FY 1999 proposal 9109

Additional documents

TitleType
9109 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleAcquisition of Water and Floodplain Fisheries Habitat in the Yakima Basin
Proposal ID9109
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation (YIN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameLynn Hatcher
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / lynn@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 1999
Province / SubbasinLower Mid-Columbia / Yakima
Short descriptionProtect 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
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
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 forecast0.ToString("0.0%"))
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Outyear budget totals

(working on it)

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.