FY07-09 proposal 199502700

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Intermountain / Columbia Upper

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: The outyear budget for this project will strongly depend on findings from FY2007-2009. If a substantial adult population is identified in the lower reservoir, extensive sampling to complete substrate mapping and invertebrate assessments would need to be conducted. Additionally, extensive public outreach will be necessary if predators are identified as a limiting factor to sturgeon recruitment.

Termination date: N/A
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is a very locally focused proposal for white sturgeon rehabilitation in Lake Roosevelt that is reasonable in broad view, but lacks perspective from other white sturgeon research, does not adequately document the status of the population, and does not adequately justify a conservation aquaculture program. Each of these three deficiencies necessitates a response. The technical and scientific background provides adequate evidence of recruitment failure for the white sturgeon population in the upper Columbia River. However, the background does not provide an adequate summary of the status of the population. Is this population part of a larger Columbia River metapopulation? What is the structure of stocks and ESUs of this species? Where does this population fit in this larger picture? A number of stock assessments have been conducted in the last few years, but the sponsors do not provide any data on the estimated population size, and estimates of yearly decline, or how long this population will last. What is needed in a response is a summary of the desired stock assessment, how much is completed, and what is going to be accomplished by the work in this proposal. The background is almost exclusively local and does not consider the broader perspective of white sturgeon research in the rest of the Columbia River basin (although later sections add some further relationships). There is an adequate description of mostly local literature with some lower Columbia information included for comparison. The proposal does not mention similar problems in the Kootenai River nearby (many published papers by Paragamian and co-authors) or papers that attempt to sort out the same reproductive bottleneck throughout the species’ range (e.g., Coutant 2004, Reviews in Fisheries Science 12:23-73). There is a good description of the joint US/Canada interaction, however. A response is needed to summarize how this population and this environment compare to the basinwide situation with respect to white sturgeon declines. The background does not sufficiently justify a conservation aquaculture program. The proposal introduces the concept that a conservation aquaculture program is one of the major solutions for recovering this population and cites the Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Plan (UCWSRP) recommendation that "the immediate implementation of a conservation aquaculture program was required to preserve the remaining demographic and genetic diversity of the population and rebuild the natural age-class structure lost during the persistent recruitment failures of the last 30 years (UCWSRI 2002, Recovery Plan Measure 5.5.3)." The ISRP examined this plan and found no compelling evidence that a conservation aquaculture program was well justified other than that the Canadians were successfully rearing and releasing juvenile white sturgeon into the Keenleyside Reach since 2002. A response is needed to justify this approach. The rationale section is fairly well done and clear links are described to the Spokane Subbasin Plan, the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, the Upper Columbia United Tribal Measures, the UCWSRP, and the Lake Roosevelt Recovery Project. Several projects funded by BPA that this project interacts with are given. The relationships are however not clear. Projects 199404300 and 199700400 are apparently stock assessment and data management projects for resident fish in Lake Roosevelt. The data that this project contributes to those is not clear, and neither is the services those projects provide for 199502700. Sponsors assert that the research proposed in this project will benefit 198806400, 198806500, and 199700900. Specifically what 199502700 will contribute to these others is not identified. This contribution should be addressed in the response. A general description of project activities and results is given in the project history section. Sponsors provide a succinct summary of the tasks they have completed since the project began active work in about 2003. What is lacking is evidence that the assessments that have been completed to date are sufficient for statistical analysis and will provide information needed to make management decisions. The response should address this issue. The primary objective of this project is found in the abstract: to restore natural recruitment of white sturgeon. The tasks are to continue interim aquaculture activities and stock assessments. Most of the numerous objectives are not biological objectives and are tasks or information transfer functions (e.g. objectives # 10-14 are to produce annual reports, quarterly reports, disseminates raw data, outreach, etc.). Methods are quite detailed and well done for objectives # 5, and especially #6, which is the real essence of this project. The stock assessment elements serve as trend monitoring, but the aquaculture portion does not have clear monitoring and evaluation endpoints. The plan for information transfer is solid, with annual reports and peer reviewed literature to be produced. It is good to see that annual reports have been done regularly in this ongoing project but there are no open-literature publications. The project appears headed toward benefit to white sturgeon in Lake Roosevelt, but there is much to do before it is clear that there will be benefit. Putting too much stock in the artificial production element may be a waste of resources and compromise the future genetic diversity and fitness of the remaining population. The proposal needs to do a better job of zeroing in on what they think is the major factor limiting recruitment. They end up at a vague hint that predation on early life stages may be the main problem but don't quite get there.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: This is a proposal for white sturgeon rehabilitation in Lake Roosevelt that is reasonable in broad view, but the initial proposal lacked perspective from other white sturgeon research, did not adequately document the status of the population, and did not adequately justify a conservation aquaculture program. The first two of these three deficiencies were amply remedied by an excellent response. The response addressed the ISRP's identified concerns explicitly with an abundance of data, analysis, and intentions for the proposed research. The response provides convincing evidence that sponsors are gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the sturgeon population upstream from Lake Roosevelt and perhaps beginning to determine the mechanisms limiting recruitment to the older age classes. An expanded reference list was provided. The ISRP appreciates the thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and objectivity with which the sponsors provided their response. The reporting of results of the project has been good with Annual Reports to BPA produced for each year of the study. The relationships of the Lake Roosevelt stock to other components of the Columbia River Basin white sturgeon were described both genetically and geographically. The research and analysis to date on stock status was described quantitatively and appropriate results were presented. As requested, the response demonstrated an understanding of the sturgeon population in the context of other populations and ongoing research and management in the basin and throughout the species' range. The initially unclear relationships among existing projects were appropriately clarified. The response provided evidence that the population assessments conducted to date and those planned for the future are intended to be quantitative and have statistical rigor. Despite the fine response, the ISRP has some suggestions for sponsors’ consideration in the areas of population status and stock assessment. Sponsors conclude with a statement that the historic stock structure is not germane to the current problem of poor recruitment, and that the population will remain isolated for the foreseeable future because of impoundment of this section of the river. This may be true, although the ISRP provides another view for consideration. The ISRP receives proposals from various reaches throughout the Columbia River basin that implicitly treat each impoundment as an isolated unit. It could be, however, that before the hydrosystem was constructed white sturgeon migrated among segments of the Columbia and Snake Rivers (exclusive of the Kootenai, which has been isolated for thousands of years). Coupled with episodic and localized successful recruitment interspersed with many years of failed reproduction, the abundance and geographic distribution of sturgeon may have depended on movement of individuals, young and old, among river reaches. The fragmentation of the system may itself be a causal mechanism in the decline in recruitment in some segments. If this is the case, then efforts to mitigate the mechanisms for recruitment failure may be a necessary but insufficient solution to recover these populations. Any artificial production to support white sturgeon needs to consider this possibility. Sponsors provided a very helpful summary of their stock assessment efforts, and their conclusions to date. If this proposal is funded and the current round of tasks are accomplished, it would be helpful for reviewers in the next proposal cycle if the sponsors provided a more thorough justification of additional stock assessments. There need to be explicit assessments outlined that will provide convincing abundance and survival estimates. The conclusion that a standardized survey needs to be conducted every three years could to be better justified, also. Future proposals should more thoroughly develop the need for continued population status monitoring and at what time intervals. The sponsors' justification for the conservation hatchery was still based too much on the UCWSRI (2002) and recovery plan recommendations, plus the citing of supplementation ongoing in the lower Columbia River (The Dalles reservoir) and in the Kootenai River. The ISRP examined the upper Columbia plan and found no compelling evidence that a conservation aquaculture program was well justified other than that the Canadians were successfully rearing and releasing juvenile white sturgeon into the Keenleyside Reach since 2002. All of the supplementation efforts are at such an early stage that it is unknown if supplementation will help or hurt these populations. This is too much like a bandwagon approach. The rationale for trying conservation aquaculture was presented as a temporary response to the longer time frame of likely research and management advances for restoring habitat deficiencies likely responsible for low recruitment. An informative set of projected population trajectories with and without hatchery supplementation was provided. Nonetheless, the ISRP suggests the supplementation approach be more thoroughly developed and justified, which remains a qualification for the fundable recommendation.