Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 20120

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date

Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Evaluate Factors Limiting Columbia River Gorge Chum Salmon Populations
BPA Project Proposal Number 20120
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Business acronym (if appropriate) USFWS

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Travis Coley
Mailing Address 9317 Highway 99, Suite I
City, State, Zip Vancouver, WA 98665
Phone 3606967605
Fax 3606967968
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Lower Columbia
Subbasin Columbia Lower
Short Description Evaluate factors limiting chum salmon production, spawning group relationships, population dynamics, biological and ecological characteristics, and implement habitat enhancement in tributaries below Bonneville Dam.
Target Species Chum Salmon

Project Location

[No information]

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal

NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 2.2A, 3.3A.2, 3.3B, 4.1, 4.1A.1, 4.1A.2, 4.1A.3, 4.1A.5, 5.9A, 6.1A, 7.1, 7.1A, 7.1C,7.1D, 7.5D.1, 7.6, 7.6A.2, 7.6B.3, 7.8G
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife- Wild Salmonid Policy

CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous

Section 2. Past Accomplishments

n/a or no information

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
99003 Evaluate spawning of salmon just below the four lowermost Columbia dams This project is currently evaluating the effects of hydropower operations on mainstem spawning chum salmon below Bonneville Dam, and our proposed project will establish what relationship exists between those fish and chum spawning in two adjacent streams. No

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Evaluate the relationship between mainstem and tributary spawning chum salmon. a. Capture and tag 20 individuals from each location (total, n=60) yearly and evaluate movements between locations by radio-telemetry.
1. b. Evaluate homing fidelity by uniquely marking smolts in Hamilton and Hardy Creeks and monitoring where they return to spawn.
2. Evaluate factors limiting chum production in Hamilton and Hardy Creeks a. Manufacture, install and operate weirs in Hardy and Hamilton Creeks to capture adult chum for radio-tagging, to measure biological characteristics, and to determine adult spawning escapement.
2. b. Validate spawning ground counts by comparing weir counts with spawning ground counts
2. c. Trap outmigrating chum smolts by fyke net in Hardy and Hamilton Creeks and evaluate weekly population abundance by mark-recapture techniques
2. d. Monitor intragravel and ambient water quality parameters during incubation by withdrawing water samples from within redds and the water column, and measuring water chemistry parameters.
2. e. Evaluate substrate composition in chum spawning areas by removing sediment cores with a McNeil sampler.
2. f. Measure discharge with current meters, ultrasonic doppler current profilers, or a combination of both; install staff gauges; and establish stage-discharge relationships.
3. Enhance and restore chum salmon production both in Hamilton and Hardy Creeks, and in nearby tributaries. a. Construct a spawning channel adjacent to Hardy Creek on Pierce National Wildlife Refuge.
3. b. Monitor and evaluate chum escapement and smolt production from the newly constructed spawning channel.
3. c. Collect chum salmon from Hardy and Hamilton Creek to re-establish chum populations in streams with suitable chum habitat but no current chum populations.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 11/01/99 12/01/01 Determination if three groups of chum spawning in close proximity are separate populations 19.0%
2 11/01/99 05/01/04 Determination of factors limiting chum production in Hamilton and Hardy Creeks; also migration timing, population abundance, and ecological and biological characteristics of these groups of chum. 34.0%
3 03/01/00 05/01/04 Increased runs of chum in existing habitat, and restarted populations in historic habitats 47.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel 70% GS-09 Project leader, 2- 50% GS-07 Biologists, 80% GS-06 Technician $ 76,300
Fringe 28% for all personnel $ 21,400
Supplies Fyke nets, beach seines, radio-tags, MS-222, marking supplies, misc. equipment. $ 18,800
Operating Vehicle and boat rental. $ 7,600
Capital Weir construction. $ 10,000
NEPA $ 1,500
Construction Spawning channel. $ 15,000
Travel Professional and coordination meeting attendance. $ 2,000
Indirect 23% $ 34,753
Subcontractor Biological Resources Division- Columbia River Research Laboratory $ 2,500
Total Itemized Budget $189,853

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $189,853
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $189,853
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable

Reason for change in scope

Not applicable

Cost Sharing

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
USFWS Supervisory biologist $ 13,200 unknown
USFWS Office space $ 4,800 unknown
USFWS Heavy equipment and operators for construction of spawning channel $ 10,000 unknown
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Providing materials and personnel for spawning channel construction $ 15,000 unknown
Biological Resources Division- Columbia River Research Lab Radio-telemetry receivers $ 32,000 unknown
Interfluve, Inc. Engineering and design of spawning channel $ 6,000 unknown
USFWS Engineering and design of spawning channel $ 32,000 unknown
USFWS Materials for spawning channel stabilization and vegetation $ 10,000 unknown
Wolftree, Inc. Channel construction $ 10,000 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $154,013 $157,311 $ 82,902 $ 87,453
Total Outyear Budgets $154,013 $157,311 $ 82,902 $ 87,453

