| |
Artificial Production Policy Statement on Columbia Basin Hatcheries: A
Program in Transition
February 17, 1999 | document 99-2
Related links:
1. INTRODUCTION
Congress, in 1997, directed the Northwest Power
Planning Council, with the assistance of the Independent Scientific
Advisory Board (ISAB), to review federally funded hatchery programs in the
Columbia River Basin and recommend to Congress a set of policies to guide
artificial production of fish in the Basin . Pursuant to this request, the
Council initiated what is called the Artificial Production Review (APR).
As part of the APR, this document proposes a statement of artificial
production policies to facilitate further regional discussion on
artificial production policies and issues, and to assist the Council in
developing its policy recommendations to Congress.
Production policy in the basin has been in
transition for more than a decade, as the managers of production programs
have faced pressures to transform hatcheries so as to widen the harvest
opportunities provided by artificial production, to reduce the adverse
impact of hatchery production on wild fish, and to attempt to use
artificial production techniques to try to rebuild naturally sustaining
populations. These objectives have not always been easy to reconcile, at
least not on the surface. Even so, changes in statements of policy can be
easier to accomplish than changes in existing practices that policy is
supposed to guide, and in fact, policy reformation in the basin in the
last few years has exceeded actual change in production practices. Thus
this proposed policy framework is not created out of thin air. Instead, it
is based on several important regional studies and reports from throughout
the 1990s, as well as guidance from regional workshops, Council staff, and
consultants.
Primary among these sources has been the Policies
and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries report, a
thorough review and reformulation of production policy prepared in 1994-95
by the interagency Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT), as part of
the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. In addition to the IHOT Report,
the following sources also contributed significantly to this policy
framework proposal:
* Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project
(RASP), an evaluation of supplementation theories, policies and practices
also developed under the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and funded by
the Bonneville Power Administration (1992) * recent scientific reviews
focused wholly or partly on artificial production in the basin by the
National Fish Hatchery Review Panel (1994), the National Research Council
(1996), and the Council's Independent Scientific Group (1996) * Draft
Review of Salmonid Artificial Production in the Columbia River Basin by
the ISAB's Scientific Review Team (SRT) for the Artificial Production
Review (1998) * Workshop on Artificial Production in the Columbia River
Basin sponsored by the Northwest Power Planning Council, January 19-20,
1999 in Portland, Oregon, and the Strawfish policy statement produced by
Council staff for the Workshop
Still, as indicated by the Congressional request
for Council recommendations on production policy, there remains a need to
integrate the findings, conclusions, strategies, and recommendations of
these reviews and reports into a coherent set of regional policies for
artificial production. Some of the reviews and reports, such as the IHOT
Report, emphasize reform at the operational level and point out the need
for broader, ecosystem scale coordination and planning. Other initiatives,
such as the ISG's Return to the River or the SRT's review of artificial
production, have emphasized broad-scale principles and policies to protect
wild populations without a clear translation to operations of individual
hatcheries. This proposed framework attempts to integrate "bottom
up" and "top down" approaches, reconcile various policy
recommendations, and incorporate the need for subbasin plan development
into a regional policy statement for production.
In addition to forming the basis for the
Council's recommendations to Congress on artificial production in the
Basin, this policy statement, once finalized, should serve several
additional purposes. It could be used:
? to update and revise the policies, goals, and
performance standards contained in the IHOT Report and provide guidance
for upcoming hatchery performance evaluations; ? to provide guidance to
subbasin planning efforts, by helping to determine and evaluate the role
artificial production could play in particular areas, as regional
authorities attempt to meet mitigation obligations, treaty obligations,
the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and other legal
obligations; ? as a central component of the Regional Multi-Species
Framework, which is designed to provide a set of scientifically
supportable alternatives for the future of the Columbia River, especially
as it relates to management of fish and wildlife resources. ? to help
guide the Council and the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes as the
Council amends its Fish and Wildlife Program, and as the Council conducts
the funding reviews and provides funding recommendations for the use of
the Bonneville fish and wildlife budget for production and watershed
activities; and ? to inform Congress and the relevant agencies on how to
fund and implement reform in those artificial production facilities that
are not part of the Bonneville budget.
2. SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES FROM THE
MULTI-SPECIES FRAMEWORK
As an important part of the Columbia River Basin
Multi-Species Framework, the policies developed in this proposal should be
consistent with the Scientific Principles for the Conceptual Foundation of
the Framework process. 2.1 Framework Scientific Principles: These
scientific principles, combined with defined premises, hypotheses, and
purposes for artificial production, are foundational in developing a
coherent, science-based set of policies for artificial production in the
Columbia Basin. 2.1.1 The abundance and productivity of fish and wildlife
reflect the conditions they experience in their ecosystem over the course
of their life cycle. 2.1.2 Natural ecosystems are dynamic, evolutionary,
and resilient. 2.1.3 Ecosystems are structured hierarchically. 2.1.4
Ecosystems are defined relative to specific communities of plant and
animal species. 2.1.5. Biological diversity accommodates environmental
variation. 2.1.6 Ecosystem conditions develop primarily through natural
processes. 2.1.7 Ecological management is adaptive and experimental. 2.1.8
Human actions can be key factors structuring ecosystems.
2.2 Principles need further definition: Because
these scientific principles have been developed for the broader
Multi-Species Framework process, it is not within the scope of this
initiative to revise these scientific principles. However, there is a need
for clarification and the Council intends to further define the
principles. In addition, the following premises, hypotheses, and purposes
relating to artificial production are intended to help bridge the
scientific principles and the policies contained in this proposal.
3. PREMISES, HYPOTHESES, AND PURPOSES
Although not clearly articulated in the IHOT
Report, the Strawfish, the SRT Report, or other sources, a number of
premises and hypotheses are implicit in these initiatives. In an effort to
focus discussion on core issues, the facilitation team at the Council's
January 19-20, 1999 Artificial Production Workshop drafted an initial
Premise Statement which was debated, revised, and generally accepted by
Workshop participants. This statement and other premises and hypotheses
are outlined below and should be used to help sharpen the regional
discussion on artificial production.
3.1 Premise Statement from January 1999 Workshop
The principles and policies for artificial production: 3.1.1 must be
consistent with legal mandates for mitigation, enhancement, Treaty rights
and trust obligations, the Endangered Species Act, and other applicable
law. 3.1.2 must be consistent with and guided by the regional scientific
principles in Section 2, which form the basis for the conceptual
foundation for the Columbia River Multispecies Framework; 3.1.3 should be
developed in a manner which encourages broad participation and
application; 3.1.4 where appropriate, should build on or integrate
relevant policy developments that have already taken place in the last
decade, such as the IHOT and RASP guidelines; 3.1.5 should be able to
influence policy developments to come in the future, such as in the U.S.
vs. Oregon negotiations over production objectives, but also be able to be
adapted to reflect further policy developments that occur in those other
forums; 3.1.6 depend upon the role of artificial production in meeting
harvest and production goals for the Columbia Basin, and anticipate that
this role may change in the future. Therefore, as the role of an
artificial program changes, the application of the principles and policies
will be subject to revision as new information and/or a new vision for the
Columbia Basin emerges; 3.1.7 will be based on the working hypotheses
that: hatcheries are a tool that have a mitigation and conservation role
in the future Columbia River ecosystem; with care given to appropriate
changes in the artificial production practices and facility designs, and
fisheries management practices, the response of artificially produced fish
can be compatible with and complementary to the purposes for artificial
production; 3.1.8 need to be incorporated in subbasin plans which are
consistent with scientific principles, meet regional objectives, and fit
within the unique ecological conditions within the Columbia River Basin.
3.2 Mimicking wild population rearing conditions
will improve survival: In addition to the Workshop Premise Statement, the
following hypotheses concerning the methods of artificial production
underlie many of the recommended policies and must be tested. 3.2.1
Hypotheses regarding survival of artificially produced fish: * if hatchery
operations are modified to mimic natural processes and populations, higher
survival rates will result; * with the increased juvenile survival of
artificially produced fish, fewer hatchery fish will need to be released
to meet existing or increased levels of survival to adults. 3.2.2 In
testing these two hypotheses, it should be noted that: * some efforts to
mimic natural rearing processes, such as the use of shading, are beyond
hypotheses and have become accepted practice; * the uncertainty lies in
how far managers can or should go in mimicking natural rearing conditions
in an effort to improve survival, especially considering the increasing
cost and difficulty of some measures; * there are some cases where
survival appears to be enhanced by not mimicking natural release size or
migration times; * even with enhanced survival through such efforts,
mitigation obligations are likely to remain unmet.
3.3 Mimicking natural rearing conditions will
reduce impacts on wild populations: Much of the recent literature suggests
that mimicking natural rearing will reduce impacts on wild populations and
the ecosystem. 3.3.1 Hypothesis regarding impact on wild populations: *
mimicking natural rearing conditions and processes will reduce impacts or
risks to wild populations and the ecosystem. 3.3.2 In testing this
hypothesis, it should be noted that: * it is probably less certain than
the survival hypothesis; * there is a counter-hypothesis that, at least in
some situations, it is best for artificial production managers to avoid
mimicking the release times, places, and conditions of wild populations
(see 3.5) to avoid competition and interaction.
3.4 "Natural" broodstock and rearing
can supplement wild populations: Supplementation is based on the
hypothesis that: 3.4.1 Artificial production managers who genetically
select and monitor broodstock and carefully mimic natural rearing and
release processes can produce fish which are sufficiently
indistinguishable from wild populations so as to be able to successfully
supplement and bolster wild populations. 3.4.2 In cases where wild fish
populations have been extirpated or depressed below sustainable levels,
supplementation may be used to re-establish, preserve, or otherwise
rehabilitate wild populations, especially where additional habitat or
improved conditions support recovery.
3.5 "Isolated" artificial production
can be beneficial: Contrary to the emphasis on mimicking natural
production and rearing is the notion that intentional separation, in time
and place, of wild and artificially produced populations can help meet the
needs of fish harvest without competing or interfering with wild
populations. Although it is clear that taking advantage of habitat unused
by wild populations, and timing releases to avoid interactions with wild
populations, can reduce competition and interference, a successful
isolation strategy must also prevent straying. To determine the validity
of this approach, it should be tested by the following hypothesis. 3.5.1
Artificial production which is temporally and spatially isolated from wild
populations can support fish harvest without significant negative impacts
on wild populations.
3.6 Conclusion -- test premises; define purposes:
These premises and hypotheses regarding artificial production must be
tested to better determine if they are valid and can provide a foundation
for regional policies and artificial production standards. Assuming both
approaches -- mimicking natural populations and isolation from natural
populations -- are generally valid, the question becomes when and how to
apply them. 3.6.1 If the goal of artificial production is, at least in
part, to try to supplement an existing population or to restore one that
has been extirpated or seriously depressed, managers must attempt to mimic
the genetic characteristics and rearing and migration processes of the
wild population. 3.6.2 If, on the other hand, the goal is primarily
fisheries mitigation or augmentation, managers may have a broader range of
options, based on cost, feasibility, and the impact or risk on wild fish.
3.6.3 It is therefore important that artificial production facilities are
operated for the appropriate goals, and that their operations are
evaluated for impacts on wild populations. Toward this end, the region
must develop and employ a common set of definitions of the purposes for
artificial production. (INSERT DEFINITION OF PURPOSES WHEN COMPLETED)
4. ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
POLICY AND COORDINATION
It shall be the policy of the management entities
of the fishery resources in the Columbia Basin to coordinate artificial
production programs and ensure that all artificial production practices
are based on regional standards. The desired "final product" of
artificial production is a fish that has minimal impact on wild
populations and also contributes to harvest opportunities and natural
spawning populations.
4.1 Coordinate artificial production within the
basin: The production and release of artificially produced fish can have
far-reaching impacts on wild fish, other hatchery fish, and the ecosystem.
Artificial production programs must be coordinated at the subbasin level.
4.1.1 All fish produced must be produced and released consistent with
regional management policies and standards.
4.2 Base artificial production on environmental
conditions: The success of artificial production is directly tied to the
quality and quantity of the environment into which the fish are reared and
released, therefore, the use of artificial production will be directly
linked to environmental conditions. 4.2.1 Objectives for artificial
production must be based on the ability of the environment to support
those objectives. 4.2.2 Strategies related to the release of artificially
produced fish will be based upon the biological carrying capacity of the
receiving water bodies, including consideration of members of the release
population that do not migrate. Considerations will include impacts on the
naturally producing fish residing in the system as well as life history
requirements of the cultured population. 4.2.3 In considering the ability
of the environment to support artificial production objectives, the scope
of consideration must include both the environment and conditions at the
Columbia basin and subbasin scale.
4.3 Improve survival of artificially produced
fish: Much progress has been made in the past several decades to increase
the survival rates of artificially produced fish. Generally, artificial
production programs will seek additional improvements in survival through
further efforts to mimic natural propagation, rearing, and migration
processes. In some cases, however -- depending on environmental
conditions, the purpose of the program, and the effects on wild
populations -- managers may make improvements in the survival of
artificially produced fish by separating them in time and place from wild
populations to prevent competition and interference. In either case,
artificial production programs will employ the applicable policies and
performance measures necessary to improve the quality and survival of
their fish and reduce risks to or help rebuild wild populations. 4.3.1 The
success of artificial production depends on the ability to maintain
physical and behavior attributes of the fish that enhance survival in the
natural environment. 4.3.2 Artificial production programs will, where
appropriate, emulate the life history diversity of wild populations to
maximize fish quality. 4.3.3 Technology to resemble natural incubation and
rearing conditions will be used for artificial production of fish. 4.3.4
Artificial production will use ambient natal stream water and water
temperatures to reinforce compatibility with local environments where
applicable. 4.3.5 New and replacement artificial production facilities
should, where applicable, be designed as small, stream-specific facilities
that use local populations, ambient water, and engineered habitat to
simulate natural production and rearing. 4.3.6 In some situations,
however, it may be advantageous to produce cultured populations which are
intentionally isolated in time or location from wild populations to meet
fishery needs without competing or intermingling with related wild fish in
freshwater and estuarine habitat, assuming impacts to wild populations can
be controlled.
4.4 Minimize impacts on/rebuild wild populations:
Beyond the efforts to improve the survival of artificially produced fish,
artificial production programs will adhere to regional policies and
practices which minimize their adverse impacts on wild populations and/or
assist in their recovery. 4.4.1 Artificial production programs intended to
supplement or help rebuild extirpated or depressed wild populations will
place a high priority on mimicking the genetic characteristics, rearing,
and migration of the target wild population. * Supplementation and
rebuilding efforts will mimic natural population parameters in size,
maturation, and timing of migrating juveniles so as to synchronize with
environmental selective forces and enhance integration with wild
populations. * New and replacement artificial production facilities for
such programs should, where applicable, be designed as small,
stream-specific facilities that use local populations, ambient water, and
engineered habitat to simulate natural production and rearing, so as to
improve the quality of the artificially produced fish and enhance the
recovery effort. 4.4.2 Artificial production programs whose primary goal
is fish harvest may have a broader array of management options. * Managers
may seek to mimic wild populations in time, place, rearing, and release so
long as there are no substantial negative effects on wild populations. *
Alternatively, programs whose primary goal is harvest augmentation may,
where appropriate, intentionally isolate artificially produced fish in an
attempt to maximize fish harvest benefits and minimize impacts on wild
populations.
4.5 Use sound science: Artificial production
programs must be based on sound scientific principles, assumptions, data,
methodologies, research, and evaluation. 4.5.1 Artificial production is a
tool to be used in a manner consistent with the Scientific Principles of
the Multi-Species Framework. 4.5.2 Artificial fish production must be
based on scientifically defensible assumptions regarding the benefits and
role of artificial production. 4.5.3 Research and evaluation approaches
will be used to guide artificial production programs. 4.5.4 Artificial
production programs will be monitored and evaluated using scientifically
valid methods at the facility, subbasin and Columbia basin levels.
4.6 Relate performance indicators to purposes:
Performance indicators for artificial production programs will be directly
related to the purposes of the program . 4.6.1 Given the current dynamic
nature of artificial production programs and our evolving understanding of
their interactions with other fish populations and the environment, the
purposes for which artificial production facilities are operated will
change. Artificial production programs and facilities should therefore be
evaluated using performance indicators related to these changed purposes.
4.6.2 Performance indicators must be developed and broadly applied; a
proposed set of performance indicators for artificial production programs
and facilities will be developed and included, in draft form, in the
Appendix. 4.6.3 As a tool for selecting the appropriate performance
indicators for artificial production programs, a matrix matching
performance indicators and purposes will be developed by the managers and
the Council in consultation with other relevant parties and included in
the Appendix.
4.7 Evaluate existing programs and prioritize
improvements: Existing programs and facilities will be evaluated to
determine feasibility and cost of meeting the regional artificial
production policies and guidelines. Based on this evaluation, a plan will
be developed for a five-year transition to prioritize investments for
artificial production in the basin. 4.7.1 Artificial production has
inherent risks and potential benefits not found in the natural
environment. 4.7.2 Artificial production programs must be evaluated
relative to their objectives and their impacts on the natural environment.
In setting objectives, the direction and magnitude of these impacts will
be addressed. 4.7.3 The risks and potential benefits associated with an
artificial production program must be subjected to careful analysis at
both the scientific and policy levels.
5. ECOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS POLICY
Policies regarding ecological interactions are
addressed here at two different levels: the program manager level and at
the Basin-wide or subbasin level. This section addresses the ecological
interactions primarily at the fish manager level; Section 8 addresses
policies and ecological interactions within the context of Basin or
subbasin plans.
5.1 Managers must address ecological
interactions: It shall be the policy of the management entities of the
salmonid resources in the Columbia Basin that artificial propagation
programs will be designed and implemented to minimize ecological
interactions that adversely affect the productivity of aquatic ecosystems.
Artificial production managers will: 5.1.1 Ensure that all fish produced
and released are under a specific management plan. 5.1.2 Consider the
ecological effects attributable to the specific hatchery products
following release. 5.1.3 Consider how specific release strategies and
objectives affect aquatic ecosystems. 5.1.4 Develop their artificial
production programs in the context of, and consistent with, subbasin and
Columbia basin plans. 5.2 Monitor and evaluate ecological interactions:
Ecological interactions must be monitored and evaluated at both the local
and regional levels. Managers and regional authorities will monitor and
evaluate implementation of ecological interaction guidelines and
ecological effects of artificially propagated fish on wild, natural, and
artificially produced fish populations. 5.2.1 Managers will generally have
responsibility for monitoring and evaluating local ecological
interactions. 5.2.2 Data should be developed in a scientifically valid
manner using protocols that allow for data sharing on a basin-wide basis.
