FY 2000 proposal 20054

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

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Availability of appropriate fish for testing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This new proposal is an innovative, experimental approach to directly examining the effect of turbulence on fish. The proponent has access to a unique engineering facility (in Massachusetts) through which they propose to construct a test apparatus and test the biological response of fish to varying levels of turbulence. The proposal indicates that construction and testing will be completed within one year and that the test apparatus will be modular for transport. Initial biological tests would not involve Pacific salmonids but the apparatus could be moved if species specific differences are observed. However, the reviewers identified several concerns about the proposal.

The proponent does not provide a convincing case that turbulence is likely the main, or even a major, cause of mortality, relative to other possible explanations. Other potential sources of injury/mortality should be identified and discussed. The scientific design is not sufficiently described to allow full evaluation, and the proposed activities are not clearly aligned to achieve the objectives. The measurables and monitoring plan are not identified in sufficient detail to fully evaluate. Many critical components (e.g. design of equipment that will be used to assess swim performance of fish) are not described in sufficient detail. The method, which will be used to determine the effects of turbulence on susceptibility to predation, is not described. The proposal does not explain how one of the most important effects of turbulence (duration of exposure) will be examined. No details are provided concerning the numbers of sizes of fish that might be used in proposed experiments.

It is questionable that all the proposed objectives can actually be accomplished in one year. Objective 1, – assess state-of-the-art in turbulence studies – should have been carried out prior to proposal submission. Typically, one assumes that a PI is aware of the current state-of-the-art in his or her specialized field.

Some concern was expressed about the use of species other than Pacific salmonids, but these comparisons could be undertaken later if the apparatus and methods proved informative. The specific species that would be examined in East Coast settings would not include Pacific salmon. Instead, the author proposes use of eels, American shad and blueback herring that would surely be of much less interest to BPA. Essentially no references are provided.

If this project is supported by BPA, then it is recommended that only the first two phases be funded initially (in depth literature review and report, and detailed design of the test apparatus and overall experimental design). Additional funding should not be provided for construction or testing of the test equipment until the above are completed and fully evaluated.

In support of the proposal, the lead PI seems to possess relevant credentials to carry out such research (see 1997 "Reviews in Fisheries Science" article). If he were to actively collaborate with a Pacific salmon biologist, he might carry out some interesting and useful research. No such effort at collaboration is evident in their proposal. This is an important area to research, however, the proposed costs appear very high relative to the deliverables.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? Yes -

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? Yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? Yes -

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

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: