FY 1999 proposal 9111

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
9111 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Evaluate Effects of Food Web Changes on Native Fish Restoration Strategies
Proposal ID	9111
Organization	Flathead Lake Biological Station (FLBS), The University of Montana
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr. Jack Stanford
Mailing address	311 Biostation Lane Polson, MT 59860-9659
Phone / email	4069823301 / stanford@selway.umt.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Upper Columbia / Flathead
Short description	Research critical structuring/limiting foodweb interactions where hydroelectric operations and exotic species introductions are causing declines in native fishes in spite of traditional mitigation efforts.
Target species

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9101903		Coordination, sample collection, equipment sharing
9101901	Hungry Horse Mitigation	Coordination, sample collection, equipment sharing
9101904	Hungry Horse Mitigation - Supplementation	Monitoring

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost
Personnel		$270,021
Fringe		$78,660
Supplies		$52,000
Operating		$10,000
Capital		$169,600
Travel		$36,310
Indirect		$117,999
Subcontractor	Larval Fish Laboratory of Colorado State University; Utah Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research Unit	$269,736
Other		$19,411
Other		$19,411
		$1,043,148

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$1,043,148
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$1,043,148
FY 1999 forecast from 1998	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments

Recommendation:
Not fundable

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Presentation: The project sponsor did not give a presentation.

Questions/Concerns:

Does project address a specific measure in the Council's Program?

What is linkage between this and developing a fisheries?

The Flathead Lake system is in a constant state of flux and the sponsor proposes to collect data for 2 years and then create a model. How will the model have predictive power in future if the 2 years of data are based on a constantly fluctuating system?

Project appears to lack top-down information on water quality and the food web. Research like this has been done before in other systems.

Screening Criteria: No

Technical Criteria: No. This appears to be a Flathead Lake research project with limited links to hydropower impacts. Some tasks seem inappropriate and have excessive budgets.

Programmatic Criteria: No. Project does not meet criteria 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

See CBFWA Committee Comments

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Not Reviewed; Scientific Peer Review Group Evaluation: Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

This proposal was reviewed solely by the Scientific Peer Review Group rather than by ISRP members because the principal investigator had been an ISAB/ISRP member and the ISRP wished to avoid any conflict of interest. The Scientific Peer Review Group rated the proposal highly. They found the proposal to be outstanding with direct ties to the goals of the Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program. The objectives are clear, the experimental design is sound, and the rationale is well presented. The proposal is very detailed; however, some major, indeed sweeping, statements are unsubstantiated, and some of these may also be unsubstantiable. For example, on p. 7 it is claimed that "Flathead Lake...in many respects...functions in a similar manner to the lower Columbia oceanic-riverine system." This finding is not referenced. Also on page 7, there is no reference or other evidence presented for the assertion that the various environmental perturbations mentioned "interact synergistically with introduced species to stress native fish species in the Flathead basin and throughout the Columbia River system." To invoke synergism seems to be an overstatement for what may (absent evidence) really be a more chaotic situation. The proposal lists a fine staff of researchers, but their FTEs are not shown. These individuals surely have major responsibilities for teaching and for other research projects, so how much time can they really spend on this very demanding project? Is the schedule reasonable?