This page provides a read-only view of a Proposal. The sections below are organized to help review teams quickly and accurately review a proposal and therefore may not be in the same order as the proposal information is entered.
This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.
To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting
your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.
Archive | Date | Time | Type | From | To | By |
Download | 7/30/2010 | 9:06 PM | Status | Draft | ISRP - Pending First Review | <System> |
10/15/2010 | 5:54 PM | Status | ISRP - Pending First Review | ISRP - Pending Response | <System> | |
Download | 11/15/2010 | 5:14 PM | Status | ISRP - Pending Response | ISRP - Pending Final Review | <System> |
1/14/2011 | 10:43 AM | Status | ISRP - Pending Final Review | Pending Council Recommendation | <System> | |
7/11/2011 | 8:17 AM | Status | Pending Council Recommendation | Pending BPA Response | <System> |
Proposal Number:
|
RMECAT-1986-050-00 | |
Proposal Status:
|
Pending BPA Response | |
Proposal Version:
|
Proposal Version 1 | |
Review:
|
RME / AP Category Review | |
Portfolio:
|
RM&E Cat. Review - RM&E | |
Type:
|
Existing Project: 1986-050-00 | |
Primary Contact:
|
Christine Mallette | |
Created:
|
5/21/2010 by (Not yet saved) | |
Proponent Organizations:
|
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife |
|
|
||
Project Title:
|
White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers | |
Proposal Short Description:
|
This project includes a series of closely coordinated and complementary activities that are being implemented in the Columbia River downstream of Lake Roosevelt and in the Snake River downstream of Lower Granite Dam. Activities include stock assessment, population monitoring, and monitoring the biological responses to mitigation actions. Specific goals are to ensure persistence of white sturgeon populations and to restore and maintain population productivity in impounded river reaches. |
|
Proposal Executive Summary:
|
Project Overview: This project includes a series of closely coordinated and complementary activities that are being implemented in the Columbia River downstream of Lake Roosevelt and in the Snake River downstream of Lower Granite Dam. Activities include stock assessment, population monitoring, fisheries management, and monitoring the biological responses to mitigation actions. Specific goals are to ensure persistence of white sturgeon populations and to restore and maintain population productivity in impounded river reaches. The project has evolved from conducting research on white sturgeon in the Columbia River Basin to implementing mitigation activities based on research results, and monitoring the effects of mitigation activities. The primary objectives of the project are to ensure persistence of white sturgeon populations, restore and maintain population productivity in impounded reaches to levels similar to that in the un-impounded Lower Columbia River Mainstem, and to restore and ensure sustainable white sturgeon fisheries. Objectives are designed to restore white sturgeon populations in impounded areas so that they can sustain annual harvest or use equivalent to 5 kg/ha of surface area. Initial project activities during 1986-92 indicated that productivity of white sturgeon in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs was severely limited. Recommendations included increasing management of fisheries for impounded populations, identifying habitat requirements and the relationship between river discharge and productivity, evaluating the feasibility of restoration through transplants and artificial propagation, and investigating the need for protecting and restoring populations upstream from McNary Dam. Work since 1992 has been based on these recommendations, including specific actions that do not involve changes to hydropower system operation and configuration to mitigate for lost white sturgeon productivity. These mitigation activities include intensive management of fisheries in impoundments and associated harvest monitoring, transplanting wild juvenile white sturgeon for supplementation in The Dalles and John Day reservoirs (transplanting was discontinued in 2006), and releases of small numbers of hatchery-reared yearling white sturgeon in John Day Reservoir when available to the State of Oregon. Intensive fisheries management and associated harvest monitoring is the primary mitigative action implemented today. Each reservoir population in the Columbia River Gorge, Lower Middle Columbia River and Lower Snake River sub-basins is unique and requires different management actions to maintain sustainable fisheries and to restore productivity. Intensive monitoring of harvest, together with population monitoring, is necessary to maintain fisheries effort and harvest at sustainable levels, while building population productivity. In Bonneville, The Dalles and John Day reservoirs, intensive management of white sturgeon fisheries has been ongoing since 1993. Critical assumptions for taking this action are: (1) the hydropower system has decreased the productivity of impounded sturgeon populations and (2) intensive management is needed to ensure the recovery of sturgeon populations, while still allowing harvest. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is the lead agency in directing recreational and commercial fisheries sampling and estimating in-season white sturgeon harvest relative to established annual sustainable harvest guidelines for these three reservoirs. Fishery sampling also accounts for numbers of tagged white sturgeon removed from the population as part of the overall mark and recapture stock assessment program that is used to estimate population abundance. The ODFW assists with monitoring recreational harvest, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) assists with sampling the commercial fishery to estimate harvest. Commercial winter fisheries are monitored by sub-sampling individual buyers to estimate harvest by site and location. The effectiveness of these intensive fisheries management actions is, and will continue to be, evaluated by measuring reservoir specific population recovery. Several small-scale hatchery releases were made by the program during efforts to develop hatchery technology for supplementation. Effects of these mitigation actions are assessed through periodic sampling to index populations. These previous efforts in artificial propagation research have provided researchers with information regarding the movement and growth of hatchery reared sturgeon at large in the Columbia River. Researchers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WDFW and the Montana State University (ODFW subcontract to the latter) continue to evaluate the reproductive structure and spawning periodicity of white sturgeon adults in Bonneville Reservoir as compared to those inhabiting the free flowing river reach below Bonneville Dam. In addressing the objective of restoring and maintaining white sturgeon productivity, the reproductive structure and spawning periodicity of the adult white sturgeon below Bonneville Dam has been determined during the past ten years (Webb and Kappenman, 2010). The population of sturgeon below Bonneville Dam supports one of the most productive recreational and commercial sturgeon fisheries in the world (Craig and Hacker 1940/ McCabe and Tracy 1994; DeVore et al., 1995). Understanding the reproductive capability of this population has provided valuable information for comparison of populations of white sturgeon that are recruitment limited, such as populations of white sturgeon above Bonneville Dam, and in the upper Columbia River and Kootenai River. We will test if reproductive structure and spawning periodicity may be used as an indicator of population health. We will determine the reproductive structure and spawning periodicity of adult white sturgeon in Bonneville Reservoir by working cooperatively with sport fishing guides and deploying modified set lines in the upper section of Bonneville Reservoir in the late spring and early summer (an area known to have congregating adult white sturgeon based on previous population assessments) in 2010-2014 and continue to refine a maturation status model for white sturgeon in the Lower Columbia River. Results, as assessed through periodic sampling, indicate that these mitigation actions have had a positive effect on population abundances in Bonneville, The Dalles and John Day reservoirs and generally increased as a result of mitigation and favorable recruitment conditions. We will continue to monitor sturgeon populations and their response to mitigation actions in these three reservoirs and we will index recruitment of age-0 white sturgeon and related changes in recruitment to changes in environmental conditions. We will conduct basic stock assessment studies on a rotational basis in McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental and Little Goose reservoirs. Work to be completed includes (1) making final recommendations concerning the operation of the Federal Columbia River Hydropower System to optimize habitat conditions for white sturgeon and (2) developing a regional plan for the management and conservation of white sturgeon populations. |
|
|
||
Purpose:
|
Habitat | |
Emphasis:
|
RM and E | |
Species Benefit:
|
Anadromous: 0.0% Resident: 100.0% Wildlife: 0.0% | |
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
|
Yes | |
Subbasin Plan:
|
||
Fish Accords:
|
None | |
Biological Opinions:
|
None |
Contacts:
|
|
Development of the Columbia River basin hydropower system has severely impacted populations of white sturgeon upstream from Bonneville Dam. The white sturgeon population in the Columbia River downstream from Bonneville Dam supports one of the most productive recreational and commercial sturgeon fisheries in the world (Craig and Hacker 1940; McCabe and Tracy 1994); however, populations impounded in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs can support only limited recreational and tribal fisheries and are more vulnerable to over-fishing than the unimpounded population (Beamesderfer et al. 1995) Sturgeon populations upstream from McNary Dam can support only limited harvest or catch-and-release recreational fisheries. Fishing for white sturgeon has been prohibited upstream from Chief Joseph Dam, including all Canadian waters of the Columbia River. The white sturgeon population in the Kootenai River was listed as endangered in 1994 under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1994) and a recovery plan was completed in 1999 (USFWS 1999).
Extensive development of hydropower dams throughout the Columbia River Basin during the past century has severely fragmented free-flowing, large river habitats (National Research Council 1996) occupied by white sturgeon. Anadromous white sturgeon historically made migrations throughout the Columbia and Snake rivers for spawning and feeding, but are currently unable to use existing dam fishways for upstream passage (North et al. 1993). One important result of such river fragmentation for white sturgeon is the creation of a series of relatively isolated sub-populations (Jager et al. 2000; Secor et al. 2002). This is especially critical for a migratory species like white sturgeon, where fragmentation by dams may artificially impose exclusively downstream migration and gene flow. Altered seasonal river discharge and thermal regimes resulting from impoundment and dam operations may also alter migration, limit habitat availability, or affect timing, location, or success of reproduction (Auer 1996; Cooke et al. 2002; Jager et al. 2002; Secor et al. 2002). Presence of dams and impoundments also severely restrict migrations of at least two principal food sources for white sturgeon: eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus and Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata.
In addition to the effects of dams themselves, operation of the hydropower system has resulted in decreased productivity of many white sturgeon populations. Flow regimes have been altered and water depths increased, which have resulted in reduced water velocities over extensive areas (Parsley and Beckman 1994). In the Columbia River, white sturgeon spawning and egg incubation usually occur from April through July in the swiftest water available (Parsley et al. 1993), and the amount of spawning habitat for white sturgeon increases as discharge increases (Parsley and Beckman 1994). Hydropower production has reduced spring and summer discharges (Ebel et al. 1989), decreasing the amount of spawning habitat. During years of reduced river runoff, the lack of high-quality spawning habitat in impounded reaches may preclude successful reproduction by white sturgeon. As a result, many impounded white sturgeon populations are not as productive as they once were, and some populations in upper reaches of the Columbia River basin may already be facing extirpation.
Possibly related to poor spawning conditions, white sturgeon often experience year-class failures because of poor recruitment to age-0 in mainstem reservoirs (Parsley and Beckman 1994; Anders et al. 2002; Parsley et al. 2002). Although recent population estimates in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs (Rien 2007, Mallette 2008; Mallette 2009) are higher than previous estimates (Beamesderfer et al. 1995), juvenile fish have remained relatively scarce in most years (Anders et al. 2002; Parley et al. 2002).
Though hydroelectric development has reduced the availability of spawning habitat, it has increased the area physically suitable for age-0 and juvenile white sturgeon in impounded reaches (Parsley and Beckman 1994). Impoundment has increased water depths and reduced water velocities upstream from the dams; thus, because young sturgeon use the deeper and slower water, the physical rearing habitat has increased. Spawning failures and low numbers of recruits to age-0 when spawning is successful have resulted in relatively few fish occupying this available habitat.
Concern about the effects of the hydropower system on white sturgeon lead to a White Sturgeon Research Needs Workshop in 1983 conducted by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory and the Bonneville Power Administration (Fickeisen et al. 1984) to facilitate further efforts by the Bonneville Power Administration’s Division of Fish and Wildlife in developing a research program for Columbia River Basin white sturgeon. It was determined that the research would be conducted under the resident fish section – specifically measure 804 (e) (8) – of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, which states that “Bonneville shall fund research to determine the impacts of development and operation of the hydroelectric power system on sturgeon in the Columbia River Basin…” (Fickeisen, 1985). The project began in 1986 and until 1992, work under this project concentrated on determining the status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam (Beamesderfer and Nigro 1993) and on the identification of potential methods for protecting, mitigating and restoring white sturgeon populations. Conclusions from this work included (1) dams limit movements of white sturgeon and have functionally isolated populations, (2) the status and dynamics of each population are unique, (3) productivity in reservoirs is less than in the unimpounded area downstream from Bonneville Dam, (4) recruitment and subsequent population size are limited by the effects of river discharge on spawning habitat, which is restricted to high-velocity areas immediately downstream from dams, (5) reservoirs provide large areas of suitable habitat for juvenile and adult white sturgeon, but compensatory population responses may reduce productivity if carrying capacity is reached, and (6) over-fishing for white sturgeon had occurred in Bonneville, The Dalles and John Day reservoirs had collapsed and population collapse was likely if high exploitation continued.
Based on these conclusions, recommendations for further work included (1) intensify management of fisheries for impounded populations, (2) evaluate if augmented river discharge in May and June improves spawning and recruitment, (3) evaluate the feasibility of enhancing depleted populations by transplanting juvenile white sturgeon from populations downstream from Bonneville Dam, (4) identify habitat requirements of subadult and adult white sturgeon, quantify amounts of suitable habitat, and evaluate constraints on enhancement, (5) refine and evaluate hatchery technology for enhancement of threatened populations of white sturgeon, and (6) investigate the need and potential measures for protecting and enhancing populations upstream from McNary Dam.
By 1998, much of the recommended work had been completed or was well underway: intensive fisheries management had become an ongoing component of the project, work to evaluate the feasibility of transplant supplementation was complete, and a broad recommendation for flows to provide spawning habitat was made. Therefore, a new phase of the project was started. In this phase, from 1998-2005, intensive fisheries management and transplant supplementation mitigation activities were fully implemented, investigations into habitat, flow, and enhancement measures were completed, and work to evaluate hatchery technology for enhancement mitigation began. Work associated with hatchery technology development was removed from the project during the 2003-2005 phase of work due to budget constraints. Likewise, annual recruitment indexing in the Lower Snake River reservoirs was discontinued in 2006 due to budget constraints. Recent project activities include the continued implementation of mitigation actions from previous phases in Bonneville, The Dalles and John Day reservoirs, including (1) intensive harvest management, (2) three year rotational stock assessments and monitoring of population responses to mitigation actions, (3) investigating and refining estimates of individual fish growth, (4) describing maturational status and reproductive potential of white sturgeon, (4) annual sampling to index relative abundance of age-0 white sturgeon and relating changes in recruitment to changes in environmental conditions, and (5) monitoring survival, growth and contribution to fisheries of transplanted white sturgeon. Furthermore, we coordinated with other Columbia Basin sturgeon projects to address the protection and enhancement of populations upstream from McNary Dam, including participation in the development and implementation of white sturgeon management plans directed at the restoration of white sturgeon populations in Priest Rapids, Wanapum, and Rocky Reach reservoirs on the Columbia River.
We will continue these actions to manage and monitor sturgeon populations in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs. We will work cooperatively to monitor fish entrainment and other impacts of mid-Columbia PUD hatchery supplementation actions on downstream populations. We will conduct basic stock assessments on a rotational basis in McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental and Little Goose reservoirs. Work to be completed includes making final recommendations concerning the operation of the Federal Columbia River Hydropower System to optimize habitat conditions for white sturgeon and developing a regional plan for the management and conservation of white sturgeon.
Ensure Persistence of White Sturgeon in the Columbia River Gorge, the Lower Mid-Columbia Rivre and the Lower Snake River Subbasins (OBJ-1)
The objective is to ensure the forecasted likelihood of white sturgeon to persist into the foreseeable future in three distinct Columbia River Subbasins: The Columbia River Gorge (Objective 1a), the Lower Middle Columbia River (Objective 1b), and the Lower Snake River (Objective 1c).
The desired outcome of this objective is to ensure population viability should unforeseen negative environmental or anthropogenic pressures occur, while continuing to provide broad cultural, economic and other societal benefits into the foreseeable future. Restore and Maintain Population Productivity in Impounded Subbasins (3) to Levels Similar to that in the Unimpounded Lower Columbia River Mainstem (OBJ-2)
As with Objective 1, this objective can be subdivided by its relevance to specific Columbia River Subbasins i.e., the Columbia River Gorge (Objective 2a), the Lower Middle Columbia River (Objective 2b) and the Lower Snake River (Objective 2c).
The highest periods of mortality for post-larval white sturgeon are 1) during their first year, and 2) during the time that they are within legal harvest size limits (approximately age 11 through age 18). Monitoring age-0 and adult recruitment allows the detection of any issues associated with these periods of elevated mortality forces. Abundance and Productivity targets were identified in the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program. Although some variability in recruitment over time is normal, the overall trend should be increasing. Adult recruitment needs to exceed replacement levels. Changes in spawning periodicity are a good indicator of adult white sturgeon health and changes in environmental conditions. |
Restore and Ensure Sustainable Fisheries in the Columbia River Gorge, The Lower Middle Columbia River, and the Lower Snake River Subbasins (OBJ-3)
As with Objectives 1 and 2, this objective is subdivided based on specific Columbia River Subbasins with the Columbia River Gorge represented by Objective 3a, the Lower Middle Columbia River by Objective 3b, and the Lower Snake River by Objective 3c, respectively. The desired outcome of this objective is meaningful and sustainable recreational and commercial harvest levels while building population productivity in each of the aforementioned subbasins.
|
To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"
To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page
Expense | SOY Budget | Working Budget | Expenditures * |
---|---|---|---|
FY2019 | $1,512,803 | $1,569,827 | $1,505,092 |
|
|||
General | $1,336,827 | $1,281,700 | |
Cost Savings | $233,000 | $223,392 | |
FY2020 | $1,384,274 | $1,384,274 | $1,362,112 |
|
|||
General | $1,384,274 | $1,362,112 | |
FY2021 | $1,442,704 | $1,442,704 | $1,500,259 |
|
|||
General | $1,442,704 | $1,500,259 | |
FY2022 | $1,494,662 | $1,494,662 | $1,100,810 |
|
|||
General | $1,494,662 | $1,100,810 | |
FY2023 | $1,530,605 | $1,530,605 | $1,723,937 |
|
|||
General | $1,530,605 | $1,723,937 | |
FY2024 | $1,531,517 | $1,531,517 | $1,369,031 |
|
|||
General | $1,531,517 | $1,369,031 | |
FY2025 | $1,572,888 | $1,572,888 | $748,750 |
|
|||
General | $1,572,888 | $748,750 | |
* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025 |
Cost Share Partner | Total Proposed Contribution | Total Confirmed Contribution |
---|---|---|
There are no project cost share contributions to show. |
Fiscal Year | Total Contributions | % of Budget | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
2021 | $1,388,623 | (Draft) | 49% | (Draft) |
2020 | $1,388,623 | 50% | ||
2019 | $1,184,359 | 43% | ||
2018 | $1,184,359 | 42% | ||
2017 | $1,124,976 | 46% | ||
2016 | $946,885 | 41% | ||
2015 | $946,885 | 41% | ||
2014 | $996,630 | 43% | ||
2013 | $955,357 | 43% | ||
2012 | $1,138,715 | 46% | ||
2011 | $1,132,854 | 46% | ||
2010 | $1,067,209 | 45% | ||
2009 | $1,110,569 | 47% | ||
2008 | $970,900 | 43% | ||
2007 | $1,364,846 | 52% |
Annual Progress Reports | |
---|---|
Expected (since FY2004): | 23 |
Completed: | 22 |
On time: | 22 |
Status Reports | |
---|---|
Completed: | 82 |
On time: | 28 |
Avg Days Late: | 7 |
Count of Contract Deliverables | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Earliest Contract | Subsequent Contracts | Title | Contractor | Earliest Start | Latest End | Latest Status | Accepted Reports | Complete | Green | Yellow | Red | Total | % Green and Complete | Canceled |
4005 | 19342, 24751, 29876, 35494, 39233, 44565, 50318, 59559, 63186, 66928, 70076, 73881, 74313 REL 10, 74313 REL 33, 74313 REL 60, 74313 REL 81, 74313 REL 103, 84041 REL 7, 84041 REL 25, 84041 REL 39 | 1986-050-00 EXP EVALUATE STURGEON POPULATIONS LOWER COLUMBIA | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 03/19/2001 | 09/30/2025 | Issued | 82 | 269 | 20 | 4 | 4 | 297 | 97.31% | 0 |
BPA-5535 | PIT Tags - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in Lwr Col | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2006 | 09/30/2007 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-3644 | PIT Tags - ODFW | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2007 | 09/30/2008 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-4305 | PIT Tags - Evaluate Sturgeon Physical Habitat | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2008 | 09/30/2009 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-4813 | PIT Tags - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in Lwr Col | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2009 | 09/30/2010 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-5477 | PIT Tags - Evaluate Sturgeon Physical Habitat | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2010 | 09/30/2011 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-6311 | PIT Tags - Eval Sturgeon Populations | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2011 | 09/30/2012 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-7014 | PIT Tags - Eval Sturgeon Populations | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2012 | 09/30/2013 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-7450 | PIT Tags - Evaluate Sturgeon Pop. in L. Columbia | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2013 | 09/30/2014 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-8430 | PIT Tags - Evaluate Sturgeon Pop. in L. Columbia | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2014 | 09/30/2015 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-9672 | PIT Tags - Evaluate Sturgeon Pop. in L. Columbia | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2016 | 09/30/2017 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-10028 | PIT Tags - Evaluate Sturgeon Pop. in L. Columbia | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2017 | 09/30/2018 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-10702 | Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2018 | 09/30/2019 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-11694 | PIT tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2019 | 09/30/2020 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-12054 | FY21 Pit Tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2020 | 09/30/2021 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-12768 | FY22 PIT tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2021 | 09/30/2022 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-13996 | FY24 PIT Tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2023 | 09/30/2024 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
BPA-14188 | FY25 PIT Tags | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/01/2024 | 09/30/2025 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Project Totals | 82 | 269 | 20 | 4 | 4 | 297 | 97.31% | 0 |
Contract | WE Ref | Contracted Deliverable Title | Due | Completed |
---|---|---|---|---|
24751 | O: 157 | Describe distribution and growth of white sturgeon previously released in Rock I. Res. | 5/31/2006 | 5/31/2006 |
24751 | N: 162 | Describe the annual availability of habitat for white sturgeon spawning | 9/29/2006 | 9/29/2006 |
24751 | P: 162 | Describe distribution and size of recaptured fish in Rock Island and Wanapum reservoirs | 9/29/2006 | 9/29/2006 |
29876 | B: 157 | Database | 9/28/2007 | 9/28/2007 |
29876 | E: 157 | Collect and summarize white sturgeon stock assessment data in John Day Reservoir | 9/30/2007 | 9/30/2007 |
35494 | F: 157 | Collect and summarize white sturgeon stock assessment data in The Dalles Reservoir | 8/14/2008 | 8/14/2008 |
35494 | G: 162 | Estimate abundance of white sturgeon in John Day Reservoir - ODFW | 9/30/2008 | 9/30/2008 |
39233 | G: 162 | Estimate abundance of white sturgeon in The Dalles Reservoir - ODFW | 12/31/2008 | 12/31/2008 |
39233 | J: 162 | White sturgeon recruitment analysis | 1/22/2009 | 1/22/2009 |
39233 | D: 162 | Zone 6 white sturgeon harvest and abundance estimates | 6/8/2009 | 6/8/2009 |
39233 | K: 157 | Collect tissue samples (gonad, plasma, urine, and mucus) from white sturgeon - MSU | 7/23/2009 | 7/23/2009 |
39233 | E: 158 | Tag white sturgeon and assemble mark/recapture data - ODFW | 7/24/2009 | 7/24/2009 |
39233 | B: 157 | Zone 6 white sturgeon recreational harvest data collection | 8/15/2009 | 8/15/2009 |
39233 | C: 157 | Zone 6 white sturgeon commercial harvest data collection | 8/31/2009 | 8/31/2009 |
39233 | F: 157 | Collect and summarize white sturgeon stock assessment data in Bonneville Reservoir | 9/11/2009 | 9/11/2009 |
39233 | H: 156 | Produce updated population projection and population dynamics models | 9/29/2009 | 9/29/2009 |
39233 | L: 162 | Data summary and report on describing the maturation cycle for white sturgeon | 9/29/2009 | 9/29/2009 |
44565 | J: 157 | Collect juvenile white sturgeon catch rate data using gill nets | 1/6/2010 | 1/6/2010 |
View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)
Explanation of Performance:This project began in 1986 with the title Status and Habitat Requirements of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream from McNary Dam. The title has since changed, but the project number (198605000) has not. The project was based partly on findings and recommendations from the White Sturgeon Research Needs Workshop held in 1983 (Fickeisen et al. 1984). As the original title indicates, the early focus of the study was to provide information on the status of white sturgeon populations in the lower Columbia River. Objectives were to (1) describe reproduction and early life history characteristics of white sturgeon populations, (2) describe the life history and population dynamics of subadult and adult white sturgeon, (3) define habitat requirements for spawning and rearing of white sturgeon and quantify extent of habitat available, and (4) evaluate the need and identify potential methods for protecting, mitigating, and restoring white sturgeon populations.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) contracted with ODFW to conduct the study, and ODFW subsequently entered into cooperative agreements with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), what is now the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the NMFS, now NOAA Fisheries, to conduct portions of the study. In general, Objectives 1 and 3 were addressed by USGS and NMFS, whereas Objectives 2 and 4 were addressed by ODFW and WDFW.
From 1986-88 methodologies were developed for habitat mapping and modeling, capture gears for various life stages, and marking and aging techniques. By 1992, findings included (1) dams limit movements of white sturgeon and have functionally isolated populations in mainstem Columbia River reservoirs; (2) population dynamics of white sturgeon are unique in each reservoir; (3) population productivity is 10-100 times higher downstream from Bonneville Dam than in Bonneville, The Dalles, or John Day reservoirs; (4) discharge influences spawning habitat for white sturgeon; (5) reservoirs provide large areas of suitable physical habitat for juvenile and adult white sturgeon, but compensatory population responses may reduce productivity if carrying capacity is exceeded; and (6) over-fishing had occurred in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs. Appropriate exploitation rates under the reduced productivity resulting from the development and operation of the hydrosystem were described.
Based on these conclusions, recommendations were developed to guide all future work to be conducted as part of this project: (1) intensify management of fisheries for impounded populations, (2) evaluate if augmented river discharge in May and June improves spawning and recruitment, (3) evaluate the feasibility of enhancing depleted populations by transplanting juvenile white sturgeon from populations downstream from Bonneville Dam, (4) identify habitat requirements of subadult and adult white sturgeon, quantify amounts of suitable habitat, and evaluate constraints on enhancement, (5) refine and evaluate hatchery technology for enhancement of threatened populations of white sturgeon, and (6) investigate the need and potential measures for protecting and enhancing populations upstream from McNary Dam.
Work from 1993-97 focused on developing and implementing the mitigation actions recommended, monitoring the effects of these actions, and conducting the research activities recommended. To reflect this change in direction, the title of the project changed to Effects of Mitigative Measures on Productivity of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream From Bonneville Dam, and Status and Habitat Requirements of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream From McNary Dam. With this new phase of the project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) joined as cooperators. From 1993-97 ODFW addressed recommendations 1, 3, 4, and 6; WDFW addressed recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 6; USFWS addressed recommendation 4; NMFS addressed recommendations 1 and 4; USGS addressed recommendations 2, 3, and 4, and CRITFC addressed recommendation 1. NMFS completed their work in 1997 and ended their status as project cooperators.
The CRITFC participated in white sturgeon disease investigations and fin clip research from 1995-1997. The CRITFC involvement with the current project is complementary and cooperative to OFDW and WDFW lead components. The CRITFC’s primary role is to capture, mark/tag and release white sturgeon for population abundance metrics. The CRITFC is the lead agency in administering tribal subcontracts for marking/tagging thousands of sturgeon each winter since incorporation of tribal efforts in 1997. These activities provide an important base of marked fish prior to the start of the coordinated summer recapture effort. The additional marks provide a higher degree of confidence during statistical analyses of the population assessment. Winter tagging work is performed in one reservoir per year, rotating among the three Zone 6 reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams. In addition, the CRITFC provides technical support to ODFW on recruitment to age-0 assessments and to WDFW on commercial fishery assessments. All work efforts for marking/tagging, age-0 recruitment indexing, and commercial sampling are conducted annually and seasonally in coordination with ODFW and WDFW. Assessing the commercial and subsistence fisheries is done annually to monitor and ensure that guidelines for each reservoir population are followed.
By 1998 much of the recommended work had been completed or was well underway. Accomplishments grouped by applicable recommendation included:
Recommendation (1) - Intensify management of fisheries for impounded populations:
Recommendation (2) - Evaluate if augmented river discharge in May and June improves spawning and recruitment:
Recommendation (3) - Evaluate the feasibility of enhancing depleted populations by transplanting juvenile white sturgeon from populations downstream from Bonneville Dam:
Recommendation (4) - Identify habitat requirements of subadult and adult white sturgeon, quantify amounts of suitable habitat, and evaluate constraints on enhancement:
Recommendation (5) - Refine and evaluate hatchery technology for enhancement of threatened populations of white sturgeon:
Recommendation (6) - Investigate the need and potential measures for protecting and enhancing populations upstream from McNary Dam:
Because much of the recommended work had been completed, a new phase of the project was started. In this phase, from 1998-2002, mitigation actions resulting from recommendations 1 and 3 were fully implemented, investigations resulting from recommendations 2, 4 and 6 were completed, and work to address recommendation 5 began. The title of the project changed once again to White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam. Oregon State University (OSU) joined the project in 2000 to develop a maturation status model as part of recommendation (1).
Accomplishments from 1998-2002 included:
Recommendation (1):
Recommendation (2):
Recommendation (3):
Recommendation (4):
Recommendation (5):
Recommendation (6):
Accomplishments from the 2003-09 phase of this project included:
Recommendation (1):
Recommendations (2) and (4):
Recommendation (3):
Recommendation (5):
Table 1. Abundance estimates for Zone 6 reservoirs and the Hanford Reach of McNary Reservoir, 1987 – 2008.
|
30-72 inch total length |
Number of fish by total length interval (inches) |
Number/ |
Pounds/ |
|||||
Year |
N (95% CI) |
24-36 |
36-48 |
48-60 |
60-72 |
72+ |
Sum |
Acrea |
Acrec |
|
|
Hanford Reach and McNary Reservoir |
|
|
|||||
1995 |
5,234 (3,782-9,086) |
900 |
2,700 |
3,400 |
1,250 |
8,250 |
0.2 |
8 |
|
|
|
Bonneville Reservoir |
|
|
|||||
1989 |
35,400 (27,500-45,400) |
32,900 |
16,700 |
1,000 |
200 |
600 |
51,400 |
2.5 |
27 |
1994 |
35,200 (24,800-66,000) |
31,300 |
18,300 |
1,300 |
200 |
900 |
52,000 |
2.5 |
-- |
1999 |
85,400b |
82,400 |
41,800 |
3,200 |
600 |
400 |
128,400 |
6.2 |
59 |
2003 |
74,000b |
84,500 |
33,000 |
1,100 |
120 |
780 |
119,500 |
5.7 |
46 |
2006 |
113,300 |
159,000 |
45,200 |
590 |
350 |
240 |
205,400 |
9.9 |
67 |
|
|
The Dalles Reservoir |
|
|
|||||
1987 |
23,600 (15,700-33,600) |
7,800 |
11,000 |
6,100 |
1,800 |
1,000 |
27,700 |
2.5 |
73 |
1988 |
9,000 (7,300-11,000) |
4,200 |
4,300 |
1,500 |
500 |
800 |
11,300 |
1.0 |
32 |
1994 |
9,700 (7,500-14,000) |
5,800 |
5,700 |
800 |
<50 |
300 |
12,600 |
1.1 |
-- |
2002 |
33,000 (26,200-42,000) |
82,900 |
13,500 |
5,900 |
1,200 |
800 |
104,300 |
9.4 |
87 |
2005 |
45,700 (37,000-56,300) |
90,600 |
10,200 |
1,100 |
500 |
400 |
102,800 |
9.3 |
69 |
2008 |
123,410b |
55,600 |
74,800 |
1,650 |
200 |
950 |
133,200 |
12.0 |
132 |
|
|
John Day Reservoir |
|
|
|||||
1990 |
3,900 (2,300-6,100) |
16,600 |
1,700 |
400 |
100 |
500 |
19,300 |
0.4 |
3 |
1996 |
27,100 (23,800-30,800) |
5,800 |
19,700 |
4,050 |
350 |
700 |
30,600 |
0.6 |
11 |
2001 |
19,600b |
14,900 |
12,800 |
1,100 |
300 |
900 |
30,000 |
0.6 |
9 |
2004 |
30,000b |
30,200 |
11,500 |
1,100 |
170 |
470 |
43,500 |
0.8 |
9 |
2007 |
39,020b |
17,834 |
21,793 |
1,587 |
529 |
841 |
42,584 |
0.8 |
10 |
a Hanford Reach and McNary Reservoir = 45,500 acres; Bonneville Reservoir = 20,800 acres; The Dalles Reservoir = 11,100 acres; John Day Reservoir = 51,900 acres.
