FY07-09 proposal 200738000
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Keeping Irrigators Whole in the Event of Reservoir Removal |
| Proposal ID | 200738000 |
| Organization | bluefish.org |
| Short description | Proposed here is a review of ACOE plans that would allow irrigation to continue in its present state if Lower Snake Reservoirs were removed. A pipeline along the current shoreline of Ice Harbor reservoir will be considered and compared to the ACOE plan |
| Information transfer | A report of detailed and summarized results will be submitted to Northwest Power and Conservation Council, federal Action Agencies, States and Tribes. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Scott Levy | bluefish.org | redfish@bluefish.org |
| All assigned contacts | ||
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous SalmonidsSection 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| [BO Title left blank] | [BO Description left blank] | None | [Strategy left blank] |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | [Work Element Title Not Entered] | [Work Element Description Not Entered] | 1/1/2007 | 1/1/2008 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | [blank] | $10,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Totals | $10,000 | $0 | $0 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $10,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $10,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank] |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date:
Comments:
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | Basinwide | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This is an inadequately written proposal to compare costs of irrigation alternatives under dam breaching. It proposes to do work that would be a routine component of a NEPA analysis conducted by federal agencies if dam breaching were proposed. No explanation or itemization of the $10k budget is provided. The background section duplicates information presented in other proposals from this sponsor. This proposal is to review the US Army Corps of Engineers’ report "Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility" for its consideration of irrigation effects of dam breaching in the event that the Ice Harbor reservoir were removed, do a cost comparison of alternative means of providing irrigation, and consider a 30-mile irrigation pipeline. The premise appears to be that the Corps’ isn't considering a full range of alternatives with regard to the irrigation effects of dam breaching. The rationale for the work is in citations of Court findings and the 2000 BiOp RPAs 147 and 148 describing the Corps’ responsibilities for developing project management plans and engineering and design work. This section actually contains some discussion of job loss that the jobs survey proposal does not. This proposal objective is to "expand the list of alternatives" by seeking to clarify the economic costs of changes in the irrigation delivery system. Methods are described in inadequate detail. Methods for developing cost estimates of the various components are not described. Reference is made to a series of equations that will represent the costs and benefits of a proposed irrigation system, but these are not described. A paragraph following the work elements appears to present the sponsor's view that a gravity-fed system will be superior to what the Corps’ will propose.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This is an inadequately written proposal to compare costs of irrigation alternatives under dam breaching. It proposes to do work that would be a routine component of a NEPA analysis conducted by federal agencies if dam breaching were proposed. No explanation or itemization of the $10k budget is provided. The background section duplicates information presented in other proposals from this sponsor. This proposal is to review the US Army Corps of Engineers’ report "Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility" for its consideration of irrigation effects of dam breaching in the event that the Ice Harbor reservoir were removed, do a cost comparison of alternative means of providing irrigation, and consider a 30-mile irrigation pipeline. The premise appears to be that the Corps’ isn't considering a full range of alternatives with regard to the irrigation effects of dam breaching. The rationale for the work is in citations of Court findings and the 2000 BiOp RPAs 147 and 148 describing the Corps’ responsibilities for developing project management plans and engineering and design work. This section actually contains some discussion of job loss that the jobs survey proposal does not. This proposal objective is to "expand the list of alternatives" by seeking to clarify the economic costs of changes in the irrigation delivery system. Methods are described in inadequate detail. Methods for developing cost estimates of the various components are not described. Reference is made to a series of equations that will represent the costs and benefits of a proposed irrigation system, but these are not described. A paragraph following the work elements appears to present the sponsor's view that a gravity-fed system will be superior to what the Corps’ will propose.