The sponsor’s response was very informative. It included a detailed description of how this project relates to and coordinates with project #199502700, and several detailed diagrams indicating project functions and roles for all significant tasks. It also included likely approaches and methods for several of the tasks to be performed by subcontractors including physical mapping/modeling and contaminant monitoring. The sponsors provided reasonable justification for subcontractors and identified subcontractors when possible at this time. Although no final contractors have been selected, the list of those to be invited includes highly qualified entities.The sponsors have assembled the specifications for approaches and methodologies for the RFPs which indicate many of the detailed methods to be used. However, some methodologies cannot be identified or developed until the subcontractors are hired. The sponsors should provide information about the subcontractor who is conducting the work and what specific methods will be used. At that point the ISRP wishes to review the specific objectives and methods. The sponsors previously described, and in the response clearly stated, the trial approach of the broadband sonar work for sturgeon.

A response is requested that identifies the coordination and collaboration with 199502700. A diagram that clarifies which project is responsible for which task is needed. The ISRP cannot determine if duplication is present.

The variety of actions proposed in this document, such as physical mapping/modeling and contaminant monitoring requires subcontractors, but most of them have not been identified nor have they provided specific information on methodologies. The response should provide information about who is conducting the work and what specific methods will be used.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This proposed project responds to objectives in a number of regional plans and programs including the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program (2009), the Spokane Subbasin Plan, the Upper Columbia White Sturgeon Recovery Plan, the MERR Plan, and the Lake Roosevelt Guiding Document.

The technical background is detailed and provides good background information, citing many references.

There are 2 objectives for this project. 

·         OBJ-1: Monitor the status and trend of the Transboundary Reach white sturgeon population.

·         OBJ-2: Identify factors limiting natural recruitment of white sturgeon in the Transboundary Reach.

The level of detail is adequate for describing what will be done, but not how the elements will be achieved. For that we need to see some fairly detailed methods.

The experimental approach involving the collection of larvae is an important approach. However, given that somewhat high recruitment was observed in 1997 when high flow coincided with spawning, it seems that flow should be a key hypothesis to test, if feasible. Ideally, flow should be manipulated to determine the extent to which flow manipulation can influence recruitment. In the absence of the ability to alter the flows, the capture and transport approach is reasonable.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (ISRP Review of Results)

This section does a good job of outlining the history of activities on sturgeon related to 200811600; it also applies nearly verbatim to 199512700 with nearly the same text used in both proposals.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

This project will coordinate with and share data with a fairly large number of other related BPA projects.

Potential future effects of non-native species and climate change on white sturgeon are discussed. Tagging protocols and types to be used were detailed. 

It is difficult to understand if activities listed in this proposal do or do not overlap with 199502700.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Although the broadband sonar work does show some promise for identifying surgeon, the high number of false positives in Brundage and Jung (2009) made it difficult to apply accurately. This problem may be greater in Lake Roosevelt, especially for certain sizes of fish. At this time, and based on results of previous work, it is not clear how well this approach will work. As described, in terms of field evaluation, a small test is a more appropriate start. 

For the stock assessment work, it is unclear how this proposed work and that outlined under 199502700 are to be divided up. It appears that there is considerable duplication of effort. This relationship should be clarified.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The sponsors state that "In order to evaluate the larval transport/habitat mis-match hypothesis, we propose to conduct hydrographic surveys of the upper Roosevelt Reach to characterize geomorphology, substrate typology, and hydrology. Following data acquisition, we will subcontract the development of a hydrodynamic model, modeling of dynamic habitat conditions (velocity, depth, temperature) under various hydro-operation scenarios, and multivariate statistical analyses to determine relationships between habitat, hydro-operations, and historic recruitment." This is a large undertaking that will be mostly, if not totally subcontracted, yet no subcontractors are identified nor their methods described. This component should ideally be written up for this proposal by collaboration of the sponsor and a willing subcontractor. The same approach limitation occurs for the efforts to assess bioaccumulation of toxicants. No subcontractor is identified and no methods outlined. Reviewing the literature without outlining proposed methods in the proposal is not adequate. For the heavy metals assessment, a potential subcontractor is at least identified (USGS) although they provide no details, hypotheses, or methodologies.