FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22043
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 22043 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Enhancing instream flow by adopting best agricultural land management practices |
| Proposal ID | 22043 |
| Organization | Washington State University (WSU) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Dr. Shulin Chen |
| Mailing address | Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State Univeristy Pullman, WA 99164 |
| Phone / email | 5093353743 / chens@wsu.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | Daniel Nordquist, OGRD, WSU |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Mainstem Snake |
| Short description | Increase groundwater infiltration during high precipitation periods by adopting proper agriculture practices. Use soil profile and aquifers to temporarily store water for subsequent release into the 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 | Pataha Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1 for Resesarch Associate, 0.17 for PIs | $49,090 |
| Fringe | $14,645 | |
| Supplies | Supplies for field experiments, one fluorometer, one set of low meter and sampler | $15,000 |
| Travel | From WSU to the project site | $3,600 |
| Indirect | Calculated at 45% | $36,050 |
| Subcontractor | # of tags: Pomeroy Conservation District | $16,920 |
| $135,305 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $135,305 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $135,305 |
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.
Comment:
This proposal is similar to 22010 to the extent that it would investigate use of winter recharge of groundwater on agricultural lands to sustain summer and fall low flows, and to reduce summer stream temperatures. Unlike 22010, this is essentially a proposal for a (field and modeling) feasibility assessment; thus, the panel felt this was more appropriate to this innovative solicitation. However, the proposal has two critical deficiencies. First, like 22010, it says little about water rights issues. If such a project were successful, what reason is there to expect that the water would stay in the stream? Second, the proposal seems to emphasize more the role of tillage practices (no till) in increasing recharge. The panel was somewhat skeptical that changes in tillage practices alone would be enough to make much difference to summer flows. If this could be shown to be a major factor, it seems curious that there is no involvement by USDA. The heavy emphasis on agricultural practices, relative to stream temperature effects, seemed curious. This aspect of the proposal might have been more convincing had it been substantiated with pilot modeling or field results.Comment:
This project should have USDA involvement and contribution to this particular watershed may be minimal. It is unclear where the benefits from this project would accrue. Agriculture practice studies should be funded through other programs.Comment:
This project should have USDA involvement and contribution to this particular watershed may be minimal. It is unclear where the benefits from this project would accrue. Agriculture practice studies should be funded through other programs.