06/20/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Category Category Ranking Ranking Applicant Protect Requested Funding Running Total Cost Share h as MatcProjectTotal % of Total Project Comments AVG SD Match Project host 1. ID of phytoplankton is needed but I think it may be a stretch to say it will Developing novel DNA 1 tmpmve WD. It may only Improve our response to problems. 2. High value, Science b Smithsonian Marine sequencing high risk proposal; success of novel approach could advance algal bloom Technology 12 SL Station plications to identity $ 45,807.00 $ 882,213.32 $ 26,675.00 37% $ 72,482.00 research; addresses major technical challenges facing algal bloom research,78.8 di downside: 4.7 harmful algae in the Needs longtime frame for validalon. 3. The proposed approach' th IRL holds considerable promise for accelerating the identification of key phytoptankton, but the speed of our response is not as big an issue as the shortage of resource to sample rigorously. 1. Values for %N removed are for rain events in mid-Atlantic unlike what are experienced in Florida. May not work well under heavy summer rains or only work as well as passive systems. I like this project but would be more confortable seeing this In with other slormwater projects. 2. Valuable proof of concept broad lagoon efficiency value and Increased ociency for nutrient Brevard County ContinFAoniti Continuous arng reduction In existing systems. Strong proposal, high value. 3. The suite of Science& Natural Resources and Adaptive Control parameters being measured Is limited, with other forms of nitrogen and some Technology 13 B Management (CMAC) Retrofits for $ 128,732.00 $ 1,010,945.32 $ 181,474.00 59% $ 310206.00 measure of phosphorus being recommended. This project also would benefit 78.8 8.6 Department Water Quality m from explicit before -after sampling or an attempt to sample a reference Brevard County system. In either case, the project would remain pseudoreplicated, which means analysis of data and interpretation of results must be done carefully, i.e., this Is not a valid test of the null hypothesis that the automated system has no effect(s). It can be a valid way to look for patterns In states and rates that appear to be related to the system, but those results should not be considered rigorous evidence of causation. 1. Interesting study. A lot of collaboration. Great benefit to understanding Using acoustic grouper fishery but this should stay in FWC's court. Not much benefit to IRL Florida Fish and telemetry 16 assess ecosystem issues. 2. Love this project bud not sure based on Science & Wildlife Conservation habitat use of juvenile nuldent/habital focus. Critically endangered species and should be looked at Technology 14 14 M Commission, Fish and Goliath Grouper in $ 58,214.91 $ 1,069,160.23 $ 19,539.12 25% $ 77.754.03 M the IRL. Habitat connection could have been a 78.5 3.0 Research mangrove nursery Although an Important species, work on grouper doe not match the highhest Institute habitats of the Indian priority issue facing the lagoon at this time. For example, If poor water quality River Lagoon degrades habitats juvenile grouper will not have a home. Perhaps, funds from FFWCC could be allocated to offset costs. Predicting the filtering 1. Is it scalable? Would have to be stated up to have significant impact. 2. Science 8 Florida Institute of capacity of benthic Ten Shells? Is this enough? Question about rigor of experimental design. 3. Technology 15 B Technology communities as part o $ 58,760.00 $ 1,127,920.23 $ 26,061.00 31% S 84,821.00 Similar work in the past has failed to live up to the promised delivery. We 75.0 6.2 a'Uving Dock" in the have some Information on gra" by fouling communities, so this project Indian River Lagoon does not meet a high priority need.