FY 1999 proposal 9039

Additional documents

TitleType
9039 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleIncrease Stream Flow in the Methow River and Provide Trail-Based Recreation
Proposal ID9039
OrganizationChewuch Canal Company
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameCraig Boesel
Mailing addressP.O. Box 234 Winthrop, WA 98862
Phone / email5099962488 /
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinUpper Mid-Columbia / Methow
Short descriptionStudy feasibility of changing a 12-mile earthen irrigation canal to a piped irrigation supply with an associated non-motorized recreation trail
Target species
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

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 1999 cost
Personnel Craig Boesel, Chewuch Canal..contract management $700
Subcontractor Randy Sackett, PSE Consulting Engineer; Individual; James D.King and Associatest; Reeder and Karro; Natural Resource Conservation Service $14,140
$14,840
Total estimated budget
Total FY 1999 cost$14,840
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 1999 budget request$14,840
FY 1999 forecast from 1998$0
% change from forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: No known schedule constraints on this proposed part of the project; any subsequent construction of the project would be open to political delays if there was major opposition or to delays if funding was slow.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision*
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Management Issue: Explain how building trails is appropriate for the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program.

Technical Issue: Describe the specific measurable benefits to the resource, the target species, and the watershed.

Technical Issue: Proposal needs significant modification to clearly describe how the techniques are valid and appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the specific fish and wildlife benefit.


Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)
Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Pending
Recommendation:
Adequate after revision
Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The revised proposal did a good job of specifically addressing questions about technical benefits. Comments on the original proposal were that it was not clearly linked to the Fish and Wildlife Program, did not specify that the water saved will be reserved for instream uses, nor did not sufficiently describe the projected benefits to fish and wildlife. Some of these concerns were addressed in the revision. This is an irrigation improvement project and the ISRP wondered whether BPA was the right funding source.