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: ESA and other state and federal permits required for spawning channel construction

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Bailey, N. T. J. 1951. On estimating the size of mobile populations from recapture data. Biometrika 38:293-306. No
Bonnell, R.G. 1991. Construction, operation, and evaluation of groundwater-fed side channnels for chum salmon in British Columbia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10:109-124. No
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1991. Integrated system plan for salmon and steelhead production in the Columbia River basin. Columbia Basin Sytem Planning 90-12. No
Cowan, L. 1991. Physical characteristics and intragravel survival of chum salmon in developed and natural groundwater channels in Washington. American Fisheries Society Symposium 10:109-124. No
Davis, S.K., J.L. Congleton, and R.W. Tyler. 1980. Modified fyke net for the capture and retention of salmon smolts in large rivers. Progressive Fish Culturist 42(4): 235-237. No
Efron, B. and R. Tibshirani. 1986. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science 1:54-77. No
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream hydrology: an introduction for ecologists. Wiley, New York. No
Guy, C.S., H.L. Blankenship, and Larry A. Nielsen. 1996. Tagging and marking. Pages 353-383 in B.R. Murphy and D.W. Wills, editors. Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. No
Johnson, O.W., W.S. Grant, R.G. Cope, K. Neely, F.W. Waknitz, and R.S. Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32, 280 pp. No
Maret, T.R., T.A. Burton, G.W. Harvey, and W.H. Clark. 1993. Field testing of new monitoring protocols to assess brouwn trout spawning habitat in an Idaho stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:567-580. No
Murphy, M.L., J.F. Thedinga, and J.J. Pella. Bootstrap confidence intervals for trap-efficiency estimates of migrating fish. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Juneau, Alaska. No
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Endangered and threatened species; proposed threatened status and designated critical habitat for Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon and Columbia River chum salmon. Federal Register 11774. No
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 (Bethesda) 16(2):4-21. No
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Status report of Columbia River fish runs and fisheries, 1938-1994. Joint Columbia River Management Staff. Clackamas, Oregon/Battle Ground, Washington. 291 pp No
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-138. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. No
Schroeder, R.K. 1996. A review of capture techniques for adult anadromous salmonids. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information Report 96-5. No
Thedinga, J.F., S.W. Johnson, K.V. Koski, J.M. Lorenz, and M.L. Murphy. 1993. Potential effects of flooding from Russell Fiord on salmonids and habitat in the Situk River, Alaska. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service Rpt 93-01. No
Tobin, J.H. 1994. Construction and performance of a portable resistance board weir for counting migrating adult salmon in rivers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai Fishery Resource Office, Alaska Fisheries Technical Report, Kenai, Alaska. No
WDF, WDW, and WWITT (Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes). 1993. 1992 Washington state salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SASSI). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 212 pp. + appendices. No
Woods, P.F. 1980. Dissolved oxygen in intragravel water of three tributaries to Redwood Creek, Humboldt County, California. Water Resources Bulletin 16(1): 105-111. No

Section 7. Abstract


Historically, chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) were abundant in the lower reaches of the Columbia River and may have spawned as far upstream as the Walla Walla River (over 500 Km inland) (Nehlsen et al. 1991). Columbia River chum salmon currently are primarily limited to the tributaries downstream of Bonneville Dam, with the majority of the fish (less than a thousand annually) spawning on the Washington side of the Columbia River. The known natural chum salmon production occurs in Grays River (Gorley Creek), Hamilton Creek, and Hardy Creek. Hardy and Hamilton Creeks are the farthest upstream chum populations at river mile (RM) 142 (Bonneville Dam is RM 145), separated by over 100 river miles from the Grays River. The collective group of Columbia River chum populations are proposed for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Whereas the chum spawning in Hamilton and Hardy Creeks, and nearby in the mainstem Columbia River, have been considered separate populations of a distinct stock, some evidence suggests that these groups of fish may be a single population. Understanding the relationship between the chum salmon spawning in these different locations is critical to their management, especially because of the influence of hydropower. Whereas the mainstem spawning group of chum are most directly affected by hydropower operations, Hamilton and Hardy Creeks can be affected as well. During high water events, backwater effects from the Columbia River causes deposition of sediment within the low gradient channel in the chum salmon spawning reach of Hardy Creek. Currently Hardy Creek experiences these detrimental backwater effects approximately every 2-5 years. Variable adult returns to Hamilton and Hardy Creeks suggest that some set of conditions limits returns to these creeks. This project will: 1) Examine factors limiting chum salmon production in Hamilton and Hardy Creeks; 2) Enhance and restore chum salmon production in Hamilton and Hardy Creeks and near by tributaries; 3) Evaluate the relationship between mainstem Columbia River and tributary chum salmon populations.

Reviews and Recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

This project has not yet been reviewed

Return to top of page