FY 2001 Intermountain proposal 200103400
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 |
|---|---|
| 21029 Narrative | Narrative |
| 21029 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Intermountain: Columbia Upper Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Intermountain: Columbia Upper Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | A cooperative approach to identifying the role of forage quality in affecting physical condition….of mule deer in north central Washington. |
| Proposal ID | 200103400 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Rob Wielgus |
| Mailing address | 8702 N Division Spokane, WA 99218 |
| Phone / email | 5094562823 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | John Pierce, WDFW Chief Wildlife Scientist |
| Review cycle | Intermountain |
| Province / Subbasin | Intermountain / Inter-Mountain |
| Short description | We are proposing a cooperative, five-year research investigation involving the WDFW, the lead agency, and Washington State University (WSU), a collaborating agency, to assess the role of habitat in maintaining mule deer numbers. |
| Target species | Mule Deer |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.43 | -118.12 | Columbia Upper subbasin |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Captured and instrumented deer with radio-collars under the Cooperative Mule Deer Project |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Cooperative Mule Deer Project | Direct |
| 0 | Cougar Mortality-Testing reduction hypothesis | Data sharing |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1: Determine the effects of digestible energy intake and body fat composition on lactation, calf growth, and estrus in mule deer by December 2005. | Task 1, 2, 3 | 5 | $113,650 | |
| Objective 2: Develop quantitative body condition and reproductive indices for mule deer that may be applied in the field to assess body condition on live, free-ranging animals by December 2005. | Tasks 1, 2, 3 | 4 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $64,500 | $87,100 | $83,500 | $50,700 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 3: By 2005, assess the habitat quality and potential of seasonal ranges for quality to meet the nutritional needs of lactating female mule deer, influence reproduction, and provide general seasonal nutrition requirements of mule deer. | 1-4 | 5 | $6,000 | |
| Objective 4: Assess relationships between BCI, mule deer recruitment and survival, causes of mortality, habitat condition, and competition with sympatric ungulates at the landscape level. | 1-5 | 5 | $14,000 | |
| Objective 5: Develop project and landscape level management/land treatment recommendations, in 2005, that enhance mule deer ranges and increase mule deer productivity and carrying capacity. | 1 | $0 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $20,000 | $20,000 | $20,000 | $25,700 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1.35 | $48,550 |
| Fringe | $4,170 | |
| Supplies | $80,430 | |
| Travel | $500 | |
| $133,650 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $133,650 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $133,650 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WDFW | Staff time, flight time, etc. | $22,000 | cash |
| WSU | Staff time | $2,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable, but only if the response provides more details on field methods and sources and uses of other funding. These should be clearly specified or summarized and references cited.This proposal presents good scientific background and justification for the work, relating it well to the sub-basin plans and the FWP. The project should have good long-term benefits for mule deer. The project has good information transfer plans, in particular the synthesis of project findings into prescriptions for mule deer management plans, and the two PIs doing the lab work have produced many widely-cited and widely-applied publications. The work is likely to be done well as evidence by the investigators' previous work. This project complements an ongoing cooperative project being conducted outside FWP funding, though the proposal is short on detail about the cooperative project.
The response should clearly identify the distinctions and complementarity between it and 21023. There are apparent overlaps in both project scope and some tasks. For instance, Task 3 of Objective 4 apparently includes project 21023. Will the sample areas be the same? Are there possibilities for the two projects to produce synergistic results?
More information on sample design should be presented, in particular the spatial sampling scheme (e.g., where are sample sites located and how are they chosen for study?) and statistical justification for the sample size. There is no justification for any sample sizes such as would normally be required on a study involving human patients. In some cases sample sizes are not even mentioned (e.g., for estimating the survival rates of radio-marked deer. What evidence is there that the sample sizes are sufficient to meet the objectives of the study? A sampling plan for collecting fecal pellets and forage samples should be presented and justified.
More detail on statistical analysis should be presented for each task. Additionally, it is stated that analysis of variance and analysis of covariance will be used for analyzing the feeding trials. Growth data may need some special treatment here rather than what is in the standard statistical packages.
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 benefitT6-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.
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.
Comment:
Fund, but only if clear and adequate design specifications are established for the field component during the Council review or BPA contracting process. The field portion of this proposal suffers from the same problem of pseudoreplication as does Project #21023. The ISRP supports large field experiments of this type, and accepts that large-scale field studies should not be held to the same design standards as are laboratory studies. However, the ISRP notes that individual animals are not independent replications of the treatments in this study. Large-scale field studies are a mixture of experimental and observational study that can lead to trustworthy inferences if replicated in time and space, as in #21023. The use of individual deer as the sample size is not justified by the design, but by assumption, and these assumptions may be incorrect. Deer are themselves not the subject of treatment. For instance, all deer in one area may simply be more (or less) susceptible to limited forage because of isolated snowstorms or other unmeasured factors. The bottom line from a design point of view is that there are repeated measurements over years on apparently two study areas (control and treatment), i.e., a repeated measures observational study with no replication. 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 as replicates should be acknowledged as pseudoreplicated. Also, the author did not adequately ensure unbiased field sampling procedures for collection of fecal pellet sample and forage samples, and the spatial arrangement of locations for radio tagging or collection of animals was not adequately addressed. Some of the responses concerning statistical analysis are naïve, but would be easily fixed with a senior level biometrician as a team member.We disagree with CBFWA's suggestion that tasks be transferred from 21023 to 21029 unless the project sponsor of 21029 agrees fully with this and is included as a subcontractor in the budget. The transfer of parts of a project without free consent of the project's director would be a major violation of intellectual property rights and such practice of idea-stripping could have severe negative long-term effects on the quality of science produced under BPA funding. Further, the technical background in both proposals suggests that this project should not proceed without 21023, because project 21023 provides strong, though indirect, evidence that a predator is a key factor in the decline of mule deer.
Comment:
The ISRP strongly disagrees with the CBFWA recommendations for two research proposals for mule deer populations. CBFWA recommended priority for proposal 21029, a five-year study of forage quality as a factor in declining mule deer populations. CBFWA gave a "do not fund" recommendation to proposal 21023 which proposes an experiment to test whether competition and predation are factors in the population decline. The ISRP said that proposal 21023 is a "better proposal" and should be funded with or before proposal 21029. Further, the ISRP strongly disagreed with CBFWA's proposal that elements of proposal 21023 be funded under proposal 21029. The ISRP said that transferring tasks from one proposal to another, without the free consent of the project director, would be a "major violation of intellectual property rights" and compromise the integrity of Bonneville-funded research.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:
Comment:
Increase costs associated with lost cost share for vehicles (state vehicle pool).Comment:
The amount authorized & expended for FY 2003 is incorrect. An additional $22,500 was authorized & allocated for FY 2003 for 4*4 vehicle operations (gas) and maintenance (oil, minor repairs). We cannot conduct field operations without working vehicles. In the original proposal & budget, WDFW was supposed to provide vehicles as well as their operations & maintenance and this was done for the 1st year of the project in FY 2002 (see FY inaccuracies below). The state budget crisis in FY 2003 resulted in WDFW having to suspend our vehicle operations & maintenance allocation & to transfer these costs to the project. As a result, the budget & allocation for FY 2003 was increased by $22,500 to allow us to run the vehicles. Continuing state budget shortfalls will not allow WDFW to provide vehicle gas & repairs for FY 2004, 2005, and 2006. We request that the allocations for those years be increased to $272,500, as was previously done for FY 2003. Contributions to the project by WDFW exceed $500,000 in total - so they are still a major collaborator & contributor to the project. The FY dates are incorrect. The project did not start, as proposed & planned, in FY 2001 because of BPA administrative funding delays. No funding was provided in FY 2001. The project began in FY 2002. We are currently completing year 2 (completion in Aug 15, 2003) in this 5 year project. The project should run until FY 2006 (not FY 2005) because of the 1st year delay. This update is revised late because this file was not sent to the correct project sponsor (R. Wielgus- WSU) until 07/15/03. The file was incorrectly emailed to a sub-contractor (W. Meyers- WDFW) who was in the field.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $250,000 | $250,000 | $250,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website