Colorado Water Resources Research Institute
FY 2002 Request for Proposals1
CLOSING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2001
Proposals are invited for the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute FY 2002 water
research program.
The Colorado Water Resources Research Institute (CWRRI) is established under the
federal Water Resources Research Act, as amended, and is authorized by the Colorado
legislature, most recently in 1997, under H.B. 1218. At the federal level, CWRRI is one
of 54 water institutes administered by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Department of
Interior. Under Section 104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act, CWRRI is to
‘…plan, conduct, or otherwise arrange for competent research…’ that fosters the entry of
new scientists into water resources fields, the preliminary exploration of new ideas that
address water problems or expand understanding of water and water-related phenomena,
and disseminates research results to water managers and the public. The research
program is open to faculty in any institution of higher education in Colorado that has
‘demonstrated capabilities for research, information dissemination, and graduate training
… to resolve State and regional water and related land problems.’
Funds Available: The CWRRI Request for Proposals is partially supported by the U.S.
Geological Survey. It is anticipated that approximately $50,000 in federal funds will be
available for this competition. The federal funds must be matched 2:1 by non-federal
funds (resulting in a total of approximately $150,000 for this competition). Matching
funds come from the university submitting the proposal and/or from local and/or state
agencies via agreements arranged during preparation of the proposal. CWRRI research
funds are awarded through a competitive process guided by the CWRRI Advisory
Committee on Water Research Policy. Proposals that contain matching funds from
Colorado water and water-related organizations are strongly encouraged. Final CWRRI
awards are contingent upon Congressional approval of FY 2002 funding for the national
water institute program.
Proposal Review Process: All proposals are due in the CWRRI offices by September 28,
2001. Proposals will be peer reviewed before final review and ranking by the CWRRI
Advisory Committee for Water Research Policy. The general criteria used for proposal
evaluation include: (1) scientific merit; (2) responsiveness to RFP; (3) qualifications of
investigators; (4) originality of approach; (5) budget; and (6) extent to which Colorado
water managers and users are collaborating. Proposal reviews should be completed by
December 2001 with March 1, 2002, start dates. [Once projects are selected for funding
by the Advisory Committee, CWRRI submits a formal funding request to the U.S.
Geological Survey, including each accepted proposal.]
1
Solicitation is dependent upon Congressional approval of FY 2002 funding for Section 104(b) of the
Water Resources Research Act.
1
Eligibility: The competition is open to regular, full-time faculty at Colorado’s research
universities.
Project Duration: Awards will be made for one year beginning March 1, 2002. Multiple
year projects will be considered; however, funding for additional years must be obtained
through the annual CWRRI research competition.
Proposal Submission: Proposals, in both hard and electronic copy, are to be submitted by
5:00pm, September 28, 2001, to:
Director
Colorado Water Resources Research Institute
E-102 Engineering Building
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Send electronic copy via e-mail, if you wish, to: Shirley.Miller@Colostate.edu
Proposal Preparation Guidelines: Proposals must include the following elements (as
identified by the U.S. Geological Survey proposal guidelines).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Title
Duration (month/year to month/year). 3/02-2/03
FY 2002 federal funds requested
FY 2002 non-federal funds matched
Principal investigators name(s) and university
Statement of critical regional or state water problems. Include an explanation
of the need for research, who wants it, and why (two paragraphs maximum).
7. Statement of results or benefits. Specify the type of information that is to be
gained and how it will be used (two paragraphs maximum).
8. Nature, scope, and objectives of the research
9. Methods, procedures, and facilities. Provide sufficient information to permit
evaluation of the technical adequacy of the approach to satisfy the objectives.
10. Related research. Show by literature and communication citations the
similarities and dissimilarities of the proposed project to completed or ongoing
research on the same topic.
11. Investigator’s qualifications. Include a resume(s) of the principal
investigator(s). No resume shall exceed three pages or list more than 15 pertinent
publications.
12. Training potential. Estimate the number and level of graduate and
undergraduate students, by field of study and degree, that are expected to receive
training in the project.
13. Budget. Provide a brief preliminary budget (salaries and wages, fringe benefits,
supplies, travel, other direct costs) including source of required matching funds.
2
Solicited Research Topics: For the FY 2002 competition, CWRRI is employing a
‘Solicited Research’ approach, i.e., proposals are solicited that address specific research
objectives. The FY 2002 solicitation contains four priorities representing the most
pressing Colorado water research needs as identified by CWRRI’s Advisory Committee
on Water Research Policy. The FY 2002 priorities are:




Water Quality Implications of Ground/Surface Water Conjunctive
Use in the Denver Basin
Identifying/Evaluating Best Management Practices to Control
Non-point Source Pollution within Colorado Forests
Identifying and Evaluating Best Management Practices to Control
Non-point Source Pollution from Septic Tank Systems in Colorado
Salinity Mitigation Options for the Lower Arkansas Valley
The following research descriptions represent the Solicited Research nature of the
CWRRI FY 2002 competition. These descriptions are provided by the CWRRI Advisory
Committee for Water Research Policy to insure responsive proposals.
Questions: If there are any questions about the solicitation, contact Shirley Miller or
Robert Ward by phone at (970) 491-6308 or by e-mail at: Shirley.Miller@Colostate.edu
_______________________________________________________________________
Water Quality Implications of Ground/Surface Water Conjunctive Use
in the Denver Basin
Proposals Due:
Duration:
September 28, 2001
March 1, 2002 – February 28, 2003
Problem Statement:
Colorado has experienced considerable population growth in recent years in areas
where renewable sources of water supply are limited. The situation is particularly acute
in the south metro area of Denver where water supplies are dependent upon the deep
aquifers of the Denver basin. Interest is growing in developing new science and
technology that will permit the aquifers supplying municipal water to be recharged with
treated water during periods of reduced urban water demand (e.g. winter months) and
depleted during periods of high water demand (e.g. summer months).
The use of groundwater aquifers for water storage is not new to Colorado.
Conjunctive use of ground/surface waters was incorporated into Colorado’s water rights
system in 1965 and organizations were created to manage agriculture’s use of
groundwater within the existing surface water rights administrative structure. When deep
aquifer storage is considered for augmentation of urban water supplies, the water quality
dimension of ground water recharge emerges as a major concern.
3
There is a need to better understand water quality implications associated with
injecting water treated to municipal water standards into deep aquifers. For example,
what constituents of treated water, such as chlorine, may react with the aquifer materials
and cause changes in aquifer flow properties? Can the deep aquifers receive water in
quantities and qualities sufficient to meet a percentage of urban needs that justifies the
expense?
Objective:
If ground water recharge of deep Denver Basin aquifers is to play a major role in
meeting the future urban water needs of the south metro area, what water quality factors
need to be factored into the design of future injection systems and how will water quality
factors impact the economic viability of deep aquifer/surface water conjunctive use?
Suggested Tasks:
1.
Describe the water supply and demand situation in the south metro area using
existing data and studies.
In cooperation with current water providers in the south metro area, evaluate
the current science and technology available for designing deep well injection
programs in the Denver basin aquifers. Summarize the findings in a thorough
literature review, including recent studies conducted in the south metro area.
Identify areas of science and technology where uncertainty exists in safe use
of deep well injection of treated water to augment urban water supplies.
Determine the economic uncertainty that stems from weaknesses in the
science and technology of ground/surface water conjunctive use in the Denver
basin.
Undertake a careful examination of the areas of science and technology
weaknesses and formulate a research strategy for addressing the weaknesses
in the Denver basin.
Prepare a final report suitable for wide distribution to water users and
managers in Colorado
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Potential Collaborators:






Municipal water providers in the south Denver metro area
Water Resources Division of the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Colorado Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
________________________________________________________________________
4
Identifying/Evaluating Best Management Practices to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution within Colorado Forests
Proposal Due:
Project Duration:
September 28, 2001
March 1, 2002 – February 28, 2003
Problem Statement:
Over the past few decades there has been a continuing evolution in forest
management and forest utilization practices on both public and private lands. On many
public lands there is now less emphasis on timber production, and more emphasis on
recreation, preservation, and ecosystem management. Private forest lands are under
development pressure unseen before in Colorado’s history. The long history of fire
suppression, combined with reductions in logging and grazing, has resulted in increased
forest density and fuel loadings. These changes are now being recognized as detrimental
to forest health and increasing the risk for catastrophic forest fires with negative water
quality impacts.
Since much of the water supply for Colorado originates in forests, the impact of
forest management and use practices upon the quality of the water originating in the
forests is of increasing concern to Colorado water mangers and users. Legal
requirements to protect ‘source’ waters, declining water quality in some reservoirs, and
water quality impacts due to wildfires, are causing renewed interest in ‘best management
practices’ that will protect the quality of water originating in forests.
Objective:
With the changing uses of forests in Colorado, identify and evaluate best
management practices, along with options for voluntary implementation that will protect
the quality of water originating in Colorado forests.
Suggested Tasks:
1. Identify forest management, and related forest use, practices that may contribute
to non-point source pollution, such as snow making, recreational vehicle traffic,
campground development and use, hiking trail development and use, skiing,
logging, controlled burns, road development, housing development, winter road
sanding, and mining.
2. Estimate wasteloads that can be expected from the above activities, when Best
Management Practices are not employed, using existing water quality data
obtained in the forests of Colorado (e.g., by the U.S. Geological Survey, the
Water Quality Control Division and County Health Departments).
3. Examine the design, application, and responsible parties for BMPs and the
resulting implications to water quality.
5
4. From the above assessment, identify BMPs that can, realistically, reduce the
wasteloads and estimate the reductions that can be expected with each BMP using
both theoretical computations/models and data collected in the field.
5. Compare economic costs to water quality improvements for each BMP.
6. Evaluate ‘practicability’ of the BMPs among professional natural resource
managers and the public.
7. Recommend options for improving voluntary acceptance and implementation of
BMPs in Colorado’s forests, both on public and private land.
8. Prepare a final report suitable for wide distribution to water and forest managers
in Colorado.
Potential Collaborators:

Colorado Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment

Colorado State Forest Service

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Colorado Environmental Health Association (County Health
Departments)

Regional water conservancy and conservation districts

Municipalities

Denver Regional Council of Governments
_______________________________________________________________________
Identifying and Evaluating Best Management Practices to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution for Septic Tanks in Colorado
Proposal Due:
Project Duration:
September 28, 2001
March 1, 2002 – February 28, 2003
Problem Statement:
In the National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress, the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency reported that 31 states list septic systems as their
second greatest potential source of groundwater contamination. Leaking underground
storage tanks headed the list.
Over the past decade, Colorado has experienced a booming economy with its
associated development pressures. These pressures are particularly strong in outlying
developments where views of the mountains and rural landscapes are readily available.
Unfortunately, many of these housing locations are also beyond the central sewer systems
of municipalities. The wastewater treatment technology of choice in such cases is the
combined septic tank and leachfield (often referred to as ‘on-site’ wastewater treatment
technology). As housing developments, dependent upon on-site treatment technology,
move into areas with shallow soils, high water tables, and/or fractured bedrock near the
6
surface, concern about the resulting water quality impacts to ground and surface waters is
expressed, especially as nutrient criteria and standards are implemented in the near future.
There is a need to quantify the collective impacts of on-site wastewater treatment
units in multiple-unit housing developments located on poor soils, areas of high water
table, and/or over fractured bedrock. Many of the modern on-site wastewater treatment
technologies are designed to mitigate poor conditions for on-site technology and claim to
provide acceptable treatment. However, there is a need to define what is ‘acceptable
treatment’ with on-site systems and confirm that the on-site technologies currently
employed are meeting acceptable treatment levels, especially with respect to nutrients,
viruses, and endocrine disrupting chemicals.
If there is a collective impact on water quality from multiple septic tanks in a
housing development, what options (i.e. Best Management Practices) are available to
reduce the resulting non-point source pollution from on-site wastewater treatment
systems?
Objective:
With increasing use of on-site wastewater technology in fragile Colorado
landscapes, quantify the collective water quality impacts of the technology, identify
treatment levels needed to meet stream standards, and evaluate voluntary use of Best
Management Practices to reduce pollution, where problems are identified.
Suggested Tasks:
1. Through use of existing data from county health departments and research efforts,
quantify waste loadings to be expected from use of on-site wastewater treatment
technology in Colorado. Data limitations may limit successful completion of this
task, but may also define needed monitoring programs.
2. Define the conditions where use of on-site wastewater treatment technology in
Colorado, using current management practices, may be inadequate to provide
adequate treatment and protect water quality - considering not only the traditional
wastewater treatment indicators, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Dissolved
Solids, and bacterial removal, but also nitrates, viruses and typical household
chemicals.
3. Identify BMPs that can reduce the wasteloads discharged from on-site technology
to acceptable levels and estimate the reductions that can be expected with each
BMP using both theoretical computations/models and data collected in the field.
4. Recommend options for improving voluntary acceptance and implementation of
on-site wastewater treatment BMPs in Colorado that permit on-site systems to
reduce pollutant discharges to ‘acceptable levels’.
5. Prepare a final report suitable for wide distribution to water managers and county
land use and health professionals in Colorado.
7
Potential Collaborators:

Colorado Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment

Colorado Environmental Health Association (County Health
Departments)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Municipalities

Denver Regional Council of Governments
_______________________________________________________________________
Salinity Mitigation Options for the Lower Arkansas Valley
Proposal Due:
Project Duration:
September 28, 2001
March 1, 2002 – February 28, 2003
Problem Statement:
Irrigators around the world face salinity buildup in soils and water, thus reducing
agricultural productivity and profitability. It is estimated that 27% of the land irrigated in
the U.S. is affected by saline conditions. In Colorado, the lower Arkansas Valley has
faced soil and water salinity problems for many years. Various technological and
institutional arrangements have been implemented over the years (e.g. drainage districts
in the early 1900s), but the problem continues to plague valley irrigators.
Seventy percent of the irrigated fields in the Arkansas valley are affected by
increased salinity resulting in an estimated 10-20 percent reduction in corn and alfalfa
yields. Ten percent of the roughly 250,000 farmable acres in the Arkansas Valley have
been lost to agricultural production due to salinity. Water table levels, in some areas of
the lower Arkansas Valley around Las Animas, have increased from 0.3 to 1.3 meters
during the period 1969 to 1994. The extent of the salinity problem has reached the point
where the 50% of the farmers in three lower Arkansas Valley counties expressed
significant concern about high salinity conditions. With enhanced understanding of the
salinity conditions in the Valley being developed through current studies (e.g. by the
Agricultural Experiment Station and Colorado Water Resources Research Institute), there
is a need to examine options for mitigating the effects of salinity and improve the
productivity and profitability of lower Arkansas Valley agriculture.
Objective:
Develop and evaluate options for mitigating salinity conditions affecting irrigated
agriculture in the Arkansas Valley and, thereby, improve the economic vitality of
irrigated agriculture in the lower Arkansas Valley.
8
Suggested Tasks:
1. Using existing knowledge of salinity conditions in the lower Arkansas Valley,
input from producers in the Valley, and state-of-the-art science of salinity control,
formulate technological options for mitigating impacts of salinity on agricultural
production.
2. Evaluate the salinity reduction benefits of each option at the individual field and
river basin levels.
3. Estimate the cost of each option and the corresponding economic benefits to
irrigated agriculture.
4. Solicit input, from local producers, on the technological and economic feasibility
of each option.
5. Develop recommended options for mitigating salinity for the lower Arkansas
Valley, recognizing that different areas may have different recommendations.
6. Suggest an implementation strategy that includes funding options of initial
installation and ongoing operation and maintenance.
7. Prepare a final report suitable for wide distribution to water users and managers in
Colorado, particularly in the Arkansas Valley.
Potential Collaborators:








Irrigation companies in lower Arkansas Valley
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Water Resources Division of the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Colorado Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S.D.A. (e.g. NRCS and ARS)
9