FY 2001 High Priority proposal 200107600
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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Acquire Tucannon River Water Rights |
| Proposal ID | 200107600 |
| Organization | Washington Water Trust (WWT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Sarah Ogier |
| Mailing address | 3417 Fremont Avenue N., Suite 220 Seattle, WA 98103 |
| Phone / email | 2066751585 / sarah@thewatertrust.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | Patty McCleary |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Tucannon |
| Short description | Acquire 2-3 CFS of senior Tucannon River water rights from a private landowner under a 15-year lease agreement. The acquired water will be left instream benefiting ESA listed spring chinook, steelhead and bull trout. |
| Target species | spring chinook salmon and steelhead trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.37 | -117.69 | Tucannon River |
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: Executive Director (5%), Project Manager (4%) and Conservation Associate (10%) | $16,000 |
| Fringe | 9% of salaries | $1,500 |
| Supplies | $500 | |
| Travel | 6 trips to Tucannon Area | $2,000 |
| Capital | Annual Payment $ 6,630 | $100,000 |
| $120,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $120,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $120,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| The David and Lucile Packard Foundation | Project staff for identification, evaluation, monitoring and public outreach | $29,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This proposal would purchase a 15-year lease of a senior water right in the Tucannon River that would increase instream flow to the benefit of 3 listed species. The proposal provides good justification, clear methods and excellent coordination. The proposal also provides an excellent discussion on the legal issues surrounding the Washington Water Trust, which ensures that water savings would remain instream. This project is high on a priority list of Washington Water Trust. However, the proposal was missing some critical information on what the leased water will add to the base flow. What are the existing summer base flows? Is the diversion high or low in the basin? It would be beneficial for WDFW to provide some monitoring.Comment:
Questions regarding the significance of the direct benefits provided. An additional 2 cfs is not enough to have much effect on the dewatering problem.Comment:
Comment:
This project would restore instream flows to portions of the Tucannon subbasin. However, it is not clear which portions of the subbasin would benefit from the action. Restoring instream flows is a high priority action, and Washington State has a trust water rights program that would ensure such flows are protected instream. NMFS concludes that this project fell short of highest priority status for 2001 because project planning design and description are not yet complete. Reviewers were unable to analyze what work will actually occur on the ground and whether gains from that work will adequately and consistently provide connectivity above other alternatives. It should be reconsidered in the context of the Columbia Plateau provincial review.Comment: