FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34030

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
34030 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Enhancing Instream Flow by Adopting Best Agricultural Management Practices
Proposal ID	34030
Organization	Washington State Univeristy (WSU)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr. Shulin Chen
Mailing address	Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State Univeristy Pullman, WA 99164-6120
Phone / email	5093353743 / chens@wsu.edu
Manager authorizing this project	Daniel Nordquist, OGRD, WSU
Review cycle	FY 2002 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Blue Mountain / Asotin
Short description	Goal: Increase water infiltration during high precipitation periods by adopting proper agriculture practices, and use land and aquifers to temporarily store water for subsequent release into streams for flow enhancement and temperature control
Target species	Steelhead, Sockeye, Spring/Summer-run Chinook, Fall-run Chinook and Bull Trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
46.5091	-117.9867	This project will be conducted in the Pataha Creek Watershed

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 183	NMFS	Initiate at least three tier 3 studies (each necessarily comprising several sites) within each ESU (a single action may affect more than one ESU). In addition, at least two studies focusing on each major management action must take place within the Columbia River basin. The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS and the Technical Recovery Teams to identify key studies in the 1-year plan. Those studies will be implemented no later than 2003.
BPA	Action 151	NMFS	BPA shall, in coordination with NMFS, experiment with innovative ways to increase tributary flows by, for example, establishing a water brokerage. BPA will begin these experiments as soon as possible and submit a report evaluating their efficacy at the end of 5 years.

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 2002 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 2002 cost	Subcontractor
Objective 1: Determine the infiltration characteristics of agricultural land under different management practices in the Pacific Northwest	Task 1.1. Infiltration plots installation, measurement, and data analysis Task 1.2. Permeability measurement	14 14	$56,000
Objective 2: Investigate the flow and release of infiltrated water to streams through modeling and field verifications	Task 2.1. Evaluation of existing models Task 2.2. Development of an application-specific model Task 2.3. Field measurement of hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic head changes Task 2.4. Monitoring and evaluation Task 2.5. Information transfer	6 16 8 12 6	$143,312

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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 2.0 for modeling, filed data collection and project supervision	$92,887
Fringe	27% for PIs, 33% for Research Associate, 9% for student	$26,652
Supplies	piezometers, runoff plots, flow meters, permeameter	$15,000
Travel	Travel to the sites and a meeting	$5,400
Indirect	45% on modified total direct cost	$59,373
		$199,312

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$199,312
Total FY 2002 budget request	$199,312

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2002-8)

Recommendation:
Fund - Rank 8

Date:
May 24, 2002

Comment:

This eighth ranked proposal is important and timely, but marginally innovative. It is a fairly complete presentation of an experimental approach to establishing the extent to which no-till management practices (the only type of "best management practice" to be examined) contribute to increased infiltration rates and eventually to summer flow. The investigation would be done through modeling and field-testing. The authors refer to similar work elsewhere and to a pilot project being conducted in the Pataha Creek subbasin that establish the relationship between no-till practices and increased filtration. This project's addition is to test the degree to which increased filtration might augment summer flow. Consequently, the proposal is marginally innovative.

However, the proposal could provide valuable insight for the Basin. The preliminary results from a pilot study by the principal investigator demonstrated that "at the test plots in the Pataha Watershed, long-term no-till significantly reduced the amount of surface runoff and increased infiltration compared to conventional tillage. The water permeability of the long-term no-till fields was fivefold higher that that of the fields tilled with traditional methods. The infiltrated water undoubtedly contributes to the underground water storage and to the stream flow eventually. However, the question as to what degree can the increased infiltration help to augment the summer flow at a watershed level should be answered through this proposed project." If these preliminary results hold, they could add additional inducements for dryland farmers and agriculture-related agencies to support no-till technology.

The Echo Meadows project and other proposals reviewed have proposed active and costly input of water into ground storage. This innovative project has the potential of more widespread application given the large acreage that might be converted to no-till practices. Effects of such a program would not be dependent on continual Fish and Wildlife Program funding for active input of water into underground storage.

This proposal was reviewed in last years Innovative and was ranked 16 of 66 (in the upper third). We were critical because the USDA was not involved in sponsorship (now they are) and because we were skeptical that water "saved" would remain in stream channels for fish. As a pilot study the latter issue is secondary, but if no-till proves effective at increasing instream flows, legal protection of water for fish benefits will be paramount. The empirical question is whether, under existing holdings of water rights, the returned water would be appropriated or would stay in the streams.

The proposal could be supported as a pilot project with the idea that a much broader survey might be warranted in the future.

The weak points of the proposal are the failure to provide information on the statistical methods to be used under objective 1, establishing the connection between data collected under objective 1; and modeling under objective 2, and the rather sparse description of information transfer, especially since the proposal indicates that agencies and farmers are waiting to see this demonstration. More complete description of data archiving, data transfer, and circulation of research results should have been provided. Also, reviewers had questions regarding the affects of intensive herbicide use and whether increased water filtration might affect agricultural productivity.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Jun 28, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 12, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Research - Possible indirect benefit if results establish document increased flows and practice is implemented by significant numbers of agricultural landowners.

Comments
Project evaluates "no-till" agriculture management practices only. Not sure how this empirical research could be construed to be innovative by itself.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 12, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Research - Possible indirect benefit if results establish document increased flows and practice is implemented by significant numbers of agricultural landowners.

Comments
Project evaluates “no-till” agriculture management practices only. Not sure how this empirical research could be construed to be innovative by itself

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Aug 2, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. Project does not protect water for instream uses. Without such a mechanism, or a plan to address the problem, any conserved water will likely be allocated to other water users.