b Confidence intervals for these estimates are not provided because they are derived from expansion, not directly calculated from mark-recapture data.
c Total poundage is estimated by multiplying total abundance (133,200) by median weight (5.0 kg or 11.02 lbs) of sturgeon caught with setlines in sampling periods 2 – 4.
Table 2. Proportion of trawl tows (italics) and gill-net sets (bold) that captured age-0 white sturgeon (Ep) in several Snake and Columbia river reservoirs, 1989 - 2009. A “-“ indicates sampling was not conducted.
Year |
Bonneville |
The Dalles |
John Day |
McNary |
Ice Harbor |
Little Goose |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1989 |
0.04 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1990 |
0.41 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1991 |
0.82 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1992 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1993 |
0.50 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1994 |
0.19 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1995 |
0.55 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1996 |
0.89 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1997 |
0.82 |
0.74 |
0.53 |
- |
0.00 |
- |
1998 |
0.68 |
0.65 |
0.08 |
- |
- |
0.31 |
1999 |
0.61 |
0.67 |
0.22 |
0.08 |
0.03 |
0.08 |
2000 |
0.12 |
0.14 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
2001 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
2002 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
2003 |
0.09 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
2004 |
0.12 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
2005 |
0.06 |
0.03 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
2006 |
0.69 |
0.47 |
0.10 |
0.06 |
- |
- |
2007 |
0.31 |
0.14 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
- |
- |
2008 |
0.59 |
0.31 |
0.00 |
0.06 |
- |
- |
2009 |
0.51 |
0.42 |
0.13 |
0.06 |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Number of white sturgeon transported from below Bonneville Dam to The Dalles and John Day reservoirs from 1994 – 2005.
|
Release Reservoir |
|
|
Year |
The Dalles |
John Day |
Total |
|
|
|
|
1994 |
2,935 |
-- |
2,935 |
1995 |
5,611 |
-- |
5,611 |
1998 |
3,257 |
5,534 |
8,791 |
1999 |
77 |
4,171 |
4,248 |
2000 |
1,163 |
4,019 |
5,182 |
2001 |
1,257 |
5,195 |
6,452 |
2002 |
941 |
4,177 |
5,118 |
2003 |
10 |
2,951 |
2,961 |
2004 |
0 |
294 |
294 |
2005 |
0 |
811 |
811 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
15,251 |
27,125 |
42,403 |
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Annual mean composite indices of spawning habitat (temperature conditioned weighted usable area (WUA)) for white sturgeon for each of the four dam tailraces that have been modeled (Parsley and Beckman 1994). Note that the scale differs on the Y-axis among graphs. Excerpted from Parsley and Kofoot 2008.
Figure 2. Relationship between annual growth rate derived from length-at-age analysis (solid lines) and annual growth rate measured from individual recaptured white sturgeon (dotted line) for white sturgeon from Columbia River reservoirs.
Figure 3. Annual growth rates of white sturgeon in Zone 6 reservoirs. The vertical bars represent the size range of legally harvestable sturgeon in Bonneville Reservoir.
Figure 4. Recruitment index for white sturgeon (proportion of sets capturing one or more young-of-year fish) in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs, and average daily flow at McNary Dam (April-July). The Bonneville index is based on standardized trawl efforts 1989-2004. The Dalles and John Day indexes are based on standardized gill-net effort initiated in 1997.
Figure 5. Estimated number of PIT-tagged Trawl & Haul transplants harvested annually in The Dalles Reservoir commercial fishery, 1998-2008 (n=287). Percent annual contribution to commercial fishery is shown above bars.
Summary of Major Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Results
A review of the previous sections can be summarized as follows:
From 1986-88 we:
By 1992 we:
By 1998 we:
By 2002 we,
From 2003 to 2005 we,
From 2006 to 2009 we,
Fishery Management Specific Activities, Results and Accomplishments
Past and proposed work associated with intensive monitoring of harvest, together with population monitoring, is necessary to maintain fisheries effort and harvest at sustainable levels while building population productivity. These activities address biological objective (3) for the Columbia River Gorge, Lower Middle Columbia River, and Lower Snake River subbasins: “to restore and ensure sustainable fisheries”.
The deliverables associated with intensive fishery management and harvest monitoring are: (1) in-season estimates of recreational fishery and commercial fishery harvest to ensure that harvest is maintained at sustainable levels and (2) development of annual population assessments and estimates of sustainable harvest levels to inform establishment of annual harvest guidelines by the state/Tribal Sturgeon Management Task Force. The products necessary for developing deliverable (1) include weekly summaries of observed effort, catch rate, and harvest by boat and bank anglers in each reservoir and monthly and seasonal estimates of harvest. The products necessary for developing deliverable (2) include results from modeling projected population growth based on reservoir specific population age structure, survival, and sustainable harvest rates.
Intensive harvest management and reduced exploitation has contributed to increased abundance of white sturgeon in all three reservoirs (Table 1). Annual white sturgeon harvest, relative to sustainable harvest guidelines, and recreational season length (January to closing date) is provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Annual reservoir specific recreational and commercial fishery white sturgeon harvest guidelines and annual harvest estimates for Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs, 1996-2010.
Table 5. Numbers and release locations of hatchery reared white sturgeon in the Columbia and Willamette rivers from 2002 to 2005.
Release Year |
Location |
Age and size range @ Release |
Marks/Tags |
Number |
Oct 2002 |
John Day Reservoir, Pine Creek In-Leiu Site |
Age 1/ size range NA |
Scute marked 3 left removed; Hatchery Mark |
454 |
May 2003 |
Rock Island Reservoir, boat ramp just downstream of Rocky Reach Dam |
Age 0/ 199-303 mm FL |
PIT tagged, 2,3,10 left scutes removed;2nd left removed to indicate PIT tag, 10th left removed for year of release |
12,000 |
September 2003 |
Rock Island Reservoir, boat ramp just downstream of Rocky Reach Dam |
Age 1/ 49-448mm FL |
No Pit tags, 3rd left scute and 10th left scute removed for hatchery mark and year of release mark |
8,600 |
September 2003 |
Willamette River near towns of Eugene and Springfield |
3 months/5 5-85 mm FL |
None given, too small to mark or tag |
~48,000 |
May 2005 |
John Day Reservoir, Umatilla Steelhead Hatchery outfall area |
Age 0/ 128-250 mm FL |
PIT Tagged and Scute marked with 2,3, 11 left removed for PIT, Hatchery, Year marks |
1,019 |
September 2005 |
John Day Reservoir, Arlington OR boat ramp |
Ages 2-4 years/ 400-998 mm FL |
PIT Tagged and Scute Marked with 2,3, 11 left scute removed for PIT, Hatchery and Year Marks |
289 |
Regional Coordination Accomplishments
Project personnel annually coordinates with, provides data to, and advises the Sturgeon Management Task Force (SMTF). The SMTF operates under the auspices of US v Oregon and is the regional umbrella group for managing fisheries in the impounded Columbia River between Bonneville and McNary dams.
In addition to ensuring that all white sturgeon work in the Columbia River Basin is coordinated and complimentary, project personnel regularly organize, or participate in comprehensive meetings to discuss issues and share findings. In December 1997, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) organized a meeting consisting of (1) a white sturgeon genetics roundtable, and (2) a white sturgeon summit meeting. In 2000, the Nez Perce Tribe organized and hosted a white sturgeon research coordination meeting. Another meeting in Vancouver, Washington, concentrating on genetics and disease issues, as well as updates of ongoing projects, was hosted by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in August 2002. In 2004 and 2005 project cooperators participated in a biological review team for the Nez Perce Tribe’s White Sturgeon Management Plan. In 2006, project cooperators participated in the White Sturgeon Summit, sponsored by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) and held in Spokane, WA. The summit’s theme was “White Sturgeon in the Columbia River Basin: Research, Management, and Restoration,” and included researchers and fishery managers from across the Columbia River Basin. Likewise, the CRITFC hosted a 2-day white sturgeon regional strategic planning workshop held December 1-2, 2009 in Boardman, OR, as part of their hatchery master planning process. This strategic planning workshop involved identifying regional priorities and research needs for white sturgeon. Finally, project personnel participated on technical committees responsible for guiding the development of white sturgeon management plans for Grant PUD and Chelan PUD. These two plans address the need for restoration of white sturgeon populations in Priest Rapids, Wanapum, and Rocky Reach reservoirs on the Columbia River.
Such periodic regional meetings are expected to occur in the future, with consideration given to producing formal proceedings and to foster effective regional information sharing, as recommended in a review by the Independent Scientific Review Panel in 2002.
Assessment Number: | 1986-050-00-NPCC-20210317 |
---|---|
Project: | 1986-050-00 - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River |
Review: | 2020 Resident Fish and Sturgeon Project Review |
Approved Date: | 10/27/2020 |
Recommendation: | Implement |
Comments: |
Supported as reviewed. Additional funding supported (Project addition A - Snake River @ $674,315, and B - McNary @ $648,695) as core baseline information (2020 Addendum Part II, page 9) and support/monitoring needs associated with investment in artificial production baseline information. Linked to #2007-155-00 and #2008-845-00. Part 3, Project-Specific Recommendation: Bonneville to implement the expansion into the Snake River reservoirs and McNary Reservoir, as proposed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, at the FY2021 funding level identified by the sponsor (approx. $1,323,010) and maintain and fund the current core baseline project scope as reviewed at $1,457,017. Total reviewed and recommended project budget for FY 2021 is $2,780,027. [Background: See https:/www.nwcouncil.org/fw/reviews/2019RFS] |
Assessment Number: | 1986-050-00-ISRP-20210317 |
---|---|
Project: | 1986-050-00 - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River |
Review: | 2020 Resident Fish and Sturgeon Project Review |
Completed Date: | None |
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 1986-050-00-NPCC-20101104 |
---|---|
Project: | 1986-050-00 - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River |
Review: | RME / AP Category Review |
Proposal: | RMECAT-1986-050-00 |
Proposal State: | Pending BPA Response |
Approved Date: | 6/10/2011 |
Recommendation: | Fund (Qualified) |
Comments: | Implement with conditions through FY 2012: Sponsor to assist in developing a comprehensive sturgeon management plan for ISRP review as described in programmatic issue #7; and sponsor to address ISRP qualifications as part of the management plan. Implementation recommendation beyond FY 2012 based on ISRP and Council review of plan and proposed future work. |
Conditions: | |
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #7 White Sturgeon—. |
Assessment Number: | 1986-050-00-ISRP-20101015 |
---|---|
Project: | 1986-050-00 - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River |
Review: | RME / AP Category Review |
Proposal Number: | RMECAT-1986-050-00 |
Completed Date: | 12/17/2010 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | 12/17/2010 |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
Overall, this is a highly worthwhile proposal outlining work badly needed for this species. The vulnerability of the naturally-spawning Columbia Basin white sturgeon is much greater than is widely appreciated. The proposed effort has great promise for providing key information necessary for sustainability of this species in the Basin.
The ISRP appreciates the extensive and thorough responses that the proponents have provided to our review comments, questions, and recommendations. However, we have two qualifications for the proposal. Qualification 1. The qualification is regarding the ISRP’s preliminary comment/recommendation (#3): “Determine periodicity and extent of movements of movements to and from the estuary/nearshore ocean and its importance to population viability.” In response to this recommendation, the proponents have proposed two objectives that would require additional funding to implement – Objective (1). Apply micro-chemical techniques to sectioned fin rays of white sturgeon from the Lower Columbia River to reconstruct the movements of individual fish (over the lifetime of the fish) to and from the river, the estuary, and the ocean, and Objective (2). Use acoustic telemetry to examine fine scale spatial movement and seasonal habitat use of white sturgeon in the lower Columbia River, the Columbia River Estuary, and near-shore marine habitats including coastal estuaries both north and south of the Columbia River. The ISRP fully endorses the addition of these two objectives, along with adequate additional funding, and recommends that the proponents pursue addition of these two objectives to the project in negotiations with BPA and the Council. The qualification is that the ISRP wishes to be informed of the outcome of this process. Qualification 2. It would seem that from the perspective of wild white sturgeon, a vital question is why reproduction and eventual recruitment are occurring below Bonneville Dam and why recruitment is almost non-existent above Bonneville Dam. After all, the fish below Bonneville, while remaining the linchpin of sturgeon in the Basin, are also affected by a dam and altered flows and habitat. The proponents have done a good job of suggesting some factors that might affect recruitment (e.g. flows, turbidity, etc.). The turbidity proposal seems of interest. One difference below Bonneville from above might be the lack of slack water and lack of standing water below; that might make young fish less susceptible to sight-feeding predation. It is important that effort be expended to identify what specific aspects of habitat lead to these differences below Bonneville versus the areas upriver and what factors may be amenable to operations changes, etc. and which might not. It would have been helpful in this proposal if the proponents had developed a hypothesis or two about what the limitations are in the pools above and outlined work to test hypothesis about recruitment, with the ultimate outcome of providing scientific information on recruitment in the pools above relevant to dam operations and such. The qualification is that the ISRP recommends that the proponents add one or two hypotheses focused on testing recruitment limiting factors (e.g. flow, habitat, turbidity, etc.) for the below Bonneville population to compare with how those factors may affect populations above Bonneville. These qualifications should be addressed in contracting with BPA and Council and addressed in future proposals. Other ISRP Comments: Harvest Management - Information on the fisheries provided in the response to ISRP Recommendation #6 has indicated that harvest management regulations have been quite static for these fish over the past decades (and longer). The harvest slot approach has had many beneficial effects, and despite limiting some data collection, has had a strongly positive effect. However, where harvest exists, collecting creel data on these very valuable fish is difficult and expensive because fishing seasons are long and areas are there are open are wide. The proponents provided information that percentages of the commercial catch in the pools above Bonneville Dam creeled are fairly high to high (58-80% of landings). The difficulties with sampling the sport fishery, however, are noted in the response. Although this suggestion is perhaps outside the scope of this proposal, the best way to more effectively and less expensively creel fish to effectively monitor these sport-caught fish and meet program objectives may be to develop some meaningful season area restrictions, as has occurred for sturgeon in some other locations. Such outside the box thinking might be pursued in cooperation with other agencies as part of sturgeon planning in this and other proposals. In that way, harvest could be concentrated spatially and temporally, the creeled fish concentrated in area and time, and creel data vital to maintaining these fish could be more easily obtained. One aspect of adaptive management is that regulations can be set to provide a successful positive feedback loop for data acquisition needed for research, monitoring and evaluation. For high valued individual fish such as sturgeon, such restrictions may be more easily justified and defended than for other species. Effects of Hatchery Releases - Plans to monitor effects of hatchery releases are still not yet firmed up, and the proponents defer to those working on the Master Plan in Project 198605000. The ISRP believes that the proponents will continue to work in close collaboration with the latter group, and others, to help ensure a well-coordinated and timely completion of the Master Plan and wishes to be updated regarding these efforts. |
|
First Round ISRP Date: | 10/18/2010 |
First Round ISRP Rating: | Response Requested |
First Round ISRP Comment: | |
This is a long-term study that has been ongoing since 1986 and has evolved from a research study into almost exclusively a fisheries management and monitoring study as the proponents indicate, “The project has evolved from conducting research on white sturgeon in the Columbia River Basin to implementing mitigation activities based on research results, and monitoring the effects of mitigation activities. The primary objectives of the project are to ensure persistence of white sturgeon populations, restore and maintain population productivity in impounded reaches to levels similar to that in the un-impounded Lower Columbia River Mainstem, and to restore and ensure sustainable white sturgeon fisheries. Objectives are designed to restore white sturgeon populations in impounded areas so that they can sustain annual harvest or use equivalent to 5 kg/ha of surface area.” During the most recent review for fiscal years 2007-2009, the project received favorable comments from the ISRP, acknowledging the project proponents and their subcontractors as “a group with good record of producing high quality technical reports and peer reviewed publications” and identified the project as “a key component in sturgeon stock assessment and management in the river above Bonneville (Dam)” and “worthy of high priority consideration.” The current proposal continues to propose important monitoring and stock assessment of white sturgeon in the lower Columbia River reservoirs. However, the ISRP notes that there remain a surprisingly large number of unanswered questions about the basic life history of white sturgeon, such as age-specific year class strengths, sex-specific reproductive periodicity, and periodicity of movements to and from the estuary or nearshore ocean and its impacts on estimated total fish present. The harvest management approach of protecting large females has protected many spawners amid these uncertainties but has also contributed to a sketchy understanding of the entire life history. There has evidently been too little sustained effort directed at this species in each reservoir and below Bonneville Dam. The segment of the population below Bonneville Dam remains the linchpin of wild sustainability (and thus for overall sustainability) for the species in the river. In all other sections of the river basin, recruitment has proven to be poor, and despite the intense interest in sturgeon culture as a remedy, the long-term prospects for the species upriver are not clear. In addition, there is an acute need for truly coordinated research and management of the species in the basin, so that upriver hatchery mitigation efforts do not have a long-term negative effect on lower river efforts to sustain critical wild reproduction. Detailed sex specific abundance-by-age data is needed to have a chance of learning what environmental factors lead to strong year classes. In addition, it is not clear that the proposed sampling will get at the idea of actual age-specific reproductive periodicity. The sample size of 150 fish may be adequate, but it may also be that such periodicity is not only sex specific (to be expected), but it may also change as the species ages. The linkages whereby the more-or-less traditional sampling proposed (length frequencies, etc.) will lead to actual insights into the status of sturgeon recruitment could stand to be clarified. Despite this very long-term study, it is not clear that age validation has progressed very far. In addition, there seems to be little in the proposal dealing with the total life history of the fish below Bonneville Dam, the lower river, estuary, and beyond. The methods of stock assessment used for this long-lived fish species need to differ from those of traditional fisheries management for shorter-lived species. Creel census data adequate for most species may be inadequate for sturgeon. It may be that a much higher fraction of harvested fish needs to be included in a creel-census, not only to get sex specific age and condition information but also to get other internal information (lipid stores in organs, body walls, attached to gonads, etc. by age, sex and reach). The need for more complete information for this species with 50 or more recruited year classes is greater than for a species with 5 recruited year classes. The historical effort in the Columbia River for sturgeon, while better than in most other locations, has not been adequate for a high comfort level about the species’ long-term prospects, even in the lower river where they are still reproducing. In view of these points, it would be beneficial if the proponents clarify in a concise response exactly how the sampling planned in this proposal will differ, be more complete, and be more effective in addressing the above information gaps (and others) than the sampling conducted a decade ago. Is there any new, “outside the box” thinking about these fish in this proposal, in management schemes, or are the changes from past proposals minor and incremental? As an information point for the reviewers, it would also be useful to know how harvest regulations have evolved in the past decade (especially below Bonneville, but also in harvest areas above) to facilitate the more effective sampling needed for this species in the river. Has harvest been restricted not necessarily to curtail harvest but so that more effective stock assessment data can be collected? In view of the restricted harvest in many locations, it seems reasonable that high priority should be placed on detailed creel sampling of a higher percentage of harvested fish than typical for other species. The ISRP requests a response, in the form of a revised proposal, to address the following comments and suggestions: 1. Develop a plan and protocols to improve knowledge of age-specific year class strength. 2. Develop a plan and protocols to improve knowledge of sex-specific reproductive periodicity. 3. Determine periodicity and extent of movements of movements to and from estuary/nearshore ocean and its importance to population viability. 