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
ESA Tech Assistance/Review

BPA project number   9301300

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
S.P. Cramer & Associates

Sponsor type   OR-Consultant

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameSteve Cramer
 Mailing addressS.P. Cramer & Associates
300 SE Arrow Creek Lane
Gresham, OR 97080
 Phone503/669-0133

BPA technical contact   Deborah Docherty, EWN 503/230-4458

Biological opinion ID   NMFS BO RPA 13g

NWPPC Program number   

Short description
Recognized experts in fisheries biology will provide technical assistance as needed, to BPA and fishery managers. Focus has been on ESA issues, but contract task orders can be developed as needs arise. Technical assistance to BPA and fishery managers by recognized experts in various aspects of fish biology. Assistance to be provided on an as-needed basis for rapidly developing issues, particularly ESA listings and recovery plans.

Project start year   1992    End year   2000

Start of operation and/or maintenance   

Project development phase   Implementation

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
All projects that relate to ESA evaluations or recovery planning

Project history
The project was initiated in the spring of 1993 to assist the NMFS Recovery Team with assembly and analysis of information the Team needed to develop the Recovery Plan. A team of leading Northwest consultants was assembled to prepare a series of 11 reports for submittal to NMFS and the Recovery Team. These reports responded to a list topics for which NMFS and the Recovery Team had requested assistance with assembling and analyzing available information. In retrospect, the Recovery Team indicated they found substantial value in the reports submitted.

The team of experts involved in this project included the following:
Steven P. Cramer Ken .L. Witty
Don Chapman Al Girogi
Donn Park Lars Mobrand
Jim Lichatowich Larry Lastelle
Bruce Watson Gary Morishima
Larry Gilbertson Dennis Dauble
Cleve Steward R.P. Mueller
Doug Neeley John Emlen

Biological results achieved
The reports on Snake River Salmon Recovery Issues were extensively cited in the Recovery Plans prepared by the Recovery Team and by NMFS.

Annual reports and technical papers
During FY 1993, the following reports are completed:

Chapman, D.W. and K.L. Witty, Habitat of weak salmon stocks of the Snake River Basin and feasible recovery measures.

Technical Report 1 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon. Giorgi, A.E. Flow augmentation and reservoir drawdown: strategies for recovery of threatened and endangered stocks of salmon in the Snake River Basin.

Technical Report 2 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmo. D.L. Park. Effects of marine mammals on Columbia River salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Technical Report 3 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon. D.L. Park. Transportation as a means of increasing wild juvenile salmon survival.

Technical Report 4 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon. Lichatowich, J., and B. Watson. Use of artificial propagation and supplementation for rebuilding salmon stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Technical Report 5 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon. Lichatowich, J. Ocean carrying capacity.

Technical Report 6 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon. Lestelle, L.C. and L.G. Gilbertson. Harvest management and recovery of Snake River salmon stocks.

Technical Report 7 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon. Steward, C. Biodiversity and the recovery of threatened and endangered salmon species in the Columbia River Basin.

Technical Report 8 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon. Dauble, D.D. and R.P. Mueller. Factors affecting the survival of upstream migrant adult salmonids in the Columbia River Basin.

Technical Report 9 or 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon. (This report was actually funded under a separate contract but review was conducted under this contract). Cramer, S.P. and D. Neeley. Evaluation of delisting criteria and rebuilding schedules for Snake River spring/summer chinook, fall chinook, and sockeye salmon.

Technical Report 10 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon. Emlen, J.M. Population viability of the Snake River chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

Technical Report 11 of 11, Recovery Issues for Threatened and Endangered Snake River Salmon.. (This report was actually funded by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but review was conducted under this contract.



During FY 1994, the following reports have been completed:

Twelve authors. Technical review of draft Snake River salmon recovery plan recommendations.

Steward, C.R. Assessment of the flow-survival relationship obtained by Sims and Ossiander (1981) for Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon smolts.

Cramer, S.P. Qualification of the probable effects of alternative in-river harvest regulations on recovery of Snake River fall chinook salmon. (Progress Report).

Neeley, D. Affidavit on sources of mortality to listed Snake River salmon stocks in the Columbia River Basin.

The final report by S.P. Cramer, entitled, “Quantification of the probable effects of alternative in-river harvest regulations on recovery of Snake River fall chinook salmon,: will be completed by March 31, 1996. This is the only Task Order currently active. New Task Orders will be developed in an as-needed basis.

Management implications
The FY 1993 reports produced by this project were major contributions to the recovery planning documents produced by NMFS and the Recovery Team. These reports covered most of the issues (limiting factors) for these ESA stocks.

Specific measureable objectives
The purpose of this project is to provide a mechanism that enables BPA or NMFS to obtain the full expertise needed to respond to short-term, high-priority needs that arise out of ESA status reviews or recovery planning. Such short-term needs cannot be specifically named in advance, but such needs related to ESA have exceeded the capacity of NMFS and BPA to respond with the desired level of thoroughness and creativity in the time allotted.

Testable hypothesis
Hypotheses will be developed at the time the specific projects are identified

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
This project assumes that new ESA listings will be proposed and that Recovery Planning will be initiated.

Methods
Task Orders will be developed to address specific needs as they arise. It is anticipated that these task orders will generally require synthesis and analysis of existing information. Thus, the methods to be employed may include:

' Assembly of data through data file reviews, report reviews, literature searches, site visits to outpost offices where historic data may be stored.
' Synthesis of new electronic databases
' Technical masterminding sessions with small groups of experts and resource managers
' Preparation of graphic and statistical data analyses
' Simulation modeling
' Preparation of technical reports

Brief schedule of activities
A number of fish populations in the Columbia Basin are under review by NMFS for possible listing under the ESA. If listings are proposed (several are probable), numerous requirements for completion of technical documents, plans, and reviews will be triggered. This includes Biological Assessments, Recovery Plans, Conservation Plans, and Sampling Permit Applications. The contractor will supply unique expertise and additional manpower to respond to these issues as they arise. The contractor will also serve as a resource to NMFS in assembling biological information they require for the ESA process.

Biological need
Several ESA listings of fishes in the Columbia Basin are likely during the next several years. Because the ESA process has overtaxed the manpower resources of our fisheries agencies, status reviews and recovery planning prone to overlook some important data and miss some insightful analyses. This problem results in amplified contention among affected interest groups, and may unnecessarily prolong the recovery process, or result in a species extinction.

Critical uncertainties
Will additional fishes affected by the Federal Columbia River Power System be proposed by NMFS for listing under the ESA?

Summary of expected outcome
This assistance from regional experts will enable NMFS to develop accurate ESA determinations and effective ESA recovery plans. This assistance will also enable BPA to effectively fulfill their assigned roles in any recovery plans.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
Reauthorization of the Federal ESA

Risks
None

Monitoring activity
Each Task Order will produce a final report for review by BPA, and likely by other fisheries agencies, particularly NMFS.

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
1993: 422,844
1994: 36,015
1995: 12,890
New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 150,000
1998: 150,000
1999: 150,000
2000: 150,000

* 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