FY07-09 proposal 200721300

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAssessing Recruitment Failure Across White Sturgeon Populations: Differences in Prey Availability and Physical Habitat Among Areas with Consistent, Inconsistent, and no Annual Recruitment to Age-1
Proposal ID200721300
OrganizationUS Geological Survey (USGS) - Cook
Short descriptionInvestigate causes of recruitment failure in white sturgeon populations across the Columbia Basin by comparing availability of forage at the onset of exogenous feeding, channel morphology, and hydraulic conditions in several sturgeon spawning areas
Information transferThis project is expected to produce quantitive results describing physical and biotic differences in habitats among white sturgeon spawning and larvae rearing areas. Results will be published in peer reviewed journals and annual progress reports. Information will also be conveyed through participation in workshops. Information will assist resource managers with decisions regarding appropriate measures to restore white sturgeon populations.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Contacts
ContactOrganizationEmail
Form submitter
Mike Parsley U.S. Geological Survey michael_parsley@usgs.gov
All assigned contacts
Gary Barton U.S. Geological Survey gbarton@usgs.gov
Michele Beeman U.S. Geological Survey michele_beeman@usgs.gov
Dena Gadomski U.S. Geological Survey dena_gadomski@usgs.gov
Jimim Hatten U.S. Geological Survey jhatten@usgs.gov
Jimim Hatten U.S. Geological Survey jhatten@usgs.gov
Mike Parsley U.S. Geological Survey michael_parsley@usgs.gov
Mike Parsley U.S. Geological Survey michael_parsley@usgs.gov
Mike Parsley U.S. Geological Survey michael_parsley@usgs.gov
Mike Parsley U.S. Geological Survey michael_parsley@usgs.gov
Mike Parsley U.S. Geological Survey michael_parsley@usgs.gov

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

LatitudeLongitudeWaterbodyDescription
Columbia River Bonneville Dam Tailrace and sturgeon spawning and rearing areas downstream
Columbia River McNary Dam tailrace and sturgeon rearing areas downstream
Kootenai River Downstream from Bonners Ferry including the Shorty's Island reach

Section 3. Focal species

primary: White Sturgeon Kootenai River DPS
secondary: White Sturgeon All Populations

Section 4. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
BPA 198806400 Kootenai R White Sturgeon This project will compliment sturgeon restoration efforts in the Kootenai River by providing a better understanding of factors influencing spawning success of white sturgeon. Past data on sturgeon spawning habitat and recruitment levels derived from 198806400 is integral to this project
BPA 198605000 Evaluate Sturgeon Physical Hab This project will compliment sturgeon restoration efforts in the lower middle Columbia River by providing a better understanding of factors influencing spawning success of white sturgeon. Past data on sturgeon spawning habitat and recruitment levels derived from 198605000 are integral to this project.
BPA 199700900 Eval Sturgeon Pop - Snake R (L This project will compliment sturgeon restoration efforts in the Snake River by providing a better understanding of factors influencing spawning success of white sturgeon. Information on sturgeon spawning areas, food habits, and spawning success derived from 19970900 will be used in comparisons among areas.
BPA 199502700 Lake Roosevelt Sturgeon This project will compliment sturgeon restoration efforts in Lake Roosevelt by providing a better understanding of factors influencing spawning success of white sturgeon. Information on sturgeon spawning areas, food habits, and spawning success derived from 199502700 will be used in comparisons among areas.
BPA 200200200 Enhance White Sturgeon Habitat This project will use the multi-dimensional modeling conducted on the Kootenai River under 200200200 in comparisons of habitat among areas
BPA 198806500 Kootenai R White Sturgeon Inve Project 198806500 strives to find ways to improve spawning success of white sturgeon. This proposal will contribute to that effort by 1) determining the foraging capabilities of young white sturgeon, 2) determining if forage for newly feeding white sturgeon is available in the Kootenai River, 3) identifying a desirable habitat state to achieve.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Compare and contrast differences in habitat Spawning success by white sturgeon varies among river reaches in the Columbia Basin. Annually, spawning success is consistently good in some reaches, inconsistent in others, and negligible in most reaches in the upper basin. By quantifying and contrasting physical habitat in spawning, egg incubation, and early feeding areas in a variety of river reaches, we can measure the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between reaches that consistently produce a year class of white sturgeon and those reaches that don't. Contrasting river reaches using a similar suite of metrics will identify physical differences among areas. Once known, managers can consider actions that will improve physical conditions in river reaches that are least similar to conditions in areas with consistent successful spawning. Kootenai Restore natural recruitment
Compare and contrast differences in habitat Spawning success by white sturgeon varies among river reaches in the Columbia Basin. Annually, spawning success is consistently good in some reaches, inconsistent in others, and negligible in most reaches in the upper basin. By quantifying and contrasting physical habitat in spawning, egg incubation, and early feeding areas in a variety of river reaches, we can measure the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between reaches that consistently produce a year class of white sturgeon and those reaches that don't. Contrasting river reaches using a similar suite of metrics will identify physical differences among areas. Once known, managers can consider actions that will improve physical conditions in river reaches that are least similar to conditions in areas with consistent successful spawning. Columbia Gorge Operate the hydrosytem to ensure habitat is available for spawning and rearing white sturgeon. High priority need.
Compare and contrast differences in habitat Spawning success by white sturgeon varies among river reaches in the Columbia Basin. Annually, spawning success is consistently good in some reaches, inconsistent in others, and negligible in most reaches in the upper basin. By quantifying and contrasting physical habitat in spawning, egg incubation, and early feeding areas in a variety of river reaches, we can measure the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between reaches that consistently produce a year class of white sturgeon and those reaches that don't. Contrasting river reaches using a similar suite of metrics will identify physical differences among areas. Once known, managers can consider actions that will improve physical conditions in river reaches that are least similar to conditions in areas with consistent successful spawning. Upper Middle Columbia Enhance white sturgeon populations through habitat improvements and artificial production, in concert with the Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Plan.
Compare and contrast differences in habitat Spawning success by white sturgeon varies among river reaches in the Columbia Basin. Annually, spawning success is consistently good in some reaches, inconsistent in others, and negligible in most reaches in the upper basin. By quantifying and contrasting physical habitat in spawning, egg incubation, and early feeding areas in a variety of river reaches, we can measure the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between reaches that consistently produce a year class of white sturgeon and those reaches that don't. Contrasting river reaches using a similar suite of metrics will identify physical differences among areas. Once known, managers can consider actions that will improve physical conditions in river reaches that are least similar to conditions in areas with consistent successful spawning. Upper Middle Columbia Determine how flows affect existing spawning habitat and rearing success.
Measure point of irreversible starvation Lack of spawning success by white sturgeon is due in part to negligible survival of spawned eggs, free-swimming embryos, or first-feeding larvae. Laboratory studies will be undertaken to determine the ability of larvae and early juvenile white sturgeon to withstand food deprivation and to seek prey patches. The work will identify the time from hatch to the point of irreversible starvation. These laboratory studies are crucial to understanding the role of prey availability and white sturgeon spawning success in Columbia Basin populations. Kootenai Restore natural recruitment
Measure prey availability for young sturgeon Lack of spawning success by white sturgeon is due in part to negligible survival of spawned eggs, free-swimming embryos, or first-feeding larvae. Field studies will be undertaken to determine the types, densities, and sizes of invertebrate prey available to juvenile white sturgeon in areas characterized by consistent, inconsistent, and negligible spawning success by white sturgeon. These field studies are crucial to understanding the role of prey availability and white sturgeon spawning success in Columbia Basin populations. Lower Middle Columbia Restore and maintain sustainable naturally producing population of white sturgeon
Measure prey availability for young sturgeon Lack of spawning success by white sturgeon is due in part to negligible survival of spawned eggs, free-swimming embryos, or first-feeding larvae. Field studies will be undertaken to determine the types, densities, and sizes of invertebrate prey available to juvenile white sturgeon in areas characterized by consistent, inconsistent, and negligible spawning success by white sturgeon. These field studies are crucial to understanding the role of prey availability and white sturgeon spawning success in Columbia Basin populations. Upper Middle Columbia Determine effects of hydro-electirc project on all life stages.
Quantify growth potential Spatially explicit models of fish growth rate potential can be used in the comparison of heterogeneous riverine and reservoir habitats. We will develop spatially explicit models of white sturgeon growth rate potential for three river reaches with differing levels of spawning success. The basic approach will be to integrate physical habitat conditions with foraging and bioenergetics models. Summing growth potential for individual reaches allows comparison among reaches. Managers can then consider actions that may improve potential growth in areas that show limited growth potential or select alternative approaches to rebuilding white sturgeon populations. Kootenai Restore natural recruitment
Quantify growth potential Spatially explicit models of fish growth rate potential can be used in the comparison of heterogeneous riverine and reservoir habitats. We will develop spatially explicit models of white sturgeon growth rate potential for three river reaches with differing levels of spawning success. The basic approach will be to integrate physical habitat conditions with foraging and bioenergetics models. Summing growth potential for individual reaches allows comparison among reaches. Managers can then consider actions that may improve potential growth in areas that show limited growth potential or select alternative approaches to rebuilding white sturgeon populations. Lower Middle Columbia Continue management for a viable population that will maintain sufficient abundance to meet the continued cultural, economic, and ecological needs.

