatchery
Escapement
281
117
735
794
700
201
323
1,372
2,104
3,623
2,701
3,251
4,067
13,481
4,923
7,612
9,341
7,697
8,225
12,470
10,535
Natural
Commercial
Escapement
Catch
300
1,025
85
2,100
1,342
1,573
2,332
4,008
994
4,606
953
428
106
301
1,655
4,163
1,730
6,123
817
7,171
606
5,365
340
4,309
834
7,990
1,399
14,614
1,253
6,836
1,079
14,098
1,542
11,737
627
14,583
2,788
13,850
2,159
11,066
2,179
21,443
Sports
Catch
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
73
90
125
125
Total Runsize without
Jacks and Sports Catch
1,606
2,302
3,650
7,134
6,300
1,582
730
7,190
9,957
11,611
8,672
7,900
12,891
29,494
13,012
22,789
22,636
22,980
24,953
25,820
34,282
No data for sports catch but Nisqually harvest management biologist, Craig Smith, estimates 1,000- 1,500 for 2003-2006.
Data for hatchery jacks excluded.
Source: Nisqually Indian Tribe, 2007b.
117
Table A-12. Mean monthly stream flow averages (cubic feet per second) for miscellaneous South Puget Sound streams and
three fall Chinook salmon systems (Lower Skagit, Snohomish, and Nisqually Rivers).
River/Creek
Huge Creek
Jan.
24
Feb.
22
Mar.
16
Apr.
10
May
7.4
Jun.
6.0
Jul.
5.0
Aug.
4.6
Sep.
4.6
Oct.
5.6
Nov.
10
Dec.
18
Goldsborough
Creek
Kennedy
Creek
Woodland
Creek
256
236
190
133
73
45
30
25
25
52
138
197
170
130
108
60
27
12
5.4
3.9
4.8
17
77
134
41
47
44
36
28
22
17
15
13
14
19
29
Deschutes
River
778
801
590
462
296
191
129
104
98
160
480
710
Nisqually
River
Mashel River
2,180
2,180
1,570
1,320
1,140
890
571
438
521
822
1,610
2,280
376
377
305
280
211
147
55
25
35
109
313
427
Ohop Creek
126
116
91
81
56
41
20
12
16
34
86
124
Snohomish
River
13,200
10,900
9,230
10,300
12,900
12,400
6,680
2,990
3,390
6,140
12,400
13,200
Skagit River
17,900
16,700
14,200
15,000
20,200
24,300
19,900
11,600
9,380
12,400
18,200
18,700
Source: USGS website (www.usgs.gov).
118
Table A-13. USGS Stream gaging stations, locations, and years of operation.
River/Creek
Stream Gaging Station
Huge Creek
12073500
Location of Stream Gage
Huge Creek (RM 0.2),
upstream of outlet to Minter Creek
Goldsborough Creek
12076500
Goldsborough Creek (RM 5.8),
near Shelton, WA
Kennedy Creek
12078400
Kennedy Creek (RM 2.2),
near Kamilche, WA
Woodland Creek
12081000
Woodland Creek (RM 1.3),
near Olympia, WA
Deschutes River
12080010
Deschutes River (RM 3.5)
at E St Bridge at Tumwater, WA
Nisqually River
12089500
Nisqually River (RM 21.7)
at McKenna, WA
Mashel River
12087000
Mashel River (RM 3.0),
near La Grande, WA
Ohop Creek
12088000
Ohop Creek (RM 6.1),
near Eatonville, WA
Snohomish River
12150800
Snohomish River, near Monroe, WA
Skagit River
12200500
Skagit River, near Mt. Vernon, WA
Sources: USGS website (www.usgs.gov); Williams et al., 1975.
Years of operation
1947-Present
1951-1971
1960-1971
1949-1969
1945-1964, 1990-Present
1947-1968, 1978-Present
1940-1957, 1991-Present
1941-1971, 1993-Present
1963-Present
1940-Present
119
Table A-14. Mean monthly average stream temperatures (° C) for three USGS gaging stations in the Skagit River and
Snohomish River Basins.
River/Creek
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Skagit River
4.7
4.2
4.4
5.7
7.2
8.7
10.1
11.2
10.6
9.4
7.7
5.8
North Fork
5.1
5.0
5.6
6.5
Tolt River
South Fork
4.4
4.6
5.5
7.2
Tolt River
Source: USGS website (www.usgs.gov).
7.9
9.7
11.7
11.7
10.5
8.6
6.4
5.3
8.8
10.3
11.4
11.9
11.6
10.4
7.4
5.3
USGS Stream gaging stations, locations, and years of operation.
River/Creek
Stream Gaging Station
Skagit River
12181000
North Fork Tolt River
12148000
South Fork Tolt River
120148300
Location of Stream Gage
Skagit River at
Marblemount, WA
North Fork Tolt River
near Carnation, WA
South Fork Tolt River
near Carnation, WA
Years temperature data
collected
1986-2003
1994-2007
1994-2007
Sources: USGS website (www.usgs.gov).
120
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
10/31/1960
RunYear
1960
RMLower
0.0
RMUpper
0.9
Length
0.9
Species
CHIN
Live Count
1
Dead Count
0
Total Count
1
10/19/1961
11/6/1961
1961
1961
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
1
1
0
0
1
1
10/15/1962
1962
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
13
0
13
11/4/1963
1963
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
2
3
5
10/14/1964
10/29/1964
1964
1964
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
20
22
1
6
21
28
10/22/1965
1965
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
5
22
27
10/21/1966
1966
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
59
8
67
10/5/1967
10/20/1967
1967
1967
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
4
10
0
5
4
15
9/28/1968
10/7/1968
10/18/1968
10/30/1968
11/13/1968
1968
1968
1968
1968
1968
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.4
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
18
41
9
-
0
7
13
-
18
48
22
-
10/15/1969
11/5/1969
1969
1969
0.0
0.9
0.9
2.9
0.9
2.0
CHIN
CHIN
27
8
6
17
33
25
10/14/1970
10/14/1970
11/10/1970
1970
1970
1970
0.0
0.9
2.3
0.9
1.4
3.2
0.9
0.5
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
41
13
-
12
3
-
53
16
-
121
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
10/12/1971
RunYear
1971
RMLower
0.0
RMUpper
1.4
Length
1.4
Species
CHIN
Live Count
22
Dead Count
6
Total Count
28
10/20/1972
10/27/1972
1972
1972
0.9
0.0
4.0
0.9
3.1
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
27
32
9
11
36
43
10/12/1973
1973
0.0
0.9
0.9
CHIN
35
1
36
9/26/1974
10/8/1974
10/18/1974
10/24/1974
10/30/1974
10/30/1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.9
0.9
1.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
1
15
3
8
1
0
4
0
0
0
1
19
3
8
1
9/30/1975
10/3/1975
10/10/1975
10/20/1975
10/27/1975
11/1/1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.9
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
0
9
5
17
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
9
6
18
1
9/13/1976
9/23/1976
9/29/1976
10/6/1976
10/13/1976
10/13/1976
10/27/1976
11/1/1976
11/15/1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.9
0.9
2.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.4
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
5
1
12
18
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
6
1
5
0
1
5
1
12
24
1
7
3
1
122
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
9/28/1977
10/13/1977
10/26/1977
11/10/1977
RunYear
1977
1977
1977
1977
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
Length
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
Species
CHUM
CHIN
COHO
COHO
Live Count
15
-
Dead Count
0
-
Total Count
15
-
9/15/1978
10/6/1978
10/20/1978
11/6/1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
1
11
2
0
2
1
1
13
3
10/5/1979
11/9/1979
11/13/1979
1979
1979
1979
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.3
0.9
0.9
1.4
CHIN
COHO
COHO
4
-
0
-
4
-
9/1/2000
9/11/2000
9/18/2000
9/28/2000
10/5/2000
10/12/2000
10/19/2000
10/27/2000
11/6/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
341
1135
917
1280
776
282
110
5
0
8
66
355
605
565
1577
385
0
1
349
1201
1272
1885
1341
1859
495
5
1
123
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
9/5/2001
9/11/2001
9/20/2001
10/1/2001
10/9/2001
10/18/2001
10/18/2001
10/26/2001
11/5/2001
11/13/2001
RunYear
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
Length
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
Live Count
754
883
1213
497
321
123
23
9
-
Dead Count
76
171
279
491
351
81
101
0
-
Total Count
830
1054
1492
988
672
204
124
9
-
9/17/2002
9/27/2002
9/27/2002
10/4/2002
10/14/2002
10/24/2002
10/24/2002
11/1/2002
11/8/2002
11/15/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
2.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
COHO
1846
529
73
734
36
1
3
0
-
492
1028
87
1355
1386
10
4
1
-
2338
1557
160
2089
1422
11
7
1
-
8/22/2003
9/3/2003
9/10/2003
9/18/2003
9/25/2003
10/2/2003
10/2/2003
10/10/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
66
926
1771
1450
695
336
65
65
0
6
121
457
842
1180
345
20
66
932
1892
1907
1537
1516
410
85
124
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
10/24/2003
10/29/2003
11/3/2003
11/7/2003
11/13/2003
RunYear
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
RMLower
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
Length
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
Species
COHO
CHIN
COHO
COHO
COHO
Live Count
1
-
Dead Count
0
-
Total Count
1
-
8/26/2004
9/3/2004
9/13/2004
9/20/2004
9/20/2004
9/27/2004
10/6/2004
10/13/2004
10/20/2004
10/28/2004
10/28/2004
11/4/2004
11/10/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
199
383
569
1053
460
624
118
31
1
0
1
-
5
2
9
93
59
395
304
204
385
578
1146
519
1019
422
-
-
9/30/2005
10/7/2005
10/14/2005
10/14/2005
10/21/2005
10/26/2005
11/2/2005
11/9/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.3
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
190
83
11
0
8
0
-
49
63
43
0
9
0
-
239
146
54
0
17
0
-
0
125
Table B-1. Coulter Creek spawning ground surveys- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Date
8/21/2006
9/1/2006
9/11/2006
9/18/2006
9/26/2006
10/3/2006
10/11/2006
10/19/2006
10/23/2006
10/23/2006
10/23/2006
11/1/2006
11/9/2006
RunYear
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
Length
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
0
5
68
84
103
35
16
4
0
0
-
Dead Count
0
0
0
3
2
10
4
1
0
0
-
Total Count
0
5
68
87
105
45
20
5
0
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
126
Figure B-2. Coulter Creek spawning ground survey effort- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
Number of Surveys Conducted
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Survey Year
Figure B-3. Coulter Creek peak observed survey count dates- 1960-1979, 2000-2006.
1960-1969
1970-1979
2000-2006
Yearly Peak Observed Live
and Dead Survey Counts
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
15-Sep
25-Sep
5-Oct
15-Oct
25-Oct
4-Nov
Survey Dates
127
Table C-1. Chinook salmon hatchery releases in South Puget Sound tributaries,
brood years 1952-2004.
Release Location
Release Year
Burley Creek
Burley Creek
Burley Creek
Brood
Year
1989
1990
1991
1990
1991
1992
Number of fish
released
430,800
645,400
50,000
Fish per pound
Measured
1,008
965- 1,008
945
Cranberry Creek
Cranberry Creek
1959
1961
1960
1962
505,050
249,796
648
782
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
Goldsborough Creek
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1989
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1989
286,000
254,375
508,335
467,200
203,770
1,198,500
440
401- 477
234- 477
639
354
1,463
Johns Creek
1978
1980
1,118,058
15
Schumocher Creek*
Schumocher Creek
1956
1991
1957
1992
630,000
11,000
1008
100- 597
Sherwood Creek*
1957
1958
Sherwood Creek
1958
1959
Sherwood Creek
1970
1971
Sherwood Creek
1979
1980
Sherwood Creek
1981
1982
Source: RMIS Database, 2008.
316,260
251,600
466,480
44,500
48,800
251- 488
677
840
889
1,163
* Note: Sherwood Creek and Schumocher Creek are part of the same system. Sherwood
Creek is the name of the stream below Mason Lake (RM 0.0- RM 8.5), and
Schumocher Creek is the name of the stream above Mason Lake
(RM 12.9- RM 18.3).
128
Table C-2. South Puget Sound tributaries peak observed live and dead survey counts, 1987-2006.
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Hammersley
Cranberry
1
1
5
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
Deer
20
13
12
34
68
13
4
3
0
1
Goldsborough
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Johns
0
1
13
21
22
14
5
0
6
2
Totals
21
15
30
58
90
27
11
3
6
3
Case
Sherwood
11
7
12
28
28
6
2
11
9
0
Rocky
4
17
9
30
14
39
3
2
9
0
Totals
15
24
21
58
42
45
5
13
18
0
Carr
Burley
16
160
98
196
396
385
307
414
84
47
Totals
16
160
98
196
396
385
307
414
84
47
South Sound
Totals
52
199
149
312
528
457
323
430
108
50
NS- No surveys conducted for that year.
129
Table C-2. South Puget Sound tributaries peak observed live and dead survey counts, 1987-2006.
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Hammersley
Cranberry
3
3
4
3
2
16
2
4
6
2
Deer
2
10
7
5
16
14
23
15
8
2
Goldsborough
NS
9
8
14
9
6
1
3
2
0
Johns
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
Totals
7
22
19
24
28
36
26
22
17
4
Case
Sherwood
0
8
22
9
12
30
13
80
29
8
Rocky
19
360
196
397
132
43
2
0
77
16
Totals
19
368
218
406
144
73
15
80
106
24
Carr
Burley
25
121
257
33
191
350
160
42
83
341
Totals
25
121
257
33
191
350
160
42
83
341
South Sound
Totals
51
511
494
463
363
459
201
144
206
369
NS- No surveys conducted for that year.
130
Table C-3. South Puget Sound tributaries AUC relative abundance estimates, 1987-2006.
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Hammersley
Cranberry
1^
0^
8
2
0
0*
2
0
0*
0*
Deer
22^
16^
21
57
83
19*
9
5
0*
1*
Goldsborough
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Johns
0*
1*
10
7
12
10
3
0
6*
1
Totals
23
17
39
66
95
29
14
5
6
2
Case
Sherwood
3^
8
15^
37
30
6
2
12
4*
0*
Rocky
0^
18
NC
0*
9^*
33
NC
0
5*
0*
Totals
3
26
15
37
39
39
2
12
9
0
Carr
Burley
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
487*
535
640**
NC
74
Totals
0
0
0
0
0
487
535
640
0
74
South Sound
Totals
26
43
54
103
134
555
551
657
15
76
* Data includes a gap of more than 14 days between surveys
** Data includes a first or last survey with a live count of 60 or greater
^ Data does not include a survey prior to September 25
NC- AUC not calculated because less than four surveys conducted.
NS- No surveys conducted for that year.
131
Table C-3. South Puget Sound tributaries AUC relative abundance estimates, 1987-2006.
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Hammersley
Cranberry
7^
1
4
3
4
17
2
6
7
1
Deer
2
12
21
5
33
19
20
17
11
4
Goldsborough
NS
10^
5^*
16*
21
4
1
6^
2
0
Johns
2
0
0
2
1
0
0*
0
1
0
Totals
11
23
30
26
59
40
23
29
21
5
Case
Sherwood
0*
11
33
12
28
36
24
103
61
10
Rocky
36*
368
220
495
72
29
2
NC
70*
16*
Totals
36
379
253
507
100
65
26
103
131
26
Carr
Burley
NC
NC
285
65
316
468
387*
103
181
671*
Totals
0
0
285
65
316
468
387
103
181
671
South Sound
Totals
47
402
568
598
475
573
436
235
333
702
* Data includes a gap of more than 14 days between surveys
** Data includes a first or last survey with a live count of 60 or greater
^ Data does not include a survey prior to September 25
NC- AUC not calculated because less than four surveys conducted.
NS- No surveys conducted for that year.
132
Table C-4. South Puget Sound Chinook salmon run reconstruction, 1987-2006.