6. POLICIES REGARDING GENETICS It shall be the
policy of the management entities of the salmonid resources in the
Columbia Basin to operate artificial propagation programs that maintain
adequate genetic variation and fitness in populations. It shall also be
the policy to protect the biological diversity of wild, natural, and
artificially produced fish populations. 6.1 Meet genetics guidelines: All
fish produced and released must meet identified management objectives for
specific artificial production programs and follow genetic guidelines. 6.2
Protect population fitness: Genetic performance policies and guidelines
shall be designed to protect the fish population's ability to evolve, and
thus persist in the face of environmental variability. 6.2.1 Fitness is
demonstrated when a population has maintained its productivity over a long
period of time. 6.2.2 Population fitness can be indexed, based on changes
to (1) the recruit-to-spawner ratio, (2) egg-to-adult survival, (3)
survival between life history stages, (4) gene frequencies, or (5) life
history patterns. 6.3 Involve geneticist at program level: A program
specific approach is needed for the genetic management of all Columbia
Basin populations because of the variability in both hatchery programs and
the application of genetic theories to the population status of each
subbasin. 6.3.1 A geneticist, therefore, should be directly involved in
developing and evaluating genetics programs and ensuring that the regional
genetics policies and guidelines are correctly applied at individual
hatcheries within a subbasin. 6.4 Apply regional evaluation criteria:
Artificial production programs will be evaluated on their ability to:
6.4.1 avoid inbreeding or genetic drift; 6.4.2 maintain heterozygosity of
managed populations while avoiding long-term changes; 6.4.3 maintain
diversity between populations; 6.4.4 maintain an acceptable level of risk
that the artificial production facility or program will not have a
significant adverse impact to wild and natural populations or to the
receiving ecosystem. 6.5 Monitor and evaluate genetics: Artificial
production programs will design a program, with the involvement of a
geneticist, to monitor and evaluate the program's progress. This component
will include the information necessary to evaluate the success of the
facility in achieving the elements described in the above policies. 6.5.1
If significant problems occur, the manager, after consultation with a
geneticist, shall take such actions as are necessary to correct the
problems. 6.5.2 If the problems cannot be addressed in a satisfactory
manner, and if the problems pose a significant genetic risk to the wild
and natural populations or to the functioning of the ecosystem, then that
program will be discontinued. 6.6 Follow genetic guidelines to
re-establish populations: Restoration of an extirpated population should
follow genetic guidelines to maximize the potential for re-establishing
self-sustaining populations. 6.7 Review population status: The physical
and genetic status of wild and natural populations of anadromous and
resident salmonids need to be addressed and routinely reviewed as a basis
of management planning for artificial production. Information should
include life history, population structure, and the habitat utilized.
7. FISH HEALTH It shall be the policy of the
management entities of the salmonid resources in the Columbia Basin to
protect those resources by restricting the importation, dissemination, and
amplification of pathogens and diseases known to adversely affect fish.
7.1 Managers follow policies for fish health: Artificial production
program managers and other authorities in the Basin will continue to
follow regional guidelines for fish health and: 7.1.1 Strive to produce
healthy fish for release or transfer. 7.1.2 Ensure that all fish produced
are under a specific fish health management program. 7.1.3 Monitor and
evaluate the health of wild, natural, and cultured fish populations. 7.1.4
Foster open and frequent communications among managing entities to jointly
resolve fish health related issues. 7.2 Recognize progress in fish health:
It should be recognized that regional managers have made great strides in
fostering fish health.
8. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN AND SUBBASIN PLANNING
Subbasin and basin-wide environmental
characteristics help determine the viability of artificially produced
fish, which, in turn, have an impact on the ecosystem. The policies in
this framework are intended as a general guide to considering and managing
these interactions. But precisely how and why the artificial production
tool should be used in each instance, and precisely how these guidelines
should be applied in those instances, depends in large part on the
particular biological and management considerations in each subbasin. It
is within a subbasin that the integration of the potential purpose(s)
regarding natural population preservation and rebuilding can and should
occur, where a proper integration of habitat restoration actions and
natural and artificial production activities can take place. And it is
within a subbasin that the interaction of artificial production with the
ecosystem can best be understood. Thus, final decisions on whether to use
artificial production, for what purpose(s), and under what limitations
need to be made within the context of a watershed-level subbasin plan,
giving due consideration to the broader basin-wide context.
In the late 1980s, the Council called for the
development of subbasin plans for the 31 subbasins below the areas blocked
by Chief Joseph and Hells Canyon dams. The Council's subbasin planning
effort was driven largely by state/federal/tribal agreements, arising out
of the United States v. Oregon litigation, on production goals and
objectives intended to widen the harvest opportunities provided by
artificial production and to try to use artificial production techniques
to rebuild naturally sustaining populations. With the state and tribal
fisheries managers taking the lead, these subbasin plans, as well as an
Integrated System Plan, were completed in the early 1990s. Development of
the plans cost nearly $6 million, approximately half Bonneville funds and
the other half provided in-kind by the tribes and fish management
agencies.
The managers completed the subbasin and system
plans just to find the legal and management framework for their work had
changed significantly with the proposals to list Snake River salmon under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Because the subbasin plans were
developed prior to consideration or listing of these populations, it was
not clear how the agreed-to production goals and objectives in the
subbasin plans would fit with the ESA. Many believed that these goals and
objectives were too oriented toward harvest and artificial production, and
not sufficiently concerned with impacts on wild populations, while others
supported implementation of the goals and objectives in the subbasin
plans. Primarily as a result of the ESA-inspired considerations, the
management consensus underlying the subbasin plans broke down. Thus while
the Council incorporated the plans into the Council's Fish and Wildlife
Program as an appendix, it could not formally adopt the plans into the
Program when recommended to in 1992 or 1994, and the status of the
subbasin plans has always been in limbo.
Even so, these subbasin plans have become at
least a benchmark effort for subsequent subbasin planning and
implementation decisions. Portions of some plans, most notably the goals
and objectives, have been debated and revised in subsequent planning
efforts, such as the lower Columbia treaty tribe's Tribal Restoration Plan
and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority's draft Multi-Year
Implementation Plan (MYIP). Production goals and objectives for the
subbasins are also being revisited in the U.S. vs. Oregon negotiation
process currently underway. Subbasin plans in some form should also be an
important element of the Multi-Species Framework currently under
development.
It is time to revisit the subbasin plans, revise
them where appropriate, and finally come to formal agreement and adoption
by the relevant government entities. The purpose would be to decide in
each subbasin on the goals and objectives for that subbasin in terms of
habitat characteristics and fish and wildlife populations; agree on a
systematic approach and strategies for habitat restoration and increases
in natural production opportunities; decide whether artificial production
is going to be (or should continue to be) a tool used in that subbasin,
and if so, how and under what conditions that reflect the policy
developments and operational guidelines described in this framework; and
agree on an adaptive management monitoring and evaluation program.
This does not mean that the Council or anyone
else should initiate a new, centralized subbasin planning effort. Instead,
the focus should be on providing the right incentives and opportunities to
help the relevant entities in the different parts of the basin work out
appropriate subbasin plans in a host of loosely-coordinated initiatives,
possibly required and funded as part of the on-going funding reviews. The
original subbasin plans provide a good starting point for this effort, and
should be updated, not supplanted, to reflect watershed information
developed in the last decade and to reflect the current policies and goals
of the fish managers and others. Resident fish were addressed in some of
the subbasin plans and not others; this information would need to be added
where it is missing. Subbasin plans were not developed for the areas above
the blocked areas; this should be remedied. The draft MYIP may contain the
most current information for resident fish and blocked area information.
The fishery agencies and other relevant governmental entities will once
again need to take the lead in preparing the subbasin plans, but the
watershed process also requires the involvement of non-governmental
organizations and landowners in the subbasins.
This is an opportune time to return to and
complete the subbasin planning task begun in the late 1980s. The
relationship of ESA and wild population considerations to artificial
production is better understood now than in 1990, if still far from
settled, and ironically now requires attention and agreement at the
subbasin level if we are actually going to manage the interactions. The
U.S. vs. Oregon Management Plan negotiations require the state, federal
and tribal entities to revisit and come to some agreement on production
goals and objectives, and thus by mid-year could provide much needed
direction to an effort to revise and agree on the subbasin plans. The
Council intends to follow the Multi-Species Framework Process with a Fish
and Wildlife Program amendment process in the next year or so, and given
the developments of the last few years, it is likely that this round of
Program amendments will require that the fishery managers recommend
agreed-upon subbasin plans with an integrated understanding of habitat and
production actions in order to continue to have a priority place in the
Program. And given the related developments of the last few years in the
funding and implementation of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and
other parts of the Bonneville fish and wildlife budget, it seems likely
that in the very near future (this year or the next), funding for
watershed activities will depend on whether those activities are clearly
based on accepted watershed assessments and subbasin plans.
