FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22016
Contents
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.
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.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.Comment:
Agree with ISRP comments.