FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 21023

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:

This project proposes to add FWP funding to ongoing research on declines in mule deer populations. The project would complement existing research by testing a specific hypothesis on the causes of mule deer decline, which are of regional interest and importance. The proposed study has the potential to be important in addressing a reasonable but rarely considered hypothesis (that the population interaction between two apparent competitors, in this case mule deer and white-tailed deer, is in fact caused by a common predator, in this case cougars) and the proposal presents background data that strongly suggest that apparent competition is occurring. However, the study design and experimental methods are not clear in the proposal and should be better developed in a revised proposal or addendum. The proposal specifies two study areas, and that each area will contain a control and a treated site. The treated sites will have reduced white-tailed deer densities but we do not know what the changes will be, or when these will be made. Also, nothing is said about the effects (if any) of movement between the control and treated sites which could remove the treatment over time. There are potential statistical difficulties in the apparent design. For instance, the proposal implies that individuals will be used as samples (replicates) and the assumption of their independence needs to be justified, especially since the individuals to be studied will be drawn from what are described as 2 sample areas of each experimental treatment. There will be differences between control and treated areas irrespective of any treatment effects, so that the simple t-test types of analysis that are mentioned may not be sufficient for testing for treatment effects. Some sort of paired comparison analysis may be appropriate, but it is difficult to know without being sure of what the experimental design entails. If animals are to be considered independent samples, then the proposal should acknowledge that this involves pseudo-replication and requires some justification. Also, they should randomly select the two sites for 'treatment', i.e. white tail removal. It is stated that 50 adults and 50 fawns in each of the four control and treated areas is a more than adequate number to test for ecologically significant effects, with no justification for this statement and no indication of what ecologically significant means. For survival differences it seems that these sample sizes might be insufficient to get good power to detect important changes. With cougars the sample size will be 10 in each of the four control and treated areas. This sample size is said to be more than sufficient, and an unpublished report is referenced (Katnik and Wielgus, 2000). Again, more details are needed to know whether a study with these sample sizes has good power to detect the types of effects that are likely to occur. Many other details of sample design and justification also need to be supplied: What is the size of the treatment and control areas? How are they located relative to one another? How will areas be assigned to treatments? What type of movement of predator and prey occurs between adjacent treatment and control areas, and how will differences in these rates of movement be tested for significance after the treatment is completed? Is five years sufficient to test for predator and prey responses? Are habitat differences controlled? Will the number of observations be sufficient to test the hypotheses? Also, the details of how cougars are to be tracked until two kills are not clear: how are individuals chosen for tracking? How are they followed? How successful is the technique, on average? Are the procedures free of sampling bias?

The proposal should include assurance that animal care and use guidelines will be followed.

Comment:

T5-The proposed work is research/assessment oriented thus target species/indicator populations would not benefit from the work. However, results from the studies could lead to the development of M&E plans from which the species/populations could benefit

T6-The proposed work is research/assessment oriented. Until results are obtained through the assessment and an M&E plan is developed and implemented, it is unknown whether the long-term benefits will be realized.

T7-one objective is to shot whitetail deer

M2-The proposed work is not associated with an urgent issue involving a listed (i.e., sensitive threatened, endangered) species. However, for many of the projects urgency does exist in the form of mitigation opportunities.

M3-Project does not directly promote/maintain sustainable and/or ecosystem processes or maintain desirable community diversity. However, data gathered through this project could be used for these purposes.

M5-more coordination with tribe and state before work can be conducted

M6-depends on results,

FY 01 Budget Review Comments: DNF-inappropriate for BPA to fund due to the fact that it is a predation study dealing with cougars and mule deer -this predation is not a result of hydro-development, dry farming is not a result of hydro-development

Comment:

The bottom line from a design point of view is that there are repeated measurements over years on two blocks (pairs) with no replication within the blocks, i.e., a repeated measures randomized block design with 2 blocks that requires the assumption of no block by treatment interaction. The data can be analyzed with the replicate study areas (N=2) because of the random assignment of treatment to units as recognized by the author in the first paragraph of the section 'Cougar Aggregative Response.' The design is adequate as given, but the authors need to revisit the issue of statistical analysis and the assumption of independence of actions among animals. Any analysis that treats individual deer or lions as replicates should be acknowledged as pseudoreplicated and the outcome compared with analysis as described above. We disagree with CBFWA's recommendation to fund project 21029 but not this project. Of the two, which together could make a nice multi-factor study of mule deer ecology, 21023 is the better proposal, having both stronger and more compelling technical background and more clear and adequate experimental design and sampling methods.

Comment:

Staff recommendation:

Request Bonneville to work with the sponsors to develop a combined proposal responsive to the ISRP review. Reserve an initial annual budget of $250,000 for the combined proposals (with the ability to return to the Quarterly Review process for adjustments) and report to the Council staff on the completion of the project design before contracting any work for either of the proposals.

Comment: