FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 199502700

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

Assume cost of labor, equipment, and sub-contractors are major conbtributory cost increase factors.

Reason for change in scope

Due to depressed nature of Lake Roosevelt white sturgeon we have elected not to target adult sturgeon with gill-nets or set lines, as we are concerned that we may experience unacceptable post release mortalities.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Overall Comments:

This is a project for assessment of lake sturgeon populations in Lake Roosevelt, developing a plan for improving recruitment of juveniles to the population (which is dwindling), and initial sampling primarily to identify spawning and presumed nursery sites. Other relevant sampling is also proposed broadly. The goal is to develop a mitigation recovery plan. This project was approved but not funded since 1995, although funding was initiated in August 2000.

The proposal demonstrates a clear problem with sturgeon in the reservoir. The once-broad-ranging species has a population isolated in Lake Roosevelt, there are no signs of successful recruitment in the past several decades in spite of some indications of successful spawning in Canada, and remaining sturgeon adults are underfed. The proposal adequately describes the technical background and significance of this situation, although more specific results from Canadian researchers and those on the Kootenai River would have been helpful. The relationship of this project to others is clear. The proposal relates the work to the FWP and the Upper Columbia Blocked Area Mgmt. Plan. The work is linked to other Lake Roosevelt work (especially the monitoring program), and to other white sturgeon work in the Basin. The objectives and tasks are clear, and there are apparently good facilities and equipment for doing the work. Personnel may, however, be stretched thin with other monitoring activities. Overall costs are shared by collaboration with the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. All consistency criteria were met.

A strong case is made for conservation of this white sturgeon stock. Continued viability of the white sturgeon population above Grand Coulee Dam and below Canadian Treaty dams is tenuous. Presently, we have no or very little knowledge of the biological and physical factors affecting white sturgeon abundance, population dynamics of the white sturgeon, and when and where they may spawn. All of this information is essential for formulating a biologically sound restoration program. This project proposes to obtain the above information in a scientifically sound manner. The project is tied to restoration and recovery and not strictly enhancement of a native species.

It is not clear that recruitment is the only weak link, as there is not good feeding by remaining fish in the reservoir (as shown by low condition factor). Successful recovery of the population with mitigation aimed at improving juvenile recruitment is questionable without attention to the full life cycle. At a broader level, the managers should evaluate the relative merits of saving this isolated stock and its alternative, species substitution (active program).

A critical element missing from this proposal, however, is detail on sampling plans to be included for most of the factors that relate directly to the life history of the sturgeon themselves. For example, under the objective "Identify and define potential for white sturgeon spawning between Grand Coulee Dam and the international border", on page 6 of the proposal, there is a statement indicating that numerous potentially suitable spawning sites have been identified. It then appears that the primary thrust of the proposal at hand is to confirm (or not) the use of these sites by sturgeon by placing artificial substrates downstream of those locations and examining them for eggs that may have drifted onto them. There is no indication of the reaches of the river that are free-flowing (during the tour it was not made clear whether the reservoir extends into Canada). There is no description of the size of substrate mats intended to be used nor of their number. The reviewer is left to assume that project leaders will design a sampling survey that will produce convincing results. Our previous experience in reviewing project proposals makes us unwilling to make that assumption. Surveys on the Kootenai River should provide useful guidance. On the other hand, the sampling methods proposed for evaluating physical attributes of the habitat are described in sufficient detail to satisfy review. A question arises with respect to the plan to assess available food for white sturgeon. The proposal states that benthic invertebrates are important for juvenile sturgeon, and that their density and distribution will be assessed. Again, the reviewer is left to assume that the investigators will design a sampling protocol that will convincingly describe local variations in abundance of food for sturgeon. With respect to sub-adult and adult sturgeon, the proposal emphasizes distribution of food items, without mention of density or other abundance measures, until late in the paragraph where it is stated that density and distribution of major food items will be plotted as an individual GIS layer on a bathymetric map of Lake Roosevelt. Are we to assume then that densities of fish species that constitute the diet of larger sturgeon will be included? To accomplish this task will require a well-designed, statistically valid sampling survey. There is no description of such a survey. Abundance of food is very likely to prove to be a limiting factor to sturgeon populations, while distribution of food will be of secondary importance (sturgeon may move to abundant food supplies). Factors involved in limiting abundance are described in the Lake Roosevelt Subbasin Summary.

We recommend consideration of a three-part sequence for a three-year project. A revised proposal for the response review might simply provide more details on study methods. Alternatively, the revision could indicate that priority attention would be given to additional assessment (based on available knowledge in this subbasin and elsewhere, and from research conducted with the initial funding) and further development of a detailed research program to guide a recovery plan. Over the three-year duration of the project, more assessment could be accomplished, plans for the research could be further refined and be given detailed peer review by colleagues knowledgeable about sturgeon biology, and then field studies beyond those already part of the project and the Lake Roosevelt monitoring program could be conducted (probably in the second year). The recovery plan could be drafted at the end of the research period, depending on results. It is likely, however, that more than 3 years of study effort will be required. A response should demonstrate examples of more detailed study plans.

Comment:

FY 01, 02, 03 Budget Review Comments: for one year or for life of the $152,000 implementation money-following this the project should be reviewed as a new project

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Regarding the ISRP's comment about the staff's ability to do so much work, the authors state that much would be subcontracted and that temporary staff are available from the co-managers. The sponsors intend to have the contractor develop the study and research plan, including the statistical experimental design with respect to measuring abundance and distribution of invertebrate and vertebrate forage species that are the food of sturgeon. With no description of the study and research plan, the ISRP is still left with little to review for its scientific merits on that subject. A better procedure would be for the contractor to be involved in preparation of the proposal. In this way, there would be assurance that an appropriate sampling design would be included in the project planning, and a full description of the monitoring and evaluation plan would be included in the proposal for evaluation by the ISRP.

The sponsors plan close coordination with other sturgeon studies. It appears that they will have one of the contractors already working with sturgeon do this study. What they propose to do is very similar to what the ISRP team saw Vaughn Paragamian doing on the Kootenai River. We concur with this approach, which has been fruitful.

The sponsors make the point that it seems unrealistic to expect completion of their project (a Recovery Plan) within 3 years. However, it should be possible to identify time periods required to accomplish some of the tasks. Specifically it should now be possible to develop a reasonable estimate of the time required to develop a full study plan - with the understanding that modifications will be made as experience is gained. Similarly, the time required for data collection ought to be estimated, accompanied by a time for assessment. It will then become clear that it would not be reasonable to expect development of a full recovery plan within three years, given the lack of data on certain critical points. However, it should be possible to make some kind of estimate of the total time required.

All-in-all, the proposers answered the ISRP's questions satisfactorily. The result seems to be a more rigorous approach. Design of an adequate monitoring and evaluation procedure should be required during the Council's review and the BPA contracting period.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website