Show new navigation
On
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Proposal RMECAT-1986-050-00 - White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal RMECAT-1986-050-00 - White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

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.

Download a snapshot PDF

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>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

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

Describe how you think your work relates to or implements regional documents including: the current Council’s 2014 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program including subbasin plans, Council's 2017 Research Plan,  NOAA’s Recovery Plans, or regional plans. In your summary, it will be helpful for you to include page numbers from those documents; optional citation format).
Project Significance to Regional Programs: View instructions
Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Fish and Wildlife Program Mitigation and restoration of white sturgeon will contribute to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program (NWPPC 2000) vision of a Columbia River ecosystem that sustains an abundant, productive, and diverse community of fish and wildlife, mitigating across the basin for the adverse effects to fish and wildlife caused by the development and operation of the hydrosystem and providing the benefits from fish and wildlife valued by the people of the region. More specifically, the project addresses Fish and Wildlife Program objectives for biological performance related to resident fish losses (although white sturgeon can be amphidromous, they are considered resident fish within the NWPCC process): (1) complete assessments of resident fish losses throughout the basin resulting from the hydrosystem, expressed in terms of the various critical population characteristics of key resident fish species, game fish species, non-game species and other organisms, (2) maintain and restore healthy ecosystems and watersheds, which preserve functional links among ecosystem elements to ensure continued persistence, health and diversity of all species, (3) protect and expand habitat and ecosystem functions as the means to significantly increase abundance, productivity, and life history diversity of resident fish, at least to the extent they have been negatively affected by hydrosystem development and operations; and (4) achieve population characteristics of key resident fish species that, while fluctuating due to natural variability, represent on average full mitigation for losses of resident fish. In the 2003 Amendments to the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Appendix B., the council adopted at least two recommendations from the states of Oregon and Washington pertaining to Columbia River white sturgeon. The council adopted a recommendation from WDFW to “include objectives and strategies for protecting and enhancing abundance and productivity of white sturgeon populations throughout the mainstem, including the discontinuous populations above Bonneville [Dam]”, (pg. 73) . The council also adopted an objective based on recommendations from ODFW of “enhancing the abundance and productivity of white sturgeon to rebuild and sustain naturally spawning populations and harvest, including operating the hydrosystem to maximize spawning and rearing success”, (pg. 74). Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s White Sturgeon Program Summary White sturgeon harvest monitoring and other project activities are critical components of the White Sturgeon Program Summary. Continuation of the project is included as a future need in the program summary: “The consequences to white sturgeon are severe, if project 198605000 is not continued. Without intensive management, current levels of harvest cannot be maintained, and potential future increases will be precluded. Production of white sturgeon in most reservoirs will remain extremely limited, and abundance of severely depressed populations will remain critically low. Production will be limited by operation of the hydropower system, and abundance will remain low, because depressed reservoir populations will not be supplemented. White sturgeon is a species of historic commercial, recreational, and tribal importance, and loss of these populations is significant and unacceptable. Closure of fisheries would likely result in litigation; therefore, annual funding is essential to maintain and increase current harvest levels.” NMFS Biological Opinion Although white sturgeon in our project area are not listed under the Endangered Species Act, they are covered in the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. Section 7.3, “Tribal Actions”, states: 1) Halt the decline of salmon, lamprey, and sturgeon populations above Bonneville Dam within 7 years, and 2) Increase lamprey and sturgeon to naturally sustaining levels within 25 years in a manner that supports Tribal harvest. Results from investigations to develop non-intrusive means to determine sex and maturation status may also benefit listed Kootenai River white sturgeon. Further description of the maturation cycle of wild white sturgeon (spawning periodicity, spawning cues, etc.) will aid sturgeon studies in general, including those directed at listed species. Subbasin Planning Biological objectives from recent completed subbasin plans recognized several key objectives for white sturgeon protection and restoration. These include: achieve regular annual recruitment to age-0 (Columbia Gorge), increase juvenile survival to age-0 and decrease predation on juvenile white sturgeon (Lower Middle Columbia), continue progress towards Tribal population goals (Columbia Gorge, Lower Snake), increase population abundance (Lower Middle Columbia), increase population abundance to provide some harvest (Lower Middle Columbia), increase population abundance to provide sustainable harvest (Lower Middle Columbia), manage populations for optimum sustainable yield (Columbia Gorge), identify habitat requirements (Columbia Gorge), increase population productivity (Columbia Gorge), and reduce population fragmentation (Lower Middle Columbia). In prior proposals, this project referenced the Fish and Wildlife Program and then existing subbasin summaries that recognized the need for white sturgeon protection and restoration. The list of fish and wildlife needs in the Columbia Plateau subbasin summary included (1) determine the hydropower system operation program that will maximize the productivity of white sturgeon in reservoirs while also supporting salmonid recovery in the Columbia River Basin, (2) determine appropriate stocks and mechanisms for supplementing white sturgeon populations in reservoirs, (3) develop both short-term and long-term strategies for white sturgeon supplementation, and (4) develop, implement, and evaluate a management plan for white sturgeon in Columbia River reservoirs. Fish and wildlife needs from the Columbia Gorge subbasin summary included: investigate upstream passage for white sturgeon at Bonneville and The Dalles dams. Fish management needs listed in the Lower Columbia River subbasin summary included: assess the effects of transporting white sturgeon from the unimpounded lower Columbia River upstream to The Dalles and John Day reservoirs, including an accurate assessment of sub-legal, legal, over-legal, and broodstock populations. Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Draft Columbia River Basin Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Reporting (MERR) Plan The Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Reporting Plan (MERR Plan) provides assurance that the Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Program) goals, objectives, and actions will be monitored, evaluated, and reported in a manner that allows assessment and reporting of Program progress. The mitigation and restoration actions for white sturgeon, and the monitoring of those actions are directly mentioned in the MERR plan’s higher priority and non-prioritized biological objectives appendix where it states, “Implement actions to stabilize and improve Columbia River white sturgeon and to recover listed Kootenai River white sturgeon.” Additionally, appendix 3 of the MERR plan states that the, “abundance of lamprey and sturgeon in the Columbia Basin” should be considered a Fish and Wildlife Program biological indicator as to the health of the Columbia River Basins fish and wildlife populations, and the fishery monitoring aspects of our project are pertinent to the harvest level of sturgeon. White sturgeon are listed in the MERR plan as a priority fish species. Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 2006 Columbia River Basin Research Plan. The research plan is designed to aid in the conservation and recovery of fish and wildlife addressed in the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program by identifying and resolving critical uncertainties and data gaps. Although the plan is clearly targeting anadromous runs of Pacific salmon, many of its identified research needs are relevant to white sturgeon within the Columbia River Basin and our project. At least one of the critical uncertainties listed in all sections except for Estuary (4) and Ocean (5) has, or could have direct ties to white sturgeon, and there are unlisted critical uncertainties pertaining to both the estuary and the ocean for white sturgeon impacted by the hydrosystem. The most obvious of these is the impact to resident, impounded populations of white sturgeon of no longer having access to the estuary and the ocean. Our project is currently situated to help inform some of the uncertainties related to the research plan’s issue areas 1- 3, and 6-12, and could potentially assist with the estuary and ocean questions in the future. In terms of regional coordination, the project’s proposed work relates to other regional coordination and data reporting efforts in several ways. First, we will propose uploading PIT tag data from tags that were inserted into white sturgeon to the regional and publicly searchable PIT tag database (PTAGIS). Additionally, we provide the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) white sturgeon information, including metrics such as location specific abundance, annually for their Status of the Resource Report (http://sotr.cbfwa.org/default.cfm), a publicly accessible, open, and interactive web-based document. Furthermore, we communicate extensively with other researchers in the basin. For example, personnel associated with this project provided technical review and expertise in the development of the Draft Lower Columbia River White Sturgeon Conservation Plan, an ODFW initiated species plan (under development) of limited geographic scope, specifically the Lower Columbia River below Bonneville Dam. Project personnel also represented WDFW and contributed technical expertise in guiding the development and implementation of white sturgeon management plans for Public Utility Districts (PUD) in Grant and Chelan counties. 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 relied 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 mid-Columbia may impact downstream populations through entrainment of stocked fish. This Project (1986-050-00) proposes to contribute to evaluating the impacts to the downstream population and to the success of the supplementation programs by conducting periodic stock assessments in downstream reservoirs.
In this section describe the specific problem or need your proposal addresses. Describe the background, history, and location of the problem. If this proposal is addressing new problems or needs, identify the work components addressing these and distinguish these from ongoing/past work. For projects conducting research or monitoring, identify the management questions the work intends to address and include a short scientific literature review covering the most significant previous work related to these questions. The purpose of the literature review is to place the proposed research or restoration activity in the larger context by describing work that has been done, what is known, and what remains to be known. Cite references here but fully describe them on the key project personnel page.
Problem Statement: View instructions

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.


What are the ultimate ecological objectives of your project?

Examples include:

Monitoring the status and trend of the spawner abundance of a salmonid population; Increasing harvest; Restoring or protecting a certain population; or Maintaining species diversity. A Project Objective should provide a biological and/or physical habitat benchmark by which results can be evaluated. Objectives should be stated in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements (tasks). In addition, define the success criteria by which you will determine if you have met your objectives. Later, you will be asked to link these Objectives to Deliverables and Work Elements.
Objectives: View instructions
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.



The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

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

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
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%

Discuss your project's recent Financial performance shown above. Please explain any significant differences between your Working Budget, Contracted Amount and Expenditures. If Confirmed Cost Share Contributions are significantly different than Proposed cost share contributions, please explain.
Explanation of Recent Financial Performance: View instructions
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) proposed in-kind cost share for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 were $17,174, $17,689, and $18,220 respectively. Confirmed ODFW in-kind cost share amounts for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 were $983,851, $548,610, and $744,792 respectively. The confirmed in-kind cost share was substantially more in each of these fiscal years than the proposed amounts, due to an under-estimation of ODFW in-kind contributions to white sturgeon management and monitoring in the Columbia River during the last proposal solicitation process. The projected FFY 2007, FFY 2008, and FFY 2009 in-kind cost share proposed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was $156,352, $158,854, and $161,395 respectively. The confirmed in-kind cost share for FFY 2007, FFY 2008, and FFY 2009 was $331,010, $373,795, and $$311,525 respectively. The cost share during these three years was substantially more than projected due to an under-estimation of actual WDFW in-kind contribution to white sturgeon management and monitoring in the Columbia River Basin.
Discuss your project's historical financial performance, going back to its inception. Include a brief recap of your project's expenditures by fiscal year. If appropriate discuss this in the context of your project's various phases.
Explanation of Financial History: View instructions
The project's financial performance since its inception is summarized in the following table: FFY New Funds Carryover Tot.Budget 1986 $400,044 $0 $400,044 1987 $1,256,403 $0 $1,256,403 1988 No New Funds 1989 $1,047,071 $120,000 $1,167,071 1990 $1,127,143 $50,000 $1,177,143 1991 $1,203,176 $0 $1,203,176 1992 $681,200 $0 $681,200 1993 $819,500 $0 $819,500 1994 $1,489,302 $0 $1,489,302 1995 $1,995,923 $69,800 $2,065,723 1996 $2,187,096 $267,104 $2,454,200 1997 $2,051,057 $75,686 $2,126,743 1998 $2,023,562 $0 $2,023,562 1999 $1,314,528 $650,000 $1,964,528 2000 $1,334,266 $600,000 $1,934,266 2001 $1,610,872 $400,000 $2,010,872 2002 $1,907,980 $0 $1,907,980 2003 $1,753,968 $52,800 $1,806,768 2004 $1,431,720 $0 $1,431,720 2005 $1,394,268 $0 $1,394,268 2006 $1,421,548 $0 $1,421,548 2007 $1,229,736 $0 $1,229,736 2008 $1,181,612 $0 $1,181,612 2009 $1,250,869 $0 $1,250,869 2010 $1,281,758 $0 $1,281,758 The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife with its subcontractors has essentially met all budgeted annual expenditure targets for over 20 years of project implementation. Modest variations expressed through over- and under-expenditures occurred in some years. The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) subcontract expenditures have been below the allocated annual amounts from 2004 to 2009, ranging from zero balances in some years, while other years saw balances of unspent funds over $60,000. The years with unspent funds were attributed to subcontract activities; specifically monies allocated for capturing and tagging white sturgeon. In years of high sturgeon abundance, monies allocated for fisheries technicians who collect data from tagging activities were used according to the effort required to capture and mark sturgeon. Hence, during some years, technicians completed their work days or weeks ahead of schedule resulting in substantial savings. Specific CRITFC subcontract financial performance is summarized in the following table: Year Funded Tot.Exp. Rec’d Balance 1994/95 167,597 139,765 139,176 27,832 1996 157,885 148,716 148,176 9,169 1997 184,892 163,378 163,378 16,514 1998 194,811 189,971 189,971 4,840 1999 254,516 165,231 165,231 89,285 2000 291,517 153,962 154,042 137,555 2001 290,732 290,528 290,528 204 2002 309,247 309,247 309,247 0 2003 348,007 321,794 321,794 26,213 2004 269,895 267,868 267,868 2,027 2005 285,883 252,803 252,803 33,080 2006 293,137 292,869 292,869 268 2007 288,468 288,468 288,468 0 2008 282,197 250,829 250,829 31,368 2009 292,313 263,192 263,192 29,121

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

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

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)

Discuss your project's contracted deliverable history (from Pisces). If it has a high number of Red deliverables, please explain. Most projects will not have 100% completion of deliverables since most have at least one active ("Issued") or Pending contract. Also discuss your project's history in terms of providing timely Annual Progress Reports (aka Scientific/Technical reports) and Pisces Status Reports. If you think your contracted deliverable performance has been stellar, you can say that too.
Explanation of Performance: View instructions
The project's contracted deliverable history is exceeding most federal and state performance standards with no "red", incomplete deliverables and only four "yellow", slightly delayed deliverables over the course of more than ten years. Contract deliverables include extensive and complex annual progress reports depicting technical findings and analyses as well as quarterly project status reports.

  • Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
  • List important activities and then report results.
  • List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
  • Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.
All Proposals: View instructions
  • For umbrella projects, the following information should also be included in this section:
  • a. Provide a list of project actions to date. Include background information on the recipients of funding, including organization name and mission, project cost, project title, location and short project summary, and implementation timeline.
  • b. Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation, the process and criteria used, and their relative rank. Were these the highest priority actions? If not, please explain why?
  • c. Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives in the implementation of the suite of projects to date. Describe this in terms of landscape-level improvements in limiting factors and response of the focal species.
  • d. Where are project results reported (e.g. Pisces, report repository, database)? Is progress toward program objectives tracked in a database, report, indicator, or other format? Can project data be incorporated into regional databases that may be of interest to other projects?
  • e. Who is responsible for the final reporting and data management?
  • f. Describe problems encountered, lessons learned, and any data collected, that will inform adaptive management or influence program priorities.
Umbrella Proposals: View instructions

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:

  • Demonstrated increased abundance of white sturgeon in The Dalles and John Day reservoirs, which was attributable to intensive harvest management and reduced exploitation (Table 1);
  • Intensive fishery management had become an ongoing component of the project.

Recommendation (2) - Evaluate if augmented river discharge in May and June improves spawning and recruitment:

  • Developed two indices of relative abundance for age-0 white sturgeon (summary of data collected to date for one index, proportion of positive efforts, is shown in Table 2 and Figure 4);
  • Determined that white sturgeon larvae are susceptible to gas bubble trauma in laboratory experiments;
  • Determined that hydropeaking at The Dalles Dam displaces white sturgeon eggs and larvae from incubation areas;
  • Provided broad recommendation for flows to provide spawning habitat.

Recommendation (3) - Evaluate the feasibility of enhancing depleted populations by transplanting juvenile white sturgeon from populations downstream from Bonneville Dam:

  • Found that white sturgeon transplanted to The Dalles Reservoir demonstrated excellent survival and growth one and two years later (Rien and North 2002).

Recommendation (4) - Identify habitat requirements of subadult and adult white sturgeon, quantify amounts of suitable habitat, and evaluate constraints on enhancement:

  • Determined habitats used by spawning and rearing fish;
  • Developed habitat maps and flow-habitat models for the Columbia River up to Priest Rapids Dam;
  • Provided broad recommendation for flows to provide spawning habitat.

Recommendation (5) - Refine and evaluate hatchery technology for enhancement of threatened populations of white sturgeon:

  • No work implemented by 1998.

Recommendation (6) - Investigate the need and potential measures for protecting and enhancing populations upstream from McNary Dam:

  • Completed initial population estimates for white sturgeon in McNary, Ice Harbor, Little Goose, and Lower Monumental reservoirs, and the Hanford Reach.

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):

  • Maintained increase in abundance of white sturgeon in The Dalles and John Day reservoirs, which again was attributable to intensive harvest management and reduced exploitation;
  • Intensive fishery management continued as ongoing component of the project;
  • Developed a preliminary discriminant function analysis model to predict white sturgeon sex and stage of maturity using blood plasma indicators, sex steroids and calcium, and fork length. 

Recommendation (2):

  • Conducted yearly age-0 white sturgeon indexing (trawling) in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs to describe environmental influences on recruitment.
  • Implemented sampling with gillnets in The Dalles, John Day, McNary, Ice Harbor,  and Little Goose reservoirs as an alternate method to index recruitment to age-0.
  • Examined movements and behavior of pre-spawn and spawning white sturgeon in The Dalles Reservoir in relation to dam operations.

Recommendation (3):

  • Annual transplants of white sturgeon from below Bonneville Dam to The Dalles and John Day reservoirs became an ongoing component of project (Table 3).

Recommendation (4):

  • Examined seasonal habitat use and movements of sub-adult and adult white sturgeon in a free-flowing and impounded reach of the Columbia River.
  • Quantified habitat suitable for spawning and rearing of white sturgeon in the Columbia and the Snake rivers in relation to yearly flows and temperatures (Figure 1).
  • Described the effects of proposed reservoir water level manipulations on productivity of white sturgeon.
  • Assessed the effects of water temperature on the development of white sturgeon eggs. 
  • Described the food habits of first-feeding larvae and age-0 white sturgeon.
  • Investigated size vulnerability of white sturgeon larvae and juveniles to predation, and effects of turbidity levels on predator-prey interactions.

Recommendation (5):

  • Initiated work to evaluate the feasibility of using hatchery-reared white sturgeon to supplement depressed populations.  The first research-level release of hatchery-reared fish into the Columbia River occurred in 2002 (Table 5).
  • CRITFC conducted four years of broodstock capture, holding and spawning efforts at the Abernathy Fish Technology Center and a satellite spawning facility at McNary Dam.  In years with unsuccessful spawning, fish were purchased from a licensed private facility to augment the program.  These efforts were noteworthy, since it involved surgical verification of mature adult sturgeon, gamete analysis, hormone injections, egg and milt collection, fertilization, incubation, rearing, marking and tagging, transport and release.  These efforts provided key information regarding the viability of using previously demonstrated methodologies and adapting them for wild broodstock taken prior to the spawning period, an important consideration when working with smaller depressed populations upstream of McNary Dam.

Recommendation (6):

  • Completed index sampling to develop initial descriptions of white sturgeon populations in Rock Island Reservoir, Lake Rufus Woods, and Lake Roosevelt.

Accomplishments from the 2003-09 phase of this project included:

Recommendation (1):

  • Continued intensive fishery management.  Although abundance of white sturgeon in reservoirs remains higher than prior to intensive harvest management and reduced exploitation, results indicate that regular monitoring is required to preclude over-exploitation and insufficient escapement of sturgeon into the broodstock population.  Since 2003, Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs have each been monitored every 3 years, rather than every 5 years as before 2003.  
  • Refined population dynamics models to incorporate new information on individual fish growth.  Large numbers of recaptures of tagged fish have allowed us to calculate individual fish growth directly, rather than inferring growth from length-at-age models and aging information.  Results indicate that length-at-age models underestimated age, and overestimated growth rate (Figure 2).
  • Continued to refine white sturgeon growth information from recaptures of previously PIT tagged white sturgeon, results support the assertion that length-at-age models underestimated age, and overestimated growth rate (Figure 3).
  • Continued to assess the reproductive structure and spawning periodicity of white sturgeon in the Lower Columbia River.  These deliverables provide valuable information that may be used in the recovery of white sturgeon populations.  One goal of many recovery programs for endangered or threatened sturgeon includes the recovery of a population to 50 to 500 individuals.  Recovering a population to a target number, while very useful to avoid inbreeding depression, does not take into consideration the ability of the population to reproduce, i.e. the reproductive health of the population.  Recovering a threatened or endangered population of sturgeon to a target number of adults and a reproductive structure that may allow for a sustainable population will not only reflect healthy ecosystem function but move recovery in the right direction. 
  • Further work to refine the maturation status model.  Over 80% of fish were correctly classified into two groups of sex (female or male) or four groups of sex and stage of maturity (immature female, immature male, maturing female, maturing male).  Though error does exist in the classification of sex and stage of maturity of white sturgeon, the technique using blood plasma indicators currently has significant advantages over the more invasive biopsy method.  Work is also proceeding on the development of a non-invasive test using mucus and/or urine to discriminate sex and stage of maturity in white sturgeon.  Additional work is needed to help classify spawning periodicity and maturation cycles in wild white sturgeon.

Recommendations (2) and (4):

  • Continued annual monitoring of age-0 white sturgeon to develop a long-term database to evaluate relationships between hydropower system operations and recruitment to age-0 and older.  Over the recent history of the project, river flows have not shown sufficient annual variability to allow adequate correlations between relative abundance of age-0 sturgeon and hydrosystem operations.

Recommendation (3):

  • Annual transplants of fish into The Dalles and John Day reservoirs continued through 2005 (Table 3). Effects of transplanting juvenile white sturgeon into The Dalles Reservoir was assessed in 2002 and 2005.  Population sampling in The Dalles Reservoir in 2005 indicated that transplanted sturgeon made up approximately 4% of total catch during summer setline sampling.  Effects of supplementation into John Day Reservoir were evaluated in 2001 and 2004.  During summer setline sampling in John Day Reservoir, approximately 5% of total catch was comprised of transplanted fish.  Transplant supplementation was discontinued after the 2005 effort.
  • Transplanted fish from early releases are becoming large enough to contribute to fisheries.  Since 1998 in The Dalles Reservoir fish transplanted in 1994 and 1995 have contributed between 1 and 9% to the annual commercial harvest (Figure 5), and modeling efforts indicate that approximately 100 fish from these initial transplant groups will recruit to the broodstock population.

Recommendation (5):

  • Continued work to refine and evaluate hatchery technology.   We were able to release 12,000 age-0 fish before cancellation of this portion of the program, and another 8,600 yearlings following cancellation.  All of these fish were released into Rock Island Reservoir.  Field sampling to update growth and movement of these fish in the release reservoir and one downstream reservoir was conducted in the winter of 2006.  Over 40,000 additional fry reared by this program were released into the Willamette River, Oregon, following program cancellation.  These fish were too small to effectively mark for release into the research area.
  • Previous efforts by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) in artificial propagation research have provided information regarding the movement and growth of hatchery reared sturgeon at large in the Columbia River.  These efforts are important in considering supplementation measures to ensure that the populations of white sturgeon in Bonneville, The Dalles and John Day reservoirs are managed with respect to the relative abundances in each reservoir. Productivity and recruitment are highly variable, in part due to the impacts of hydropower system operation on essential white sturgeon habitat and rearing elements.  Recapture data for hatchery reared white sturgeon has accumulated from various stock assessments since the releases in the mid 2000’s.
  • Releases of hatchery reared sturgeon in Rock Island Reservoir in 2003 and in John Day Reservoir in 2002 and 2005 have provided the basis for evaluation of these fish when sufficient numbers were recaptured over time in periodic stock assessments (Table 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

 

 

 

 

 

image001 

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.

image002

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.

image003

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.

 image004

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. 

image005

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:

  • Developed methodologies for habitat mapping and modeling, capture gears for various life stages, and marking and aging techniques.

By 1992 we:

  • Determined that dams limit movements of white sturgeon and have functionally isolated populations in mainstem Columbia River reservoirs;
  • Described population dynamics and found them to be unique in each reservoir;
  • Found population productivity to be 10-100 times higher downstream from Bonneville Dam than in Bonneville, The Dalles, or John Day reservoirs;
  • Identified reduced flows and subsequent poor recruitment as a potential factor limiting white sturgeon productivity in impoundments; 
  • Determined reservoirs provide large areas of suitable habitat for juvenile and adult white sturgeon, but compensatory population responses may reduce productivity if carrying capacity is exceeded;
  • Determined over-fishing had occurred in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs, and described appropriate exploitation rates under the reduced productivity resulting from the development and operation of the hydrosystem.

By 1998 we:

  • Demonstrated increased abundance of white sturgeon in The Dalles and John Day reservoirs, which was attributable to intensive harvest management and reduced exploitation;
  • Developed two indices of relative abundance for age-0 white sturgeon;
  • Determined that white sturgeon larvae are susceptible to gas bubble trauma in laboratory experiments;
  • Determined that hydropeaking at The Dalles Dam displaces white sturgeon eggs and larvae from incubation areas;
  • Provided a broad recommendation for flows to provide spawning habitat;
  • Found that white sturgeon transplanted to The Dalles Reservoir demonstrated excellent survival and growth one and two years later;
  • Developed habitat maps and flow-habitat models for the Columbia River up to Priest Rapids Dam;
  • Completed initial population estimates for white sturgeon in McNary, Ice Harbor, Little Goose, and Lower Monumental reservoirs, and the Hanford Reach.

By 2002 we,

  • Maintained increases in abundance of white sturgeon in The Dalles and John Day reservoirs, which again was attributable to intensive harvest management and reduced exploitation;
  • Developed a discriminant function analysis model to predict white sturgeon sex and stage of maturity based on blood plasma indicators, sex steroids and calcium, and fork length; 
  • Implemented an annual sampling program to index relative abundance for age-0 white sturgeon;
  • Included annual transplants of white sturgeon from below Bonneville Dam to The Dalles and John Day reservoirs as an ongoing component of the project;
  • Initiated work to evaluate the feasibility of using hatchery-reared white sturgeon to supplement depressed populations;
  • Completed index sampling to develop initial descriptions of white sturgeon populations in Rock Island Reservoir, Lake Rufus Woods, and Lake Roosevelt.

From 2003 to 2005 we,

  • Continued intensive harvest management of Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs.
  • Investigated individual fish growth in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs.
  • Developed a non-invasive method for determining sex of white sturgeon and began work to describe maturational status and reproductive potential of white sturgeon in impounded and unimpounded reaches.
  • Documented predation on juvenile white sturgeon up to 120 mm by resident fish predators in laboratory experiments.  Water turbidity was found to influence predation. 
  • Continued annual sampling to index relative abundance of age-0 white sturgeon in Columbia and Snake River reservoirs.
  • Continued annual transplants of juvenile white sturgeon from below Bonneville Dam to The Dalles and John Day reservoirs to supplement populations with depressed reproduction.
  • Released hatchery reared sturgeon in three separate events in John Day Reservoir in the 2000’s.
  • Following elimination of the hatchery component of this program, completed releases of remaining hatchery white sturgeon being reared at the USFWS Abernathy facility.

From 2006 to 2009 we,

  • Continued intensive harvest management of Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs.
  • Continued to investigate and refined estimates of individual fish growth in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs.
  • Described maturational status and reproductive potential of white sturgeon in unimpounded reaches.
  • Continued to investigate maturational status and reproductive potential of white sturgeon in impounded reaches
  • Continued annual sampling to index relative abundance of age-0 white sturgeon in Columbia River reservoirs
  • Following the discontinuation of the transplant supplementation component of the program, we monitored survival, growth, and contribution to fisheries of transplanted fish.

 

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.

image001

 

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.



The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2020 Resident Fish and Sturgeon Project Review

Council Recommendation

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]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

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—.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

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.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:
Explain how your project has responded to the above ISRP and Council qualifications, conditions, or recommendations. This is especially important if your project received a "Qualified" rating from the ISRP in your most recent assessment. Even if your project received favorable ratings from both the ISRP and Council, please respond to any issues they may have raised.
Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: View instructions
The last (FFY 2007-2009 Solicitation Review) proposal has received favorable comments from the ISRP, acknowledging project proponents and their subcontractors as “a group with good record of producing high quality technical reports and peer reviewed publications”. The ISRP 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 attempts to improve upon the specificity of the information provided under the executive summary, financial history and performance, and adaptive management of the project. The past ISRP review determined that the project met scientific review criteria and did not require a response by the project proponents however, several ISRP comments were issued that we respond to as follows:<br/> We believe that the best available information is collected and as technology, knowledge and skills evolve, the proponents are fully committed to an adaptive management process. For example, we transitioned to looking at annual growth increments based on tag recovery information, as opposed to evaluating length at age information, because we became aware of issues surrounding the accuracy of aging white sturgeon, particularly larger/older fish. We began looking for new ways to approach the growth question. By using PIT tags to tag fish we are able to track the growth of individual fish over time and to look at growth by size class of fish. We currently use these size based annual growth increments in most of our population modeling, by-and-large eliminating the need to collect, process, and analyze aging structures and thereby increasing field efficiency.<br/> As new information or techniques become available, we will evaluate their utility through an adaptive management process and potentially embrace them after careful evaluation. For instance, since PIT tags are essentially permanent and individually identifiable, it becomes possible to build recapture histories for each fish, enabling ODFW to develop a database which will allow for easy queries and large recapture history datasets. Using these data sets and maximum likelihood estimators, we may be able to substantially modify how we generate survival and population estimates and adjust field methods accordingly.<br/> Past results of annual indexing of recruitment in McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville reservoirs demonstrated a positive relationship between average May-July flows and age-0 recruitment. These results, i.e., higher spring flows typically translate into higher age-0 recruitment, have been integrated into other projects, such as those in the Kootenai River. Furthermore, the project indirectly addresses the potential survival bottleneck during the early life history question by assessing the reproductive structure of the Bonneville Reservoir population of white sturgeon and thereby addressing the assumption that poor recruitment is not associated with a lack of reproductively active adult fish. Although the project does not currently investigate this potential bottleneck directly and beyond indexing annual age-0 recruitment and relating that recruitment to environmental conditions, our project spends a considerable amount of time in the field and is open to collaborative opportunities, as demonstrated by our cooperation and participation in recent white sturgeon strategic planning efforts directed at populations inhabiting the Lower Columbia River and Lower Snake River Impoundments. These activities are pursued collaboratively with the Columbia Basin Treaty Tribes, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Chelan and Grant county PUDs (upper-mid Columbia River), and the joint Canada-US upper Columbia white sturgeon recovery initiative. Another example of collaborative research is our current collaboration with a CRITFC project aimed at collecting genetic diversity information from adult white sturgeon. The broad geographic scope and wide range of field activities make the project ideal for collaborations with both, regional white sturgeon researchers and other scientists and resource managers interested in sturgeon and paddlefish research.<br/> In its FFY2007-2009 Budget Recommendation, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) determined to fund the project, however, the project elements were to be prioritized and reduced. The project responded to this comment by, 1) discontinuing the transplant supplementation mitigation action, 2) eliminating assessments of white sturgeon population status in Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, and Little Goose reservoirs, 3) narrowing the scope of where and how annual variation in white sturgeon recruitment is monitored, i.e., no work in the Snake River, only use gillnets, and 4) table work to develop a regionally-accepted white sturgeon management plan framework.


Project Level: Please discuss how you’ve changed your project (objectives, actions, etc) based on biological responses or information gained from project actions; because of management decisions at the subbasin state, regional, or agency level; or by external or larger environment factors. Specifically, regarding project modifications summarize how previous hypotheses and methods are changed or improved in this updated proposal. This would include project modifications based on information from recent research and literature. How is your new work different than previous work, and why?
Management Level: Please describe any management changes planned or made because of biological responses or information gained from project actions. This would include management decisions at the subbasin, state, or regional level influenced by project results.
Management Changes: View instructions
The project’s evaluation of sturgeon populations in the lower Columbia River follows and will follow the tenets of adaptive management, i.e., the process of modifying or changing actions and decisions based on the most up-to-date information available. Work to evaluate and mitigate the effects of the hydropower system on white sturgeon has been extensive, methodical, important to the resource and the region, and has evolved over time. Efforts began with Project 1983-012-00, White Sturgeon Workshop, which resulted in establishing information gaps and research needs for white sturgeon. Project 198331600, Columbia River White Sturgeon Study, focused on the responses of juvenile sturgeon to changes in temperature and flow, and addressed artificial propagation potential. Project 1985-06-400, Develop Work Plan for Sturgeon Research, was the final step before funding of the comprehensive Project 1986-050-00, Status and Habitat Requirements of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream from McNary Dam. This project is now titled White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam. The evolution of our project over time is the best indication of the application of adaptive management. Work from 1986-92 concentrated on determining the status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon in the Columbia River. Results originating from project actions have informed numerous recommendations to state and Tribal fish management entities charged with restoring and maintaining white sturgeon population productivity and with restoring and ensuring sustainable fisheries. Subsequent recommendations for further work included: • Intensify management of fisheries on impounded populations • evaluate the effects of augmented May and June river discharge on spawning and recruitment; • evaluate the feasibility of enhancing populations that are negatively impacted by the hydropower system by transplanting juvenile white sturgeon from downstream of Bonneville Dam to reaches upstream of The Dalles Dam; • identify habitat needs of sub-adult and adult white sturgeon, quantify suitable habitat, and evaluate constraints on habitat enhancement; • refine and evaluate hatchery technology for enhancement of threatened populations of white sturgeon, • investigate the need and potential measures for protecting and enhancing populations upstream from McNary Dam. Management of, and continued research on white sturgeon in the lower Columbia and Snake rivers since 1992 has been based on these recommendations. Intensive management of fisheries in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs is ongoing. Management actions include: • Formation of the state/Tribal Sturgeon Management Task Force • Development of annual recreational and tribal commercial harvest guidelines for white sturgeon that are re-evaluated and reset as needed based on tri-annual stock assessments. A stock assessment is conducted in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs once every three years on a rotating basis. Results are used in setting annual harvest guidelines. The period that recreational fishers are allowed to retain sturgeon are adjusted in-season to ensure that annual harvest remains within guidelines • White sturgeon harvest has been restricted by a size slot limit, which has been changed when stock assessment based estimates of the legal and sub legal size populations and the CPUE of fisheries indicated a need to change the slot size. The slot limit also provides for protection of broodstock, and • Spawning sanctuaries have been created below McNary and The Dalles dams to prohibit handling of potential spawners during the May – July spawning season. The need to intensify fisheries management in impoundments was made clear by early project findings, recent work has reinforced its value, and the added effort for intensive management continues to be part of the project. Future decisions regarding harvest management of white sturgeon in the lower Columbia and Snake rivers will rely on continued population assessments. Early project findings called for an evaluation of the feasibility and efficacy of transplant supplementation. Between 1994 and 2005 approximately 42,000 juvenile white sturgeon were transplanted from below Bonneville Dam to The Dalles and John Day reservoirs. An initial evaluation of the effort deemed it feasible however, the effort was discontinued in 2006 due to budgetary constraints and concerns about the long-term effectiveness of the program. Continued evaluation of growth, survival and contribution to fisheries of transplanted fish has been made, and in the future fishery managers may again recommend a modified transplant supplementation program. Response of populations to these activities continues to be monitored. In addition, substantial work to refine and evaluate hatchery technology has been done. Hatchery-reared white sturgeon were released into Rock Island Reservoir at various ages, although cessation of this portion of the program has precluded estimation of survival among release groups. If artificial propagation is used in the future to supplement depleted populations of white sturgeon, results from these earlier hatchery release experiments will be used to help determine the best size-at-release and possibly locations for release. Furthermore, general and specific operations of the hydropower system to enhance physical habitat conditions for white sturgeon have been identified. Success of spawning and survival of white sturgeon through their first year are monitored by annual sampling for age-0 fish in Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, McNary reservoirs. The information collected on white sturgeon recruitment and how it relates to environmental factors could play a role in decisions regarding future operations of the hydropower system. Finally, project studies focusing on the determination of the spawning interval collected adult white sturgeon with the aid and support of sport fishers. This effort resulted in an increased awareness of the handling effects on adult white sturgeon below Bonneville Dam and subsequent changes to fishing regulations to protect the adult population. Findings from the project have provided and will continue to provide fishery managers with the best science and information currently available; however, the white sturgeon life cycle is extremely long and complex. Because of this there remains a degree of uncertainty surrounding past and current management actions, research activities, and monitoring efforts. It is because of this uncertainty that an adaptive management framework and process that revisits ongoing tasks and methods when new information becomes available is essential.

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID Title Type Period Contract Uploaded
63584-1 Status and Habitat Requirements of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream from Progress (Annual) Report 07/1986 - 03/1987 6/1/1987 12:00:00 AM
63584-2 Status and Habitat Requirements of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream from Progress (Annual) Report 07/1987 - 03/1988 9/1/1988 12:00:00 AM
63584-3 Status and Habitat Requirements of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream from Progress (Annual) Report 04/1988 - 03/1989 9/1/1989 12:00:00 AM
63584-4 Status and Habitat Requirements of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream from Progress (Annual) Report 04/1989 - 03/1990 9/1/1990 12:00:00 AM
63584-5 Status and Habitat Requirements of the White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream f Progress (Annual) Report 04/1990 - 03/1991 9/1/1991 12:00:00 AM
63584-6 Status and Habitat Requirements of the White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream f Progress (Annual) Report 10/1985 - 09/1992 1/1/1993 12:00:00 AM
63584-7 Status and Habitat Requirements of the White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River Downstream f Progress (Annual) Report 10/1985 - 09/1992 1/1/1993 12:00:00 AM
63584-8 Effects of Mitigation Measures on Productivity of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River D Progress (Annual) Report 04/1992 - 03/1993 12/1/1993 12:00:00 AM
63584-9 Effects of Mitigative Measures on Productivity of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River D Progress (Annual) Report 04/1993 - 03/1994 5/1/1995 12:00:00 AM
63584-10 Effects of Mitigative Measures on Productivity of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River D Progress (Annual) Report 04/1994 - 03/1995 3/1/1996 12:00:00 AM
63584-11 Effects of Mitigative Measures on Productivity of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River D Progress (Annual) Report 04/1995 - 03/1996 7/1/1997 12:00:00 AM
63584-12 Effects of Mitigative Measures on Productivity of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River D Progress (Annual) Report 04/1996 - 03/1997 2/1/1998 12:00:00 AM
63584-13 Effects of Mitigative Measures on Productivity of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia River D Progress (Annual) Report 04/1997 - 03/1998 2/1/1999 12:00:00 AM
00000140-1 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Progress (Annual) Report 04/1998 - 03/1999 12/1/2000 12:00:00 AM
63584-14 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Progress (Annual) Report 04/1999 - 03/2000 4/1/2001 12:00:00 AM
00004005-1 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Progress (Annual) Report 04/2000 - 03/2001 4005 2/1/2002 12:00:00 AM
00004005-2 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Progress (Annual) Report 04/2001 - 03/2002 4005 12/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
00004005-3 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Progress (Annual) Report 04/2002 - 03/2003 4005 2/1/2004 12:00:00 AM
00004005-4 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Progress (Annual) Report 04/2003 - 03/2004 4005 8/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00004005-5 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Progress (Annual) Report 04/2004 - 03/2005 19342 3/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
P103793 WHITE STURGEON MITIGATION AND RESTORATION IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM BONNEVILLE DAM. Progress (Annual) Report 04/2005 - 03/2006 29876 9/28/2007 1:49:59 PM
P103794 WHITE STURGEON MITIGATION AND RESTORATION IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM BONNEVILLE DAM. Progress (Annual) Report 04/2005 - 03/2006 29876 9/28/2007 2:12:46 PM
P106613 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam Progress (Annual) Report 04/2006 - 03/2007 35494 5/12/2008 5:23:49 PM
P112703 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam Progress (Annual) Report 04/2007 - 03/2008 39233 7/28/2009 1:27:18 PM
P118235 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream From Bonneville Dam Progress (Annual) Report 04/2008 - 03/2009 44565 10/4/2010 8:17:50 AM
P122512 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam Progress (Annual) Report 04/2009 - 03/2010 50318 8/15/2011 8:30:17 AM
P127109 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam; 4/10 - 3/11 Progress (Annual) Report 04/2010 - 03/2011 50318 6/27/2012 10:05:24 AM
P135727 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam Progress (Annual) Report 04/2011 - 03/2012 63186 4/10/2014 10:46:09 AM
P137941 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers upstream from Bonneville Dam Progress (Annual) Report 04/2012 - 12/2012 63186 8/11/2014 10:22:53 AM
P144571 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam Progress (Annual) Report 01/2013 - 12/2013 66928 9/8/2015 1:28:47 PM
P148959 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Lower Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam Progress (Annual) Report 01/2014 - 12/2014 70076 6/2/2016 9:38:58 AM
P153851 WHITE STURGEON MITIGATION AND RESTORATION IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM BONNEVILLE DAM; 1/15 - 12/15 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2015 - 12/2015 73881 4/3/2017 8:38:05 AM
P154445 WHITE STURGEON MITIGATION AND RESTORATION IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM BONNEVILLE DAM Progress (Annual) Report 01/2016 - 12/2016 73881 5/18/2017 9:53:29 AM
P159683 WHITE STURGEON MITIGATION AND RESTORATION IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM BONNEVILLE DAM Progress (Annual) Report 01/2017 - 12/2017 74313 REL 10 3/13/2018 4:10:25 PM
P164460 WHITE STURGEON MITIGATION AND RESTORATION IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM BONNEVILLE DAM. Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 74313 REL 33 3/15/2019 4:19:11 PM
P171658 WHITE STURGEON MITIGATION AND RESTORATION IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM BONNEVILLE DAM Progress (Annual) Report 01/2019 - 12/2019 74313 REL 60 3/13/2020 2:45:24 PM
P175084 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P173050 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175085 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P182866 White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream From Bonneville Dam Progress (Annual) Report 01/2020 - 12/2020 74313 REL 81 3/15/2021 3:15:25 PM
P190841 WHITE STURGEON MITIGATION AND RESTORATION IN THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM BONNEVILLE DAM Progress (Annual) Report 01/2021 - 12/2021 74313 REL 103 3/15/2022 6:33:25 PM
P203095 2022 Sturgeon Annual Report 1986-050-00 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2022 - 12/2022 84041 REL 7 8/29/2023 10:19:43 AM

Other Project Documents on the Web



The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.
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.


Primary Focal Species
Sturgeon, White (Acipenser transmontanus) - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS

Secondary Focal Species
None

Describe how you are taking into account potential biological and physical effects of factors such as non-native species, predation increases, climate change and toxics that may impact the project’s focal species and their habitat, potentially reducing the success of the project. For example: Does modeling exist that predicts regional climate change impacts to your particular geographic area? If so, please summarize the results of any predictive modeling for your area and describe how you take that into consideration.
Threats to program investments and project success: View instructions
The project monitors white sturgeon populations potentially vulnerable to limiting factors and threats such as
• Loss of habitat and population connectivity
• Pollutants, contaminants, dissolved gases
• Spawning and recruitment variability
• Fisheries over-utilization
• Piscine predation
• Water temperature
• Flow, flow variation and turbidity
• Sediments
• Loss of prey base and
• Interactions with non-native fish species
• Climate changes

By closely monitoring and managing the impounded white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River, we will be able to detect population changes and thereby be in a position to (1) propose targeted research to inform critical uncertainties pertaining to limiting factors and threats, (2) recommend mitigation actions aimed at reducing or eliminating limiting factors and threats, and (3) suggest needed monitoring and action effectiveness standards to evaluate the response of the population to any implemented mitigation actions.
One example on how the project takes emerging limiting factors into account is to advance our knowledge of white sturgeon susceptibility to contaminants due to their life history characteristics (Feist et al. XXXX; Webb et al. 2002).  During collection of gonadal tissue for this proposed project we will collect paired blood and gonad samples for a concurrent collaborative study funded through Pacific University to assess the contaminant load of sturgeon less-invasively through blood plasma.  Understanding the reproductive structure and spawning periodicity of white sturgeon in various sections of the river (below Bonneville Dam and in Bonneville Reservoir) will also provide baseline information for how climate change may affect sturgeon reproduction.

Work Classes
Please explain why the tagging technology used in this project was selected. Include a discussion of how the cost and applicability of the selected tagging technology influenced your selection. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.
Our project instruments all previously untagged white sturgeon, measuring greater than or equal to 40cm in fork length, with a 134.2-MHz ISO PIT tag. We choose to use PIT tags for a myriad of reasons. First and foremost is durability of the tag. Once inserted into white sturgeon, the mark is essentially permanent and individually identifiable. White sturgeon may live up to 100 years or more. Having this permanent and individually identifiable tag allows us to monitor specific white sturgeon over long periods of time, generating individual recapture histories. Potential uses of these recapture histories include passive monitoring of movements past hydroelectric projects, updates and refinements to our growth estimates, and a much greater power in calculating survival and abundance estimates. The cost of PIT tags is minimal compared to some other tags (i.e, acoustic telemetry) at currently less than $2/per tag and the technology has become nearly ubiquitous in fisheries biology, ecology and management. Project personnel use a regionally standardized and white sturgeon specific tag application protocol.
Describe any of the innovative approaches that your projects proposes that are in direct support of the ISAB/ISRP's recommendations to improve techniques for surgical insertion of internal tags, or external attachment of acoustic, radio, or data storage tags that reduce handling time, fish injury and stress. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.
Recommendation 3.9 in the ISRP/ISAB’s report entitled A comprehensive review of Columbia River Basin fish tagging technologies and programs states: “to encourage the development and use of innovative tagging technologies relevant to (NPCC Fish and Wildlife) program RM&E needs … (the ISRP) recommend(s) the further development of innovative techniques for surgical insertion of internal tags or external attachment of acoustic, radio, data storage tags that reduce handling times, injury, and stress.” The recommendation focuses primarily on acoustic, radio, and data storage tags, all of which are tag types that are currently not used by this project. However, we do insert a PIT tag into all encountered and previously untagged white sturgeon greater than 40-cm FL. Because white sturgeon in the study area are subject to consumptive fisheries, project personnel identified a PIT tag insertion location and protocol that a) did not decrease the survival of the fish, b) was in a location conducive to quick and reproducible insertion and detection, and c) in a location designed to minimize potential human ingestion. The location selected was under the bony plate just posterior to the head. The project has consistently used this location since project PIT tagging began and our protocol has been widely used within the Columbia River Basin by other sturgeon researchers. The regional scientific acceptance of this protocol both within and among studies has produced efficiencies as field technicians do not need to interrogate a fish in multiple locations rather, a single scan near the animals head usually detects the tag and thereby decreasing handling times and presumably fish injury and stress.
For specific tagging technologies, please address the tagging report's recommendations for genetic markers, otolith thermal marking, PIT tags, acoustic tags and radio tags for improving technologies in any way applicable. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.
All past and proposed project work specific to animal marking and tagging is in direct support of the ISRP/ISAB’s recommendations to improve tagging coordination amongst the region and to increase compatibility between the results of different tagging studies. The project proponent is currently in the process of developing a comprehensive white sturgeon database that will allow for easy query of individual fish and the compilation of recapture histories. Furthermore, it is our intent to upload the codes and associated information from all project PIT tags to PTAGIS, a regionally maintained and publicly accessible database. Project efforts to standardize the PIT tag location for white sturgeon has led to regional scientific acceptance and coordination of tagging locations, data exchange, facilitated interagency communication and collaboration and increased sampling efficiencies basin-wide. Another ISRP/ISAB’s recommendation is to increase tagging study cost effectiveness. We strive to meet this recommendation by long-term and multiple use of PIT tag recapture data enabled through the favorable life expectancy of the tags combined with the unique longevity of white sturgeon. This continuous tagging effort, in conjunction with appropriate database development and maintenance activities, will generate long term recapture histories for individual fish, potentially decrease the need to purchase new PIT tags over time, and increase power and precision of population abundance estimates while reducing ongoing costs, thereby gaining efficiency. Project sponsored PIT tagging efforts may also assist in addressing ISRP/ISAB Tagging Report Recommendation 3.5: Further development of prototype in-stream PIT tag transceivers. Although the project is not directly involved with this work, it provides for numerous tagged, resident white sturgeon that inhabit vast reaches of the Lower Columbia River and could be used for testing of emerging in-stream PIT tag receiver technology.
If your project involves ocean port sampling and lower river sampling for coded wire tag (CWT) recovery, address the tagging and tag recovery issues (statistical validity of tagging rates, tag recovery rates, and fishery sampling rates) presented in the Pacific Salmon Commission's Action Plan to Address the CWT Expert Panel (PSC Tech. Rep. No. 25, March 2008).
N/A
Explain how your tagging and tag recovery rates ensure a statistically valid result for your project. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

 

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.