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Determine the critical period between hatch and starvation for white sturgeon embryos It has been hypothesized that white sturgeon recruitment failure may be linked to disparities in availability of suitable forage for newly feeding age-0 fish. Food of the appropriate size must occur in the same place and time where white sturgeon embryos reside. Laboratory studies will be conducted to determine the point of irreversible starvation - that is, how long newly feeding white sturgeon can persist in the absence of food. 4/1/2007 8/31/2009 $119,997
Biological objectives
Measure point of irreversible starvation
Metrics
Focal Area: Hydrosystem
Primary R, M, and E Type: Undertainties Research
Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze/Interpret data from laboratory studies Differences among trials will be described 8/1/2007 9/30/2009 $70,255
Biological objectives
Measure point of irreversible starvation
Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Undertainties Research
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report Prepare annual and final reports and manuscripts for submission to journals Annual reports describing progress will be submitted to BPA. A final report describing the results from the laboratory experiments will be prepared as well. This report may be written as manuscripts for submission to peer-reviewed journals 8/1/2007 9/30/2009 $52,252
Biological objectives
Measure point of irreversible starvation
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Assess availability of prey for newly feeding white sturgeon in reaches with differing levels of spawning success Prey types available for first-feeding white sturgeon may differ among river reaches that have variable levels of spawning success. Field sampling will be done to characterize the type, density, and size of inveterbrate prey that may be considered to be forage for newly feeding white sturgeon. 4/1/2007 8/31/2009 $342,339
Biological objectives
Measure prey availability for young sturgeon
Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Undertainties Research
Focal Area: Hydrosystem
Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze/Interpret data from field studies Describe differences in prey composition among areas 8/1/2007 9/30/2009 $218,636
Biological objectives
Measure prey availability for young sturgeon
Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Undertainties Research
Focal Area: Hydrosystem
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report Prepare annual and final reports and manuscripts for submission to journals Annual reports describing progress will be submitted to BPA. A final report describing the results from the laboratory experiments will be prepared as well. This report may be written as manuscripts for submission to peer-reviewed journals 8/1/2007 9/30/2009 $156,664
Biological objectives
Measure prey availability for young sturgeon
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Measure and contrast availability of habitat in three river reaches Physical habitat will be assessed in three river reaches. Spatially referenced data on river bed elevations, sediment facies, water velocities, and depths will be collected. Using the Bonneville Dam tailrace white sturgeon spawning area as a training dataset, the level of similarity of this area to areas that have inconsistent or negligible spawning success will be measured using the Mahalanobis Distance statistic. We will investigate the use of ANCOVA to examine how spawning success differs between 3 areas. 4/1/2007 8/31/2009 $304,952
Biological objectives
Compare and contrast differences in habitat
Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Undertainties Research
Focal Area: Hydrosystem
Analyze/Interpret Data Measure similarity of river reaches that have consistent, inconsistent, and negligible spawning success The Mahalanobis Distance statistic can be used to ascertain similarity or dissimarity of spatially discrete areas to a common dataset. White sturgeon spawning success is consistently good in the Bonneville Dam tailrace, so this area will be used as the training dataset. We will also explore the use of ANCOVA to examine how spawning success differs among areas over years while controlling for some independent variables such as median or maximum water velocities or size of substrate. 4/1/2007 9/30/2009 $284,374
Biological objectives
Compare and contrast differences in habitat
Metrics
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report Prepare annual and final reports and manuscripts for submission to journals Annual progress reports will be provided throughout the duration of this study. A final report will be provided upon completion of all work. 8/1/2007 9/30/2009 $260,692
Biological objectives
Compare and contrast differences in habitat
Metrics
Analyze/Interpret Data Analyze/Interpret data from field studies and lab studies Establish spatial modeling framework, develop growth and forage models, incorporate estimates of prey availability, run bioenergetics simulations 8/1/2007 9/30/2009 $125,405
Biological objectives
Quantify growth potential
Metrics
Primary R, M, and E Type: Undertainties Research
Focal Area: Hydrosystem
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report Prepare annual and final reports and manuscripts for submission to journals Annual reports will be provided throughout the duration of the project. A report of final results will be provided upon completion of the project. 8/1/2007 9/30/2009 $112,478
Biological objectives
Quantify growth potential
Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
ItemNoteFY07FY08FY09
Personnel [blank] $240,132 $353,546 $356,772
Fringe Benefits [blank] $72,039 $106,064 $107,032
Supplies [blank] $16,050 $22,500 $9,900
Travel [blank] $46,984 $48,158 $25,521
Overhead [blank] $171,852 $242,837 $228,657
Totals $547,057 $773,105 $727,882
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $2,048,044
Total work element budget: $2,048,044
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
US Geological Survey sampling equipment including boats, trailers, ADCP's, and laboratory apparatus $300,000 $300,000 $5,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $300,000 $300,000 $5,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $85,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $85,000
Comments: The final year will be devoted to completing publications.

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: 09/30/2010
Comments: Final publication of manuscripts in peer reviewed journals will occur beyond the termination date of the contract.

Final deliverables: 4 Final reports; 1 each describing the results from the work done under each biological objectives. We expect to produce at least 4 peer-reviewed manuscripts in scientific journals. These will likely be published in their final form after the termination date.

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]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Expense Basinwide Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Basinwide

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: This is a generally well-prepared proposal on work that is logically important for understanding the mystery of poor white sturgeon recruitment in many parts of its range. Sponsors are uniquely qualified to do the laboratory studies, but proposed field studies are not well coordinated with others in the field already. The modeling seems overemphasized except as a conceptual framework for more data collection and analysis. Therefore, the ISRP recommends funding in part for the laboratory work and coordinated data collection and analysis from existing field studies. The otherwise adequate background fails to cite relevant literature on the topic. Much of what is proposed has been published in concept by others, but not acknowledged in this proposal. Recognition of the reproductive bottleneck in the egg-to-early-juvenile stage should have referenced Vaughn Paragamian and his colleagues, who have published several papers on the Kootenai River situation. The importance of riverine habitat differences among spawning locations across the species’ range should have been credited to recently published reviews. It is entirely appropriate to propose to investigate these ideas, which are presented with significant logic and justification, but their origins should be properly credited. There are links to plans and programs in the basin. Other relevant projects are noted but without adequate acknowledgment of their contributions to the logic of the present proposal. The proposal is not adequately integrated with ongoing field activities in the region. The objectives are well expressed for the several main areas of work, as are the relevant tasks. But there seems to be more emphasis on modeling than necessary or useful. The main tasks are the lab and fieldwork. Methods seem appropriate to the tasks. It is unclear that the tasks provide adequate linkages between expected results and conclusions that can be drawn. For example, if prey are scarcer in the Kootenai, would we not already know that? Does this necessarily imply a causal linkage to less recruitment? If so, can it be proven by the work to be conducted? The Cook lab has excellent lab facilities suitable for the laboratory portions of the work. Although the lab also carries out much fieldwork on a variety of projects, the bulk of the white sturgeon field research across the basin is carried out by others (states, consulting firms, tribes). The field sampling of this work would have been better if coordinated (or better yet, run completely) by these organizations because each has ongoing field sampling in the locations proposed for sampling here. How many different field crews need to be out there only partially coordinated with each other? It is not clear that the USGS staff is the best for this fieldwork. With good coordination, the existing field crews could obtain data not now being collected but perceived valuable by the Cook staff. The lab staff has an excellent record of publication, so results would likely become readily available. There is likely great benefit to white sturgeon management from establishing the sorts of habitat relationships suggested in this proposal. There are probably some important general habitat attributes and other site-specific factors. However, the benefits are less likely to happen if these investigators go it alone without coordination with others working on the same topic.


ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part

NPCC comments: The ISRP provides the following clarification on its Fundable in Part recommendation in the preliminary review: On the whole, the ISRP found the proposal scientifically justified, but the proposal had two flaws that caused the ISRP concern. The first flaw was the go-it-alone approach that did not seem to show sufficient effort to coordinate with other white sturgeon researchers except for Gary Barton, a fellow USGS staffer who has done hydrodynamic modeling in the Kootenai River spawning site. There were only general references in the text of the proposal to the work of other investigators who have contributed a great deal toward raising, studying, and publishing the importance of habitat relationships. Although several of the other BPA projects were listed in the Relationships to Other Projects section. It seemed to the ISRP that the project could be more effective if there was more cooperation with researchers at the sites they plan to use. Some of the sampling for food availability and habitat factors might be done by those respective field crews rather than by the Cook USGS folks. At least that cooperation might be explored. The second flaw was the amount of effort suggested for building the spatially explicit hydrodynamic and sturgeon growth models. It seems that some existing models might be used to advantage, including the one Barton did for the Kootenai and the one for striped bass in Chesapeake Bay. This use would cut down on model development time. Reviewers were concerned, however, that the models would simply incorporate the standard hydrodynamic, habitat, and bioenergetic features that have not adequately explained the sturgeon recruitment problems in the past. The primary goals seem to the ISRP to be getting the necessary field data on habitat and food availability and use and the lab studies of feeding needed to prevent starvation. That work would provide really new information that could feed into models or simply be used directly for habitat analyses and management. The models can serve as useful conceptual guides but may not be that useful for quantifying white sturgeon production for use by managers in population management, as the proposal suggests. The "Fundable in Part,” therefore, referred first to enhancing more cooperative effort for the field sampling across the basin and second to downplaying the model development until the more important lab and field information indicated what features are especially important and need to be in the models. Both reservations by the reviewers were not show-stoppers but were intended to provide more direction for project emphasis. ISRP preliminary comments (June 2006): This is a generally well-prepared proposal on work that is logically important for understanding the mystery of poor white sturgeon recruitment in many parts of its range. Sponsors are uniquely qualified to do the laboratory studies, but proposed field studies are not well coordinated with others in the field already. The modeling seems overemphasized except as a conceptual framework for more data collection and analysis. Therefore, the ISRP recommends funding in part for the laboratory work and coordinated data collection and analysis from existing field studies. The otherwise adequate background fails to cite relevant literature on the topic. Much of what is proposed has been published in concept by others, but not acknowledged in this proposal. Recognition of the reproductive bottleneck in the egg-to-early-juvenile stage should have referenced Vaughn Paragamian and his colleagues, who have published several papers on the Kootenai River situation. The importance of riverine habitat differences among spawning locations across the species’ range should have been credited to recently published reviews. It is entirely appropriate to propose to investigate these ideas, which are presented with significant logic and justification, but their origins should be properly credited. There are links to plans and programs in the basin. Other relevant projects are noted but without adequate acknowledgment of their contributions to the logic of the present proposal. The proposal is not adequately integrated with ongoing field activities in the region. The objectives are well expressed for the several main areas of work, as are the relevant tasks. But there seems to be more emphasis on modeling than necessary or useful. The main tasks are the lab and fieldwork. Methods seem appropriate to the tasks. It is unclear that the tasks provide adequate linkages between expected results and conclusions that can be drawn. For example, if prey are scarcer in the Kootenai, would we not already know that? Does this necessarily imply a causal linkage to less recruitment? If so, can it be proven by the work to be conducted? The Cook lab has excellent lab facilities suitable for the laboratory portions of the work. Although the lab also carries out much fieldwork on a variety of projects, the bulk of the white sturgeon field research across the basin is carried out by others (states, consulting firms, tribes). The field sampling of this work would have been better if coordinated (or better yet, run completely) by these organizations because each has ongoing field sampling in the locations proposed for sampling here. How many different field crews need to be out there only partially coordinated with each other? It is not clear that the USGS staff is the best for this fieldwork. With good coordination, the existing field crews could obtain data not now being collected but perceived valuable by the Cook staff. The lab staff has an excellent record of publication, so results would likely become readily available. There is likely great benefit to white sturgeon management from establishing the sorts of habitat relationships suggested in this proposal. There are probably some important general habitat attributes and other site-specific factors. However, the benefits are less likely to happen if these investigators go it alone without coordination with others working on the same topic.