4. Develop a plan to monitor and assess impact of hatchery releases on population below Bonneville Dam. 5. Develop a plan to improve inter-reservoir passage through lower mainstem dams. 6. Determine what it will take to creel-census a higher fraction of the harvest from lower reservoir populations. The ISRP realizes that implementing a number of these items would extend the scope of the project beyond the current level of resources budgeted, but protecting and managing this valuable species requires this information. Other ISRP comments: 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This project continues to be responsive to regional programs including the Fish and Wildlife Program, several mainstem Subbasin Plans, the 2008 BiOp, and MERR Plan recommendations. The technical background is well done with detailed use of available scientific literature. The proponents are clearly experienced sturgeon biologists and researchers. Objectives: Objective 1 - The proponents state: “The objective is to ensure the forecasted likelihood of white sturgeon to persist into the foreseeable future in three distinct Columbia River Subbasins: The Columbia River Gorge (Objective 1a), the Lower Middle Columbia River (Objective 1b), and the Lower Snake River (Objective 1c).” The proposal would be improved by a description of what a “forecasted likelihood” is - this is a pretty vague goal. Does “likelihood” have a statistical meaning? Objective 2 is to “Restore and Maintain Population Productivity in Impounded Subbasins (3) to Levels Similar to that in the Un-impounded Lower Columbia River Mainstem. Is this a realistic approach given the role of amphidromy (or anadromy?) to the fish below Bonneville? It is not clear if the especially high level of productivity below Bonneville results from minimal or substantial use of estuary and nearshore rearing areas Similarly, it is not clear if historical growth and abundance of fish now restricted in upriver pools is related to feeding conditions there or to conditions farther downriver (e.g. the reach below Bonneville Dam and estuary/nearshore ocean productivity) whereby once fish are reproduced they might have a better chance of recruiting and a larger food supply. The proponents imply the year 1 white sturgeon are vulnerable to fishing (“they are within legal harvest size limits”). Data are required to defend this statement. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management This long-term project has had significant accomplishments over time with many sound refereed papers and technical reports published. The quality of reports has been excellent and results have applied to objectives, although some goals have not been met because factors limiting recruitment have not been specifically determined. The development of an overall sturgeon conservation plan is still incomplete (although this is not the responsibility of this project) and this is disappointing, considering the ISRP has noted this acute need on numerous occasions. Results of project findings are nicely summarized in the text and tables from 1986-2009, and adaptive management has been used as a guiding principle over the years. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Project coordination and information sharing has improved and is now more extensive. Also in response to 2002 recommendations by the ISRP there have been improvements in white sturgeon life history knowledge by using active tags in research studies. However, in the project relationships section the proponents state: “The use of hatchery supplementation in the Lower Middle Columbia River may impact downstream populations through entrainment of stocked fish.” Although they do collaborate with fishery managers downstream of Bonneville Dam, this is an important issue and more focus on it would improve the proposal. A key objective is to: “Restore and Ensure Sustainable Fisheries in the Columbia River Gorge, The Lower Middle Columbia River, and the Lower Snake River Subbasins.” This may be a laudable goal, but may also be a limiting factor. It is not necessarily clear that without continual stocking, such fisheries will resemble those of past years when today’s below-Bonneville fish had access to much more of the river. Without a planning document outlining the role of hatchery supplementation, it is not necessarily clear that a hatchery-sustained fishery would be more sustainable in the long term than a smaller, naturally reproducing stock (if this is possible). Limiting factors are listed but understanding of specific factors which may be impeding recruitment still not specifically known – improve efforts here. The proponents mention focus on project monitoring linked to potential effects of climate change but do not include details for testing such effects. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The project has an excellent record for reporting results. Monitoring methods in the proposal, however, are incomplete and not statistically based (i.e., no power analyses, sampling locations are not well described and methods of choosing sampling locations are not given). Comparing trawls to gill nets to set lines is problematic, but the latter two gear types are probably the only practical methods. The proponents have concluded PIT tags are the marking methods of choice although they do mention scute marks as well. Statistical aspects of the PIT tagging are not well developed or included and should be detailed. It is not clear how the physiological sampling of small numbers of fish for reproductive periodicity will get at overall stock periodicity. What are the sample sizes here for that work? In other places, this information has been obtained by a conventional tagging operation involving large numbers of caught and released fish. Is this method being used here also? |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 1986-050-00-NPCC-20090924 |
---|---|
Project: | 1986-050-00 - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Approved Date: | 10/23/2006 |
Recommendation: | Fund |
Comments: | Reduce the work elements to priority elements. |
Assessment Number: | 1986-050-00-ISRP-20060831 |
---|---|
Project: | 1986-050-00 - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | None |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
This is an excellent proposal from a group with good record of producing high quality technical reports and peer reviewed publications. The project is a key component in sturgeon stock assessment and management in the river above Bonneville. It appears to be worthy of high priority consideration. The rationale for the work is well established, although the narrative is not very specific. The proposal adequately relates its work to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (2003 Mainstem Amendments), NOAA Biological Opinion, subbasin plans, and sturgeon plans. The proposal provides an excellent history. A considerable amount of high quality research has been completed, and many technical reports and peer-reviewed publications have been produced.
Although fundable in its own right and not requiring a response, the project may benefit from a few ISRP comments. As more knowledge about white sturgeon is obtained, and technical skill and technologies evolve, is the project still collecting the best information? Based on data generated to date, some of the stock assessment methods could be reviewed for possible improvements (e.g., obtaining sex-specific data). Are the pragmatic management strategies in this proposal keeping pace with the developing science of habitat requirements of the species? As other white sturgeon projects in the basin focus on obtaining data related to clarifying and resolving a "survival bottleneck" in the phase of early life history from egg incubation to early juveniles, does this project have relevant field information to share or study opportunities? What opportunities are there for collaborative research between this project's field crews and other sturgeon investigators? The project personnel have a history of innovative thinking and research that might be reactivated in light of recent developments in white sturgeon research elsewhere in the basin. |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Project Relationships: | None |
---|
Additional Relationships Explanation:
Project activities occur in several subbasins, and although it is the only federally funded project conducting field activities to restore white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from Lake Roosevelt, and in the Snake River downstream from Lower Granite Dam, work is well coordinated with ongoing sturgeon projects in other areas of the basin. Project 1988-064-00, Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and Conservation Aquaculture; Project 1988-065-00, Kootenai River Fisheries Investigations; Project 1997-009-00, Evaluate Potential Means of Rebuilding White Sturgeon Populations in the Snake River Between Lower Granite and Hells Canyon Dams, and Project 1995-027-00, Develop and Implement Recovery Plan for Depressed Lake Roosevelt White Sturgeon Populations, are all designed to study and restore sturgeon populations outside the geographic scope of this project; therefore, these projects are all complementary.
Specifically, past and proposed work under this project will determine whether reproductive structure and spawning periodicity may be used as a tool to assess population health, and the results will be significant for Projects identified above.
Furthermore, this project is closely linked with Fish Accords (FA) projects such as Project #2007-155-00, Master Planning and Project 2008-504-00, Sturgeon Genetics. These FA projects are based in large part on past research and findings of this project, particularly elements involving population trends, artificial propagation research and habitat requirements. Master Planning activities and coordination are working actively with project staff on its present and proposed biological objectives. Similarly, collection of genetic materials for Project 2008-054-00 has utilized cooperative arrangements with this project ‘s field activities and Project 2008-455-00, Yakama Nation Supplementation Research, which provides the opportunity to collect large numbers of biological samples from various locations.
All white sturgeon projects in the Columbia River Basin have benefited from the work of Project 1999-022-00, Assessing Genetic Variation Among Columbia Basin White Sturgeon Populations. Results from this project will provide guidelines for the transportation of juvenile sturgeon from the area downstream from Bonneville Dam to upstream reservoirs. Results also provide guidelines for the release of artificially propagated juveniles and the monitoring and evaluation of their effects on recipient wild populations. This project is no longer ongoing.
This project further relates to work conducted by other, non-BPA funded projects in the Columbia River downstream from Lake Roosevelt. The Douglas County PUD conducted sampling in Wells Reservoir in 2001. Chelan County PUD funded sampling in Rocky Reach and Rock Island reservoirs in 2001 and 2002. Grant County PUD funded sampling in Wanapum and Priest Rapid reservoirs in 2000 and 2001. The expertise on white sturgeon biology, population dynamics, monitoring techniques and evaluation methods, genetics, and supplementation approaches developed by ODFW, WDFW and CRITFC staff associated with this project (1986-050-00) was instrumental in informing the WDFW technical input to the development of white sturgeon management plans for Grant PUD and Chelan PUD. These two plans address the need for restoration of white sturgeon populations in Priest Rapids, Wanapum, and Rocky Reach reservoirs on the Columbia River. The approach selected for restoration in the mid-Columbia PUD impoundments relies heavily on hatchery supplementation and monitoring measures developed for recovering white sturgeon in the Kootenai River (see project 1988-065-00) and in Lake Roosevelt (see project 1995-027-00). The use of hatchery supplementation in the Lower Middle Columbia River may impact downstream populations through entrainment of stocked fish. This project (1986-050-00) will contribute to evaluating impacts to downstream populations and to the success of the supplementation programs by conducting periodic stock assessments in downstream reservoirs.
Furthermore, project staff interacts and collaborates with white sturgeon population assessment projects in the Columbia River downstream of Bonneville Dam funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Sport Fish Restoration program and the state of Oregon. Additionally, the project collaborates with geneticists at the University of California at Davis to examine the temporal trends in genetic diversity and reproductive success of white sturgeon in the Lower Columbia River, scientiests at Pacific University to assess the contaminant load of sturgeon less-invasively through blood plasma, and with an ODFW (Fish Restoration and Enhancement) project assessing the temporal distribution of white sturgeon spawning in the Lower Willamette River.
Other similar work in the Columbia River Basin this project collaborates with is Endangered Species Act Section 6 (NOAA) funded green sturgeon research in the lower Columbia River estuary and in Oregon and Washington coastal waters.
We employ a stratified random sampling design for stock assessments, in which equal effort is expended in each river mile and sampling is conducted randomly within the mile. During the 2007, 2008, and 2009 stock assessments we respectively marked 4,807, 6,579, and 5,657 white sturgeon in the 70-109 cm FL size range. In this size range we recaptured 182 within year marks in 2007, 160 in 2008, and 46 in 2009 yielding precision estimates between 13.5 and 32.5%, depending on total population size. We have analyzed multiple years of stock assessment data to determine how many recapture periods provide an optimum balance between precision of the estimates and total effort expended. We determined that effort beyond three mark/recapture periods (one pre-season marking period followed by two recapture periods consisting of one pass through the reservoir each) yielded diminishing gains in precision of the estimates in most years. The preferred, and proposed, option for future stock assessment sampling consists of one pre-season marking period, conducted via subcontract to the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, followed by two recapture periods, consisting of combined ODFW and WDFW crew efforts. Our study design and tagging regime are intended to follow the assumptions for mark and recapture studies (Ricker 1975). As the project generates individual fish recapture history data over time, we propose to evaluate the utility of maximum likelihood estimators such as Program MARK to assess abundance and other white sturgeon population characteristics in the Lower Columbia River.
Name (Identifier) | Area Type | Source for Limiting Factor Information | |
---|---|---|---|
Type of Location | Count | ||
The Dalles Dam to John Day Dam | Mainstem | None | |
John Day Dam | Mainstem | None | |
The Dalles Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of Snake and Columbia River to Priest Rapids Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Ice Harbor Dam to Lower Monumental Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of Snake and Columbia River to Ice Harbor Dam | Mainstem | None | |
McNary Dam to Confluence of Snake and Columbia River | Mainstem | None | |
John Day Dam to McNary Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Priest Rapids Dam to Wanapum Dam | Mainstem | None | |
McNary Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Ice Harbor Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Priest Rapids Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Lower Monumental Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Little Goose Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Little Goose Dam to Lower Granite Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Lower Monumental Dam to Little Goose Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Lower Granite Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Lower Granite Dam to Hells Canyon Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Wanapum Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Dworshak Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Chief Joseph Dam to Grand Coulee Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Wells Dam to Chief Joseph Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Chief Joseph Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Grand Coulee Dam to Keenleyside Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Wells Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Rocky Reach Dam to Wells Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Rocky Reach Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Rock Island Dam to Rocky Reach Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Wanapum Dam to Rock Island Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Rock Island Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Grand Coulee Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Bonneville Dam to The Dalles Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Bonneville Dam - Powerhouse 1 | Mainstem | None | |
Bonneville Dam - Spillway | Mainstem | None | |
Bonneville Dam - Powerhouse 2 | Mainstem | None | |
Dworshak Reservoir | Mainstem | None | |
Hells Canyon Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Hungry Horse Dam beginning of Hungry Horse Reservoir | Mainstem | None | |
Kerr Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Kerr Dam to Hungry Horse Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Hungry Horse Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Libby Dam to end of Mainstem Kootenay River | Mainstem | None | |
Corra Linn Dam to Libby Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Libby Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Albeni Falls Dam into Lake Pend Oreille | Mainstem | None | |
Box Canyon Dam to Albeni Falls Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Albeni Falls Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of Snake and Clearwater River to Dworshak Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of MF and CF Willamette River to Confluence of MF Willamette River and Fall Creek | Mainstem | None | |
Detroit Reservoir | Mainstem | None | |
Detroit Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Big Cliff Dam to Detroit Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Green Peter Reservoir | Mainstem | None | |
Foster Dam to Green Peter Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of North and South Santiam River to Foster Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of North and South Santiam River to Big Cliff Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of Willamette and Santiam River to Confluence of North and South Santiam River | Mainstem | None | |
Big Cliff Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Foster Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Green Peter Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Fern Ridge Reservoir | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of Willamette and Long Tom River to Fern Ridge Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Fern Ridge Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Dexter Dam to Lookout Point Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Lookout Point Dam to Hills Creek Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Fall Creek Reservoir | Mainstem | None | |
Blue River Lake | Mainstem | None | |
Cougar Reservoir | Mainstem | None | |
Leaburg Dam to Confluence of McKenzie and Blue River | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of Willamette and McKenzie River to Leaburg Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Leaburg Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of McKenzie and Blue River to Blue River Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Blue River Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of McKenzie and South Fork McKenzie River to Cougar Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Cougar Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of McKenzie and Blue River to Confluence of McKenzie and South Fork McKenzie River | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of Willamette and Columbia River to Confluence of MF Willamette and CF Willamette River | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of MF Willamette River and Fall Creek to Fall Creek Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of MF Willamette River and Fall Creek to Dexter Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Fall Creek Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Lookout Point Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Dexter Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Hills Creek Reservoir | Mainstem | None | |
Hills Creek Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Cottage Grove Lake | Mainstem | None | |
Dorena Lake | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of MF and CF Willamette River to Confluence of CF Willamette and Row River | Mainstem | None | |
Dorena Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of CF Willamette River and Row River to Cottage Grove Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Cottage Grove Dam | Mainstem | None | |
Confluence of CF Willamette River and Row River to Dorena Dam | Mainstem | None |
Work Class | Work Elements | ||||||||||
Planning and Coordination |
|
||||||||||
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management |
Work Class | Work Elements | ||||||||
Planning and Coordination |
|
||||||||
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management |
Work Class | Work Elements | ||||||||
Planning and Coordination |
|
||||||||
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management |
Work Class | Work Elements | ||||||||
Planning and Coordination |
|
||||||||
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management |
Work Class | Work Elements | ||||||||
Planning and Coordination |
|
||||||||
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management |
Work Class | Work Elements | ||||||||
Planning and Coordination |
|
||||||||
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management |
|
Project Deliverables | How the project deliverables help meet this objective* |
---|---|
Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs (DELV-2) | |
|
|
Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, and Little Goose reservoirs (DELV-3) | |
|
|
Description of annual variation in white sturgeon recruitment (gill net sampling) (DELV-4) | |
|
|
Contribute to the development of a regionally-accepted white sturgeon mitigation plan (DELV-6) | |
|
Project Deliverables | How the project deliverables help meet this objective* |
---|---|
Annually implemented actions to mitigate for lost white sturgeon productivity (not involving changes to hydropower system operation and configuration) (DELV-1) | |
|
|
Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs (DELV-2) | |
|
|
Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, and Little Goose reservoirs (DELV-3) | |
|
|
Description of annual variation in white sturgeon recruitment (gill net sampling) (DELV-4) | |
|
|
Loss of productivity assessment for white sturgeon caused by the development and operation of the hydropower system. (DELV-5) | |
|
|
Contribute to the development of a regionally-accepted white sturgeon mitigation plan (DELV-6) | |
|
Project Deliverables | How the project deliverables help meet this objective* |
---|---|
Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs (DELV-2) | |
|
|
Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, and Little Goose reservoirs (DELV-3) | |
|
|
Contribute to the development of a regionally-accepted white sturgeon mitigation plan (DELV-6) | |
|
Project Deliverable | Start | End | Budget |
---|---|---|---|
Annually implemented actions to mitigate for lost white sturgeon productivity (not involving changes to hydropower system operation and configuration) (DELV-1) | 2011 | 2014 | $1,473,000 |
Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs (DELV-2) | 2011 | 2014 | $2,366,000 |
Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, and Little Goose reservoirs (DELV-3) | 2011 | 2014 | $1,167,000 |
Description of annual variation in white sturgeon recruitment (gill net sampling) (DELV-4) | 2011 | 2014 | $216,587 |
Loss of productivity assessment for white sturgeon caused by the development and operation of the hydropower system. (DELV-5) | 2011 | 2014 | $200,000 |
Contribute to the development of a regionally-accepted white sturgeon mitigation plan (DELV-6) | 2011 | 2012 | $33,000 |
Total | $5,455,587 |
Fiscal Year | Proposal Budget Limit | Actual Request | Explanation of amount above FY2010 |
---|---|---|---|
2011 | $1,313,803 | ||
2012 | $1,346,648 | ||
2013 | $1,380,314 | ||
2014 | $1,414,822 | ||
Total | $0 | $5,455,587 |
Item | Notes | FY 2011 | FY 2012 | FY 2013 | FY 2014 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Personnel | $340,711 | $349,229 | $357,959 | $366,909 | |
Travel | $15,927 | $16,326 | $16,734 | $17,152 | |
Prof. Meetings & Training | $533 | $546 | $560 | $574 | |
Vehicles | $37,543 | $38,481 | $39,443 | $40,429 | |
Facilities/Equipment | (See explanation below) | $22,417 | $22,978 | $23,552 | $24,141 |
Rent/Utilities | $8,964 | $9,188 | $9,417 | $9,653 | |
Capital Equipment | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |
Overhead/Indirect | $96,894 | $99,315 | $101,800 | $104,344 | |
Other | $790,814 | $810,585 | $830,849 | $851,620 | |
PIT Tags | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | |
Total | $1,313,803 | $1,346,648 | $1,380,314 | $1,414,822 |
Assessment Number: | 1986-050-00-ISRP-20101015 |
---|---|
Project: | 1986-050-00 - Evaluate Sturgeon Populations in the Lower Columbia River |
Review: | RME / AP Category Review |
Proposal Number: | RMECAT-1986-050-00 |
Completed Date: | 12/17/2010 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | 12/17/2010 |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
Overall, this is a highly worthwhile proposal outlining work badly needed for this species. The vulnerability of the naturally-spawning Columbia Basin white sturgeon is much greater than is widely appreciated. The proposed effort has great promise for providing key information necessary for sustainability of this species in the Basin.
