Alternative tab updates

[elbfox]

Task 1

Add the descriptions (below) to their appropriate decision alternative tabs.

Alternative 1: Remove Dam

When a dam is removed, water is allowed to flow (somewhat) freely downstream, creating greater connectivity for fish passage and river recreation, bolstering sea-run fish populations, and improving benthic (riverbed) aquatic communities. Dam removal may increase local water quality, regulate water temperature, and provide additional tourism/fishing opportunities. The river and its tributaries will likely return to their “natural” flows. However, dam removal may also create temporary mud flats as the reservoir empties, or release toxic or harmful impounded sediments. Dam removal eliminates lake-dwelling wildlife habitat and local flatwater recreation opportunities, reduces overall reservoir storage volume, and lowers total annual hydropower generation. Dam removal costs are typically high for dam removals, with no payback in terms of direct market returns. Please consider and rate the given set of criteria based on the case of removing the dam.

Alternative 2: Improve Fish Passage Facilities

When improvements are made to a dam’s fish passage using state-of-the-art facilities, it may increase survival for one or more sea-run fish species within the watershed and improve angling in the river. Improvements to fish passage may even provide learning opportunities for citizens and students. However, annual electricity generation may be diminished (depending on the technology selected to pass fish), and costs for state-of-the-art fish passage facilities are typically high. Fish passage facility improvements may be required by law depending on the species migrating in the waterway, and additional improvements may become required as other species become threatened or endangered. In the case where owners are required to improve passage for sea-run fish species, owners must bear the cost or risk surrendering the dam operation license. Please consider and rate the given set of criteria based on the case of improvements to fish passage facilities at the dam.

Alternative 3: Upgrade or Replace Turbines

Upgrading or replacing turbines improves longevity for a hydropower plant. Costs for turbine upgrade or replacement are recouped through improved efficiency in operation over the lifetime of each hydropower project. Nameplate hydropower capacity at the dam may increase with turbine replacement or upgrade. However, when turbines are upgraded or replaced, the impact to sea-run fish survival is unclear. If new turbines are fast moving or impulse driven (where a nozzle sprays high-pressure water at buckets on a runner to turn the turbine), fish may be more at risk than if turbines are slow moving or reaction driven (where flow and pressure of water over angled blades on a runner) turbine. Please consider and rate the given set of criteria based on the case of improved or upgraded turbines at the dam.

Alternative 4: Install Turbines or Expand Power Capacity

When new turbines are installed on existing non-powered dam infrastructure, or hydropower capacity is increased at a powered dam, annual hydropower generation increases. Costs may be recouped through market returns over the project’s lifetime, and the change in the dam’s operation may present opportunities for whitewater recreation downstream (dam releases are popular for river rafting). However, installing turbines or expanding existing power capacity may alter flows and confuse sea-run fish species. Fish may become caught in the grates protecting system intakes, or even killed by turbine blades or rapid changes in pressure if they are small enough to move through the powerhouse. Actual reservoir storage may change based on overall hydropower operations. Please consider and rate the given set of criteria based on the case of new turbine installation or expansion of existing hydropower capacity at the dam.

Alternative 5: Keep and Maintain Dam

Keeping and maintaining the dam is the lowest-cost option. Keeping and maintaining the dam may appeal to parties interested in preserving the area’s industrial history, preserving the town/city identity for community residents (if local identity is closely tied to the dam), or preserving the aesthetic value of the impoundment. Maintenance costs may be recouped somewhat if the dam is powered; however, refurbishment, restoration, or maintenance to a non-powered dam presents no direct opportunity for cost offset. Keeping the dam will likely have no impact on reservoir storage volume, river recreation area, annual electricity generation, or number of properties abutting the reservoir. The impoundment will continue to present a barrier to sea-run fish species, thereby negatively impacting their survival. And, in the long run, the dam is a temporary piece of infrastructure that must be removed. Please consider and rate the given set of criteria based on the case of refurbishment or maintenance at the dam.

Task 2

Match all tab labels (e.g. capitalization, active phrasing)to their appropriate decision alternative labels above.

Task 3

Change Complete/Not Complete indicator to Complete/Requires User Input

[elbfox]

@sythel can you please address Task 3 ? I am not able to find where you have the "Not complete" indicator in the server script. I am working on Task 1 and Task 2 right now.

[elbfox]

Okay, made new branch Alt_edits_ELF and pushed my changes addressing Task 1 and 2 (And issue #17 , and also #19...I got carried away...I'm sorry)

[sythel]

Task 3 done. adding pull request

[elbfox]

merged