FY 2000 proposal 20063
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Effects of Catch and Release Angling on White Sturgeon |
| Proposal ID | 20063 |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia River Research Laboratory, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (USGS/IDFG) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Matthew G. Mesa, Michael J. Parsley |
| Mailing address | 5501A Cook-Underwood Rd. Cook, WA 98605 |
| Phone / email | 5095382299 / matt_mesa@usgs.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Snake Lower |
| Short description | Use physiological telemetry to monitor metabolic activity, determine energetic costs and assess stressful effects of catch and release angling on white sturgeon. |
| Target species | White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 8605000 |
White Sturgeon Mitigation and Restoration in the Columbia and Snake Rivers |
Equipment and expertise developed under 860500 project will be used in this proposed work. Fishery managers contemplating seasonal and area closures to angling will benefit from the proposed study. |
| 9700900 |
Evaluate Means of Rebuilding White Sturgeon Population in Lower Snake River |
Adaptive management to rebuild populations will benefit from knowing the effects of angling stress. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
IDFG - $22,440; USGS - $82,118 |
$104,558 |
| Fringe |
IDFG - $8,200; USGS - $23,814 |
$32,014 |
| Supplies |
IDFG - $1,500; USGS - $44,000 |
$45,500 |
| Operating |
IDFG - $3,000; USGS - $7,000 |
$10,000 |
| Travel |
IDFG - $2,000; USGS - $1,000 |
$3,000 |
| Indirect |
IDFG - $11,400; USGS - $60,014 |
$71,414 |
| Subcontractor |
University of Idaho |
$5,000 |
| $271,486 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $271,486 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $271,486 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| IDFG |
Field assistance, supervision |
$17,700 |
unknown |
| USGS |
Field station support |
$8,300 |
unknown |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fund in part
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Fund in part (catch and release portion only). Do not fund the laboratory components (Category 1b).
Comments:
This proposal would evaluate the effects of catch and release angling on the stress physiology, reproductive physiology, and mortality of white sturgeon in laboratory and field studies. The field component would use physiological telemetry techniques, based on "sonic or radio tags" surgically implanted. The laboratory phase of the research would develop relationships between physiological stress variables (measured in a swimming respirometer) with variables telemetered in the natural setting. Assessment of catch and release mortality of white sturgeon has apparently not been assessed and needs examination. Reviewers were concerned that the study design focuses on evaluation of physiological indicators of stresses in the lab and then (somehow) would extrapolate that to survival of fish under natural conditions. A few fish would be caught in the field, returned to the lab for tag implantation and then released apparently to monitor hooking effects. The panel felt that radiotracking could yield useful data on possible stress and mortality, but it would make much more sense to do this in location (say below Bonneville) where fish are more easily obtained. The physiology component, on the other hand, was much less favorably received. In particular, the proposed procedure to administer stressors to captive fish in the laboratory seems inappropriate (and would incur major logistic problems). Overall, the panel viewed the catch and release portion of the project favorably – so long as it were conducted at an alternative location (e.g., below Bonneville) where there are more fish. The information to be acquired from such a study could be highly useful in the regulatory environment, and in particular, for determining the extent to which controls on the recreational fishery are desirable or necessary.
This is a new proposal, for a project of duration five years. The proposal does not indicate a time line, so the panel was able to infer relative levels of effort only from the budget information, which seems to suggest that most of the laboratory and field work would be conducted in years 1-3. Given this limited information, it was not possible for the panel to determine whether the level of effort is appropriate.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Screening Criteria: no-It doesn't meet the intent of the measures in the F & W program. Addresses adequacy of existing fishing regulations. Technical Criteria: yes
Programmatic Criteria: no- It is not an urgent requirement for this population (does not resolve an immediate threat to the populations)
Milestone Criteria: no- This is a short lived research project.
General Comments: This could be an In lieu issue. This was an interesting and well-thought out proposal.
Recommendation:
Rank 32
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
Rank Comments:
Overall, the panel viewed the catch and release portion of the project favorably – so long as it were conducted at an alternative location (e.g., below Bonneville) where there are more fish.
Recommendation:
Rank 32
Date:
Oct 8, 1999
Comment:
Overall, the panel viewed the catch and release portion of the project favorably – so long as it were conducted at an alternative location (e.g., below Bonneville) where there are more fish.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting];