FY 2000 proposal 20076
Contents
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 |
---|---|
20076 Narrative | Narrative |
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Diet, Distribution & Life History of Neomysis Mercedis in John Day Pool |
Proposal ID | 20076 |
Organization | Unviersity of Montana (UMT) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Jack Stanford |
Mailing address | Flathead Lake Biological Station, 311 Biostation Lane Polson, MT 59860-9659 |
Phone / email | 4069823301 / stanford@selway.umt.edu |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
Short description | Quantify key variables describing the ecology of the exotic mysid Neomysis mercedis that has recently invaded mainstem Columbia reservoirs. Determine the potential N. mercedis has for negatively affecting food web structure in the Columbia River. |
Target species | Neomysis mercedis |
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 |
---|---|---|
9101901 | Mysis relicta research on Flathead Lake by CS and K tribes | Similar Mysis relicta work conducted on Flathead by CSKT will allow Neomysis mercedis investigations in mainstem Columbia to be placed in a regional and ecological context. Studies will augment each other. |
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 | $72,297 | |
Fringe | $27,601 | |
Supplies | $18,200 | |
Operating | $700 | |
Travel | $5,617 | |
Indirect | $46,743 | |
Subcontractor | Energetic analyses | $5,000 |
$176,158 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost | $176,158 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2000 budget request | $176,158 |
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: No foreseen constraints
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. Priority of the project depends on the level of Neomysis mercedis invasion basinwide, which is not explained, nor does the proposal describe a means of determining it.Comments: The focus of this proposal may be one of many key limiting factors on juvenile survival in the, however the proposal's relationship to the Fish and Wildlife Program is tenuous. The magnitude of the Neomysis problem within the John Day reservoir and among other reservoirs in the system will determine the importance and implications of this proposed work. Consequently, the proposers could have made this proposal better connected to the system as a whole.
The concept is interesting, and the investigator is highly qualified. We note that the study focuses on a question whether Neomysis has a potential for negatively affecting the food web structure in the Columbia River. We see no provision in the proposal for describing the overall food web. There have been several studies of plankton communities in mainstem reservoirs, such as Kootenay and Arrow Lakes (Lisa Thompson, Carl Walters, UBC), Lake Roosevelt and Rufus Woods Lake (above Wells Dam), which might have been cited. Mysis relicta, a related species that causes problems, has been reported there. Further, it would seem that food habit studies of juvenile salmon conducted by personnel at the Cook Laboratory of the USGS would be relevant in this connection, but these are not cited. Benthic sampling techniques described in the proposal are novel but not well justified and may be inappropriate (e.g. video camera observations on behavior).
Comment:
Comment:
Mainstem food webs may be important. Consider some research as "Innovative," however, this study may be too narrow. Not tied to salmon diet.Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? Inc - Proposal is based on "potential" food web problems, no convincing data to suggest such a problem is likely.Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? Yes - No potential management application.
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes - Study is possible, but Neomysis is probably not manageable since it is a deep water species.
Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -
Comment:
Rank Comments: This proposal is for collection of important basic information on the recent invasion of neomysis into the mainstem Columbia reservoirs. The project would have systemwide significance, because potentially, migrating anadromous species must compete for food with this species.Comment:
This proposal is for collection of important basic information on the recent invasion of neomysis into the mainstem Columbia reservoirs. The project would have systemwide significance, because potentially, migrating anadromous species must compete for food with this species.Fund as innovative
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
27. Projects recommended by ISRP, but rated tier 2 or tier 3 by CBFWA/Innovative projects.There are two groups of projects that the Council considered for funding. First, the ISRP recommended projects for funding that were rated as either tier 2 or tier 3 by CBFWA (the "elevated projects"). Two law enforcement projects were added to this "elevated" list because they did not receive a funding recommendation from CBFWA, but were rated as "fund" by the ISRP. The second group of projects are those that the ISRP identified in its report as "innovative" and offering promising new techniques or approaches (the "innovative projects").
All of the projects that the ISRP found to be "innovative" (and also meeting the scientific review standards) were included in first list of "elevated" projects by the ISRP. The Council itself did not combine the project lists.
In past reports, the ISRP has expressed concern that new and innovative project proposals were not receiving sufficient attention in the funding process. Two years ago, the Council created a targeted request for proposals process for certain areas of interest that had not otherwise received funding recommendations, and a relatively small amount of funding was provided for qualifying projects. The Fiscal Year 2000 solicitation for proposals indicated that an "innovative proposal fund" would be established to support new initiatives of this type.
However, no criteria were specified for "innovative" proposals and most new projects were not proposed as "innovative." The Council requested that the ISRP prioritize the list of "elevated" projects (42 total). The Council also asked the ISRP to consider four specific criteria in its rankings. They were asked to determine if the project: 1) dealt with an unimplemented program area; 2) improves existing projects; 3) has systemwide significance; and 4) advances critical watershed assessment work. The ISRP ranked the projects from 1 to 42 based on their assessment of the overall worth of each project and indicated which of the criteria were met by each. The Council reviewed the ranked list of 42 projects, and determined that it would not recommend funding for all of them. The Council established $2 million as a planning target for funding projects on this list. In order to bring discipline to the selection process, the Council decided what type of projects it wanted to recommend the limiting funding for. The Council determined that it wished to focus on research-oriented projects that the ISRP found to be innovative, and also met two or more of the four criteria identified above (as determined by the ISRP). At the February 1, 2000 work session meeting in Portland, the Council recommended possible funding for eleven projects from the list of 42 elevated projects. Those projects are:
20045, 20057, 20034, 20102, 20106, 9803500, 20064, 20006, 20067, 20076, and 20054.
Review of the ISRP rankings shows that only these projects were identified by the ISRP as fulfilling an unimplemented program area and having systemwide significance. These 11 projects were mainly in the upper half of the overall ranking; the lowest-ranked project on the list ranks 24 out of 42. All 11 projects are research-oriented and, by definition, fulfill part of our current fish and wildlife program and have importance for the system as a whole. The Council found that this seems a reasonable subset of projects to be funded as "innovative."
The Council has previously indicated its desire to cover all of the initial costs for "innovative" projects at the time they are selected, allowing a new competition for funding of innovative projects to be held each year without creating a burden on future years' budgets. Unfortunately, the proposed budgets for these eleven projects, over the next four years, would exceed $8 million. (The budgets for the first four projects alone would exceed $4 million.) Rather than fully fund a few projects, the Council's proposal is to provide initial funding for preliminary research, prototyping, and proof of concept for all 11 projects. Specifically, the proposal is to offer each project $200,000 (or the amount initially requested by the sponsor if that amount is less than $200,000), for a total of $2,119,000. After completion of the initial work and a final report on that work, project sponsors would be free to seek additional funding as a part of the regular project selection process.
While $200,000 is much less than the sum requested for most of these projects, it is still a substantial amount by the standards of most research grants and should lead to meaningful results. This approach also allows us to gain further information on the value of research before making a large, long-term investment.
Project sponsors designated to receive this funding are being asked to prepare a revised plan of work reflecting the reduced funding. The revised plan would be reviewed by Council staff and the chairman of the ISRP to assure that the revised plan still represents valuable research that is consistent with the proposal originally reviewed by the ISRP. In summary, the staff proposal is as follows:
- Fund only the 11 projects identified by the ISRP meeting as both fulfilling an unimplemented area of the Council program and having systemwide significance.
- Offer each of these 11 projects $200,000 (or the amount requested if less than $200,000).
- Review by ISRP chair and Council staff of a revised plan for each project to assure that proposed work is valuable research consistent with the original proposal.
- Require final report to be submitted before project can apply for additional funding.
- Projects funded within this project category may not reapply in subsequent years for funding under the "innovative" category, which the Council expects to explicitly develop for future project solicitations but may apply for additional funding within the regular project selection process
After the Council and ISRP representatives review the revised plans for the eleven projects noted above, and confirm that valuable innovative research can be conducted and reported under the funding and other conditions discussed above, the Council will advise Bonneville under separate cover of its final recommendations for these projects. The Council anticipates that it can provide final recommendations for these projects to Bonneville in late March. Bonneville should refer to that separate letter on this issue for the final Council recommendations on these projects.
Note: Unless the context indicates otherwise, "fund" means that the Council would recommend to the Bonneville Power Administration that a project be funded. The Council's fish and wildlife program is established by statute for implementation by Bonneville, and the Council itself does not directly fund fish and wildlife mitigation. However, in recent years, Bonneville has followed the Council recommendations closely.
Comment:
[Decision made in 2-2-00 Council Meeting]; Eligible for $200,000 as an innovative projectComment:
Comment: