FY 2000 proposal 20110
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Develop Wheels, Pools and Falls Approach for Fish Passage at Dams |
| Proposal ID | 20110 |
| Organization | Sun Mountain Reflections |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Faith E. Ruffing |
| Mailing address | 1907 NE 75th Avenue Portland, OR 97213 |
| Phone / email | 5032568748 / fruffing@gte.net |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Conduct an Environmental Science Analysis using the Wheels, Pools, and Falls approach to transform the dam spillways into a series of pools and falls designed for continuous safe passage in water deemed safe by water quality standards for all aquatics. . |
| Target species | Anadromous fish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Faith E. Ruffing |
$72,800 |
| Fringe |
|
$10,400 |
| Supplies |
|
$1,500 |
| Travel |
|
$2,500 |
| Indirect |
|
$11,370 |
| Other |
Agency Specialists Panel |
$50,000 |
| Subcontractor |
CRITFC |
$50,000 |
| $198,570 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $198,570 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $198,570 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
|
|
$0 |
unknown |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. The proposal does not provide adequate scientific justification although the idea is still attractive and may have merit programmatically.
Comments:
While this proposal is weaker on the science components, it presents an innovative idea that has a logical appeal and apparently some support in the COE. This new idea exemplifies the adage " a picture is worth a thousand words". While the proponent suggests that the first stage of this work is the examination of natural systems (presumably the research component), the real challenge to this idea would seem to be the engineering of the spillways and flow control. The costs of changing existing dams to the pools and falls approach would presumably be very expensive. This approach might therefore be more attractive for any new dams that are built, or as an alternative to removing or preaching existing dams to improve salmon survival.
Within a scientific review process, this proposal is technically inadequate. For example, (1) the PI provides an inadequate vita; (2) there are no, or only vague, references for salmon mortality statistics; (3) much of the text consists of irrelevant background material; (4) the "key" document appears to be the PIs "WPF" report, but no details or drawings are provided from that important document; and (5) the budget is much too vague to support ($50k to CRITFC and $50k for an unspecified panel of "experts" for unspecified services).
One potential serious difficulty in the proposed approach is that the study of current natural pools and falls in most cases will not provide data that can be used to identify appropriate scales, sizes, velocities, turbulence, etc. for new pool and falls at dams. The reason is that nature is not designed and changes over time, what exist may not represent what the animal adapted to. Further, how would the investigator know that the fish are exposed/experience the flows, turbulence, etc. that was measured. In natural systems, animals avoid those extremes. Another potential problem that is not addressed is a possible undesirable effect of the pools and falls approach on salmon survival, resulting from creation of ideal new opportunities and locations for predators to feed on salmon. For example, northern squawfish seem to avoid areas of high current velocity, while these high velocity areas may provide some protection for salmon. Therefore, squawfish might prefer and accumulate and prey more heavily on salmon in the new artificial pools proposed in this project. The natural simplicity of this idea was appealing to the reviewers, but the emphasis should be on the engineering feasibility aspects.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Same concept being addressed and more appropriately funded through the COE process.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? No - Concept does not allow for engineering realities of energy dissipation and resultant harmful biological effects. NMFS bio-engineer has met with proponent and described pitfalls.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];