FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22016

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
22016 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Anadromous Salmonid Engineered Habitat For Production and Transit
Proposal ID	22016
Organization	University of Idaho (UI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Ernest L. Brannon
Mailing address	Aquaculture Research Institute Moscow, Idaho 83843
Phone / email	2088855830 / aqua@uidaho.edu
Manager authorizing this project	Ted Mordhorst, UI contract officer
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	Develop (1) prototype engineered rearing habitat for application in areas where habitat has been lost or reduced from river development, (2) test prototype engineered fish passage channel/conduit system for downstream migrant transit around dams.
Target species	chinook and steelhead

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

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

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description

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

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

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

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2001 cost
Personnel		$99,715
Fringe		$23,860
Supplies		$83,478
Travel		$7,500
Indirect		$49,587
Capital		$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor		$132,600
		$396,740

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$396,740
Total FY 2001 budget request	$396,740

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Potlatch Corporation site	Reseearch site	$50,000	in-kind
Potlatch Corporation power and assist.	Power and Assistance	$30,000	in-kind
Kenniwick Irrigation District	Construction	$30,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
Not Innovative

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

Comment:

This project is actually two proposals that are linked by an unfocused background statement. The proposed engineered rearing habitat is not innovative. It is a slightly modified version of spawning and rearing channels that have been used in the basin for many years, sometimes successfully, and sometimes not, depending on the location, design and operation. For instance, an effective spawning channel is currently used for chum salmon below Bonneville Dam. The proposed passage channel/conduit for downstream migration around dams is not an innovative idea, although it has not been tested. It has been proposed in different forms for many years but uniformly rejected as not feasible for the uses proposed. A more modest and focused proposal for a test of the passage channel might be appropriate if a suitable site were selected. The present proposal is not fundable.