Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, Californian CESU | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is this grant opportunity?

This was a Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) grant opportunity under the Californian CESU, Funding Opportunity Number G16AS00060. It was a U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Western Ecological Research Center funding call to support applied conservation research in the Sierra Nevada.

What conservation problem was the funding designed to address?

The grant focused on a specific management challenge affecting amphibian recovery: predation by resident mountain gartersnakes (Thamnophis elegans elegans) on reintroduced mountain yellow-legged frogs (Rana sierrae and Rana muscosa).

What was the core goal of the project?

The core goal was to improve understanding of the predator-prey relationship between mountain gartersnakes and reintroduced mountain yellow-legged frogs, and to use that information to reduce the threat snakes can pose to frog reintroduction efforts. The ultimate intent was to strengthen recovery actions for these federally listed Endangered amphibians.

Which frog species were included in the scope?

The opportunity referenced two mountain yellow-legged frog species: Rana sierrae and Rana muscosa.

Why are mountain yellow-legged frogs a recovery priority in this context?

The opportunity was rooted in the well-documented decline of mountain yellow-legged frogs due to two major pressures: (1) historical trout introductions into naturally fishless alpine lakes that altered food webs and increased predation pressure on frogs, and (2) the emergence and spread of the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), a highly lethal amphibian pathogen that caused severe population crashes and complicated natural recovery.

How does this grant connect to translocation and reintroduction efforts?

Because many frog populations are now small, isolated, or extirpated, translocation and reintroduction have become key tools in recovery planning. USGS noted that some reintroduction efforts have failed at least in part due to predation by mountain gartersnakes, making predator dynamics a practical bottleneck even when habitat and disease factors are addressed.

What types of activities were supported under this project scope?

The scope called for field and analytical support intended to directly inform management decisions, including surveys of mountain yellow-legged frogs, surveys of mountain gartersnakes, and experimental translocations of mountain gartersnakes to test whether moving snakes (and under what conditions) can reduce predation pressure on reintroduced frogs and improve establishment success.

What did the frog surveys aim to measure or assess?

The frog survey component was described as supporting assessments of distribution, status, and outcomes of reintroduction for mountain yellow-legged frogs.

What did the gartersnake surveys aim to measure or assess?

The gartersnake survey component was intended to help understand predator presence and abundance at relevant sites where frog reintroductions occur or are planned.

What were the experimental snake translocations intended to test?

The experimental translocations of mountain gartersnakes were intended to test whether moving snakes, and under what conditions, can reduce predation pressure on reintroduced frogs and improve frog establishment success.

Was the opportunity focused on basic research or applied management outcomes?

The opportunity emphasized applied research tied to a specific conservation problem and was designed to produce actionable guidance for planning and executing frog reintroductions in areas where mountain gartersnakes are part of the native community.

What deliverables were expected beyond fieldwork?

In addition to field operations, the award supported downstream scientific deliverables including assistance with data analysis and the preparation of reports and manuscripts, reflecting an expectation that results would be translated into management guidance as well as publishable science.

Which agency and office issued the funding call?

The funding call was issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), specifically the Western Ecological Research Center.

What type of award instrument was anticipated?

The opportunity was designed to fund a CESU partner through a cooperative agreement, emphasizing collaboration and substantial involvement with USGS.

What does it mean that this was a cooperative agreement in this notice?

Based on the notice description, the cooperative agreement structure emphasized collaboration and substantial involvement with USGS in carrying out the project.

How many awards were expected?

The listing indicated one expected award.

What was the maximum funding amount available (award ceiling)?

The award ceiling listed for this opportunity was $109,420.

How was the opportunity categorized administratively?

Administratively, it was described as a discretionary funding opportunity in the Science and Technology and other Research and Development category, under CFDA 15.808.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was limited to a CESU partner under the Californian CESU. The listing showed eligibility as “Others” and directed applicants to additional eligibility details in the full notice.

When was the opportunity posted and when did it close?

The opportunity was posted on April 27, 2016 (and created the same day), and it closed on May 13, 2016. The original and current closing dates were the same.

Where was the work geographically focused?

The applied conservation problem and management context were focused on the Sierra Nevada.

What practical management issue was USGS trying to solve through this funding?

The practical issue highlighted was that some frog reintroductions failed, at least in part, because mountain gartersnakes preyed on reintroduced frogs. The grant aimed to identify why introductions fail in these circumstances and refine reintroduction protocols to account for predator effects.

How were project results intended to be used?

Results were intended to produce actionable guidance for planning and executing frog reintroductions in landscapes where mountain gartersnakes can significantly influence outcomes, alongside scientific reporting through analyses, reports, and manuscripts.