2008 Yakima Basin Regional Area Funding Report - Internal Funding Allocations

Sep 12, 2026

2008 Yakima Basin Regional Area Funding Report details how regional SRFB allocations were developed across watersheds and how responsibilities were coordinated among the Mid-Columbia Region, the Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board, and the Klickitat Lead Entity. It explains negotiation needs, allocation percentages, and the regional technical review approach, including the use of the Lead Entity’s Technical Advisory Group. The report also lists 2008 TAG participants and addresses SRFB projects that did not strongly align with regional implementation plan priorities.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryForms

FormatPDF

Pages62

Reading Time22 min

AccessFree to download

Internal Funding Allocations

Regional Technical Review Process

What criteria were used for the regional technical review?

Who completed the review?

Were any submitted projects not identified in the regional plan?

2008 Yakima Basin Regional Area Funding Report 1. Internal Funding Allocations A. Describe the process and criteria used to develop allocations across watersheds with the region. The Mid-Columbia Region was allocated $ 1,974,000 for the 2008 SRFB Grant Round. As defined by the GSRO, the Mid-Columbia Region includes WRIAs \#30 (Klickitat), \#31 (Rock-Glade), \#37 (Lower Yakima), \#38 (Naches) and \#39 (Upper Yakima) . The Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board is the Salmon Recovery Regional Organization for the Yakima Basin (WRIAs 37, 38 & 39) . The Board is also under contract with WDFW to serve as the Lead Entity for these three WRIAs. There is no regional organization serving WRIAs 30 and 31. WRIA 30 is part of the Klickitat Lead Entity. The Klickitat Lead Entity also includes part of WRIA 29, which is not in the MidColumbia Region. WRIA 31 is not part of a Lead Entity. Because there is not a single regional organization that includes both the areas served by the Yakima Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board and that portion of the Klickitat Lead Entity’s area that is within the Mid-Columbia Region, the two organizations entered into discussions about how to divide the Mid-Columbia allocation between them. The YBFWRB and the Klickitat Lead Entity agreed to submit separate Lead Entity lists for 2008 and to divide funding between the two lists based on an agreed-upon allocation. Discussions for developing a region-wide process continue. Early in thereview process, it became apparent that the SRFB funding request from the Klickitat LE area would be more than it had in the past few years, closer to 40% of the total allocation for the Mid-Columbia Region. As the LE received and amended SRFB grant applications, the Klickitat LE kept the Yakima Board informed regarding its funding needs so the Yakima Board could adjust expectations accordingly and determine if there would be a need to negotiate how to divide funding. The total SRFB funding request for the Klickitat LE project list is $776,880 .00 (39%) of the money allocated for the Mid-Columbia Region, leaving $1,197,120 (61%) for allocation by the YBFWRB in WRIAs 37, 38 and 39. After the Yakima Board completed its review process, it became apparent negotiating for more than 61% of the allocation would not be necessary this year. The average allocation over the three funding cycles since regional allocations began is 74% Yakima Lead Entity, 26% Klickitat Lead Entity. 2. Regional Technical Review Process A. Explain how the regional technical review was conducted. In the Yakima portion of the Middle Columbia River region, the Regional Organization and the Lead Entity are the same organization. We ran the Lead Entity process using the Yakima Lead Entity’s existing Technical Advisory Group (TAG) as the technical review team. Given that 1) the area covered by the Lead Entity and the regional organization is identical, and 2) most potential candidates for serving on a regional technical review team were already serving on the lead entity review team, the YBFWRB saw no reason to convene a separate review team. If in the future, there were agreement among all parties that we should develop a regional review that involves multiple Lead Entities, we would work with other parties to develop a separate regional technical review process. B. What criteria were used for the regional technical review? The Lead Entity used the same evaluation criteria for both the regional and local review. See the local review process below in question 4A. C. Who completed the review, and are they part of the regional organization or independent? Participants in the 2008 SRFB Technical Advisory Group are listed below. Participants were chosen to assure 1) a broad range of knowledge about fisheries and habitat restoration in the Yakima Basin, 2) inclusion of participants from all parts of the basin ( upper, mid and lower), and 3) representation of the full range of organizations active

FAQs

How was the 2008 Mid-Columbia allocation developed across watersheds?

The Mid-Columbia Region allocation was defined by GSRO and included specific WRIAs. The Yakima Board and the Klickitat Lead Entity coordinated separate Lead Entity lists and divided funding based on an agreed-upon allocation while discussions on a region-wide process continued.

How was the regional technical review conducted in the Yakima portion of the region?

Because the regional organization and the Lead Entity were the same in the Yakima portion, the Lead Entity used its existing Technical Advisory Group (TAG) as the technical review team, avoiding a separate review process unless future multi-Lead-Entity regional review was agreed.

What project issue was raised regarding alignment with the regional implementation plan?

One project, 08-2015 Amon Creek Fish Passage 2, did not strongly align with biological priorities identified in the regional implementation plan, and it required justification for inclusion in the recommended funding list.

Sep 12, 2026

Uploaded by River Wang