FY07-09 proposal 198806400

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Kootenai

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: 2,000,000 - O&M Increase with New Hatchery Production

Termination date:
Comments: This project provides direct mitigation for lost native fisheries resulting from the construction and operation of Libby Dam and therefore should be implemented until the focal native species are recovered (See SBP Objectives, USFWS White Sturgeon Recovery Plan, and Burbot Conservation Strategy Recovery Goals)

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is an excellent proposal in many respects. The project has a history of being well managed and productive. But its breadth and complexity can be confusing and have led to questions and concerns. The summary of the Kootenai River system and associated fish species was well done. The maps were particularly helpful. The technical and scientific background is a bit long, but could be improved by adding a very brief sentence or paragraph on what action is going to be taken to address each of the identified problems, and why the sponsors think it is an appropriate action. The linkage of project objectives and limiting factors (page 13) is good but would have been more appropriate in the rationale or objectives sections. The proposal addresses species identified in subbasin and regional plans using restoration strategies identified in those plans. Discussion of some material seemed tangential, such as the BEF 10 Model Watershed Program. There are clearly many projects that are ongoing in the Kootenai River subbasin that are related to this proposal, and many are identified. The overall level of collaboration on this project is very good. It is well integrated into other activities in the basin and communication and cooperation is very good among agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Tribes. A particularly constructive element in this section of the proposal is Table D1. However, in addition to the elements present in the table, it would be helpful to have a row identifying the main action that will be taken by each project. This section would be more useful if the strategy(ies) for restoration in the basin were established, and the tasks needed to fulfill those strategies were then identified and linked to different projects. The project history, which was interesting but overly long, shows that there is significant potential for intermediate term benefits for white sturgeon. Because of the long lifespan of sturgeon it is possible that cultured individuals released into the wild could provide gametes or embryos to maintain the population for several decades. Artificial production for conservation of long-lived fish may have a more reasonable basis than artificial production for conservation of short lived fish like salmon. Nonetheless, there is considerable concern about the long-term prognosis of this project. It is not clearly established that the Kootenai stock was ever strong, nor that under existing habitat conditions, that it can recover to a level envisioned. The lack of clear evidence for stock distinctiveness is an issue as well. For burbot, however, at this time the results of efforts to collect broodstock and culture juveniles was discouraging and not promising. Less than 1% of the eggs survive. The summary of kokanee reintroduction is confusing. Several streams have been monitored and apparently have very low abundance of spawning kokanee, even though eggs have been introduced into streams since 1997. It is not clear that these streams are the same as those that have been surveyed for redds. It is also not entirely clear from the text that these "lower Kootenai tributaries" are also the "south arm tributary stream" where reintroduction is desired. Because kokanee are abundant elsewhere in the system and kokanee have been introduced throughout the western US in reservoirs and lakes, it seems like there are survival factors here that need to be corrected before expecting their reintroduction to this area to be successful. The proposal adopts the overarching objective from the Kootenai subbasin plan. The weakness is that neither a timeline for numerical abundance is provided, nor is there evidence that the objective is achievable using the strategies employed. The project is very broad in scope. Some of the work elements are appropriate and employ the best available scientific techniques. For other work elements the experimental design and approach is not entirely defensible. Because of the breadth of activities in the proposal the objectives and work elements are considered below individually. Responses are requested where indicated. Objective 1. Sturgeon conservation aquaculture (1.a.1 - 1.a.8) was considered generally sound and acceptable. 1.a.9. A justification for monitoring genetic variation in hatchery white sturgeon was not established in the scientific and technical background. The basis for this work element is not clear. The rationale for increasing production ("Release up to 10,000 fish per family from both facilities. Release fish at smaller sizes") because the next generation will be largely derived from hatchery fish is not convincing. The sponsors should perform a quantitative justification before implementing this action. Please respond. A portion of the proposal suggests that natural embryos are regularly caught. The project sponsors have not discussed catching naturally produced embryos and rearing them until 1 or 2 years and then releasing them. This could perhaps circumvent the juvenile period when mortality is thought to be severe, and at the same time avoid the domestication effects of broodstock collection and artificial mating. Why has this not been evaluated as an approach? Please respond. 1.a.10. Why are 50 broodstock being maintained? Is domestication not an issue? Please respond. 1.e.1., 1.e.2, 1.e.3. The proposal plans to conduct white sturgeon index sampling on the Kootenay River in B.C. The description of the sampling is insufficient to judge whether the precision and accuracy of the data can serve the management needs of the program. Additional statistical validation seems necessary. Please respond. 1.e.5. The proposal plans to maintain a base station telemetry array to monitor adult and juvenile sturgeon. The explanation of how the data will inform management is lacking. A better linkage between understanding the biological attributes of the species and decision options for management is needed. Collecting more data on life history is good science, and using state-of-the-art technology is exciting. But if it does not inform management choices then it may be an expensive luxury. There is also no clear identification of what is going to be performed under this work element. Is it the seven new VR2 receivers identified in the final paragraph on page 98? A better explanation of the role of the array and its needs are warranted. Please respond. 1.g. Cryopreservation research is proposed. The need to develop technology to use primordial germ cells (PGCs) implanted into embryonic fish to expand the genetic variation in the female germ line is insufficiently established. Wouldn't the PGCs frozen for implanting simply reflect sibs that were reared to full term and released into the wild? How will this approach quantitatively expand the genetic base of the population? This portion does not appear sound. Please explain in a response. 1.h. Monitoring the effects of contaminants is proposed but there is insufficient scientific justification presented for this effort. Please respond. 1.i. Evaluation of an experimental non-essential white sturgeon population does not appear to be justified at this time. Objective 2. Burbot Conservation Aquaculture. 2.a.1. Optimize adult collection. It is not sufficiently clear what specific actions are being proposed. A response is required. 2.a.2. Spawning. Sufficient detail is not presented. Please provide. 2.a.3. Repeat/confirm incubation trials. It would be better if a new incubator design for testing were provided here, not just a statement that "other possible incubator designs be tested." In general, the burbot culture work needs to identify the tasks (steps) needed to be developed to move culture from an experimental to production phase, what stage they are at for each of these tasks, and the specific experiments to be conducted during this project solicitation cycle. Can this be provided? 2.a.7. Development of burbot cell lines for virus isolation is not yet justified. Please justify or delete? 2.b.1. Obtain adult burbot and gametes for fish culture experiments. It is not clear what experiments will be performed with the adults collected and transported to the University of Idaho. Is this the source for the earlier work elements under 2.a? Please clarify. Population indexing needs more justification. It is not clear from the presentation that the precision and accuracy of the estimates will support management decisions. Reintroduction work is premature at this time. Please clarify. 2.d. Planning for implementation of burbot conservation aquaculture seems premature at this point. It does not appear that the primary culture techniques will be established during this funding period. Please respond if you believe such planning is justified? Objective 3. Reintroduce Kokanee. The data provided in the project history section of the proposal seem to suggest that kokanee reintroduction is not succeeding. An interpretation of progress to date is needed, an explanation of what the limiting factors are believed to be and that they have been addressed. A timeline for evaluation and reappraisal is needed. Please respond. Objective 5. A 3-step process and Master Plan for Kootenai white sturgeon and burbot does not seem justifiable at this time. This should be reconsidered based on a revised aquaculture proposal, and considering continued progress in meeting both improvements in natural production of white sturgeon and hatchery production of burbot. Monitoring and evaluation are important in this project. But there are several elements to this proposal. A more thorough review would be required to determine if the M and E is sufficient to determine if the projects achieved their goals and benefited fish and wildlife. There is a strong need to stay on top of actual progress on this project, because the long lifespan of the sturgeon can result in progress measurable over many years. Facilities are fine, and communication has been excellent among the Kootenai projects. The sponsors are encouraged to publish in the open literature. Some concluding general comments: This work must be determined to not duplicate other agency work proposals in the basin. There are many players working on the few white sturgeon in the basin. In light of what is known (and not known) about Chondrostean life histories and the limited genetic information to date, there are legitimate questions about the rationale thus far of favoring and relying on a conservation hatchery program for the Kootenai over a simpler and potentially much cheaper stocking program from downriver stocks. This option should at least be reconsidered as the years pass. Since 1988, numbers of wild fish in the Kootenai continue to decline, and costs increase yearly. This stock has the same fundamental genetics as other proximate stocks, but with lower genetic diversity than the other groups. The Kootenai is an abnormal system so fish will do things in an abnormal way. White sturgeon are slow to evolve. In this and other Kootenai proposals, there may be overemphasis on the uniqueness of these fish, which may simply reflect the abnormal environmental conditions now present. Because the proposal has become so complex, it may be better for the burbot work to be separated into another proposal.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: This is an excellent proposal in many respects. The project has a history of being well managed and productive. But its breadth and complexity can be confusing and have led to questions and concerns, some of which remain even after an excellent and thorough response to ISRP’s initial comments. The main qualifications in the ISRP’s endorsement are that there are too many loosely linked projects under one umbrella and that the relatively weak kokanee reintroduction work should show substantive progress or begin to develop alternate approaches to the problem. The response adequately clarified questions raised by the ISRP. The sponsors responded explicitly to technical questions the ISRP raised and to the complexity of the project. It is hard to argue with the overall success of this project over several years. The intent and rationale of the sponsors on each question are now clearer. Abundant documentation is provided, both from the literature and from their own publications. The new and revised tables are especially helpful and should aid not only this project but others in the Kootenai. However, the ISRP continues to be uneasy about the large scope of this project that is reflected in the large proposal, many ISRP preliminary comments, and extensive responses. The ISRP encourages further exploration of the administrative value of separating some portions (e.g., the burbot work) from other components. The summary of the Kootenai River system and associated fish species was well done. The maps were particularly helpful. The technical and scientific background was improved in the response by adding information on what action is going to be taken to address each of the identified problems, and why the sponsors think the action is appropriate. The linkage of project objectives and limiting factors (page 13) is good but would have been more appropriate in the rationale or objectives sections. The proposal addresses species identified in subbasin and regional plans using restoration strategies identified in those plans. There are clearly many projects that are ongoing in the Kootenai River subbasin that are related to this proposal, and many are identified. The overall level of collaboration on this project is very good. It is well integrated into other activities in the basin and communication and cooperation are very good among agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Tribes. A particularly constructive element in this section of the proposal is Table D1, which was modified in the response to show the main actions that will be taken by each project. The project history, which was interesting but overly long, shows that there is significant potential for intermediate term benefits for white sturgeon. Because of the long lifespan of sturgeon it is possible that cultured individuals released into the wild could provide gametes or embryos to maintain the population for several decades. The sponsor's rationale for artificial production and the quantitative analysis leading to that conclusion are explained in the response and by the recent paper published in Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Nonetheless, there is considerable concern about the long-term prognosis of this project. It is not clearly established that the Kootenai stock was ever strong, nor that, under existing habitat conditions, it can recover to a level envisioned. The lack of clear evidence for stock distinctiveness is an issue as well. For burbot, at this time the results of efforts to collect broodstock and culture juveniles is discouraging and not promising. Beginning a cell line for viral investigations for burbot at this early state of their culture seems premature and the response simply restated the sponsor’s view. The summary of kokanee reintroduction was initially confusing but clarified in the response. Because kokanee are abundant elsewhere in the system and they have been introduced throughout the western US in reservoirs and lakes, it seems like there are survival factors that need to be corrected before expecting their reintroduction to this area to be successful. The proposal adopts the overarching objectives from the Kootenai subbasin plan. One weakness is that a timeline to achieve numerical abundance is not provided, a second is a lack of evidence that the objective is achievable using the strategies employed. The project is very broad in scope. Some of the work elements are appropriate and employ the best available scientific techniques. For other work elements, the experimental design and approach is not entirely defensible. The response helped clarify most of the ISRP’s questions in the preliminary review, if only to reassert the sponsor’s views.