Contaminants, Age, and Growth Studies for Sturgeon in the Sacramento San Joaquin Bay Delta, CA | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) What is this grant opportunity?

This was a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) discretionary grant opportunity offered through the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPI) Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP). It supported a single, fixed-amount research project focused on sturgeon management and conservation in Californias Sacramento San Joaquin Bay Delta.

2) What is the main purpose of the award?

The core purpose was to generate practical, management-ready information on how environmental stressors and common research handling techniques may affect sturgeon growth, survival, and reproduction. The project was also intended to update age-and-growth benchmarks used by managers to assess population condition over time.

3) Which species are covered under this opportunity?

The opportunity focused on white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris).

4) What geographic area does the research need to address?

The work was specific to the Sacramento San Joaquin Bay Delta in California (the Bay-Delta).

5) What were the priority research needs or topics?

The priorities centered on three related study needs:

• Studies on how contaminants influence sturgeon growth and reproductive success.
• Evaluation of the biological effects of different fin ray removal methods, especially impacts on growth and survival.
• Updated age and growth information for Bay-Delta sturgeon, including explicit comparisons to results from other studies.

6) What kinds of environmental stressors were of concern?

The opportunity specifically highlighted contaminants and pollutant exposure in the Bay-Delta as a concern, due to the possibility that pollutants may reduce fitness or limit recovery.

7) Why did the grant focus on fin ray removal methods?

Fin ray removal is a common technique used for aging and sampling sturgeon. This opportunity sought to determine whether different fin ray removal methods affect growth and survival, helping ensure that monitoring methods are scientifically defensible and do not unintentionally harm the fish.

8) What did USFWS mean by producing management-ready information?

Based on the opportunity description, management-ready information means findings that can be used directly to improve management and conservation decisions, including updated benchmarks (such as age-and-growth) and practical conclusions about stressors and handling effects on sturgeon.

9) What did applicants need to include in their proposals?

Proposals were required to be structured and implementation-focused. Submissions needed to include:

• A proposed study design.
• A detailed methodology description.
• A feasibility discussion that covered the technical approach and permitting considerations.
• A budget broken out by task and by year.
• A timeline that assumed funding would be available on or before August 2011.
• Documentation of experience designing and carrying out similar studies.

10) What permitting considerations were expected to be addressed?

The announcement recognized that sturgeon work often involves state and federal permits and careful animal handling protocols. Applicants were expected to discuss permitting considerations as part of feasibility.

11) What were the expected deliverables?

The deliverables were clearly defined and included:

• A final report.
• A digital dataset.
• Photographs.
• Copies of relevant permits.

These deliverables were intended to ensure the project produced both narrative conclusions and usable underlying data for future management or analysis.

12) Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. Cost sharing or matching was not required. However, applicants could include cost share or in-kind contributions and were asked to specify the amount and source if they offered them.

13) How much funding was available?

The estimated total funding amount was $200,000.

14) How many awards were expected?

One award was expected.

15) What were the award ceiling and floor?

Both the award ceiling and floor were listed at $200,000, indicating a single, full-size award rather than multiple smaller grants.

16) What type of grant was this (competitive/discretionary and activity category)?

This was described as a discretionary grant in the Natural Resources activity category.

17) What is the Funding Opportunity Number and program identifier?

The Funding Opportunity Number was AFRP1103. It was associated with CFDA 15.648 (CVPI Anadromous Fish Restoration Program).

18) Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was listed as unrestricted (open to any type of entity), subject to any clarifications in the full announcement under eligibility details.

19) What experience did applicants need to demonstrate?

Applicants needed to document experience designing and carrying out similar studies so USFWS could assess the applicants ability to execute field sampling, laboratory analyses, and data interpretation at the necessary standard.

20) What was the required budget format?

The budget needed to be broken out by task and by year.

21) What was the expected project timing assumption for planning purposes?

The timeline needed to assume that funding would be available on or before August 2011.

22) When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?

It was posted on February 28, 2011, and closed on March 31, 2011.

23) When was the opportunity archived?

The archive date was April 30, 2011.

24) Who should be contacted for access issues related to the full announcement?

The listed contact for access issues was Dwight (Ike) Luginbill, Grants/Agreements Assistant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 209-946-6400 x340.

25) What were applicants expected to compare in the age-and-growth work?

Applicants were asked to produce current age and growth information for Bay-Delta sturgeon and explicitly compare those findings to results from other studies, to help distinguish recent trends from historical patterns and improve interpretation of monitoring datasets.

26) What does it mean that this was a single, fixed-amount grant opportunity?

Based on the provided details, it means the opportunity anticipated one award at a fixed amount of $200,000 (with the ceiling and floor both at $200,000), rather than a range of award sizes or multiple awards.