Existing production activities differ in the
extent to which they are already incorporated, however imperfectly, into
coordinated watershed/subbasin planning and implementation. Production
activities based in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and in the
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan have the most significant links. The
absence is most acute with the Mitchell Act hatchery program, with
existing production facilities focused in the mainstem below Bonneville
Dam and in the Bonneville pool area. What to do with Mitchell Act
production is also probably the most difficult issue for the state,
federal and tribal entities to resolve in the U.S. vs. Oregon
negotiations. And because Mitchell Act funding is not part of the
Bonneville fish and wildlife budget, the leverage provided by the
Bonneville funding reviews is missing. Agreeing on how to incorporate
Mitchell Act production into system and subbasin plans is the biggest
challenge we face, requiring further thought as to the right mechanism to
make it happen.
8.1 Use subbasin plans to determine purposes: The
artificial production policies and guidelines describe how programs and
facilities should be operated and evaluated. Subbasin plans will be used
to decide the purposes of artificial production within a subbasin,
describe how the use of artificial production is intended to be imbedded
in a coordinated plan for habitat restoration and wild and natural
production, and to describe the level of risks and benefits of various
strategies. While subbasin planning seems the most appropriate vehicle for
deciding when and how to use artificial production, each planning effort
will have to take into account ecosystem characteristics and ecological
interactions beyond the subbasin, through the rest of the life cycle:
juvenile migration, estuary and near-shore rearing, ocean rearing, and
adult migration and spawning.
8.2 Update existing subbasin plans: Revise the 31
existing subbasin plans to reflect the most recent considerations in
artificial production program planning, monitoring, and evaluation and in
the relationship of artificial production to habitat restoration and
natural production. Develop subbasin plans under the same considerations
for the areas above Chief Joseph and Hells Canyon dams. Also, amend the
existing subbasin plans to address resident fish where currently not
addressed. Updating and agreeing to subbasin plans will be a high priority
for the Council and Columbia basin managers. Future funding for production
and watershed activities will depend upon their basis in an agreed-upon
subbasin plan.
8.3 Update Columbia Basin System Plan: To the
extent necessary, the Council and Basin authorities should update the
basin-wide system plan which incorporates the subbasin plans and provides
a broad-scale view of the ecosystem, including estuarine, nearshore, and
marine conditions. The revised system plan should be consistent with and
flow from the development of the Multi-Species Framework.
8.4 Monitor and evaluate at subbasin level:
Artificial production programs, and the ecosystems upon which they depend,
will be monitored and evaluated using scientifically valid methodology.
8.4.1 Establish, and periodically review,
biological baselines for all natural populations of anadromous and
resident fish in affected areas; baselines will include life history,
population structure, and habitat utilization and condition. Information
collection will be coordinated by StreamNet.
8.4.2 A fish production monitoring program will
be developed that addresses performance of artificially produced fish from
release to return, including information on survival success, interception
distribution, behavior, and genotypic changes experienced from selection
between release and return.
8.4.3 An analytical study will be conducted by
December 31, 1999 to determine the cost of adequately monitoring
artificial production performance and potential sources of funding for
this monitoring.
8.4.4 Independent performance evaluation audits
of artificial production programs (including objectives and goals) shall
be undertaken every three to five years. The Government Performance and
Results Act approach will be used for reporting by program managers. Where
objectives are not successfully accomplished, actions such as operational
and infrastructural changes and/or research will be identified and
initiated to address problems.
8.4.5 Ensure compliance with artificial
production program coordination, fish health, ecological interactions, and
genetics policies.
Go to Facilitator's Report
^ top |
|
home