Run Year
Run Area
Misc. 13- McAllister Creek
Chambers Creek
Nisqually River
Mics 13A- Minter Creek
Deschutes River
Misc 13B Streams- Coulter C reek
Total Run Size
Run Year
Run Area
Misc. 13- McAllister Creek
Chambers Creek
Nisqually River
Mics 13A- Minter Creek
Deschutes River
Misc 13B Streams- Coulter C reek
Total Run Size
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
5,345
3,272
2,679
4,494
9,913
2,334
8, 670
4, 079
4, 273
4, 744
15, 645
2, 857
4,326
2,378
7,860
5,261
25,877
4,639
5, 464
3, 737
6, 670
7, 011
27, 757
12, 735
2,849
3,784
1,719
5,914
12,310
4,197
2,944
3,961
791
4,963
10,106
4,091
2,523
2,767
7,494
3,157
9,173
5,276
3,931
2,303
10,454
4,624
13,046
3,551
9,032
4,517
11,528
1,730
29,025
3,115
4,281
3,441
8,746
366
18,014
3,478
28,037
40, 268
50,341
63, 374
30,773
26,856
30,390
37,909
58,947
38,326
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3,898
2,708
8,267
3,665
4,237
2,216
3, 699
3, 140
11, 958
8, 635
4, 348
2, 909
3,454
1,212
24,499
14,608
7,947
7,312
3, 805
1, 994
12, 024
9, 904
9, 007
4, 467
4,414
969
19,091
13,741
6,005
3,833
863
1,418
27,730
10,835
8,559
5,884
0
1,750
26,294
7,174
8,412
4,692
0
5,044
24,895
5,904
13,419
2,718
0
5,052
26,785
6,843
12,250
568
0
8,934
34,333
15,155
20,288
0
24,991
34, 689
59,032
41, 201
48,053
55,289
48,322
51,980
51,498
78,710
Source: WDFW, 2007b.
133
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/12/1987**
10/15/1987
10/29/1987
11/5/1987
11/13/1987
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
R MUpper
0.2
0.4
0.5
3.5
3.5
Length
0.2
0.4
0.5
3.5
3.5
Species
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
1
-
Dead Count
0
-
Total Count
1
-
10/11/1988
10/21/1988
10/24/1988**
11/4/1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
COHO
0
-
1
-
1
-
9/19/1989
9/29/1989
10/10/1989
10/17/1989
10/25/1989
10/30/1989**
11/10/1989**
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
0.9
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
3
5
1
-
0
0
3
-
3
5
4
-
9/21/1990
10/4/1990
10/16/1990
10/25/1990
10/25/1990
11/2/1990
11/8/1990
11/15/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
3.5
3.5
2.6
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.6
1.0
3.5
3.5
2.5
0.9
3.5
2.6
2.6
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
COHO
0
2
-
1
1
-
1
3
-
** Survey conducted by Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.
134
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/1991
10/2/1991
10/11/1991
10/22/1991
10/31/1991
11/7/1991
RunYear
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.5
2.5
Length
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.5
2.5
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/11/1992
9/21/1992
10/2/1992
10/19/1992
10/28/1992
11/5/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.2
0.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
0.8
0.2
0.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
0
-
0
-
0
-
9/13/1993
9/20/1993
10/4/1993
10/11/1993
10/20/1993
11/1/1993
11/10/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.5
0.7
2.6
3.0
3.5
2.6
0.8
3.5
0.7
2.6
3.0
3.5
2.6
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
2
-
0
-
2
-
9/21/1994
10/3/1994
10/11/1994
10/18/1994
10/28/1994
11/8/1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
135
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/12/1995
9/27/1995
10/12/1995
10/20/1995
11/2/1995
RunYear
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.8
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
Length
0.8
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/17/1996
9/26/1996
10/3/1996
10/14/1996
10/29/1996
11/8/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
9/26/1997
10/8/1997
10/21/1997
10/29/1997
11/12/1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
3
3
-
0
0
-
3
3
-
9/9/1998
9/17/1998
9/25/1998
10/5/1998
10/15/1998
10/22/1998
10/30/1998
11/9/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
1
-
2
-
3
-
136
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/10/1999
9/17/1999
9/28/1999
10/6/1999
10/13/1999
10/20/1999
10/27/1999
11/3/1999
11/15/1999
RunYear
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
3.5
2.6
0.8
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Length
3.5
2.6
0.8
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Species
CHUM
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
4
0
-
Dead Count
0
1
-
Total Count
4
1
-
9/5/2000
9/12/2000
9/21/2000
9/29/2000
10/6/2000
10/16/2000
10/25/2000
11/2/2000
11/14/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.6
2.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
3
-
0
-
3
-
9/12/2001
9/19/2001
9/28/2001
10/8/2001
10/17/2001
10/25/2001
11/2/2001
11/13/2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.6
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
1
2
-
0
0
-
1
2
-
137
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/2002
9/30/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/16/2002
10/23/2002
11/1/2002
11/8/2002
RunYear
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
2.6
3.5
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Length
2.6
3.5
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
15
4
0
0
-
Dead Count
1
1
0
1
-
Total Count
16
5
0
1
-
9/17/2003
9/23/2003
9/23/2003
10/1/2003
10/8/2003
10/8/2003
10/15/2003
10/28/2003
11/5/2003
11/12/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.9
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
-
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
-
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
9/22/2004
9/28/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/21/2004
10/21/2004
10/28/2004
11/8/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.8
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
-
138
Table C-5. Cranberry Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/2005
9/27/2005
10/5/2005
10/12/2005
10/20/2005
10/20/2005
10/27/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/14/2005
11/14/2005
RunYear
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
RMUpper
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
2.6
0.8
Length
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
1.8
0.8
1.8
0.8
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
-
Dead Count
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total Count
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
-
9/6/2006
9/12/2006
9/25/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/12/2006
10/19/2006
10/19/2006
10/26/2006
10/26/2006
11/2/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.5
2.6
0.8
2.6
2.6
0.8
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.5
2.6
0.8
1.8
2.6
0.8
1.8
0.9
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
139
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/12/1987
10/12/1987**
10/12/1987
10/15/1987
10/29/1987
11/5/1987
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.5
0.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
Length
0.2
0.3
0.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
Live Count
0
1
9
13
0
Dead Count
1
11
2
7
3
Total Count
1
12
11
20
3
9/30/1988
10/11/1988
10/11/1988
10/11/1988
10/21/1988
10/24/1988**
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
6
9
-
3
4
-
9
13
-
9/19/1989
9/29/1989
10/10/1989
10/17/1989
10/25/1989**
10/30/1989**
11/8/1989**
11/14/1989**
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
11
9
-
0
3
-
11
12
-
9/21/1990
10/4/1990
10/16/1990
10/25/1990
11/2/1990
11/8/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.1
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
33
20
0
0
-
1
7
1
1
-
34
27
1
1
-
** Survey conducted by Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.
140
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/1991
10/2/1991
10/11/1991
10/22/1991
10/31/1991
11/7/1991
RunYear
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Length
0.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
20
61
3
0
-
Dead Count
0
7
5
3
-
Total Count
20
68
8
3
-
9/11/1992
9/21/1992
10/6/1992
10/14/1992
10/20/1992
10/28/1992
11/5/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
13
7
4
-
0
4
3
-
13
11
7
-
9/13/1993
9/20/1993
10/1/1993
10/4/1993
10/11/1993
10/20/1993
11/1/1993
11/12/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
4
3
-
0
1
-
4
4
-
9/21/1994
10/3/1994
10/11/1994
10/18/1994
10/28/1994
11/8/1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.3
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
2
-
1
-
3
-
141
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/12/1995
9/27/1995
10/12/1995
10/20/1995
10/31/1995**
11/2/1995
RunYear
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.5
1.3
Length
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.5
1.3
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/13/1996
9/17/1996
9/26/1996
10/3/1996
10/14/1996
11/4/1996
11/14/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.7
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
1
-
0
-
1
-
9/26/1997
10/9/1997
10/13/1997**
10/13/1997**
10/13/1997**
10/20/1997
10/28/1997
11/6/1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
0.6
0.4
4.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
0.2
0.4
3.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
COHO
CHUM
0
2
-
1
0
-
1
2
-
9/8/1998
9/16/1998
9/25/1998
10/2/1998
10/15/1998
10/22/1998
10/29/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
2
1
4
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
1
3
2
1
4
1
1
10
142
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/5/1998
11/12/1998
RunYear
1998
1998
RMLower
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.3
1.1
Length
1.3
1.1
Species
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/10/1999
9/17/1999
9/29/1999
10/5/1999
10/13/1999
10/20/1999
10/27/1999
11/3/1999
11/15/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.1
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
1
7
6
2
-
0
0
0
0
-
1
7
6
2
-
9/6/2000
9/13/2000
9/21/2000
9/29/2000
10/6/2000
10/16/2000
10/25/2000
11/2/2000
11/14/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
0
1
4
-
1
0
1
-
1
1
5
-
9/11/2001
9/19/2001
9/27/2001
10/5/2001
10/15/2001
10/25/2001
11/2/2001
11/9/2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
COHO
4
6
12
16
1
-
2
0
1
0
0
-
6
6
13
16
1
-
143
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/2002
9/30/2002
10/8/2002
10/8/2002
10/16/2002
10/23/2002
11/1/2002
11/8/2002
RunYear
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
2.6
3.5
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Length
2.6
3.5
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
15
4
0
0
-
Dead Count
1
1
0
1
-
Total Count
16
5
0
1
-
9/17/2003
9/23/2003
9/23/2003
10/1/2003
10/8/2003
10/8/2003
10/15/2003
10/28/2003
11/5/2003
11/12/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.9
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
-
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
-
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
9/22/2004
9/28/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/21/2004
10/21/2004
10/28/2004
11/8/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.8
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
-
144
Table C-6. Deer Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/2005
9/27/2005
10/5/2005
10/12/2005
10/20/2005
10/20/2005
10/27/2005
11/4/2005
11/4/2005
11/14/2005
11/14/2005
RunYear
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
RMUpper
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
2.6
0.8
Length
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.9
2.6
1.8
0.8
1.8
0.8
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
-
Dead Count
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total Count
0
0
2
6
0
0
1
-
9/6/2006
9/12/2006
9/25/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/12/2006
10/19/2006
10/19/2006
10/26/2006
10/26/2006
11/2/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.5
2.6
0.8
2.6
2.6
0.8
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.6
0.8
0.5
2.6
0.8
1.8
2.6
0.8
1.8
0.9
2.6
2.6
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
145
Table C-7. Goldsborough Creek spawning ground surveys, 1998-2006.
Date
9/29/1998
10/8/1998
10/14/1998
10/22/1998
10/27/1998
11/2/1998
11/9/1998
RunYear
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
RMLower
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
RMUpper
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
Length
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.7
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
1
8
2
2
-
Dead Count
1
1
0
1
-
Total Count
2
9
2
3
-
9/28/1999
10/5/1999
10/13/1999
10/15/1999**
10/15/1999**
10/21/1999
10/25/1999**
10/25/1999**
11/10/1999**
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.0
0.7
1.7
0.7
1.0
1.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
6
0
2
-
2
0
0
-
8
0
2
-
9/15/2000**
9/28/2000**
10/4/2000
10/6/2000**
10/11/2000
10/19/2000**
10/19/2000**
11/3/2000**
11/15/2000**
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
2
1
0
14
7
5
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
2
1
0
14
7
5
-
** Survey conducted by R2 Resource Consultants
146
Table C-7. Goldsborough Creek spawning ground surveys, 1998-2006.
Date
8/27/2001**
9/4/2001
9/10/2001**
9/17/2001
9/25/2001**
9/27/2001
10/9/2001
10/11/2001**
10/11/2001**
10/18/2001
10/25/2001**
RunYear
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
RMLower
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
RMUpper
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
3.4
2.3
2.2
2.3
Length
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.1
1.8
1.7
1.8
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
3
3
4
8
9
1
3
1
-
Dead Count
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Total Count
4
3
4
8
9
1
3
1
-
8/28/2002
9/11/2002
9/20/2002
9/30/2002
10/3/2002
10/10/2002
10/14/2002
10/17/2002
10/24/2002
10/28/2002
10/31/2002
11/6/2002
11/11/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
COHO
COHO
CHUM
0
2
0
1
5
0
-
0
0
1
0
1
1
-
0
2
1
1
6
1
-
9/9/2003
9/22/2003
9/29/2003
10/8/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
** Survey conducted by R2 Resource Consultants
147
Table C-7. Goldsborough Creek spawning ground surveys, 1998-2006.
Date
10/15/2003
10/29/2003
11/6/2003
RunYear
2003
2003
2003
RMLower
0.5
0.5
0.5
RMUpper
2.2
2.2
2.2
Length
1.7
1.7
1.7
Species
COHO
COHO
COHO
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/7/2004
9/21/2004
10/6/2004
10/21/2004
10/28/2004
11/8/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
0
1
3
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
1
3
0
-
9/7/2005
9/13/2005
9/19/2005
9/28/2005
10/6/2005
10/17/2005
10/25/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
9/6/2006
9/12/2006
9/20/2006
9/26/2006
10/4/2006
10/13/2006
10/20/2006
10/27/2006
11/1/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
148
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/8/1987**
9/15/1987**
9/22/1987**
9/30/1987**
10/15/1987
10/30/1987
11/2/1987**
11/11/1987**
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.6
1.8
0.4
Length
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.6
1.8
0.4
Species
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
Total Count
-
9/8/1988
9/30/1988
9/30/1988
10/11/1988
10/21/1988
10/21/1988
11/4/1988
11/15/1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.6
1.7
1.6
0.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.3
1.6
0.1
1.6
0.4
1.2
1.6
1.6
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
1
-
0
-
1
-
9/19/1989
9/29/1989
9/29/1989
10/10/1989
10/17/1989
10/25/1989**
10/25/1989**
11/3/1989**
11/3/1989**
11/10/1989**
11/10/1989**
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.6
0.4
1.6
1.6
0.4
1.6
0.4
1.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.6
0.4
1.6
1.2
0.4
1.2
0.4
1.2
0.4
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
3
6
2
0
-
0
0
11
10
-
3
6
13
10
-
** Survey conducted by Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.
149
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/21/1990
10/4/1990
10/4/1990
10/16/1990
10/19/1990
10/19/1990
10/30/1990
10/30/1990
11/8/1990
11/8/1990
11/15/1990
11/15/1990
RunYear
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
RMUpper
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.8
0.4
1.8
0.4
1.8
0.4
1.8
Length
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.4
0.4
1.4
0.4
1.4
0.4
1.4
Species
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live_Count
6
0
0
0
-
Dead_Count
3
1
3
18
-
Total_Count
9
1
3
18
-
9/18/1991
10/2/1991
10/11/1991
10/22/1991
10/31/1991
11/7/1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
1.6
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
1
8
3
0
-
0
7
19
2
-
1
15
22
2
-
9/11/1992
9/21/1992
10/2/1992
10/9/1992
10/19/1992
10/28/1992
11/5/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
4
5
2
1
-
7
1
9
13
-
11
6
11
14
-
9/1/1993
9/13/1993
9/20/1993
10/4/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
1.6
1.6
0.5
0.4
1.6
1.6
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
0
0
1
2
1
2
150
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/11/1993
10/20/1993
11/1/1993
11/10/1993
RunYear
1993
1993
1993
1993
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
Length
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.8
Species
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live_Count
4
-
Dead_Count
1
-
Total_Count
5
-
9/14/1994
9/21/1994
10/3/1994
10/11/1994
10/18/1994
10/28/1994
11/8/1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
8/30/1995
9/13/1995
9/27/1995
10/12/1995
10/20/1995
10/30/1995
11/2/1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
6
-
0
-
6
-
9/3/1996
9/13/1996
9/17/1996
9/26/1996
10/3/1996
10/14/1996
10/28/1996
11/8/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.4
0.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
1
-
1
-
2
-
151
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/29/1997
10/9/1997
10/21/1997
10/29/1997
11/12/1997
RunYear
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Length
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Species
CHUM
C HIN
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
Live_Count
2
-
Dead_Count
0
-
Total_Count
2
-
9/11/1998
9/18/1998
10/2/1998
10/15/1998
10/23/1998
11/2/1998
11/9/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
9/1/1999
9/10/1999
9/17/1999
9/28/1999
10/6/1999
10/13/1999
10/20/1999
10/27/1999
11/3/1999
11/15/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
9/5/2000
9/12/2000
9/21/2000
9/29/2000
10/6/2000
10/16/2000
10/25/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
COHO
CHUM
2
-
0
-
2
-
152
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/2/2000
11/14/2000
RunYear
2000
2000
RMLower
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.8
1.8
Length
1.8
1.8
Species
CHUM
CHUM
Live_Count
-
Dead_Count
-
Total_Count
-
9/4/2001
9/12/2001
9/19/2001
9/28/2001
10/8/2001
10/17/2001
10/25/2001
11/2/2001
11/11/2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
C HIN
CHUM
C HIN
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
1
1
-
-
-
1
1
-
9/10/2002
9/20/2002
9/30/2002
10/7/2002
10/16/2002
10/24/2002
11/1/2002
11/8/2002
11/15/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
-
-
-
9/8/2003
9/23/2003
10/1/2003
10/9/2003
10/24/2003
10/31/2003
11/7/2003
11/14/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
-
-
-
-
153
Table C-8. Johns Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/1/2004
9/8/2004
9/14/2004
9/22/2004
9/30/2004
10/7/2004
10/14/2004
10/21/2004
10/29/2004
11/4/2004
RunYear
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Length
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
Live_Count
0
0
0
0
Dead_Count
0
0
0
0
Total_Count
0
0
0
0
9/8/2005
9/13/2005
9/20/2005
9/27/2005
10/5/2005
10/12/2005
10/20/2005
10/27/2005
11/4/2005
11/14/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
0
0
0
0
1
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
1
0
-
9/6/2006
9/12/2006
9/19/2006
9/21/2006
9/29/2006
10/9/2006
10/18/2006
10/26/2006
11/1/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.8
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.6
1.8
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
C HIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
0
-
0
-
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
154
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/15/1987
10/29/1987
11/3/1987
11/9/1987**
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
R MUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
Species
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
Live Count
3
0
-
Dead Count
8
2
-
Total Count
11
2
-
9/19/1988
9/28/1988
10/6/1988
10/18/1988
10/27/1988
11/4/1988**
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
1
5
0
-
0
2
1
-
1
7
1
-
9/27/1989
10/10/1989
10/17/1989
10/25/1989
11/1/1989
11/3/1989**
11/10/1989**
11/13/1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
2
11
-
0
1
-
2
12
-
9/21/1990
10/4/1990
10/16/1990
10/25/1990
11/2/1990
11/8/1990
11/15/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.7
3.5
0.7
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
3.5
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.4
0.7
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
COHO
28
6
0
-
0
5
1
-
28
11
1
-
** Survey conducted by Squaxin Island Indian Tribe.
155
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/19/1991
10/2/1991
10/11/1991
10/22/1991
10/31/1991
11/4/1991
11/7/1991
11/12/1991
RunYear
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
Live Count
5
21
3
2
0
-
Dead Count
2
7
17
8
2
-
Total Count
7
28
20
10
2
-
9/11/1992
9/21/1992
10/2/1992
10/9/1992
10/19/1992
10/28/1992
11/5/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
3
0
4
0
-
1
1
2
5
-
4
1
6
5
-
9/1/1993
9/13/1993
9/20/1993
10/4/1993
10/11/1993
10/20/1993
11/1/1993
11/12/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
2
0
0
-
0
2
1
-
2
2
1
-
156
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/22/1994
10/3/1994
10/11/1994
10/18/1994
10/28/1994
11/8/1994
RunYear
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
3
9
3
-
Dead Count
2
2
2
-
Total Count
5
11
5
-
8/30/1995
9/12/1995
9/27/1995
10/12/1995
10/20/1995
11/2/1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
4
-
5
-
9
-
9/3/1996
9/13/1996
10/1/1996
10/8/1996
10/17/1996
10/29/1996
11/8/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
-
-
-
9/19/1997
10/8/1997
10/20/1997
10/28/1997
11/6/1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
COHO
-
-
-
157
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/3/1998
9/16/1998
9/25/1998
10/5/1998
10/13/1998
10/20/1998
10/28/1998
11/5/1998
11/12/1998
RunYear
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
RMLower
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
COHO
Live Count
3
8
1
0
0
-
Dead Count
0
0
5
5
1
-
Total Count
3
8
6
5
1
-
9/1/1999
9/13/1999
9/23/1999
9/30/1999
10/7/1999
10/13/1999
10/20/1999
10/27/1999
11/4/1999
11/15/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
10
22
9
0
-
0
0
6
1
-
10
22
15
1
-
9/6/2000
9/13/2000
9/21/2000
9/29/2000
10/6/2000
10/16/2000
10/24/2000
10/31/2000
11/9/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
2
7
3
1
1
-
0
0
2
1
0
0
-
0
2
9
4
1
1
-
158
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/7/2001
9/14/2001
9/24/2001
10/4/2001
10/15/2001
10/25/2001
11/1/2001
11/9/2001
RunYear
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
Live Count
7
9
8
4
0
-
Dead Count
0
0
4
3
3
-
Total Count
7
9
12
7
3
-
9/10/2002
9/17/2002
9/27/2002
10/3/2002
10/10/2002
10/16/2002
10/23/2002
10/31/2002
11/7/2002
11/15/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
COHO
9
1
26
7
3
0
-
1
0
4
1
1
1
-
10
1
30
8
4
1
-
9/2/2003
9/10/2003
9/17/2003
9/25/2003
10/3/2003
10/9/2003
10/14/2003
10/27/2003
11/3/2003
11/6/2003
11/14/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
COHO
COHO
1
0
7
13
7
7
-
0
0
0
0
3
4
-
1
0
7
13
10
11
-
159
Table C-9. Sherwood Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/1/2004
9/8/2004
9/13/2004
9/22/2004
9/27/2004
10/6/2004
10/13/2004
10/21/2004
10/28/2004
11/4/2004
11/11/2004
RunYear
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
RMLower
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
RMUpper
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Length
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
0
0
2
40
73
23
2
4
-
Dead Count
0
0
0
2
7
11
4
0
-
Total Count
0
0
2
42
80
34
6
4
-
9/6/2005
9/12/2005
9/20/2005
9/27/2005
10/4/2005
10/11/2005
10/18/2005
10/25/2005
11/7/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
0
5
11
17
27
20
6
0
-
0
0
2
0
2
7
11
3
-
0
5
13
17
29
27
17
3
-
9/12/2006
9/22/2006
10/2/2006
10/12/2006
10/23/2006
10/31/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
1
3
6
0
-
0
0
2
0
-
1
3
8
0
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
160
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/15/1987
10/29/1987
11/5/1987
11/12/1987
RunYear
1987
1987
1987
1987
RMLower
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.7
0.8
1.6
1.6
Length
0.4
0.5
1.3
1.3
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
Live Count
0
0
0
Dead Count
4
2
0
2
T otal Count
4
2
0
2
9/8/1988
9/19/1988
9/28/1988
10/6/1988
10/18/1988
10/28/1988
11/4/1988
11/11/1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
COHO
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
2
8
8
0
-
0
0
9
6
-
2
8
17
6
-
9/6/1989
9/27/1989
11/2/1989
11/9/1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
8
-
1
-
9
-
9/23/1990
10/16/1990
10/23/1990
10/31/1990
11/1/1990
11/7/1990
11/15/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
0
0
0
-
4
30
2
-
4
30
2
-
10/9/1991
10/11/1991
10/18/1991
10/21/1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.6
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
9
8
1
0
3
6
3
3
12
14
4
3
161
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/8/1991
11/15/1991
RunYear
1991
1991
RMLower
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
Length
1.3
1.3
Species
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
T otal Count
-
9/22/1992
9/30/1992
10/7/1992
10/14/1992
10/21/1992
10/28/1992
11/9/1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
13
14
4
3
7
1
-
2
25
31
17
31
9
-
15
39
35
20
38
10
-
9/20/1993
9/20/1993
11/2/1993
11/9/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
3
0
-
0
3
-
3
3
-
9/20/1994
10/4/1994
10/12/1994
10/19/1994
11/2/1994
11/8/1994
11/15/1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHUM
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
0
0
-
1
2
-
1
2
-
9/11/1995
10/3/1995
10/13/1995
10/25/1995
10/27/1995
11/3/1995
11/10/1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHUM
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
5
1
-
4
0
-
9
1
-
162
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/23/1996
10/8/1996
10/16/1996
10/25/1996
11/1/1996
11/8/1996
RunYear
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
RMLower
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Length
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Species
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
-
Dead Count
-
T otal Count
-
9/15/1997
10/3/1997
10/20/1997
11/4/1997
11/4/1997
11/11/1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.1
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHUM
3
18
0
0
-
0
1
2
1
-
3
19
2
1
-
9/15/1998
9/23/1998
10/2/1998
10/12/1998
10/21/1998
10/30/1998
11/6/1998
11/13/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
14
78
267
30
4
3
0
-
2
44
93
271
110
149
15
-
16
122
360
301
114
152
15
-
9/8/1999
9/16/1999
9/24/1999
10/5/1999
10/12/1999
10/19/1999
10/26/1999
11/2/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
5
29
117
85
6
0
0
-
2
8
28
111
107
36
21
-
7
37
145
196
113
36
21
-
163
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/4/1999
11/9/1999
RunYear
1999
1999
RMLower
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
Length
1.3
1.3
Species
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
0
-
Dead Count
5
-
T otal Count
5
-
9/1/2000
9/11/2000
9/18/2000
9/28/2000
10/5/2000
10/12/2000
10/19/2000
10/27/2000
11/6/2000
11/8/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
19
140
107
187
90
45
18
1
-
1
40
70
210
108
276
125
20
-
20
180
177
397
198
321
143
21
-
9/5/2001
9/11/2001
9/20/2001
10/1/2001
10/9/2001
10/18/2001
10/26/2001
11/1/2001
11/6/2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.1
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.8
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
0
0
18
29
27
4
0
0
-
1
2
8
103
84
41
6
4
-
1
2
26
132
111
45
6
4
-
9/17/2002
9/30/2002
10/8/2002
10/16/2002
10/24/2002
11/4/2002
11/12/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
16
9
1
0
0
-
4
34
18
14
1
-
20
43
19
14
1
-
164
Table C-10. Rocky Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/15/2003
9/25/2003
10/3/2003
10/10/2003
10/24/2003
10/31/2003
10/31/2003
11/7/2003
11/14/2003
RunYear
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
RMLower
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.1
1.6
1.6
Length
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
0
0
0
0
1
0
-
Dead Count
0
2
1
1
0
0
-
T otal Count
0
2
1
1
1
0
-
9/8/2004
9/8/2004
11/10/2004
2004
2004
2004
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
1.6
0.3
0.3
1.3
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
0
-
0
-
0
-
9/6/2005
10/3/2005
10/11/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/26/2005
11/3/2005
11/10/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
COHO
0
51
32
0
0
0
-
0
23
45
18
0
7
-
0
74
77
18
0
7
-
9/12/2006
9/26/2006
10/12/2006
10/23/2006
11/1/2006
11/9/2006
11/14/2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
COHO
COHO
1
10
0
-
2
6
11
-
3
16
11
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
165
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
11/5/1987
11/13/1987
RunYear
1987
1987
RMLower
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.4
1.4
Length
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
COHO
Live Count
0
-
Dead Count
16
-
Total Count
16
-
10/21/1988
11/15/1988
1988
1988
0.0
0.3
1.9
1.4
1.9
1.1
CHIN
CHUM
29
-
131
-
160
-
10/17/1989
11/6/1989
1989
1989
0.0
0.3
1.9
1.4
1.9
1.1
CHIN
CHUM
5
-
93
-
98
-
10/5/1990
10/5/1990
10/5/1990
10/5/1990
10/12/1990
11/7/1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1.4
0.5
1.7
1.9
0.0
0.3
1.7
1.4
1.9
2.5
1.4
1.4
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.6
1.4
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
43
35
51
48
0
0
18
33
16
27
122
1
61
68
67
75
122
1
10/1/1991
10/1/1991
10/1/1991
10/1/1991
10/10/1991
10/10/1991
10/10/1991
10/10/1991
10/15/1991
10/15/1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1991
1.4
0.5
0.0
1.9
1.4
0.5
0.0
1.9
0.5
0.0
1.9
1.4
0.5
2.2
1.9
1.4
0.5
2.2
2.2
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.3
1.7
0.5
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
92
195
19
156
33
30
50
77
28
25
18
71
1
48
76
92
90
91
236
98
110
266
20
204
109
122
140
168
264
123
9/17/1992
9/17/1992
9/17/1992
1992
1992
1992
1.9
0.0
0.5
2.6
0.5
1.9
0.7
0.5
1.4
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
56
4
68
1
0
10
57
4
78
166
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/24/1992
9/24/1992
10/1/1992
10/1/1992
10/1/1992
10/8/1992
10/8/1992
10/8/1992
10/15/1992
10/15/1992
11/3/1992
11/12/1992
RunYear
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
RMLower
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.9
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
2.6
1.9
0.5
1.9
2.6
2.6
0.5
1.9
1.9
2.6
1.4
1.4
Length
0.7
1.9
0.5
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.5
1.4
1.4
0.7
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
111
295
5
234
158
34
1
63
18
7
-
Dead Count
17
15
1
145
65
85
0
233
85
90
-
Total Count
128
310
6
379
223
119
1
296
103
97
-
9/16/1993
9/16/1993
9/16/1993
9/23/1993
9/23/1993
9/23/1993
9/30/1993
9/30/1993
9/30/1993
9/30/1993
10/7/1993
10/7/1993
10/14/1993
10/14/1993
10/21/1993
10/21/1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
0.5
1.4
1.7
2.5
0.5
0.0
1.7
1.4
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.7
1.9
3.7
2.5
0.5
1.9
1.7
1.4
2.5
2.6
1.9
2.6
1.9
1.9
2.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
1.2
2.0
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
1.4
0.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
