FY07-09 proposal 200200200

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Kootenai

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments: This project provides direct mitigation for lost sturgeon recruitment that has endangered the Kootenai River white sturgeon population, due in part from the construction and operation of Libby Dam. Therefore, this project should be implemented until the native white sturgeon population is fully recovered and self-sustaining through natural production in suitable habitat that poses no risk to the population’s long-term viability and persistence.

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: This was a generally well-prepared proposal for a multitude of simultaneous research, modeling, data assessment, and on-the-ground habitat restoration work in the Kootenai River where white sturgeon have spawned historically, but now are unsuccessful. The premise is that multiple approaches are necessary because the reason(s) for recruitment failures is still uncertain and the population is in precipitous decline. We question the strategy of concurrently pursuing multiple (very expensive) directions. We fail to see the urgency, although we agree with the ultimate desirability of restoring suitable spawning and rearing habitat. The conservation hatchery project gives time to test possible habitat remediation approaches sequentially. Doing all these efforts at once will make it more difficult to tell what actions were successful and what ones were not. One might argue that successful recruitment is the objective, however achieved, but managers need to know which actions were effective in order to sustain long-term habitat and population management. Everything tested cannot be maintained in perpetuity. The ISRP recommends that funding for the habitat modifications be funded in stages, with periodic independent review of syntheses of the work to date and identification of major findings, before committing to modest scale engineered habitat modification. A priority order can be established from the following notes. Work elements (WE) 1-4 for trial habitat modifications to increase channel and flow complexity would seem to be high priority, with elements 1-3 (different sites) done sequentially and incrementally. WE 5 (improving the hydraulic model) seems better suited for a later time, because the present model seems sufficient for early habitat trials. WE 6 to analyze sediment input seems premature until sediment modifications show the importance (or lack thereof) of channel sediment for recruitment. To the extent that WE 7 differs from WE 6 (difficult to distinguish), evaluations are high priority. It is unclear how WE 8 on turbidity will be productive since turbidity changes occurred historically along with flow, temperature, and channel modifications. WE 9 on habitat correlates seems high priority. WE 10 seems premature until the results of trial habitat modifications are available and synthesized. WE 11 on egg transport dynamics seems to be contrary to the normal adhesive egg environment and of low priority. It is unclear why one would want to carefully quantify the dynamics of an adhesive egg that has failed to attach to solid substrate and has been abnormally transported in silty or sandy sediment (likely to its death). WE 12, an engineered habitat side channel, might be of sufficient scale to require a Three-Step Review. This could be started, with implementation later. WE 13 and 14 on larval predation are not fundable as presented. They need much better justification. The other elements are administrative. The background is well written and provides a comprehensive summary of the status of efforts to understand the factors limiting reproduction and/or recruitment of white sturgeon in the Kootenai River. The background includes the sponsor’s justification for simultaneous adaptive management approaches as recommended by an interagency workshop. Sponsors identify that the project is consistent with the Kootenai Subbasin plan, Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, and various other regional plans. The proposal provides a good narrative on specific plans and programs with table of specific recovery plan items. A good and very helpful table links most of the projects. There is thorough presentation of the relationship of this project to others in the subbasin and in nearby subbasins (Lake Roosevelt). Tables 2 and 3 are particularly helpful. However, this work seems poorly integrated into the themes of the other Kootenai River work. Is stocking hatchery fish the key, or is wild recovery the key? Or both? A successful hatchery program will buy 15-50 years, given the long lifetime of white sturgeon. How does this reconcile with the expressed urgency of this work? A succinct summary of the project history is provided, including reports, papers, and presentations. What is lacking is a succinct summary of the conclusions of the work and the management implications. The primary objectives are determining the requirements for natural recruitment and restoring natural recruitment. These are fine, but contrast with the conservation aquaculture program. Reviewers were not convinced that the rationale for the objectives on spawning substrate are valid but agree that they should be tested. Continued reference to “spawning substrate” seems inappropriate for a water column spawner that disperses eggs for adhesion to solid surfaces that are encountered. Sturgeon likely do not seek substrates for spawning the way salmon do, although substrate is highly important for egg attachment and free embryos (larvae). The strategy and methods are generally adequate. For several of their work elements (i.e. #2) they have a good subsection "Expected outputs and how they will be measured". There were questions about other tasks. Task 9.2.c on page 49 should probably be 10.2.c, as this work should be implemented based on suitable completion of preliminary investigations. Work element 12--construct an artificial habitat channel--does not seem to be justified by either the technical background or the project history. The proposal could have better explained that where white sturgeon recruitment is successful in its range, there are multiple side channels for spawning and early life stages (e.g., lower Columbia River, Fraser River). They were once present on the Kootenai but have been lost to diking and channelization. The basis for executing work element 13--effects of predation on recruitment failure--is not convincing. Work element 14--larval behavior/dispersal experiments is not sufficiently explained to make an evaluation. For most work elements there are identified metrics to evaluate the experiments. The sponsors have demonstrated excellent facilities, equipment, and personnel. There are excellent communication plans and the project sponsors have a record of producing annual reports, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: This was a generally well-prepared proposal for a multitude of simultaneous on-the-ground habitat restoration work, research, modeling, and data assessment in the Kootenai River where white sturgeon have reproduced historically, but now are unsuccessful at producing recruits (even though they spawn). The premise is that multiple remedial approaches are necessary because the reason(s) for recruitment failures is still uncertain and the population is in precipitous decline. The ISRP questioned the strategy of concurrently pursuing multiple (very expensive) directions, although agreeing with the ultimate desirability of restoring suitable spawning and rearing habitat. Doing all these efforts at once seemed to make it more difficult to tell what actions were successful and what ones were not, while managers need to know which actions were effective in order to sustain long-term habitat and population management. The ISRP initially recommended that the habitat modifications be funded in stages, with periodic independent reviews of syntheses of the work to date and identification of major findings, before committing to modest scale engineered habitat modification. The sponsors believe otherwise, and their response clearly lays out their arguments. The sponsors provided a very thorough and persuasive response. They defended the application and testing of multiple, nearly simultaneous approaches to improve sturgeon recruitment with logical arguments. Each of the ISRP's reservations was countered with detailed evidence supporting the sponsors' approach. In the case of the proposed spawning channel, the ISRP misunderstood its intended use (it is a research tool to learn about egg and larval habitats and survival and not a production facility). The parts of the proposal that the ISRP found not well justified were more fully explained. The entire response was informative without being overly defensive. The response was fully adequate, persuasive, and commendable. It is an expensive project but not out of line with the tenuous state of the sturgeon population in the Kootenai. The background of the proposal is well written and provides a comprehensive summary of the status of efforts to understand the factors limiting reproduction and/or recruitment of white sturgeon in the Kootenai River. The sponsors identify that the project is consistent with the Kootenai Subbasin plan, Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, and various other regional plans. The proposal provides a good narrative on specific plans and programs with a table of specific recovery plan items. A good and very helpful table links most of the projects. There is thorough presentation of the relationship of this project to others in the subbasin and in nearby subbasins (Lake Roosevelt). A succinct summary of the project history is provided, including reports, papers, and presentations of results. The primary objective is to restore natural recruitment, as emphasized in the response. Determining the requirements for natural recruitment through research is secondary. Establishing which of the multiple remedial actions they propose was most successful can occur later. The conservation aquaculture program is viewed as a necessary stopgap measure until natural recruitment is restored. The strategy and methods are generally adequate. For several of their work elements (i.e., #2) they have a good subsection "Expected outputs and how they will be measured." There were questions about other tasks that were adequately resolved in the response. For most work elements there are identified metrics to evaluate the habitat remediation experiments. The sponsors have demonstrated excellent facilities, equipment, and personnel. There are excellent communication plans and the project sponsors have a record of producing annual reports, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations.