Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Acquisition of Water and Floodplain Fisheries Habitat in the Yakima Basin |
| Proposal ID | 9109 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Lynn Hatcher |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Yakima |
| Short description | Protect riparian and floodplain fisheries habitat through land acquisition; increase instream flows by purchase of water rights and transfer to instream uses; protect and restore floodplain ecological functions |
| 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 |
|---|
| Subcontractor |
Bureau of Reclamation |
$5,000,000 |
| $5,000,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $5,000,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $5,000,000 |
| 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: The major constraint is the amount of land/water that may be available for purchase. Exact parcels of land/water available will not be known until acquisition program is able to approach real estate entities or private parties. See Section 6e.
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*<p>
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Same proposal as FY98.Technical Issue: Provide specific details about how critically important lands will be chosen. Describe which areas and types of lands would be considered for acquisition. Provide an assessment of the availability of the critical properties. Provide a rationale for purchasing specific properties.
Management Issue: Explain the administrative infrastructure that will be used to implement the program, and the specific relationship with BOR.
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:
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.
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
Monitoring is not well described. The proposal indicates that purchases will be prioritized on an ecological basis but does not describe priority areas or ecological criteria. The proposal should describe its relationship to Bureau of Reclamation acquisitions. The proposal’s scientific approach is valid. The budget should be scrutinized and cost sharing should be considered.