FY 2000 proposal 20133

Additional documents

TitleType
20133 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleIrrigation as a Management Tool for Stream Temperature
Proposal ID20133
OrganizationOregon State University, Dept. of Rangeland Resources (OSU)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJohn Buckhouse
Mailing addressDept. of Rangeland Resources, OSU Corvallis, OR 97331
Phone / email5417371629 / buckhouj@ccmail.orst.edu
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinBlue Mountain / Grande Ronde
Short descriptionCooling water by moving it toward stream beneath the ground. Subterranean irrigation will be used to put water in contact with subsoil.
Target speciesSalmonids
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1998 Understood groudnwater/temp. relationship on Silvies River

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
Oregon State Legislature mandated water temperature study Expands geographical region

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $25,400
Fringe $4,282
Supplies $4,500
Operating $6,800
Travel $10,860
Indirect $22,288
Other Publications +Tuition (not included in IC) $7,314
$81,444
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$81,444
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$81,444
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Two summers of data collection


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; not technically justified. The experimental design is inadequate, as is the likely benefit to fish and wildlife.

Comments: This proposal is to undertake a study of how irrigation practices can affect stream temperatures. Although the proposer classified this proposal as implementation, the ISRP noted that the proposal was primarily for research. The ISRP found the work to be inadequately justified under either implementation or research evaluation criteria. The proposal concerns effects of 2 particular irrigation techniques on water temperature, with studies to be done on one stream, a tributary to Catherine Creek. The long-term objective is to provide a framework for determining the impact of flood and subterranean irrigation practices on stream temperature, but the experimental design lacks detail and appears to be inadequate. Apparently the experimental site was selected because it would allow experimental manipulation of irrigation regimes. The site has not been irrigated for 25 years, but has head ditches and diversion dams. It is unclear, however, if this site is representative of other areas in eastern Oregon. It is reasonable to assume that vegetation has changed during the past 25 years, and that it will be affected substantially by the change back to irrigated pasture. Important information on statistical design and analysis is lacking. It is also difficult to determine if sample size for instream temperature monitoring sites and access wells is adequate to detect statistically significant differences in water temperature. Further, it is unclear whether these would be biologically significant. Too little information is provided to evaluate the likely success of the project. E.g., what is the stream flow and temperature and what is the volume of the irrigation flow? How cold would a volume of irrigation water need to be to depress the temperature of a volume of stream water 1 degree? Furthermore, the argument that BPA should fund this work is weak: How is Objective 4 relevant to the FWP or of benefit to Fish and Wildlife? The references are virtually all by the project's PI and few are peer-reviewed, so they contribute to establishing his credentials but do not establish a broader regard for or interest in the work or that the methods are generally accepted.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Relationship to Fish and Wildlife Program is unclear.

Clearly explain the biological objectives and demonstrate direct benefits to fish.

The proposal focuses on only one potential effect on temperature, justify why other potential effects on temperature (e.g. solar radiation, etc.) are ignored.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];