Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Increase Stream Flow in the Methow River and Provide Trail-Based Recreation |
Proposal ID | 9039 |
Organization | Chewuch Canal Company |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Name | Craig Boesel |
Mailing address | P.O. Box 234 Winthrop, WA 98862 |
Phone / email | 5099962488 / |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 1999 |
Province / Subbasin | Upper Mid-Columbia / Methow |
Short description | Study 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
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
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.