The ISRP appreciates the extensive and thorough responses that the proponents have provided to our review comments, questions, and recommendations. However, we have two qualifications for the proposal. Qualification 1. The qualification is regarding the ISRP’s preliminary comment/recommendation (#3): “Determine periodicity and extent of movements of movements to and from the estuary/nearshore ocean and its importance to population viability.” In response to this recommendation, the proponents have proposed two objectives that would require additional funding to implement – Objective (1). Apply micro-chemical techniques to sectioned fin rays of white sturgeon from the Lower Columbia River to reconstruct the movements of individual fish (over the lifetime of the fish) to and from the river, the estuary, and the ocean, and Objective (2). Use acoustic telemetry to examine fine scale spatial movement and seasonal habitat use of white sturgeon in the lower Columbia River, the Columbia River Estuary, and near-shore marine habitats including coastal estuaries both north and south of the Columbia River. The ISRP fully endorses the addition of these two objectives, along with adequate additional funding, and recommends that the proponents pursue addition of these two objectives to the project in negotiations with BPA and the Council. The qualification is that the ISRP wishes to be informed of the outcome of this process. Qualification 2. It would seem that from the perspective of wild white sturgeon, a vital question is why reproduction and eventual recruitment are occurring below Bonneville Dam and why recruitment is almost non-existent above Bonneville Dam. After all, the fish below Bonneville, while remaining the linchpin of sturgeon in the Basin, are also affected by a dam and altered flows and habitat. The proponents have done a good job of suggesting some factors that might affect recruitment (e.g. flows, turbidity, etc.). The turbidity proposal seems of interest. One difference below Bonneville from above might be the lack of slack water and lack of standing water below; that might make young fish less susceptible to sight-feeding predation. It is important that effort be expended to identify what specific aspects of habitat lead to these differences below Bonneville versus the areas upriver and what factors may be amenable to operations changes, etc. and which might not. It would have been helpful in this proposal if the proponents had developed a hypothesis or two about what the limitations are in the pools above and outlined work to test hypothesis about recruitment, with the ultimate outcome of providing scientific information on recruitment in the pools above relevant to dam operations and such. The qualification is that the ISRP recommends that the proponents add one or two hypotheses focused on testing recruitment limiting factors (e.g. flow, habitat, turbidity, etc.) for the below Bonneville population to compare with how those factors may affect populations above Bonneville. These qualifications should be addressed in contracting with BPA and Council and addressed in future proposals. Other ISRP Comments: Harvest Management - Information on the fisheries provided in the response to ISRP Recommendation #6 has indicated that harvest management regulations have been quite static for these fish over the past decades (and longer). The harvest slot approach has had many beneficial effects, and despite limiting some data collection, has had a strongly positive effect. However, where harvest exists, collecting creel data on these very valuable fish is difficult and expensive because fishing seasons are long and areas are there are open are wide. The proponents provided information that percentages of the commercial catch in the pools above Bonneville Dam creeled are fairly high to high (58-80% of landings). The difficulties with sampling the sport fishery, however, are noted in the response. Although this suggestion is perhaps outside the scope of this proposal, the best way to more effectively and less expensively creel fish to effectively monitor these sport-caught fish and meet program objectives may be to develop some meaningful season area restrictions, as has occurred for sturgeon in some other locations. Such outside the box thinking might be pursued in cooperation with other agencies as part of sturgeon planning in this and other proposals. In that way, harvest could be concentrated spatially and temporally, the creeled fish concentrated in area and time, and creel data vital to maintaining these fish could be more easily obtained. One aspect of adaptive management is that regulations can be set to provide a successful positive feedback loop for data acquisition needed for research, monitoring and evaluation. For high valued individual fish such as sturgeon, such restrictions may be more easily justified and defended than for other species. Effects of Hatchery Releases - Plans to monitor effects of hatchery releases are still not yet firmed up, and the proponents defer to those working on the Master Plan in Project 198605000. The ISRP believes that the proponents will continue to work in close collaboration with the latter group, and others, to help ensure a well-coordinated and timely completion of the Master Plan and wishes to be updated regarding these efforts. |
|
First Round ISRP Date: | 10/18/2010 |
First Round ISRP Rating: | Response Requested |
First Round ISRP Comment: | |
This is a long-term study that has been ongoing since 1986 and has evolved from a research study into almost exclusively a fisheries management and monitoring study as the proponents indicate, “The project has evolved from conducting research on white sturgeon in the Columbia River Basin to implementing mitigation activities based on research results, and monitoring the effects of mitigation activities. The primary objectives of the project are to ensure persistence of white sturgeon populations, restore and maintain population productivity in impounded reaches to levels similar to that in the un-impounded Lower Columbia River Mainstem, and to restore and ensure sustainable white sturgeon fisheries. Objectives are designed to restore white sturgeon populations in impounded areas so that they can sustain annual harvest or use equivalent to 5 kg/ha of surface area.” During the most recent review for fiscal years 2007-2009, the project received favorable comments from the ISRP, acknowledging the project proponents and their subcontractors as “a group with good record of producing high quality technical reports and peer reviewed publications” and identified the project as “a key component in sturgeon stock assessment and management in the river above Bonneville (Dam)” and “worthy of high priority consideration.” The current proposal continues to propose important monitoring and stock assessment of white sturgeon in the lower Columbia River reservoirs. However, the ISRP notes that there remain a surprisingly large number of unanswered questions about the basic life history of white sturgeon, such as age-specific year class strengths, sex-specific reproductive periodicity, and periodicity of movements to and from the estuary or nearshore ocean and its impacts on estimated total fish present. The harvest management approach of protecting large females has protected many spawners amid these uncertainties but has also contributed to a sketchy understanding of the entire life history. There has evidently been too little sustained effort directed at this species in each reservoir and below Bonneville Dam. The segment of the population below Bonneville Dam remains the linchpin of wild sustainability (and thus for overall sustainability) for the species in the river. In all other sections of the river basin, recruitment has proven to be poor, and despite the intense interest in sturgeon culture as a remedy, the long-term prospects for the species upriver are not clear. In addition, there is an acute need for truly coordinated research and management of the species in the basin, so that upriver hatchery mitigation efforts do not have a long-term negative effect on lower river efforts to sustain critical wild reproduction. Detailed sex specific abundance-by-age data is needed to have a chance of learning what environmental factors lead to strong year classes. In addition, it is not clear that the proposed sampling will get at the idea of actual age-specific reproductive periodicity. The sample size of 150 fish may be adequate, but it may also be that such periodicity is not only sex specific (to be expected), but it may also change as the species ages. The linkages whereby the more-or-less traditional sampling proposed (length frequencies, etc.) will lead to actual insights into the status of sturgeon recruitment could stand to be clarified. Despite this very long-term study, it is not clear that age validation has progressed very far. In addition, there seems to be little in the proposal dealing with the total life history of the fish below Bonneville Dam, the lower river, estuary, and beyond. The methods of stock assessment used for this long-lived fish species need to differ from those of traditional fisheries management for shorter-lived species. Creel census data adequate for most species may be inadequate for sturgeon. It may be that a much higher fraction of harvested fish needs to be included in a creel-census, not only to get sex specific age and condition information but also to get other internal information (lipid stores in organs, body walls, attached to gonads, etc. by age, sex and reach). The need for more complete information for this species with 50 or more recruited year classes is greater than for a species with 5 recruited year classes. The historical effort in the Columbia River for sturgeon, while better than in most other locations, has not been adequate for a high comfort level about the species’ long-term prospects, even in the lower river where they are still reproducing. In view of these points, it would be beneficial if the proponents clarify in a concise response exactly how the sampling planned in this proposal will differ, be more complete, and be more effective in addressing the above information gaps (and others) than the sampling conducted a decade ago. Is there any new, “outside the box” thinking about these fish in this proposal, in management schemes, or are the changes from past proposals minor and incremental? As an information point for the reviewers, it would also be useful to know how harvest regulations have evolved in the past decade (especially below Bonneville, but also in harvest areas above) to facilitate the more effective sampling needed for this species in the river. Has harvest been restricted not necessarily to curtail harvest but so that more effective stock assessment data can be collected? In view of the restricted harvest in many locations, it seems reasonable that high priority should be placed on detailed creel sampling of a higher percentage of harvested fish than typical for other species. The ISRP requests a response, in the form of a revised proposal, to address the following comments and suggestions: 1. Develop a plan and protocols to improve knowledge of age-specific year class strength. 2. Develop a plan and protocols to improve knowledge of sex-specific reproductive periodicity. 3. Determine periodicity and extent of movements of movements to and from estuary/nearshore ocean and its importance to population viability. 4. Develop a plan to monitor and assess impact of hatchery releases on population below Bonneville Dam. 5. Develop a plan to improve inter-reservoir passage through lower mainstem dams. 6. Determine what it will take to creel-census a higher fraction of the harvest from lower reservoir populations. The ISRP realizes that implementing a number of these items would extend the scope of the project beyond the current level of resources budgeted, but protecting and managing this valuable species requires this information. Other ISRP comments: 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This project continues to be responsive to regional programs including the Fish and Wildlife Program, several mainstem Subbasin Plans, the 2008 BiOp, and MERR Plan recommendations. The technical background is well done with detailed use of available scientific literature. The proponents are clearly experienced sturgeon biologists and researchers. Objectives: Objective 1 - The proponents state: “The objective is to ensure the forecasted likelihood of white sturgeon to persist into the foreseeable future in three distinct Columbia River Subbasins: The Columbia River Gorge (Objective 1a), the Lower Middle Columbia River (Objective 1b), and the Lower Snake River (Objective 1c).” The proposal would be improved by a description of what a “forecasted likelihood” is - this is a pretty vague goal. Does “likelihood” have a statistical meaning? Objective 2 is to “Restore and Maintain Population Productivity in Impounded Subbasins (3) to Levels Similar to that in the Un-impounded Lower Columbia River Mainstem. Is this a realistic approach given the role of amphidromy (or anadromy?) to the fish below Bonneville? It is not clear if the especially high level of productivity below Bonneville results from minimal or substantial use of estuary and nearshore rearing areas Similarly, it is not clear if historical growth and abundance of fish now restricted in upriver pools is related to feeding conditions there or to conditions farther downriver (e.g. the reach below Bonneville Dam and estuary/nearshore ocean productivity) whereby once fish are reproduced they might have a better chance of recruiting and a larger food supply. The proponents imply the year 1 white sturgeon are vulnerable to fishing (“they are within legal harvest size limits”). Data are required to defend this statement. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management This long-term project has had significant accomplishments over time with many sound refereed papers and technical reports published. The quality of reports has been excellent and results have applied to objectives, although some goals have not been met because factors limiting recruitment have not been specifically determined. The development of an overall sturgeon conservation plan is still incomplete (although this is not the responsibility of this project) and this is disappointing, considering the ISRP has noted this acute need on numerous occasions. Results of project findings are nicely summarized in the text and tables from 1986-2009, and adaptive management has been used as a guiding principle over the years. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Project coordination and information sharing has improved and is now more extensive. Also in response to 2002 recommendations by the ISRP there have been improvements in white sturgeon life history knowledge by using active tags in research studies. However, in the project relationships section the proponents state: “The use of hatchery supplementation in the Lower Middle Columbia River may impact downstream populations through entrainment of stocked fish.” Although they do collaborate with fishery managers downstream of Bonneville Dam, this is an important issue and more focus on it would improve the proposal. A key objective is to: “Restore and Ensure Sustainable Fisheries in the Columbia River Gorge, The Lower Middle Columbia River, and the Lower Snake River Subbasins.” This may be a laudable goal, but may also be a limiting factor. It is not necessarily clear that without continual stocking, such fisheries will resemble those of past years when today’s below-Bonneville fish had access to much more of the river. Without a planning document outlining the role of hatchery supplementation, it is not necessarily clear that a hatchery-sustained fishery would be more sustainable in the long term than a smaller, naturally reproducing stock (if this is possible). Limiting factors are listed but understanding of specific factors which may be impeding recruitment still not specifically known – improve efforts here. The proponents mention focus on project monitoring linked to potential effects of climate change but do not include details for testing such effects. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The project has an excellent record for reporting results. Monitoring methods in the proposal, however, are incomplete and not statistically based (i.e., no power analyses, sampling locations are not well described and methods of choosing sampling locations are not given). Comparing trawls to gill nets to set lines is problematic, but the latter two gear types are probably the only practical methods. The proponents have concluded PIT tags are the marking methods of choice although they do mention scute marks as well. Statistical aspects of the PIT tagging are not well developed or included and should be detailed. It is not clear how the physiological sampling of small numbers of fish for reproductive periodicity will get at overall stock periodicity. What are the sample sizes here for that work? In other places, this information has been obtained by a conventional tagging operation involving large numbers of caught and released fish. Is this method being used here also? |
|
Documentation Links: |
|