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
A History of Management Decisions and Court Actions Affecting Populations of Mainstem Spawning Snake River Fall Chinook

BPA project number   5520200

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

Sponsor type   OR-Consultant

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

 NameKen Witty
 Mailing addressS. P. Cramer and Associates, Inc.
300 S. E. Arrow Creek Lane
Gresham, Oregon 97080

BPA technical contact   ,

Biological opinion ID   

NWPPC Program number   

Short description
Prepare a report which describes the logic and impacts of historic government decisions affecting production and harvest of Snake River fall chinook.

Project start year   1997    End year   1998

Start of operation and/or maintenance   

Project development phase   Planning

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications

Specific measureable objectives
Describe the legal and administrative impediments to recovery of Snake River fall chinook tht have resulted from past management and court decisions.

Examples of past management and court decisions which could have specific measurable impacts curtailing restoration efforts are:
(1) the loss of adaptive genetic traits following the relocation of runs downstream in the early 1900's
(2) hydroelectric license provisions affecting water flows needed to maintain spawning, egg incubation, and early rearing
(3) decisions by State fishery agencies to use hatcheries to mitigation fish losses
(4) decisions by State fishery agencies substituting wild fall chinook with hatchery spring/summer run stocks
(5) mix-stock harvest allocations
(6) decisions to place a higher priority on managed flows for spring/summer stocks.

Testable hypothesis
l This analysis will not test a hypothesis, but it will identify a foundation for setting management goals and planning recovery actions.

Since escapementent goals have not been set for Snake River fall chinook, it is impossible to test and measure any action designed to restore Snake River fall chinook runs against a set management objective. This analysis may depict that it is impossible to restore Snake River fall chinook runs under existing management decisions and court actions regardless of actions designed to improve habitat conditions.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
l Relocation of mainstem Snake River fall chinook stocks to the lower Columbia River and to hatcheries and subsequent hatchery practices may have eliminated life history characteristics necessary for fall chinook survival in the mainstem Snake River.

l The States of Idaho and Oregon prefer to manage for tributary - spring/summer - spawning chinook.

l Ocean and lower Columbia River chinook harvest will continue to be on mixed stocks and harvest regulations will not protect individual races or stocks of fish.

l Allocation of flows will favor survival of spring/summer chinook and steelhead at the expense of up-river fall chinook stocks in the Columbia River Basin.

l We will identify and describe every management and court decision affecting production and harvest of mainstem spawning Snake River fall chinook. This will be done by searching congressional and court records. We expect to get leads from interviews with key people.

l We will conduct an analysis of each management and court decision to determine its relevance to the recovery and restoration of mainstem spawning Snake River fall chinook.

l We will analyze the cumulative impacts of management and court decisions. This analysis will consider recovery and restoration of fall chinook both above and below Idaho Power Companyís Hells Canyon dam complex.

Note: We will not handle fish nor will we need special equipment.

Brief schedule of activities
l Approximately Ĺ of the total time allocated to this project will be used collecting documents, interviewing people and sorting relevant information. The remaining time will be spent analyzing the information and preparing draft and final reports.

Biological need
l Mainstem spawning Snake River fall chinook runs cannot be recovered or restored without a comprehensive management plan which identifies constraints affecting populations. This will relate the Recovery Planís Task 4.7.6 which calls for a feasibility evaluation of reintroducint fall chinook above Hells Canyon Dam, and to Task 3.4 which calls for development of alternative harvest methods.

l Past management and court decisions need to be reviewed to identify possible constraints to recovery and restore Snake River fall chinook. Before a comprehensive management plan can be developed, a list of management and court action constraints and their impacts must be developed. In the past, upriver runs of spring/summer chinook and downriver harvest of fall chinook have received a higher priority than the maintenance of Snake River fall chinook. Past management and court actions reflect this priority. If these decisions are not changed, restoration of Snake River fall chinook may be a dream.

Critical uncertainties
l We have not identified any uncertainties which would curtail the preparation of a report identifying management decisions and court actions affecting populations of Snake River fall chinook.

Summary of expected outcome
l We expect that our analysis will depict a need to drastically alter past management decisions before Snake River fall chinook recovery or restoration is feasible.

l We will identify and determine the relevance of each decision to determine its impact on the decline of Snake River fall chinook populations.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation

l We do not know of any risks associated with the development of this project.

Monitoring activity
l Development of a Comprehensive Management Plan designed to restore Snake River fall chinook runs would indicate that this project was completed and met its designed goal.

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: 70,000

* 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