FY07-09 proposal 200001200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Evaluate Factors Limiting Columbia River Chum Salmon |
Proposal ID | 200001200 |
Organization | USFWS-Columbia River Fisheries Program Office |
Short description | We propose to evaluate factors limiting Columbia River gorge chum salmon populations. This is to provide an understanding of factors affecting chum salmon spawning primarily in Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs. |
Information transfer | Information generated from this work will be formally transferred to (for example) scientists, managers and policy makers primarily through quarterly and annual reports (hard and electronic copies), peer-review publications as well as presentations at management forums and technical meetings. In addition, information will be transferred through participation on the Wilammette.Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team which is administered by NOAA. Information generated from this work will be informally transferred to (for example) scientists, managers and policy makers primarily through memos, phone calls and emails. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Timothy Whitesel | USFWS, CRFPO | timothy_whitesel@fws.gov |
All assigned contacts | ||
Jeff Johnson | USFWS-CRFPO | jeff_johnson@fws.gov |
Howard Schaller | USFWS-CRFPO | howard_schaller@fws.gov |
Timothy Whitesel | USFWS, CRFPO | timothy_whitesel@fws.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
N 45.37.40/45.37.35 | W 121.59.37/122.00.59 | stream | Hamilton and Hardy creeks |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chum Columbia River ESUsecondary: Coho Lower Columbia River ESU
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|---|
2005 | Abundance estimates, Described biological characteristics, Successfully operated emergence traps, Presented activities and results in quarterly and annual reports, Provided data to FPC and others, Presentation to CBFWA, office seminar, NWR workshop |
2004 | Abundance estimates, Described biological characteristics, Monitored adult movement using radio telemetry, Successfully operated emergence traps, Presented activities and results in quarterly and annual reports, Provided data to FPC and others |
2003 | Abundance estimates, Described biological characteristics, Monitored adult movement using radio telemetry, Presented activities and results in quarterly and annual reports, Poster presentation at workshop, Office seminar, Provided data to FPC and others |
2002 | Abundance estimates, Described biological characteristics, Monitored adult movement using radio telemetry, Operated artifical spawning channel, Presented activities and results in quarterly and annual reports, Oral presentation at AFS meeting |
2001 | Estimated adult and juvenile chum salmon abundance, Described biological characteristics, Monitored adult movement using radio telemetry, Completed construction of artifical spawning channel, Presented activities and results in quarterly and annual report |
2000 | Estimated adult and juvenile chum salmon abundance, Described biological characteristics, Monitored adult movement using radio telemetry, Began construction of artifical spawning channel, Presented activities and results in quarterly and annual reports |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|
BPA | 199900301 | Salmon Spawning Below Lower Co | Provide abundance estimates and population structure data for Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs |
BPA | 200105300 | Reintro of Chum In Duncan Cr | Provide data and adult carcass heads for analysis of otlith marks for fish from Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs |
Other: Washington Trout | 99-1421 | Hardy Creek Spawning Channel | Funds from SRFB to Washington Trout contributed to constructing artifical spawning channel |
Other: USACOE | MIPR W66QKZ0194 | Hardy Creek Spawning Channel | USACOE provided funds to complete construction of artifical spawning channel |
BPA | 200303600 | CBFWA Monitor/Eval Program | Coordination of sampling protocols and data analysis between this and other chum salmon projects is consistent with the missions of the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) and the Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CSMEP). |
BPA | [no entry] | 2003-31032, proposal to develop a well water source for the Hardy Creek spawning channel | If such an effort takes place, we would be assessing the response of chum salmon to the habitat conditions provided in the spawning channel. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Assess habitat parameters. | This objective focuses on spawning. Monitor intragravel water quality near redds at egg pocket depth using piezometers; use GPS technology to record redd locations, characterize the habitat in the study area, including sites where redds were constructed. | Lower Columbia | Habitat factor analysis |
Determine abundance and biological characteristics | This objective is focused on adults. Conduct spawning ground surveys in Hardy Creek, Hardy Creek spawning channel, Hamilton Creek, and Hamilton Springs; enumerate live chum salmon as well as chum salmon carcasses; mark carcasses. | Lower Columbia | Evaluating and monitoring status |
Determine emergent chum salmon fry. | Identify chum salmon redds in Hamilton Springs and Hardy Creek that are relatively isolated and can be associated with a particular female; install redd caps to determine swim-up timing, temperature unit requirements for embryo incubation, and enumerate the number of fry that emerge; conduct trials to estimate the efficiency of redd caps. | Lower Columbia | Tier 1 and Tier 2 monitoring |
Determine potential chum salmon egg deposition. | Obtain estimates of chum fecundity as it relates to female size from the literature; (if possible) sample the number and size if eggs from natural, adult chum salmon females from hatchery programs in the Lower Columbia River. | Lower Columbia | Tier 1 and Tier 2 monitoring |
Enumerate and characterize smolts. | Install fyke nets in Hamilton Springs, Hardy Creek, and Hardy Creek spawning channel, evaluate abundance using mark-recapture techniques, document biological characteristics of smolts. | Lower Columbia | Tier 1 and Tier 2 monitoring |
Population growth and limiting factors. | Evaluate the time series of adult abundance and calculate ?, explore survival rates between life stages. | Lower Columbia | Evaluating and monitoring status |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Ensure environmental compliance requirements have been met | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $3,150 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Manage and Administer Projects | Project contract administration | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $68,107 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Produce status and annual reports | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $95,970 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Adult abundance estimates, and behavioral and biological characteristics | Calculate estimates of abundance for adult chum salmon spawning in Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs based on area-under-the-curve method and recovery of marked carcasses. Describe and summarize behavioral and biological characteristics of adults. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $31,502 |
Biological objectives Determine abundance and biological characteristics |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Dertermine population growth rate and assess limiting factors | Evaluate the time series of adult abundance and age structure to calculate population growth rate. Estimate survival rates between life history stages. Assess rates relative to factors potentially limiting production. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $63,000 |
Biological objectives Population growth and limiting factors. |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Estimate fry emergence from redds and describe characteristics | Estimate the number of chum salmon fry that emerged from each redd, calculate fry-egg ratio based on egg-deposition estimate, and describe timing and thermal conditions during incubation. Estimate trap efficiency. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $31,502 |
Biological objectives Determine emergent chum salmon fry. |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Estimate juvenile abundance and biological characteristics | Calculate estimates of juvenile abundance using mark-recapture techniques and describe biological characteristics of smolts. | 2/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $31,502 |
Biological objectives Enumerate and characterize smolts. |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Estimate number of chum salmon eggs deposited | Develop length-fecundity relationships for female chum salmon from a literature review and sampling females from hatchery programs in the lower Columbia River. Use relationships to estimate egg deposition in Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs based on size distribution of female spawners. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $31,502 |
Biological objectives Determine potential chum salmon egg deposition. |
Metrics |
||||
Analyze/Interpret Data | Examine habitat features associated with redds | Examine habitat features associated with redds in Hardy Creek and Hamilton springs. Calculate habitat affinity index of spawning habitat relative to habitat features in the study areas. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $31,502 |
Biological objectives Assess habitat parameters. |
Metrics |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect information on habitat at redds and study area | Record locations of redds using GPS technology, and describe habitat features such as water depth, substrate type, and proximity to springs or seeps. Characterize intergravel water quality near selected redds using piezometers. Collect habitat information to describe habitat in the study areas at Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs. | 10/1/2006 | 5/31/2009 | $142,730 |
Biological objectives Assess habitat parameters. |
Metrics |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect juvenile chum salmon emigration data | Install and operate juvenile fish traps and record biological information of smolts in Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs. Release marked juveniles to determine trap efficiency. | 2/1/2007 | 6/1/2009 | $205,737 |
Biological objectives Enumerate and characterize smolts. |
Metrics |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect recently emerged fry | Install emergent traps over relatively isolated redds that can be associated with individual females of known length in Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs (i.e., redds selected for piezometer installation nearby). Capture recently emerged fry through the spring and record water temperatures and intergravel water quality. | 10/1/2006 | 5/31/2009 | $127,467 |
Biological objectives Determine emergent chum salmon fry. |
Metrics |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Conduct spawning ground surveys | Spawning ground surveys will be conducted in Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs to enumerate live chum salmon and carcasses, and record biological and behavioral characteristics. Carcasses will be uniquely marked. | 10/1/2006 | 1/15/2009 | $95,965 |
Biological objectives Determine abundance and biological characteristics |
Metrics |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Personnel | Super. Biol. (2) | $7,000 | $7,500 | $8,000 |
Personnel | Lead Project Biol. (26) | $50,000 | $52,500 | $55,000 |
Personnel | Asst. Proj. Biol. (26) | $39,000 | $41,500 | $44,000 |
Personnel | Field Biol. (26) | $35,000 | $37,500 | $40,000 |
Personnel | Field Biol. (18) | $18,000 | $20,250 | $22,500 |
Fringe Benefits | .30 | $44,700 | $47,775 | $50,850 |
Travel | vehicle plus boat lease | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
Supplies | [blank] | $12,500 | $10,000 | $7,500 |
Capital Equipment | none | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Overhead | 0.309, 0.100 | $88,426 | $92,854 | $97,281 |
Totals | $304,626 | $319,879 | $335,131 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $959,636 |
Total work element budget: | $959,636 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USFWS-CRFPO | labor | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
WDFW | labor and technical assistance | $7,500 | $7,500 | $7,500 | In-Kind | Under Development |
Totals | $12,500 | $12,500 | $12,500 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $350,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $350,000 |
Comments: Based on a level budget from 2007-2009, plus the expected cost of inflation. |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 2012
Comments: The collection of data on limiting factors should be complete. A timeseries of chum abundance should be ongoing for status evaluation. Routine assessments for long term trend and status information would need to continue.
Final deliverables: Annual Report. Completion Report. Status and trend information for chum salmon in Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs. Identification of factors limiting chum salmon production in Hardy Creek and Hamilton Springs.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$151,666 | $151,666 | $151,666 | $454,998 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$151,666 | $151,666 | $151,666 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Multi-province | ||
Comments: Priority concerns for other reasons. MSRT recommends $0. |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: Technical and scientific background: This project has been in existence since 2000 and has provided some very useful information on one of the basin's most overlooked species -- Columbia River chum. This chum population is recognized as a key conservation unit and the proposal does put it in that context. In general, the technical background is adequately presented, although the scientific findings to date could have been more thoroughly presented. There is an excellent description of the problem and explanation of the importance of conserving this chum population. The proposal would benefit from an acknowledgement that estuarine and marine factors could also be limiting. Reviewers should be given data on temporal trends in chum spawning numbers. Given the length of existence of this project, it would seem to be appropriate for the proponents to provide some historical context describing any trends in abundance of chum salmon and developing some testable hypotheses that might explain the data. Such an analysis might suggest what factors are limiting abundance of chum. For example, although coho are mentioned as possible competitors for entry into the spawning channel, no discussion is presented as to how or whether this might or ought to be dealt with. Note: The abstract refers to chum salmon "smolts", but the main proposal properly refers to chum salmon fry. The latter is the correct term. Chum salmon fry are silvery and migrate to sea immediately upon hatching, so there is no "smoltification" process per se, although they resemble other salmonid smolts with respect to their silvery appearance. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does a good job of relating the project to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and the Lower Columbia subbasin plan. This section does not mention the BiOp, although providing winter flows for chum spawning has been one of the action items in the BiOp. The BiOp, however, is mentioned in the "Relationships to other projects" section. Relationships to other project: The proposal puts the work in the context of other Fish and Wildlife Program funded projects, as well as USFWS projects. Collaborative efforts in the spawning area are in place. Coordination of sampling protocols with the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) and Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program (CSMEP) illustrate the collaborative nature of the project. The proposal would benefit from collaboration with researchers working in tributaries downstream (e.g. Grays River- 200301000) and in the estuary, given that chum fry are known estuary users. Project history: The history of the project is generally well described, including the failure of the Hardy Creek spawning channel in 2001-2002 (but did it function as intended in 2003-2004?). However, it would have been very helpful to have summarized what is currently believed about limiting factors for Columbia River chum. This history section contains a good description of what was done in terms of actions, but it doesn’t really address what has been learned in the process. Hopefully the access problems for the spawning channel can be overcome as this technology is usually successful if adequate flow can be provided. Objectives: Objectives are briefly presented as a series of six tasks that would be repeated for the next three years. Timelines are assumed to be seasonal. Objectives are not explicitly related to subbasin plans or the Fish and Wildlife Program. Most of the objectives are measurable and clearly defined (e.g., escapement, fry outmigration). The assessment of survival rates between life history stages (which are not defined in the proposal) will be more difficult with the present design, unless the proponents are only going to try to estimate egg-to-fry survival. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Overall, the methods are clearly described by life history stage. For the spawning phase, there is no mention of determining spawning gravel composition -- in particular, the amount of fine sediment -- and this omission is somewhat surprising. The egg environment work seems to focus mainly on temperature, and the rationale for this is unclear. Likewise there is little discussion of measuring egg scour (not a problem?) or redd stranding (related to Bonneville Dam operations?). This struck the reviewers as a serious oversight, because redds are located in an area highly subject to fluctuations of flow, and an area in which BPA has been cooperating to a degree by maintaining flows at times. The suite of parameters monitored in the intragravel environment needs better justification. The area under the curve method for estimating the number of chum salmon redds needs to be better described. It is not clear whether the redd surveys encompass the entire reach or take place only in sample reaches that are accessible. Perhaps some thought might be given to a random sampling design. It isn’t clear whether the juvenile dye marking and recapturing technique had been used with these fish before, or whether a rigorous analysis had been conducted to determine the number of fish marked (200 per week). What is the basis for that number? No information is given on statistical aspects, such as addressing the variance associated with outmigration population estimates. An explanation of de Kroon's (1986) method for determining population growth rate would be useful for reviewers. There may be better/more accurate methods available for determining this key parameter. Monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring of chum escapements is a key component of the project. The proposal will continue an important time series. The project has a generally good history of evaluating the results and adjusting methods accordingly. Facilities, equipment, and personnel seem quite adequate. The personnel have had direct experience with Columbia River chum salmon. Information Transfer: Provisions for information transfer appeared to be adequate, and the project has a generally successful track history in this regard. Annual reports have been faithfully produced and are proposed. Peer-reviewed publications have not been produced although there is potential for some because of the uniqueness of this chum population. Benefit to focal and non-focal species: This project has a clear, persistent benefit for a species that is at-risk and generally overlooked. Knowledge of chum ecology and habitat requirements from this well-integrated study will benefit chum populations elsewhere in the Columbia River Basin. If the spawning channels can be made useful for chum they may also benefit coho. Coho smolts are known to rear in (successful) chum channels. If the spawning channels can be made useful for chum they may also benefit coho. Coho smolts are known to rear in (successful) channels.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: Technical and scientific background: This project has been in existence since 2000 and has provided some very useful information on one of the basin's most overlooked species -- Columbia River chum. This chum population is recognized as a key conservation unit and the proposal does put it in that context. In general, the technical background is adequately presented, although the scientific findings to date could have been more thoroughly presented. There is an excellent description of the problem and explanation of the importance of conserving this chum population. The proposal would benefit from an acknowledgement that estuarine and marine factors could also be limiting. Reviewers should be given data on temporal trends in chum spawning numbers. Given the length of existence of this project, it would seem to be appropriate for the proponents to provide some historical context describing any trends in abundance of chum salmon and developing some testable hypotheses that might explain the data. Such an analysis might suggest what factors are limiting abundance of chum. For example, although coho are mentioned as possible competitors for entry into the spawning channel, no discussion is presented as to how or whether this might or ought to be dealt with. Note: The abstract refers to chum salmon "smolts", but the main proposal properly refers to chum salmon fry. The latter is the correct term. Chum salmon fry are silvery and migrate to sea immediately upon hatching, so there is no "smoltification" process per se, although they resemble other salmonid smolts with respect to their silvery appearance. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does a good job of relating the project to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and the Lower Columbia subbasin plan. This section does not mention the BiOp, although providing winter flows for chum spawning has been one of the action items in the BiOp. The BiOp, however, is mentioned in the "Relationships to other projects" section. Relationships to other project: The proposal puts the work in the context of other Fish and Wildlife Program funded projects, as well as USFWS projects. Collaborative efforts in the spawning area are in place. Coordination of sampling protocols with the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP) and Collaborative Systemwide Monitoring and Evaluation Program (CSMEP) illustrate the collaborative nature of the project. The proposal would benefit from collaboration with researchers working in tributaries downstream (e.g. Grays River- 200301000) and in the estuary, given that chum fry are known estuary users. Project history: The history of the project is generally well described, including the failure of the Hardy Creek spawning channel in 2001-2002 (but did it function as intended in 2003-2004?). However, it would have been very helpful to have summarized what is currently believed about limiting factors for Columbia River chum. This history section contains a good description of what was done in terms of actions, but it doesn’t really address what has been learned in the process. Hopefully the access problems for the spawning channel can be overcome as this technology is usually successful if adequate flow can be provided. Objectives: Objectives are briefly presented as a series of six tasks that would be repeated for the next three years. Timelines are assumed to be seasonal. Objectives are not explicitly related to subbasin plans or the Fish and Wildlife Program. Most of the objectives are measurable and clearly defined (e.g., escapement, fry outmigration). The assessment of survival rates between life history stages (which are not defined in the proposal) will be more difficult with the present design, unless the proponents are only going to try to estimate egg-to-fry survival. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Overall, the methods are clearly described by life history stage. For the spawning phase, there is no mention of determining spawning gravel composition -- in particular, the amount of fine sediment -- and this omission is somewhat surprising. The egg environment work seems to focus mainly on temperature, and the rationale for this is unclear. Likewise there is little discussion of measuring egg scour (not a problem?) or redd stranding (related to Bonneville Dam operations?). This struck the reviewers as a serious oversight, because redds are located in an area highly subject to fluctuations of flow, and an area in which BPA has been cooperating to a degree by maintaining flows at times. The suite of parameters monitored in the intragravel environment needs better justification. The area under the curve method for estimating the number of chum salmon redds needs to be better described. It is not clear whether the redd surveys encompass the entire reach or take place only in sample reaches that are accessible. Perhaps some thought might be given to a random sampling design. It isn’t clear whether the juvenile dye marking and recapturing technique had been used with these fish before, or whether a rigorous analysis had been conducted to determine the number of fish marked (200 per week). What is the basis for that number? No information is given on statistical aspects, such as addressing the variance associated with outmigration population estimates. An explanation of de Kroon's (1986) method for determining population growth rate would be useful for reviewers. There may be better/more accurate methods available for determining this key parameter. Monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring of chum escapements is a key component of the project. The proposal will continue an important time series. The project has a generally good history of evaluating the results and adjusting methods accordingly. Facilities, equipment, and personnel seem quite adequate. The personnel have had direct experience with Columbia River chum salmon. Information Transfer: Provisions for information transfer appeared to be adequate, and the project has a generally successful track history in this regard. Annual reports have been faithfully produced and are proposed. Peer-reviewed publications have not been produced although there is potential for some because of the uniqueness of this chum population. Benefit to focal and non-focal species: This project has a clear, persistent benefit for a species that is at-risk and generally overlooked. Knowledge of chum ecology and habitat requirements from this well-integrated study will benefit chum populations elsewhere in the Columbia River Basin. If the spawning channels can be made useful for chum they may also benefit coho. Coho smolts are known to rear in (successful) chum channels. If the spawning channels can be made useful for chum they may also benefit coho. Coho smolts are known to rear in (successful) channels.