4
3
7
38
177
17
71
71
139
84
49
187
38
71
17
0
3
1
0
15
15
1
4
8
14
10
25
112
41
210
155
40
7
4
7
53
192
18
75
79
153
94
74
299
79
281
172
40
167
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/15/1994
9/15/1994
9/21/1994
9/21/1994
9/28/1994
9/28/1994
10/5/1994
10/5/1994
RunYear
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
RMLower
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
RMUpper
1.9
2.6
1.9
2.6
1.9
2.6
1.9
2.6
Length
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.7
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
Live Count
226
104
214
124
247
74
211
20
Dead Count
9
11
15
12
97
55
203
61
Total Count
235
115
229
136
344
129
414
81
9/13/1995
9/13/1995
9/19/1995
9/19/1995
9/26/1995
9/26/1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.5
1.9
2.6
1.9
2.6
2.6
1.9
1.4
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.7
1.4
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
0
11
74
2
0
1
0
2
10
2
0
6
0
13
84
9/20/1996
9/20/1996
9/26/1996
9/26/1996
9/26/1996
10/1/1996
10/1/1996
10/1/1996
10/10/1996
10/10/1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1.9
0.5
0.0
1.9
0.5
0.0
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
2.6
1.9
0.5
2.6
1.9
0.5
2.6
1.9
2.6
1.9
0.7
1.4
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.4
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
50
31
0
44
41
0
50
29
10
8
4
8
0
10
6
0
14
15
31
32
54
39
0
54
47
0
64
44
41
40
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
1997
1997
1997
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
2.5
0.5
1.4
0.6
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
2
20
27
0
3
0
2
23
27
5
168
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/13/1997
10/13/1997
10/13/1997
11/14/1997
RunYear
1997
1997
1997
1997
RMLower
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.9
2.5
1.4
Length
0.5
1.4
0.6
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
Live Count
0
2
4
2
Dead Count
0
7
1
10
Total Count
0
9
5
12
9/14/1998
9/14/1998
9/14/1998
9/22/1998
9/22/1998
9/30/1998
9/30/1998
11/2/1998
11/9/1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
0.0
0.5
1.9
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.9
2.2
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
1.1
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
0
74
14
1
86
2
70
-
1
6
1
0
34
0
35
-
1
80
15
1
120
2
105
-
9/7/1999
9/7/1999
9/7/1999
9/7/1999
9/13/1999
9/13/1999
9/20/1999
9/20/1999
9/30/1999
9/30/1999
10/2/1999**
10/11/1999
10/11/1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.5
1.5
0.5
1.9
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
1.4
0.5
1.3
0.5
1.4
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
0
0
6
3
4
29
3
105
191
3
60
0
17
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
60
3
43
3
105
0
0
6
4
5
29
3
109
251
6
103
3
122
** Survey conducted by Suquamish Indian Tribe.
169
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/18/1999
10/18/1999
10/26/1999
11/2/1999
11/15/1999
RunYear
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
RMLower
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
Length
0.5
1.4
0.9
1.4
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
0
1
0
-
Dead Count
1
114
5
-
Total Count
1
115
5
-
9/6/2000
9/6/2000
9/13/2000
9/13/2000
9/13/2000
9/13/2000
9/22/2000
9/22/2000
10/3/2000
10/3/2000
10/11/2000
10/11/2000
10/11/2000
10/11/2000
10/18/2000
10/18/2000
10/18/2000
10/18/2000
10/31/2000
11/9/2000
11/14/2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.9
1.4
1.1
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHUM
COHO
CHUM
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
16
0
29
0
12
11
1
0
1
2
0
-
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
2
1
2
0
0
1
3
-
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
20
0
33
0
14
12
3
0
1
3
3
-
170
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/10/2001
9/10/2001
9/18/2001
9/18/2001
9/27/2001
9/27/2001
10/5/2001
10/5/2001
10/16/2001
10/16/2001
10/16/2001
10/16/2001
10/23/2001
10/23/2001
11/1/2001
11/8/2001
RunYear
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
2001
RMLower
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.4
Length
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
1.4
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.5
1.4
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
0
11
3
57
11
165
2
92
1
9
4
3
0
-
Dead Count
1
2
0
3
1
14
1
48
2
13
11
18
0
10
-
Total Count
1
13
3
60
12
179
3
140
3
22
15
21
0
10
-
9/9/2002
9/9/2002
9/9/2002
9/9/2002
9/19/2002
9/19/2002
9/19/2002
9/19/2002
9/19/2002
9/26/2002
9/26/2002
9/26/2002
9/26/2002
9/26/2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
1
23
22
6
0
2
43
50
50
0
3
129
82
49
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
9
0
0
0
29
37
21
1
24
23
6
0
2
44
59
50
0
3
158
119
70
171
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
10/4/2002
10/4/2002
10/4/2002
10/4/2002
10/11/2002
10/11/2002
10/11/2002
10/11/2002
10/11/2002
10/18/2002
10/28/2002
11/5/2002
11/14/2002
RunYear
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
RMLower
0.0
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Length
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
CHUM
Live Count
3
71
40
12
0
0
2
0
3
0
-
Dead Count
4
62
36
42
1
2
60
53
46
25
-
Total Count
7
133
76
54
1
2
62
53
49
25
-
8/28/2003
8/28/2003
8/28/2003
8/28/2003
8/28/2003
9/8/2003
9/8/2003
9/8/2003
9/8/2003
9/8/2003
9/15/2003
9/15/2003
9/15/2003
9/15/2003
9/15/2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
1.7
0.3
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.3
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.7
1.4
0.3
0.3
1.7
0.5
1.9
1.4
0.3
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
0
1
1
5
0
0
23
0
9
45
3
43
11
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
0
0
0
1
1
5
0
0
23
0
9
45
4
47
12
0
25
172
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/24/2003
9/24/2003
9/24/2003
9/24/2003
9/24/2003
10/3/2003
10/3/2003
10/3/2003
10/3/2003
10/3/2003
10/13/2003
10/13/2003
10/13/2003
10/13/2003
10/13/2003
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
10/28/2003
11/5/2003
11/10/2003
RunYear
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
RMLower
0.0
1.4
1.7
0.5
0.3
0.0
1.7
0.3
0.5
1.4
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.7
1.4
0.3
1.4
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.3
1.7
1.9
1.4
0.5
0.3
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.9
1.7
0.5
1.7
1.9
1.4
0.3
1.4
1.4
Length
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
0
34
35
77
0
0
16
0
57
14
0
0
4
10
10
0
0
0
1
0
-
Dead Count
0
8
2
4
0
0
16
2
23
16
0
0
19
10
15
0
0
0
3
0
-
Total Count
0
42
37
81
0
0
32
2
80
30
0
0
23
20
25
0
0
0
4
0
-
8/27/2004
8/27/2004
8/27/2004
8/27/2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
0.5
0.3
1.4
1.7
1.4
0.5
1.7
1.9
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
4
0
4
5
2
0
0
0
6
0
4
5
173
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/3/2004
9/9/2004
9/9/2004
9/9/2004
9/9/2004
9/9/2004
9/20/2004
9/20/2004
9/20/2004
9/20/2004
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/11/2004
10/21/2004
11/5/2004
11/15/2004
RunYear
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
RMLower
0.5
0.3
1.4
0.0
1.7
0.5
1.7
0.3
1.4
0.0
0.3
1.4
0.5
1.7
1.4
0.3
1.7
0.5
0.3
1.7
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.4
0.5
1.7
0.3
1.9
1.4
1.9
0.5
1.7
0.3
0.5
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.4
0.5
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
Length
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.3
1.1
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
6
0
8
1
3
5
5
0
5
0
0
4
11
23
4
9
8
4
0
0
0
2
-
Dead Count
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
5
11
3
0
10
0
2
-
Total Count
9
0
8
1
3
5
5
0
5
0
0
4
14
24
8
14
19
7
0
10
0
4
-
9/1/2005
9/1/2005
9/1/2005
9/1/2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
1
1
5
1
0
3
1
0
1
4
6
1
174
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/15/2005
9/15/2005
9/15/2005
9/15/2005
9/21/2005
9/21/2005
9/21/2005
9/21/2005
10/3/2005
10/3/2005
10/3/2005
10/3/2005
10/11/2005
10/11/2005
10/11/2005
10/11/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/18/2005
10/26/2005
11/10/2005
RunYear
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
RMLower
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
1.7
0.3
1.4
0.5
1.7
0.5
1.4
0.3
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
0.3
1.4
0.5
1.7
0.0
1.7
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.5
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
0.5
1.7
1.4
1.9
0.3
1.9
1.7
1.4
0.5
1.4
1.4
Length
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
1.1
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
COHO
CHUM
Live Count
4
2
2
7
28
5
22
6
26
3
34
3
22
16
0
20
0
3
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
-
Dead Count
0
1
0
2
4
0
1
0
6
2
2
1
4
8
0
13
0
18
5
15
0
3
13
2
0
-
Total Count
4
3
2
9
32
5
23
6
32
5
36
4
26
24
0
33
0
21
9
18
0
3
13
2
0
-
175
Table C-11. Burley Creek spawning ground surveys, 1987-2006.
Date
9/6/2006
9/6/2006
9/6/2006
9/6/2006
9/13/2006
9/13/2006
9/13/2006
9/13/2006
9/20/2006
9/20/2006
9/20/2006
9/20/2006
9/27/2006
9/27/2006
9/27/2006
9/27/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/4/2006
10/11/2006
10/11/2006
10/11/2006
10/11/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
10/17/2006
11/1/2006
RunYear
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
RMLower
0.3
1.4
1.7
0.5
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
0.5
1.4
0.3
1.7
1.4
1.7
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
1.7
1.4
0.5
1.7
1.4
0.3
0.3
RMUpper
0.5
1.7
1.9
1.4
0.5
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
1.4
1.7
0.5
1.9
1.7
1.9
0.5
1.4
1.4
0.5
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.7
0.5
1.4
Length
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
1.1
Species
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
CHIN
Live Count
4
8
24
15
3
18
48
43
67
91
8
81
118
73
6
104
52
44
5
76
16
0
14
14
5
2
2
0
1
Dead Count
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
8
2
1
10
22
11
1
13
24
39
1
33
43
0
25
34
25
22
14
0
0
Total Count
4
8
24
15
3
18
49
46
75
93
9
91
140
84
7
117
76
83
6
109
59
0
39
48
30
24
16
0
1
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
176
Table D-1. Hammersley Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
Sum of
live counts
Sum of
dead counts
ADClippedNoBeep
ADClippedBeep
ADClippedNoHead
0
0
0
0
0
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
0
0
0
1
0
-
-
-
Cranberry
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
19
3
7
9
1
3
1
0
0
1
3
1
1
1
-
-
-
Deer
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
20
27
24
11
5
7
3
4
3
1
7
3
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
-
-
Goldsborough
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
8
1
4
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
-
-
-
-
Hammersley Inlet
Totals
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
47
31
35
23
6
13
4
4
3
2
12
4
4
1
2
4
1
1
1
-
-
Hammesley Inlet
Johns
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
177
Table D-1. Hammersley Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
PreSampled
UnknownMarkN oBeep
(Adipose unknown)
UnknownMarkBeep
UnknownMarkNoHead
(No Head or non-sampled)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
-
Johns
-
-
-
-
Cranberry
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3
1
1
-
-
-
1
-
Deer
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
7
3
4
1
1
-
-
-
2
1
1
-
Goldsborough
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2
-
1
-
-
-
1
-
Hammersley Inlet
Totals
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
12
4
4
1
2
1
-
-
-
4
1
1
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
178
Table D-1. Hammersley Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
UnMarkNoBeep
UnMarkBeep
UnMarkNoHead
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
-
Johns
-
-
-
Cranberry
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3
1
1
1
1
1
-
-
Deer
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
7
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
-
-
1
-
Goldsborough
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2
-
-
-
-
Hammersley Inlet
Totals
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
12
4
4
1
2
2
3
2
1
-
1
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
179
Table D-2. Case and Carr Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
Sum of
live counts
Sum of
dead counts
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
46
35
144
86
10
Rocky
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Coulter
Case Inlet
Sherwood
Carr Inlet
Burley
ADClippedNoBeep
ADClippedBeep
ADClippedNoHead
8
7
24
25
2
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
8
7
24
21
2
1
1
2
2
-
1
-
-
26
1
0
83
11
71
4
0
93
19
71
4
55
14
22
28
9
-
3
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3146
5309
2979
727
315
4272
2626
808
180
20
4272
2626
808
91
8
97
159
69
45
3
2
-
1
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
591
424
111
218
942
430
124
44
104
332
430
123
44
77
222
121
37
12
42
125
1
2
4
-
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
180
Table D-2. Case and Carr Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
PreSampled
UnknownMarkNoBeep
(Adipose unknown)
UnknownMarkBeep
UnknownMarkNoHead
(No Head or non-sampled)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
8
7
24
21
2
2
2
2
6
-
-
-
2
6
-
Rocky
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
71
4
55
14
12
21
5
-
-
31
3
-
Coulter
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4272
2626
808
91
8
21
89
9
26
4
1
-
-
4141
2363
720
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
430
123
44
77
222
62
14
6
28
88
7
2
-
176
48
18
-
Case Inlet
Sherwood
Carr Inlet
Burley
Year
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
181
Table D-2. Case and Carr Inlet streams mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
UnMarkNoBeep
UnMarkBeep
UnMarkNoHead
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Carcass count
from mark
sampling data
8
7
24
21
2
3
4
13
13
2
-
-
Rocky
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
71
4
55
14
1
1
6
-
-
2
-
Coulter
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4272
2626
808
91
8
12
15
9
15
1
1
1
-
1
-
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
430
123
44
77
222
59
23
8
6
4
1
1
1
-
Case Inlet
Sherwood
Carr Inlet
Burley
Year
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
182
Table D-3. Hammersley Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
carcasses sampled
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose marked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose marked,
no CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Johns
Cranberry
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
Deer
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
5
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
Goldsborough
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
183
Table D-3. Hammersley Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Year
Hammersley
Inlet Totals
(by count)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Hammersley
Inlet Totals
(percentages)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
carcasses sampled
7
3
3
1
2
Adipose marked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose marked,
no CWT
4
0
1
1
1
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
3
3
2
0
1
Number of
carcasses sampled
7
3
3
1
2
Adipose marked,
CWT
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Adipose marked,
no CWT
57.14%
0.00%
33.33%
100.00%
50.00%
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
42.86%
100.00%
66.67%
0.00%
50.00%
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
184
Table D-4. Case Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
carcasses sampled
4
5
16
15
2
Adipose marked,
CWT
0
0
1
0
0
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
0
0
0
0
Adipose marked,
no CWT
1
1
2
2
0
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
3
4
13
13
2
Sherwood
Rocky
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
28
1
0
34
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
28
9
3
1
0
6
0
Coulter
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
110
174
79
64
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
98
159
69
45
3
12
15
9
16
1
Year
Number of
carcasses sampled
142
180
95
113
15
Adipose marked,
CWT
0
0
1
2
0
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
0
1
1
0
Adipose marked,
no CWT
124
160
71
75
12
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
18
20
22
35
3
Number of
carcasses sampled
142
180
95
113
15
Adipose marked,
CWT
0.00%
0.00%
1.05%
1.77%
0.00%
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0.00%
0.00%
1.05%
0.88%
0.00%
Adipose marked,
no CWT
87.32%
88.89%
74.74%
66.37%
80.00%
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
12.68%
11.11%
23.16%
30.97%
20.00%
Case Inlet
Totals
(by count)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Case Inlet
Totals
(percentages)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
185
Table D-5. Carr Inlet streams revised mark recovery data, 2002-2006.
Creek
Year
Burley
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Carr Inlet
Totals
(by count)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Year
Carr Inlet
Totals
(percentages)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Number of
carcasses sampled
185
61
20
49
132
Adipose marked,
CWT
1
0
0
0
2
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
1
0
1
1
Adipose marked,
no CWT
125
37
12
42
125
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
59
23
8
6
4
Number of
carcasses sampled
185
61
20
49
132
Adipose marked,
CWT
1
0
0
0
2
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0
1
0
1
1
Adipose marked,
no CWT
125
37
12
42
125
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
59
23
8
6
4
Number of
carcasses sampled
185
61
20
49
132
Adipose marked,
CWT
0.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.52%
Adipose unmarked,
CWT
0.00%
1.64%
0.00%
2.04%
0.76%
Adipose marked,
no CWT
67.57%
60.66%
60.00%
85.71%
94.70%
Adipose unmarked,
no CWT
31.89%
37.70%
40.00%
12.24%
3.03%
Source: Spawning Ground Survey Database, 2007.
186
Table D-6. Releases of eyed Chinook salmon eggs in Sherwood Creek by the Sherwood Creek Cooperative
and Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group, brood years 1990-2003.
Brood Year
Number of Chinook salmon released
1990
10,000
1991
0
1992
0
1993
0
1994
0
1995
10,000
1996
10,000
1997
10,000
1998
10,000
1999
10,000
2000
10,000
2001
20,000
2002
10,000
2003
100,000
Source: John McAllister, Allyn Salmon Enhancement Group; personal communication.
187
Table D-7. Estimated return of Chinook salmon at Sherwood Creek due to
eyed egg releases by regional enhancement groups, 1998-2006.
Brood Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Pounds of eyed eggs
released
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
100
Expected contribution
1998
1.39
1.39
1999
1.34
1.39
2.73
2000
0.06*
1.34
1.39
2.73
2001
0.06*
1.34
1.39
2.73
2002
0.06*
1.34
1.39
2.73
2003
0.06*
1.34
1.39
2.73
2004
0.06*
1.34
2.77
4.11
2005
0.06*
2.68
1.39
4.07
2006
0.12*
1.34
13.86
15.20
* Expected contributions from five-year olds were not included in the totals.
Expected contribution rates were calculated using number of hatchery returns per pounds of hatchery fish released rates for Nisqually
Indian Tribe hatchery facilities. The rates for three-, four-, and five-year old returns from a contributing brood year release are as
follows: 0.138583, 0.133796, and 0.005939. The weight of eyed eggs released at Sherwood Creek was estimated at 1,000 FPP.
188
