FY 1999 proposal 9134

Additional documents

TitleType
9134 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEffects of Catch & Release Angling and Exhaustive Stress on White Sturgeon
Proposal ID9134
OrganizationU.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS - CRRL)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMatthew G. Mesa
Mailing address5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605
Phone / email5095382299 / matt_mesa@usgs.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionUse physiological telemetry to monitor metabolic activity, determine energetic costs, and assess stressful effects of catch and release angling and exhaustive stress in white sturgeons.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel $75,492
Fringe $21,137
Supplies $44,000
Travel $8,000
Indirect $56,479
Subcontractor $0
$205,108
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$205,108
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$205,108
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: It will likely be necessary to have objective 1 mostly complete before commencing objectives 2 and 3. Any delays to objective 1 will cause delays in other objectives. To put the complete focus on objective 1 during the first year, objective 4 will be delayed one year.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Not fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: Why should BPA fund this research? Because the sturgeon populations are in poor shape due to hydropower development and the current management action (catch-and-release) is designed to protect the populations. Sturgeon support the largest sport fishery in the basin. Catch-and-release is a tool to help protect the populations but we don't know enough about its effects. It is hard to tell if we are actually conserving the population. A report from the Hells Canyon reach discussed stress on sturgeon. The information collected during this study would feed into a bioenergetics model and (Objectives 1 and 2 – swimming performance, metabolic rate) and also provide information needed to consider sturgeon passage at the dams. In Canada and Idaho, angling for Kootenai sturgeon has been banned due to concern about its effects on populations. We don't know the effect of catch-and-release fishing but we are managing the fish as if we do know.

Questions/Answers:

If this is a high priority, why isn't it part of project 8605000? Answer: This project will benefit a variety of people. We were asked to separate the tasks and this study is not within the scope of 8605000.

Some sturgeon have already been tagged in Hells Canyon. Does that information indicate a problem? Wouldn't there be evidence if fish were detrimentally affected? Answer: Fishing usually occurs in deep water and the carcasses may not be observed, particularly if death is delayed. Washington does annual carcass surveys and appears to find low numbers; but how many is too many? We also want to look at the effects of catch-and-release on reproduction but it is difficult to do.

The indirect costs seem high. How much of the budget is going to indirects? Answer: 38% is not that high, it covers personnel and equipment. We are told to charge that rate.

Screen Criteria: No. Catch-and release fishing is a management call. This project doesn't meet a specific Council Measure.

Technical Criteria: No. Given habitat the constraints on white sturgeon it is doubtful that catch-and-release stress is the weak link in sturgeon reproduction.

Programmatic Criteria: No. The proposal failed to meet all of the criteria except 15.

General Comment: There is not mitigative relief from catch-and-release stress. It is the responsibility of managers to initiate and fund this.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

See CBFWA Committee Comments
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This is a well-written proposal for well-justified work. However, the experimental design for the laboratory work is not well explained. In addition, the proposal describes little interaction with other sturgeon studies in the basin (and could do it). It could provide the DNA samples for 9084. This proposal highlights the need for coordination of sturgeon work in the basin.