FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200309300

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

1. Given the multiple studies that have been conducted on hooking mortality, discuss the potential for estimating losses in terms of existing mortality data rather than collecting more field data. For example, the proposal references a study on hooking mortality of recreationally caught fish on the Willamette. Why is this study not sufficient to answer the question about the effect of catch-and-release on spawning success? Using existing data and literature, suggest you establish best and worst case scenarios (for example pre-spawn mortality is twice as high as worst hooking mortality and equivalent to best survival rates). Then estimate the acceptability of hooking losses on different run sizes. This would enable some a priori hypotheses about the impacts of hooking mortality. The proposal does not address the fact that in low run years, sport harvest of wild and even hatchery fish may have far greater impact than on high run years. Thus, harvest should be keyed to a worst-case scenario and limited such that sufficient escapements occur, especially in low run years. Comments?
2. The proposal does not address whether mortality might vary by timing of the run. It assumes that mortality will be constant over time. Is this reasonable? Will the timing of tags allocated to the control fish be matched to the tagging of the angled fish? How will the tags be allocated through the season? In Task 1a, Methods states that fish length would be estimated to the nearest 10 cm. Is this correct and if so, what is the value of such a broad size range?
3. There will be concerns expressed about the use of selected anglers as opposed to the use of public anglers that may not handle the fish as carefully, etc. How will the anglers used be instructed to fish and what gear would be used? The length of time a fish is played and handled by experts and science techs may be less of an impact than inexperienced fisherman that take longer to handle and may grab fish by gills and flop it on the bank. How can the study control for differences between experiment and reality? How do you separate effect of tagging from angler handling when assessing post-release survival? It is not clear in the methods whether every sport caught fish would be tagged, or how the tagged fish would be chosen? Will this be a random selection process or will certain wounds be eliminated from the study?
4. The study has potential for coordination and cooperation from Law Enforcement perspectives and studies. For example, public outreach programs, publicity, tracking ultimate fate of fish. And catch and release of wild fish. Could you integrate efforts with Law Enforcement proposals?
5. Existing PIT tags from smolts may provide additional information upon return as adults. Discuss the potential value of this information.
6. Discuss the alternative value of live capture and spawning of some wild fish in the hatchery as opposed to release of wild fish. Are there some highly concentrated sport areas where wild caught fish could be taken live from anglers and transferred to hatchery? These anglers could be rewarded with money or receive two hatchery fish for one wild fish. This also could reap benefits in publicizing recovery and having the public actually have hands on support of such actions. It would also benefit some of the goals of the Law Enforcement programs of CRITFE.
7. If passage is an issue at the dams, receivers upstream and downstream could provide valuable information on time to pass, fall back etc. and potentially provide data as to whether fish delay passing ladders/dams after hooking. Cost for additional equipment and analysis might be very cost effective and could be coordinated via passage studies by U of Idaho.
8. Why are agencies using a variety of hook types in their regulations? Rationale? No analysis of different hook types was suggested. Are there no potential differences? Has this been studied.
9. Harvest can be selective if more fish are caught early or late in the run. Additionally, since run size is not confirmed until mid to late in the season, it seems that harvest should be more restrictive early in the run to assure escapement goals will be met, then allow more fishing mid run. If the runs follow bell shaped curves, harvest in the middle of the run will create "stabilizing selection" rather than "directional selection" of run-timing.
10. Water temperature is a key component of stress mortality. What temperature variations occur over the proposed time of the experiment? Should the experiment be restricted to conditions at or below 10 C or some comparable standard?
11. Run sizes are anticipated to be adequate for experiment, but no data are provided for comparison (top of page 7). What are the expected run sizes for 2000 outmigrants versus 1998-99?
12. Is the number of radio-tags sufficient? The sample sizes seemed small. The proposal refers to several classes of fish that would be considered in the analysis: marked vs. unmarked, size classes, sex and environmental conditions. There will be 100 sport tags allocated per year and only 50 controls. Given the number of categories potentially used in these analyses, how was a sample size of 100 tags determined? If there are widely distributed spawners, will there be no behavioral information for the time between catch and spawning.

Comment:

Comment:

Other concerns were:

• The proposal did not address whether mortality might vary by timing of the run. It assumes that mortality will be constant over time.
• Agencies impose unique gear requirements at different locations throughout the basin making it difficult if not impossible to extrapolate local results more broadly.
• Water temperature is a key component of stress mortality and will be different from the beginning to the end of the experiment and may vary from year to year. No experimental control for temperature and stress from angling were included in the design.

Comment:

Comments
The development and deployment of selective fisheries is called for in the BiOp (164), as is research to improve estimates of incidental mortalities (167). The use of MS-222 (an anesthetic not approved for immediate consumption) in close proximity to a consumptive fishery should be reconsidered.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments: