FY 1999 proposal 9050

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

Title	Type
9050 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Remove 23 Migrational Barriers and Restore Riparian Vegetation on Chumstick
Proposal ID	9050
Organization	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Kate Terrell
Mailing address	P.O. Box 1157 Moses Lake, WA 98837
Phone / email	5097656125 / Kate_Terrell@mail.fws.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 1999
Province / Subbasin	Upper Mid-Columbia / Wenatchee
Short description	Enhance and restore fish passage in the Chumstick Drainage. Species that will be affected include chinook, steelhead, bull trout, westslope cutthroat, and re-introduced coho.
Target species

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

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 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
Subcontractor		$200,000
		$200,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 1999 cost	$200,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 1999 budget request	$200,000
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: It will be necessary that all in-stream work be completed during the work window established by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Technical Issue: Need to explicitly state the existing resource condition, whether the culverts are a critical limiting factor, and how that determination was made.

Technical Issue: Need to describe the measurable benefits of culvert removal to fish and wildlife.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund (low priority)

Date:
May 13, 1998

Comment:

Budget constraints. Proposal was found to be technically sound and appropriate but was deferred because other work was judged more urgent and funds were not adequate for all needed work.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 1998-1)

Recommendation:
Adequate

Date:
Jun 18, 1998

Comment:

The sequence of objective and tasks were well described. The proposed monitoring program was adequate. This was a good proposal. The ISRP strongly recommends funding this project.