FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22039

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
22039 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Assess the Feasibility of Mainstem Habitat Improvements to Enhance survival of ESA Listed Species
Proposal ID	22039
Organization	University of Idaho (UI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr. David H. Bennett
Mailing address	Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Moscow, ID 83844-1136
Phone / email	2088856337 / dbennett@uidaho.edu
Manager authorizing this project	Dr. David H. Bennett
Review cycle	FY 2001 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Mainstem Snake
Short description	Develop recommendations from mainstem authorities (Universities, Federal and State agencies and tribal) to identify the practicality of making potential habitat improvements to enhance survival of short-term rearing and migrating salmonids.
Target species	steelhead chinook salmon sockeye salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.61	-118.01	Snake Lower subbasin

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	FTE: 9.25 mos. + honaria @1,000 ea. +facilitators	$106,375
Fringe	@28.5%for $69,375	$19,772
Supplies	Meeting, supplies and report preparation	$23,500
Travel	30@$500/participant	$15,000
Indirect	subtotal @31.5%	$51,864
		$216,511

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$216,511
Total FY 2001 budget request	$216,511

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or 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 proposal is not innovative. A facilitated workshop to provide recommendations for mainstem habitat work may be a worthy task, but may also be possible through sessions at professional meetings, at least in the developmental stage, which a small task group could then utilize as a basis for more formal proposal development. The proposal presents a good concept, with innovative thought, but remarkably high cost. This proposal does not fit well into the evaluation criteria or process, i.e., it is not an innovative experiment. Nevertheless, an avenue for support for workshops of this type is required (as noted in the Columbia Gorge project review process).