![]() |
|
Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format
Section 1: General AdministrativePart 2. Reviews
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
| Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 1: General Administrative Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Process Information: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Proposal Type: | New | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Proposal Number: | 200738400 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Proposal Name: | Reducing the Cost of Reservoir Removal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Agency, Institution or Organization: | bluefish.org | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Short Description: | A competition is proposed to engineering students where entrants will consider the costs associated with removal of Lower Snake River dams. The breaching of these four dams may be deemed necessary for the recovery of Idaho's anadromous fish. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Information Transfer: | Judges will summarize all entries and include a discussion of why top entries were selected. This report will be sent to all entrants and their respective schools, to the federal actions Agencies, States, Tribes and the Northwest Power Conservation Council. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Proposal Contacts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 2: Project Location | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sponsor Province: | Mainstem/Systemwide | ARG Province: | No Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sponsor Subbasin: | Systemwide | ARG Subbasin: | No Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Location(s) at which the action will be implemented |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 3: Focal Species | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Focal Species: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 4: Past Accomplishments | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project | This proposal is for funding a new project, and has no past accomplishments. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source) | There are no projects related to this proposal. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 6: Biological Objectives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 7: Work Elements | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 8: Budget | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Itemized Estimated Budget | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cost sharing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 9: Project Future | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project Future Costs and/or Termination |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Section 10: Narrative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Account Type: Expense |
No changes were made to this proposal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| BPA's in lieu Rating: 3.0 Approx. BPA share of total costs: BPA 100% Status of Cost Share: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Notes: Funding student competition (schools authorized/required) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FY 2007 Budget $ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget $ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget $ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec $ 0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Budget Type: | Expense | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Budget Category: | Basinwide | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Recommendation: | Do Not Fund | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FY 2007 Budget $ 0 |
FY 2008 Budget $ 0 |
FY 2009 Budget $ 0 |
Total NPCC Rec $ 0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FY 2007 MSRT Rec $ 0 |
FY 2008 MSRT Rec $ 0 |
FY 2009 MSRT Rec $ 0 |
Total MSRT Rec $ 0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Budget Category: | Basinwide | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Recommendation: Not fundable | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NPCC Comments: This is an inadequately written proposal to conduct a design contest among engineering students to find a more cost-effective means of reservoir removal than those considered to date by the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposal provides some information about the contest but is quite generally written and is not persuasive as to why alternatives are needed, why the Corps will not be analyzing an expanded list of alternatives should breaching become a realistic possibility, or why the contest would be the best way to go. No explanation or itemization of the $10k budget is provided. The background section discusses different perspectives on the problem of Snake River juvenile salmon mortality and the question of improving survival. It contains excerpts from the Corps report "Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility" to demonstrate that although dam breaching is identified by the Corps as a less preferable alternative to major system improvements, it may become a more realistic alternative if adaptive migration efforts are not successful. Some description of alternatives being considered by the Corps is presented. The intent of the proposal is to reduce economic effects on the ratepayers of Lower Snake River dam and reservoir removal. A summary list of major costs associated with these removals is included with a more detailed description of one (turbine modification) as an example of how costs might vary with different designs. The single objective of this proposal is to expand the list of alternatives to be considered in a re-evaluation study, which would follow a failed "check-in.” It seeks to lower the economic costs of dam removal. The methods section describes some alternatives that the Corps did not consider which might be lower cost. It describes some explanatory information from the Corps as to why certain configurations would not be considered, then notes that this information should be kept from the public until after the competition to ensure fairness. The proposal does not indicate whether this information is already available in published form. The proposal states that entries will be judged on "economic viability" and "affordability," without explanation of how these are defined. A list of work elements provides a general description of how the contest will be conducted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Recommendation: Not fundable | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NPCC Comments: This is an inadequately written proposal to conduct a design contest among engineering students to find a more cost-effective means of reservoir removal than those considered to date by the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposal provides some information about the contest but is quite generally written and is not persuasive as to why alternatives are needed, why the Corps will not be analyzing an expanded list of alternatives should breaching become a realistic possibility, or why the contest would be the best way to go. No explanation or itemization of the $10k budget is provided. The background section discusses different perspectives on the problem of Snake River juvenile salmon mortality and the question of improving survival. It contains excerpts from the Corps report "Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility" to demonstrate that although dam breaching is identified by the Corps as a less preferable alternative to major system improvements, it may become a more realistic alternative if adaptive migration efforts are not successful. Some description of alternatives being considered by the Corps is presented. The intent of the proposal is to reduce economic effects on the ratepayers of Lower Snake River dam and reservoir removal. A summary list of major costs associated with these removals is included with a more detailed description of one (turbine modification) as an example of how costs might vary with different designs. The single objective of this proposal is to expand the list of alternatives to be considered in a re-evaluation study, which would follow a failed "check-in.” It seeks to lower the economic costs of dam removal. The methods section describes some alternatives that the Corps did not consider which might be lower cost. It describes some explanatory information from the Corps as to why certain configurations would not be considered, then notes that this information should be kept from the public until after the competition to ensure fairness. The proposal does not indicate whether this information is already available in published form. The proposal states that entries will be judged on "economic viability" and "affordability," without explanation of how these are defined. A list of work elements provides a general description of how the contest will be conducted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.