BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Coordinated Policy for Conservation of Wild and Naturally Spawning Populations

BPA project number   5508000

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Bill M. Bakke

Sponsor type   OR-Consultant

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameBill M. Bakke
 Mailing addressBill M. Bakke
6261 SW 47th Place
Portland, Oregon 97221
 Phone503/246-5890

BPA technical contact   , EWN

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   7.1D.1

Short description
Project would develop a coordinated conservation policy for wild and naturally spawning populations of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin.

Project start year   1997    End year   1999

Start of operation and/or maintenance   2000

Project development phase   Planning

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
This project is closely related but distinct from the development of a naturally spawning conservation coordination program (7.1D.2), monitoring natural populations (7.1C.4), collecting information on natural populations (7.1C.3), identifying stock boundaries (7.1C.1), identifying indicator populations (7.1C.2) and procedures to conduct vulnerability analysis (7.1E.1).

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications

Specific measureable objectives
Established policy with objectives and standards for wild and naturally spawning populations coordinated among the states and tribes.

Testable hypothesis
Have the states and tribes established a coordinated policy for wild and naturally spawning populations by the year 2000 that is approved by peer review of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board?

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
The assumption is the fish agencies and tribes want to develop and implement a coordinated policy for wild and naturally spawning populations for the Columbia River basin.

Methods
Establish a technical team of 9 members to develop the draft coordinated policy based on work completed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and evolving policy in the state of Washington. The draft coordinated policy will be presented to the state and tribal agencies for review and comment and to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board for peer review. The final policy, following review and comment, will be presented to the N.W. Power Planning Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service for approval and then to the fish agencies and tribes for adoption and implementation.

Brief schedule of activities
In 1997 the technical team will meet to develop the draft policy for the conservation of wild and naturally spawning populations in the basin. This will take 12 months. Once this draft policy is completed it will go to the state and tribal agencies for review and comment and to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board for peer review. This will take the project into 1988 at which time the technical team will produce a final report that will go to the agencies, tribes, Power Council and National Marine Fisheries Service for adoption and implementation in the year 1999. The N.W. Power Planning Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service may wish to hold public hearings on this policy.

Biological need
The Power Council's fish and wildlife program calls for the conservation of biological diversity. This coordinated conservation policy for wild and naturally spawning populations in the Columbia River basin will provide the basis to implement the Council's framework objective. Since, at this time, there is no coordinated conservation policy for wild and naturally spawning populations in the basin, the adoption of one by the agencies and tribes will provide a management framework that would advance conservation of this portion of production planning. The policy would also help the states and tribes to put into effect a policy that would prevent the depletion of wild and natural salmonid populations and avoid future emergency measures such as listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. This policy would also benefit the recovery of those natural populations also listed as endangered species.

Critical uncertainties
Will the comanagers in the basin adopt a policy for the conservation of wild and naturally spawning populations of salmonids? And will the policy, by itself, be enough to prevent the declining trend of natural populations in the basin?

Summary of expected outcome
A coordinated conservation policy for wild and natural salmonids will be adopted by the comanagers, creating for the first time a basin wide management plan and commitment to realize the productive potential and long-term persistence of these important renewable resources. This policy would allow the comanagers and the region to take control of their future and have a more certain management framework for Columbia River salmonids and the benefits these populations supply society.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
This project depends upon the cooperation of all comanagers in the basin to adopt a conservation policy for wild and natural salmonids. This project also depends upon continued support from comanagers, the Power Council, and BPA to be successful.

Risks
The risks associated with this project relate to the loss of biological diversity among Columbia Basin wild and natural salmonid populations if the policy is not adopted by the relevant parties. This will result in continued decline of wild and natural salmonids, the genetic information they represent, their productive potential and benefits they supply to society. Without a coordinated conservation policy all wild natural populations remain at risk of extinction and the region faces more ESA listings and extinctions.

Monitoring activity
Once the comanagers adopt a coordinated policy for the conservation of wild and natural populations in the basin, a monitoring program for those populations must be developed describing their status, research needs, and management changes on an annual basis until those populations are stabilized. Then a biennial monitoring program would be sufficient to track the status of those populations. This status review should also be available to the public.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 150,000
1998: 60,000
1999: 40,000

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   System Policy

Recommendation    Tier 3 - do not fund