Please describe which opportunities have been explored to restore or reintroduce resident native fish and their habitats?
<No answer provided>
Has a loss assessment been completed for your particular subbasin/or province?
<No answer provided>
If you are using non-native fish species to achieve mitigation, have you completed an environmental risk assessment of potential negative impacts to native resident fish?
<No answer provided>
Does your proposed work support or implement a production goal identified in a USFWS Bull Trout Recovery Plan?
What tools (e.g., guidance material, technologies, decision support models) are you creating and using that support data management and sharing?
<No answer provided>
Describe the process used to facilitate receiving and sharing of data, such as standardizing data entry format through a template or data steward, including data exchange templates that describe the data collection methods, and the provision of an interface that makes data electronically accessible.
<No answer provided>
Please describe the sources from which you are compiling data, as well as what proportion of data is from the primary source versus secondary or other sources?
<No answer provided>
Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.
<No answer provided>
Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.
<No answer provided>
What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?
Project Implementation Monitoring
Status and Trend Monitoring
Action Effectiveness Research
Uncertainties Research (Validation Monitoring and Innovation Research)
Project Compliance Monitoring
Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

Loading ...
Layers
Legend
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

Project Deliverable definition: A significant output of a project that often spans multiple years and therefore may be accomplished by multiple contracts and multiple work elements. Contract Deliverables on the other hand are smaller in scope and correspond with an individual work element. Title and describe each Project Deliverable including an estimated budget, start year and end year. Title: A synopsis of the deliverable. For example: Crooked River Barrier and Channel Modification. Deliverable Description: Describe the work required to produce this deliverable in 5000 characters or less. A habitat restoration deliverable will contain a suite of actions to address particular Limiting Factors over time for a specified Geographic area typically not to exceed a species population’s range. Briefly include the methods for implementation, in particular any novel methods you propose to use, including an assessment of factors that may limit success. Do not go into great detail on RM&E Metrics, Indicators, and Methods if you are collecting or analyzing data – later in this proposal you’ll be asked for these details.
Project Deliverables: View instructions
Annually implemented actions to mitigate for lost white sturgeon productivity (not involving changes to hydropower system operation and configuration) (DELV-1)
Task 1a Continue intensive fisheries management and monitoring of harvest in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs. This task addresses biological objectives 2a. and 2b: Restore population productivity in the Columbia Gorge and Lower Middle Columbia subbasins; and 3a. and 3b: Ensure sustainable fisheries in the Columbia Gorge and Lower Middle Columbia subbasins. White sturgeon populations in each reservoir in these subbasins are unique and require different management actions to maintain sustainable fisheries and 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.
WDFW will be the lead agency in directing Zone 6 (Bonneville Dam to McNary Dam) recreational and commercial fisheries sampling and estimating white sturgeon harvest. ODFW will assist with monitoring recreational harvest, and CRITFC will assist with sampling the commercial fishery to estimate harvest. Intensive management of sturgeon fisheries in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs has been ongoing since 1993. Critical assumptions are (1) the hydropower system has decreased productivity of impounded sturgeon populations, and (2) intensive management is needed to ensure recovery of sturgeon populations while still allowing harvest.
Types of Work:

Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in Bonneville, The Dalles, and John Day reservoirs (DELV-2)
This task addresses the following biological objectives in the Columbia Gorge and Lower Middle Columbia subbasins: 1a. and b. Ensure persistence of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia Gorge and Lower Middle Columbia River subbasins; 2a. and b. Restore and maintain population productivity in the Columbia Gorge and Lower Middle Columbia River subbasins to levels similar to that in the unimpounded Lower Columbia River Mainstem; and 3a. and b. Ensure sustainable fisheries in the Columbia Gorge and Lower Middle Columbia River subbasins.
White sturgeon populations in the Lower Columbia River subbasin (The Dalles, John Day, and McNary reservoirs) are recruitment-limited. Successful reproduction and survival of offspring to the young-of-year stage is sporadic and unreliable. Frequent and cumulative annual recruitment failures substantially reduce the productivity of some subpopulations, which reduces fishery opportunities, and may ultimately place some subpopulations upstream from McNary Dam at a conservation risk. None of the reservoirs in either subbasin is currently as productive as the unimpounded lower Columbia River below Bonneville Dam. Recommendations from this program in 1995 set productivity goals of 5 kg/ha for these reservoirs. White sturgeon populations in each reservoir in these subbasins are unique and require different management actions to maintain sustainable fisheries. Intensive monitoring of harvest, together with population monitoring, is necessary to maintain fisheries effort and harvest at sustainable levels, while restoring productivity.
This task is conducted by ODFW, WDFW, and CRITFC. ODFW has lead responsibility for data analysis and reporting of results. Each year, the status of white sturgeon populations (abundance, size distribution, length-weight relationship, etc.) in Bonneville, The Dalles, or John Day Reservoir is assessed, so that each reservoir is sampled every three years. This information is also used to continually refine population dynamics and projection models needed for fisheries management and planning. Population assessments have been conducted in these reservoirs periodically since 1986. The critical assumption is that regular monitoring of these populations reveals the effects of mitigation actions (Task 1a) and provides information needed to recommend harvest management actions and further mitigation actions (e.g., continuation or modification of Task 1a). Since 2003, stock assessments have been conducted on a three-year rotation, with one of the three reservoirs being sampled each year. This increased effort has allowed managers to update population information and adjust management actions to quickly adapt to reservoir-specific population changes.
Types of Work:

Monitor the status of white sturgeon populations in McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, and Little Goose reservoirs (DELV-3)
This work addresses the following biological objectives in the Lower Middle Columbia River and Lower Snake River subbasins: 1b and c. Ensure persistence of white sturgeon populations; 2b and c. Restore and maintain population productivity to levels similar to that in the unimpounded Lower Columbia River Mainstem; and 3b and c. restore sustainable fisheries.
White sturgeon populations in the McNary Reservoir and the Lower Snake River subbasins are recruitment-limited. Successful reproduction and survival of offspring to the young-of-year stage is sporadic and unreliable, placing these populations at constant risk of long-term recruitment failures. Population assessments were conducted in McNary Reservoir in 1995, Ice Harbor Reservoir in 1996, and in Lower Monumental and Little Goose reservoirs during 1997. These populations are currently unable to support significant fisheries. There is an annual year-round recreational take of about one hundred 48-60” sturgeon in each of these reservoirs. There is no commercial fishery in McNary Reservoir or the Snake River.
This task will be conducted by ODFW and WDFW. The status of white sturgeon populations (relative density, size distribution, length-weight relationship, etc.) in McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, and Little Goose reservoirs will be assessed. These updates will provide information needed to determine impacts of observed recruitment failures on population persistence, and to guide recovery efforts (including harvest reductions and further mitigation actions).
Types of Work:

Description of annual variation in white sturgeon recruitment (gill net sampling) (DELV-4)
This work addresses the following objectives: 1a, 1b, and 1c. Ensure persistence of white sturgeon in the Columbia Gorge, Lower Middle Columbia, and Lower Snake River subbasins; and 2a, b, and c. Restore and maintain population productivity in the Columbia Gorge, Lower Middle Columbia, and Lower Snake River subbasins to levels similar to that in the unimpounded Lower Columbia River.
Annual monitoring of recruitment in these areas allows correlation of recruitment success with environmental, hydropower, and sturgeon population variables. Clarification of spawner-recruit relationships, survival of juvenile white sturgeon to age-0, and abundance of broodstock necessary to maintain sustainable sturgeon populations remain critical uncertainties in nearly every subbasin upstream of Bonneville Dam in which white sturgeon are present.
This task is conducted by the ODFW, WDFW, and CRITFC. Each year, gill netting will be conducted to document reproductive success (recruitment to age-0). Prior to 2006, systematic trawling had been conducted in Bonneville Reservoir since 1988. Counihan et al. (1999) developed two indices of abundance that can be derived from this highly skewed data. However, bottom trawling could not be conducted in many areas due to bottom topography and excessive water velocities, so in 1998, ODFW, WDFW, and CRITFC began sampling with gill nets in McNary, Ice Harbor, and Little Goose reservoirs to assess reproductive success. Because of questions on the behavior indices from different gears under varying abundances, gill nets were also fished in The Dalles and John Day reservoirs to determine if trends in the indices were similar between gears. The results of this analysis indicated that the two methods provided similar results, and trawling in The Dalles and John Day reservoirs was subsequently discontinued accordingly. In 2006 trawling was discontinued in Bonneville Reservoir, and ODFW, WDFW, and CRITFC began sampling with gill nets here as well. Continuing this gill netting may provide insight into fish community dynamics, hydropower system operation, and white sturgeon productivity. Critical assumptions that the current activities address include (1) catch indices are directly related to age-0 white sturgeon density, and (2) variable water conditions do not bias catches. ODFW has lead responsibility for data analysis and reporting of results from age-0 indexing activities.
Types of Work:

Loss of productivity assessment for white sturgeon caused by the development and operation of the hydropower system. (DELV-5)
The work includes determining sex, maturational status, and reproductive potential of sturgeon in impounded and unimpounded reaches and addresses the following biological objectives in the Columbia Gorge, Lower Middle Columbia, and Lower Snake River subbasins: 2a, b, and c. Restore and maintain population productivity to levels similar to that in the unimpounded Lower Columbia River.
Many uncertainties remain regarding the reproduction of wild white sturgeon. Most information on spawning periodicity and the maturation cycle of white sturgeon has been derived from hatchery-reared sturgeon. A better understanding of the reproductive cycle of wild white sturgeon is crucial to understanding stock recruitment and impacts of hydropower and other sources on white sturgeon populations.
Montana State University conducts this work. It is a continuation of the task that Oregon State University began in 2000. The lead researcher from OSU is now located at MSU. The preliminary reproductive structure of the adult white sturgeon population below Bonneville Dam has been determined to be 66% previtellogenic females, 23% vitellogenic females, 3% ripe post-vitellogenic females, 4% post-ovulatory females, 4% atretic females, 61% pre-meiotic males, 8% mid-spermatogenic males, 29% spermiating males, and 2% post-spermiated males. The critical assumption is that understanding the maturation cycle will be extremely useful to management agencies: If sturgeon can be distinguished by stage of maturity and time to spawning and the spawning interval is known, fisheries managers may accurately estimate spawning frequency and the percentage of the population that will spawn in any given year, thus allowing for the calibration of current population models. As well, it is essential to understand the reproductive structure of a relatively healthy adult population of white sturgeon (Lower Columbia River Mainstem subbasin) to allow for comparisons to be made with the impounded and threatened (upper Columbia River subbasins) and endangered (Kootenai River) populations of white sturgeon. Recovery efforts for threatened and endangered white sturgeon populations should strive for a reproductive structure of their adult population similar to that seen in the unimpounded section of the Columbia River.
Types of Work:

Contribute to the development of a regionally-accepted white sturgeon mitigation plan (DELV-6)
This work will address all of the objectives listed above. Because development of a management framework is intended to be a regional effort, and it will encompass the Columbia River Gorge subbasin in which this project operates. This management plan will summarize current knowledge, identify remaining critical uncertainties, and recommend future population goals, biological objectives, and management strategies. In addition, we intend to develop comprehensive recommendations concerning the operation and configuration of the Federal Columbia River Power System to optimize habitat conditions for white sturgeon.
ODFW will participate and cooperate with members of the Sturgeon Management Task Force and other regional sturgeon researchers, to complete this plan. In 2002, the Independent Scientific Review Panel recommended development of a “State of the Science” document to encapsulate information that has been gathered by this project, and other regional projects regarding white sturgeon populations. The ISRP also strongly recommended improved coordination between this project and other regional projects also working with Columbia/Snake River white sturgeon populations. Development of a large-scale management framework to maintain and recover white sturgeon populations in the Columbia Basin will help meet these requests. Such a plan will also provide regional planners and fishery managers with a document to assist them in protecting this species.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Planning and Coordination
122. Provide Technical Review and Recommendation
174. Produce Plan
189. Coordination-Columbia Basinwide
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
162. Analyze/Interpret Data


Objective: Ensure Persistence of White Sturgeon in the Columbia River Gorge, the Lower Mid-Columbia Rivre and the Lower Snake River Subbasins (OBJ-1)

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)


Objective: Restore and Maintain Population Productivity in Impounded Subbasins (3) to Levels Similar to that in the Unimpounded Lower Columbia River Mainstem (OBJ-2)

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)


Objective: Restore and Ensure Sustainable Fisheries in the Columbia River Gorge, The Lower Middle Columbia River, and the Lower Snake River Subbasins (OBJ-3)

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)


*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

RM&E Protocol Deliverable Method Name and Citation
Population Status Monitoring in Bonneville, The Dalles and John Day reservoirs (1986-050-00) v1.0
Population Status Monitoring in McNary, Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, and Little Goose reservoirs (1986-050-00) v1.0
McKenzie test Annual Age-0 White Sturgeon Recruitment Indexing v1.0 v1.0
White Sturgeon Reproductive Structure Determination (1986-050-00) v1.0
White Sturgeon Sport Harvest Estimation (1986-050-00) v1.0

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
Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

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
Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
All field equipment and supplies are currently suitable to perform the proposed work. Budget requests reflect regular equipment maintenance, upgrades and periodic replacement of supplies, such as setlines, gill nets, buoys, anchors, raingear, personal floatation devices, PIT tag detectors, etc. All vehicles are leased, either from federal or state motorpools. Most office equipment is leased. Office utilities, phone charges, maintenance, etc. are budgeted proportionally to staff occupying office space at regional and district (state) offices. Technology is rapidly evolving and as hardware and software age, they become outdated and unable to interface with more recent technology. Personal computers (PC) more than five years old will need new operating systems and corresponding software.; PC's that exceed five years in age will be replaced on a rotational basis through 2014. These continuing advancements in technology also affect field efforts, both in boat operation and in data collection. Software for chart plotters in our boats will be in need of updating/replacing as they become obsolete. In addition we currently collect and record field data on handheld data loggers. The software we use interfaces optimally with an operating system that is rapidly becoming obsolete and hard to find. We will need to upgrade our data collection devices within the next three years in order to continue with our electronic data collection activities. The PIT tags used by this project are purchased directly by the Bonneville Power Administration under a separate project number and name. The average annual cost of needed PIT tags has been, and likely continues to be, approximately $10,800 or 6,000 PIT tags.

Source / Organization Fiscal Year Proposed Amount Type Description
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2012 $306,276 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2011 $16,057 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2011 $298,806 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2013 $308,146 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2014 $310,053 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2012 $16,458 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2013 $16,869 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) 2014 $17,291 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2011 $38,587 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2012 $38,587 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2013 $38,587 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2014 $38,587 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2011 $723,440 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 $741,526 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2013 $756,356 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2014 $771,483 In-Kind Contributed in-kind work is provided through personnel services, supplies and contractual services. There is a high likelihood of this contribution to occur.

Anders, P. J., D. L. Richards, M. S. Powell. 2002. The First Endangered White Sturgeon Population (Acipenser transmontanus): Repercussions in an Altered Large River-floodplain Ecosystem. Pages 67-82 In: W. VanWinkle, P. Anders, D. Dixon, and D. Secor, editors. Biology, Management and Protection of North American Sturgeons. American Fisheries Society Press, Bethesda, MD. Auer, N. A. 1996. Response of spawning lake sturgeons to change in hydroelectric facility operation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:66-77. Bajkov, A. D. 1951. Migration of white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus) in the Columbia River. Fish Commission Research Briefs 3(2): 8-21. Bayer, J. M. and T.D. Counihan. 2001. Length changes in white sturgeon larvae preserved in ethanol or formaldehyde. Collection Forum 15: 57 Beamesderfer, R. C. 1991. MOCPOP 2.0: A flexible system for simulation of age-structured populations and stock related functions. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Information Report 91-4. http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/CRL/Reports/Info/91-4.pdf Beamesderfer, R. C. 1993. A standard weight (Ws) equation for white sturgeon. California Fish and Game 79:63-69. Beamesderfer, R. C. P., J. C. Elliott, and C. A. Foster. 1989. Description of the life history and population dynamics of subadult and adult white sturgeon in the Columbia River between Bonneville and McNary dams; and Evaluation of the need and identification of potential methods for protecting mitigating, and enhancing white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Report A in A. A. Nigro editor. Status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Annual Report (April 1988 - March 1989) to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. Beamesderfer, R. C. P., and R. A. Farr. 1997. Alternatives for the protection and restoration of sturgeons and their habitat. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:408 Beamesderfer, R. C. and A. A. Nigro, editors. 1993. Status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Final Report to Bonneville Power Administration Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. Beamesderfer, R. C., D. E. Olson, and R. D. Martinson 1990. Recreational fishery for white sturgeon, walleye, and smallmouth bass in Lake Umatilla (John Day Reservoir), 1983-86. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Information Report 90-3. Portland, Oregon. http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/CRL/Reports/Info/90-3.pdf Beamesderfer, R. C. P., T. A. Rien, and A. A. Nigro. 1995. Dynamics and potential production of white sturgeon populations in three Columbia River reservoirs Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:857-872. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 1997. Multi-year Implementation plan. Report to Northwest Power Planning Council. Conte, F.S., S.I. Doroshov, P.B. Lutes, and M.E. Strange. 1988. Hatchery manual for the white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) with application to other North American Acipenseridae. Publications Division, Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland. Publication 3322. Cooke, D. W., S. D. Leach, and J. J. Isely. 2002. Behavior and lack of upstream passage of shortnose sturgeon at a hydroelectric facility/navigation lock complex. Pages 101-110 In: W. VanWinkle, P. Anders, D. Dixon, and D. Secor, editors. Biology, Management and Protection of North American Sturgeons. American Fisheries Society Press. Counihan, T. D., and C. N. Frost. 1999. Influence of externally attached transmitters on the swimming performance of juvenile white sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:965-970. Counihan, T. D., A. I. Miller, M. G. Mesa, and M. J. Parsley. 1998. The effects of dissolved gas supersaturation on white sturgeon larvae. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:316-322. Counihan, T. D., A. I. Miller, and M. J. Parsley. 1999. Indexing the relative abundance of age 0 white sturgeon in an impoundment of the lower Columbia River from highly skewed trawling data. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:520 529. Coutant, C. 2004. A riparian habitat hypothesis for successful reproduction of white sturgeon. Reviews in Fisheries Science 12:23-73. Craig, J. A., and R. L. Hacker. 1940. Sturgeon fishery of Columbia River Basin. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 49:204-208. DeVore, J. D., B. W. James, C. A. Tracey, and D. A. Hale. 1995. Dynamics and potential production of white sturgeon in the unimpounded lower Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:845-856. Ebel, W. J., C. D. Becker, J. W. Mullan, and H. L. Raymond. 1989. The Columbia River – toward a holistic understanding. Canada Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106:205-219. Elliott J. C. and R. C. Beamesderfer. 1990. Comparison of efficiency and selectivity of three gears used to sample white sturgeon in a Columbia River reservoir. California Fish and Game 76(3):174-180. Feist, G. W., M. A. H. Webb, D. T. Gundersen, E. P. Foster, C. B. Schreck, A. G. Maule, and M. S. Fitzpatrick. 2005. Evidence of detrimental effects of environmental contaminants on growth and reproductive physiology of white sturgeon in impounded areas of the Columbia River. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:1675-1682. Fickeisen,D.H.; D.A. Meitzel, D.D. Dauble,1984. White sturgeon -research needs: workshop results. Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory report to the Bonneville Power Administration (Contract DE-AC06-76RLO1830). http://www.fishsciences.net/projects/columbia_sturgeon/bibliography.php Fickeisen , D. H. 1985. White sturgeon research program implementation plan. Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory report to the Bonneville Power Administration (Contract DE-AI79-85BP22209). http://www.fishsciences.net/projects/columbia_sturgeon/bibliography.php Galbreath, J. L. 1985. Status, life history, and management of Columbia River white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus. Pages 119-125 in F. P. Binkowski and S. I. Doroshov, editors. North American sturgeons. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Gadomski, D.M. and M.J. Parsley. 2005a. Effects of turbidity, light level, and cover on predation of white sturgeon larvae by prickly sculpins. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:369-374 Gadomski, D.M. and M.J. Parsley. 2005b. Laboratory studies on the vulnerability of young white sturgeon to predation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:667-674. Gadomski, D.M. and M.J. Parsley. 2005c. Vulnerability of young white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, to predation in the presence of alternative prey. Environmental Biology of Fishes 74:389-396 Hale. D. A., and B. W. James. 1993. Recreational and commercial fisheries in the Columbia River between Bonneville and McNary dams. 1987-91. Pages 287-342 in R. C. Beamesderfer and A. A. Nigro. editors. Status and habitat requirements of the white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Volume 2. Final Report (Contract DE-A179-86BP63584) to Bonneville Power Administration. Portland. Oregon. https://www.cbfish.org/Project.mvc/Publications/1986-050-00 Jager, H. I., K. LePla, J. Chandler, P. Bates, W. VanWinkle. 2000. Population viability analysis of white sturgeon and other riverine fishes. Environmental Science and Policy 3:S483-S489. Jager, H. I., VanWinkle, W., J. A. Chandler, K. `. LePla, P. Bates, and T. D. Counihan. 2002. A simulation study of factors controlling white sturgeon recruitment in the Snake River. Pages 55-66 In: W. VanWinkle, P. Anders, D. Dixon, and D. Secor, editors. Biology, Management and Protection of North American Sturgeons. American Fisheries Society Press. James, B. W., D. A. Hale, J. D. DeVore, and B. L. Parker. 1996. Report B. Pages 37-71 in D. L. Ward, editor. Effects of mitigative measures on productivity of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam, and determine the status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia and Snake rivers upstream of McNary Dam. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration (Project 86-50), Portland, Oregon. King, S. D. 1981. The June and July Middle Columbia River recreational fisheries Bonneville to McNary Dams. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Clackamas, OR. Mallette, C. 2008. White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam. Annual Report (April 2006–March 2007) to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. Mallette, C. 2009. White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam. Annual Report (April 2007–March 2008) to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. McCabe, G. T., Jr. 1993. Prevalence of the parasite Cystoopsis acipenseri (Nematoda) in juvenile white sturgeons in the lower Columbia River. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 5:313-316. McCabe, G. T., Jr. and L. G. Beckman. 1990. Use of an artificial substrate to collect white sturgeon eggs. California Fish and Game 76:248-250. McCabe, G. T., Jr., R. L. Emmett, and S. A. Hinton. 1993. Feeding ecology of juvenile white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) in the Lower Columbia River. Northwest Science 67:170-180. McCabe, G. T., Jr. and C. A. Tracy. 1994. Spawning and early life history of white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus, in the lower Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin 92:760-772. Miller, A. I., and L. G. Beckman. 1996. First record of predation on white sturgeon eggs by sympatric fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:338-340. Muir, W. D., G. T. McCabe Jr., M. J. Parsley, and S. A. Hinton. 2000. Diet of first feeding larval and young of the year white sturgeon in the Lower Columbia River. Northwest Science 74:25 33. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. North, J. A., R. C. Beamesderfer, and T. A. Rien. 1993. Distribution and movements of white sturgeon in three lower Columbia River reservoirs. Northwest Science 67(2):105-111. Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004. Lower Columbia salmon recovery and fish and wildlife subbasin plan, volume II, chapter A – Lower Columbia Mainstem and Estuary. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, December 2004. Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 2000. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, OR. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW and WDFW). 2008. 2009 Joint staff report concerning stock status and fisheries for sturgeon and smelt. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Clackamas, Oregon. Parsley, M. J., P. J. Anders. A. I. Miller, L. G. Beckman, and G. T McCabe Jr. 2002. Recovery of white sturgeon populations through natural production: Understanding the influence of abiotic and biotic factors on spawning and subsequent recruitment. In: W. VanWinkle, P. Anders, D. Dixon, and D. Secor, editors. Biology, Management and Protection of North American Sturgeons. American Fisheries Society Press. Parsley, M.J., and L.G. Beckman. 1994. White Sturgeon spawning and rearing habitat in the lower Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:812-827. Parsley, M. J., L. G. Beckman, and G. T. McCabe, Jr. 1993. Spawning and rearing habitat use by white sturgeons in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122(2):217-227. Parsley, M. J., D. M. Gadomski, and P. Kofoot. 2005. Report C. Describe reproduction and early life history characteristics of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. In D.L. Ward, editor. Status and habitat requirements of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Parsley, M. J. and K. K. Kappenman. 2000. White sturgeon spawning areas in the lower Snake River. Northwest Science 74:192-201. Parsley, M. P., and P. Kofoot. 2008. Report C. Describe reproduction and early life history characteristics of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams and Define habitat requirements for spawning and rearing white sturgeon and quantify the extent of habitat available in the Columbia River between Bonneville and Priest Rapids dams. Pages 65 to 77 in C. Mallette, editor. White sturgeon mitigation and restoration in the Columbia and Snake rivers upstream from Bonneville Dam. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Quinn, T. P., and D. J. Adams. 1996. Environmental changes affecting the migratory timing of American shad and sockeye salmon. Ecology 77:1151-1162. Quinn, T. P., S. Hodgson, and C. Peven. 1997. Temperature, flow, and the migration of adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Columbia River. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Science 54:1349-1360. Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Bulletin 191. Rien, T. A. 2007. White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream from Bonneville Dam. Annual Report (April 2005–March 2006) to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. Rien, T. A., and R. C. Beamesderfer. 1994. Accuracy and precision in age estimates of white sturgeon from pectoral fin rays. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123:255 265. Rien, T. A., R. C. P. Beamesderfer, and C. A. Foster. 1994. Retention, recognition, and effects on survival of several tags and marks on white sturgeon. California Fish and Game 80:161-170. Rien, T. A., and J. A. North. 2002. White sturgeon transplants within the Columbia River. Pages 223-236 In: W. VanWinkle, P. Anders, D. Dixon, and D. Secor, editors. Biology, Management and Protection of North American Sturgeons. American Fisheries Society Press. Secor, D. H., P. J. Anders, W. Van Winkle, and D. A. Dixon. 2002. Can We Study Sturgeons to Extinction? What We Do and Don’t Know about the Conservation of North American Sturgeons. Pages 3-10 In: W. VanWinkle, P. Anders, D. Dixon, and D. Secor, editors. Biology, Management and Protection of North American Sturgeons. American Fisheries Society Press. Siple, J.T. and P.J. Anders. 1993. Annual Kootenai Hatchery Report. In: Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies. Annual Report B. BPA Project No. 88-64. Storch, A. J., C. G. Chapman, and T. A. Jones. 2009. Report A. Evaluate the success of developing and implementing a management plan for enhancing production of white sturgeon in reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary dams. Pages 6 to 37 in C. Mallette, editor. White sturgeon mitigation and restoration in the Columbia and Snake rivers upstream from Bonneville Dam. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. USFWS (U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Determination of endangered status for the Kootenai River white sturgeon population. Federal Register 59(171) 45989. USFWS (U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999. Recovery plan for the white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus): Kootenai River population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. van der Leeuw, B.K., Parsley, M.J., Wright, C.D., and Kofoot, E.E. 2006. Validation of a critical assumption of the riparian habitat hypothesis for white sturgeon: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5225, 20 p. Van Eenennaam, J.P. and S.I. Doroshov. 1998. Effects of age and body size on gonadal development of Atlantic sturgeon. Journal of Fish Biology 53:624-637. Van Eenennaam, J.P., S.I. Doroshov, and G.P. Moberg. 1996. Spawning and reproductive performance of domestic white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). Pages 117-122 in S. Doroshov, F. Binkowski, T. Thuemeler, and D. MacKinlay, editors. Culture and Management of Sturgeon and Paddlefish Symposium Proceedings. Physiology Section, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Ward, D. L. 1998. Effects of mitigative measures on productivity of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam, and Determine the Status and Habitat Requirements of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream From McNary Dam. Annual Report (April 1996 – March 1997) to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. Ward, D. L. 1999. Effects of mitigative measures on productivity of white sturgeon populations in the Columbia River downstream from McNary Dam, and Determine the Status and Habitat Requirements of White Sturgeon Populations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers Upstream From McNary Dam. Annual Report (April 1997 – March 1998) to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. DE-A179-86BP63584. Webb, M. A. H., C. L. Anthony, C. B. Schreck, and M. S. Fitzpatrick. 2002. Report F. Develop methods to determine sex of white sturgeon in the Columbia River using plasma, urine, and mucus sex steroid and calcium concentrations and Determine how reproductive plasma, urine, and mucus steroid and calcium levels vary at different stages of maturation to develop predictive indices for the timing of white sturgeon maturation. Pages 144-164 in D. L. Ward, editor. White sturgeon mitigation and restoration in the Columbia and Snake rivers upstream from Bonneville Dam. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Webb, M.A.H., Feist, G.W., Schreck, C.B., Foster, E.P., and M.S. Fitzpatrick. 2002. Potential classification of sex and stage of gonadal maturity of wild white sturgeon using blood plasma indicators. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:132-142. Webb, M. A. H. and K. M. Kappenman. 2010. Report D. Determine spawning interval of white sturgeon in the Columbia River. Pages X to X in C. Mallette, editor. White sturgeon mitigation and restoration in the Columbia and Snake rivers upstream from Bonneville Dam. Annual Progress Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon

Review: RME / AP Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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: