Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hot Topics Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tech Team debates FY26 ‘hot topics’ grants: $125,000 cap, multiyear options and monitoring needs
Summary
The Great Salt Lake Tech Team reviewed draft FY26 research priorities and debated whether to keep the $125,000 per‑award cap (raised from $70,000), allow multiyear grants, and prioritize monitoring upgrades and ecological questions (birds, vegetation, water budget). Staff sought comments within one to two weeks to finalize the RFP.
State staff (Ben Stierman and Angela) presented the draft list of FY26 "hot topics" research questions and asked the technical advisory group to identify urgent management questions and gaps that warrant funding.
The group’s discussion focused on three program design issues: the per‑award cap (currently $125,000, up from about $70,000 the previous year), whether the program should permit two‑year awards to accommodate field seasons and graduate student projects, and whether to prioritize monitoring and baseline data collection (hydrology gauges, meteorological stations, and autosamplers) or more targeted, deliverable management actions.
Funding and scope: Ben Stierman said the cap was recently increased to $125,000 and that the overall program pool is modest (staff noted about $500,000 total in the hot topics pot). He asked members to advise whether the cap remains appropriate and whether multi‑year awards should be available. ‘‘Like, we wanna understand if the $125,000 cap has been enough to facilitate the research, or if folks feel like that’s something that we need to increase the cap on to get some different, more meaningful research in this way,’’ he said.
Multiyear grants: Several researchers argued that two‑year projects would be significantly more useful for ecological and graduate research, giving time for full field seasons and to support graduate student timelines. Staff said a two‑year structure could be designed without carrying lapsing funds across fiscal years by allocating partial funding across years at award time.
Priorities and gaps: Participants urged the program to prioritize (1) improved baseline inflow data and monitoring around the lake (including more meteorological stations for North Arm rainfall estimates), (2) microbiome-to-food‑web linkages so managers can connect microbial community data to brine shrimp, brine flies and bird outcomes, and (3) vegetation and phragmites management effectiveness tied explicitly to management deliverables. Staff agreed many of these could be folded into the listed buckets or submitted under the "other" category if not already present.
Process and timeline: Staff requested written comments on the draft list within one to two weeks to allow timely RFP issuance and sufficient proposal lead time. They also said the team will explore pilot approaches to two‑year awards and might reserve some program flexibility for multiyear needs.
Next steps: Staff will accept comments, revise the draft RFP based on feedback, and schedule Waterleaf and other pilots to present feasibility results as they become available. The team set a tentative next meeting date and closed formal discussion to move into public comment.
