RECOMMENDATIONS
Institutional Changes
To implement treaty fishing rights through the restoration
of anadromous fish in the Columbia Basin, the federal and state governments
and the tribes must better utilize existing opportunities to develop and
implement action plans based upon shared objectives. The following recommendations,
for the most part, propose modest changes to the procedures adopted under
the authority of U.S. v. Oregon and the Northwest Power Act. Through
these recommendations, the tribes seek to improve harvest and production
management and to coordinate policies and resolve disputes particularly
for hydro operations, public lands management and research. The recommendations
attempt to join accountability with responsibility for fish restoration
by shifting the funding prioritization process to the tribes and agencies
and transferring certain federally-funded hatcheries to the tribes. The
recommendations seek to limit policy barriers to the use of artificial
propagation as a tool for restoration. The institutional changes also address
private land management by recommending support for watershed initiatives
and for enforcement of environmental laws.
Existing Mechanisms
Action: Modify
the existing basin-wide mechanisms of the CRFMP, the Fish and Wildlife
Program, and FERC Orders to more fully implement treaty fishing rights
to take fish at all usual and accustomed fishing places. Use the Endangered
Species Act in a manner that is consistent with implementation of treaty
rights to natural resources.
The processes for basin-wide anadromous fish restoration are based on existing
statutory authorities and treaties, and were developed by the federal,
state and tribal entities of the region. They embody meaningful tribal
participation but require additional authorities and measures as noted
below in order to protect imperiled anadromous fish populations throughout
the upper basin in order to implement treaty fishing promises. Though the
ESA can be interpreted in a manner consistent with treaty rights, ESA implementation
for Snake River chinook and sockeye has failed to address treaty requirements
and has diverted critical resources from upper basin restoration.
CRFMP
Action: Fully
implement CRFMP in terms of production provisions by calling upon the Policy
Committee to initiate comprehensive production planning and an implementation
process.
The CRFMP contains authoritative provisions for production planning from
both a policy and technical standpoint and includes detailed measures for
dispute resolution. Because fisheries on the abundant runs produced from
hatcheries are constrained by protection of weak natural stocks, and hatchery
practices and funding is under attack, incentives exist to shift hatchery
emphasis toward saving stocks particularly in danger of extirpation and
restoring a more balanced level of production above Bonneville Dam. The
tribes' technical recommendations and subbasin plans address the locations
and means to accomplish this shift and the parties to U.S. v. Oregon are
the sole parties with authority to develop comprehensive fish production
plans.
Dispute Resolution
Action: Implement
a dispute resolution process similar to the CRFMP and FERC agreements,
under the continuing jurisdiction of the federal district court, that addresses
public lands and water project management as a means to support PST, CRFMP,
FWP, and ESA rebuilding goals for the implementation of treaty fishing
rights.
Federal hydro operations, and structural modifications as well as public
lands management are not subject to an authoritative basin plan nor a dispute
resolution process to resolve differences. The parties to IDFG v. NMFS
are negotiating a resolution to the issues of the case and have an opportunity
to develop a plan and dispute resolution mechanism under the auspices of
the federal courts. The dispute resolution process utilized for mid-Columbia
P.U.D. dams is a model in this regard. In the alternative, federal hydro
projects could be subjected to the FERC process either by legislation or
through the sale of the projects to public or private utilities.
With regard to public lands, the parties to U.S. v. Oregon including
the states and the United States, must act soon to replace the CRFMP which
expires in 1998. These negotiations must address public lands management
and dispute resolution under the habitat provisions of the CRFMP or develop
a parallel mechanism.
Fish and Wildlife Program Funding
Action: Transfer
BPA fish and wildlife funding in trust to the Department of the Interior
for the time it takes to establish a new entity composed of the fishery
agencies and tribes.
The state and federal fishery agencies and tribes are the primary entities
with responsibility to protect fish and wildlife. In order to link authority
with this responsibility, BPA should transfer an amount of funding to be
negotiated, including resources provided under cooperative agreements with
other agencies, for meeting specified goals and objectives for basin anadromous
fish. The fishery agencies and tribes should report annually to the region
on the achievement of goals and objectives, with funding contingent upon
achievement of agreed-upon biological objectives.
Watersheds
Action: To
secure fish resource protection on private lands in conjunction with public
land management, actively support ongoing watershed approaches and start
new ones to implement subbasin planning in accordance with the FWP and
CRFMP through a Columbia Basin watershed fund.
Currently, watershed approaches are being funded by BPA and used throughout
the Columbia Basin to implement the Fish and Wildlife Program. Watersheds
include the Grande Ronde, Lemhi, Pahsimeroi, East Fork of the Salmon, Asotin,
Tucannon, Methow, Entiat, Wenatchee, and Yakima. In many cases, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service)
through its county offices is facilitating these efforts with participation
from the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho and the tribes. But use
of the watershed approach is not limited to the Columbia basin.
A survey of approaches in the United States found that watershed initiatives
could provide a useful means of resolving environmental and natural resource
conflicts:
Employ voluntary, multi-stakeholder collaborative approaches to protect,
restore and monitor natural resources and to resolve natural resource conflicts.
These approaches should be open and inclusive, based on existing laws,
and conducted within a framework of natural systems--watershed, ecosystems,
bio-regions or other defining land-forms--using the best available science.
This recommendation is patterned after successful approaches used all across
the country. It is intended to provide impetus for stakeholders and communities
to work together in searching for common goals, resolving conflicts, becoming
aware of and using best available science, meeting legal requirements for
protecting the environment, monitoring natural resources and redeeming
collective responsibility for conditions and trends of resources.
These standards are applicable to the Columbia Basin and
serve as an alternative to polarizing controversy and costly litigation
that wastes time and money that could be spent on salmon restoration. The
approach is also intended as an alternative approach to the implementation
of state and federal habitat protection statutes that are not being effectively
enforced. The tribal recommendations included in Volume II are proposed
as fishery objectives for watershed planning in each subbasin and are based
upon the best science available.
Funding is currently provided by a variety of sources
including BPA, other federal agency support, state legislative appropriations,
and private funding as well as significant in-kind contributions. Establish
a Columbia Basin Watershed fund to encourage additional resources and provide
facilitation services and technical support without diminishing local initiative.
In order to participate in watershed approaches, tribes will need at least
1 FTE per watershed for coordination purposes.
ESU
Action: Reconsider
the ESU interim policy on the use of propagation.
The basis of the ESU is a genetics theory arguing that a salmon population's
fitness is reduced by the inflow of genes from hatchery bred salmon populations,
even when the broodstock for the population comes from the same or adjoining
populations. A recent report by the National Research Council supports
tribal analysis of the ESU indicating that ESA policies should not stress
reproductive isolation as an indicator of population distinctiveness or
as a limitation on recovery. The NRC Report also confirms tribal analysis
that estimates of distinctiveness should be based on a variety of indicators
including behavioral, morphological, ecological, and molecular information
as well as genetic information because "a single kind of information will
often fail to provide compelling evidence of distinctiveness. Determination
of distinctiveness and the associated features of an independent future
usual requires the careful integration of several lines of evidence."
While the ESU, developed in a more integrated format, may be an appropriate
indicator of distinctiveness for listing purposes, it should not be used
as a limitation on the recovery of a listed species in a particular habitat.
In light of the NRC Report, the NMFS should reconsider the ESU policy
in a peer-reviewed process that addresses the use of propagation for species
recovery as provided in the Endangered Species Act.
Tribal Hatchery Management
Action: Transfer
the Klickitat hatchery to the Yakama Indian Nation; the Kooskia, Clearwater,
and Dworshak hatcheries to the Nez Perce Tribe; and the Lookingglass and
Umatilla hatcheries to the Umatilla Tribes under authority of the Indian
Self-Determination Act. Provide operation and maintenance funds for hatchery
operation and for the transfer of other hatcheries as needed. Fund and
implement Fish and Wildlife measures to construct tribal production facilities.
Redirect Mitchell Act propagation facility capacity and implement mitigation
for John Day Dam.
For over fifty years, basin hatchery policy has discriminated against tribal
fisheries and has resulted in the loss of upriver naturally-spawning populations
because of fishery effects and the taking of broodstock. Since 1982, tribes
have proposed the use of hatcheries as a tool to recover naturally-spawning
populations throughout the basin as a tool for salmon restoration and as
a means to implement treaty rights to take fish "at all usual and accustomed
fishing places." Though included in the Fish and Wildlife Program, construction
of tribal production facilities has been delayed as the need for protection
of declining stocks increased. Because tribes retain the exclusive right
to take fish on their reservations and because the hatcheries listed are
located within the boundaries of their reservations or ceded areas and
serve the purpose of protecting treaty fish resources, tribes are entitled
to a transfer of hatchery properties along with the operation and maintenance
funding to maintain them. The federal government should also transfer other
hatchery facilities that may assist in restoring upper river anadromous
fish populations.
However, recovery activities proposed by the tribes in Volume II will
require hatchery capacity beyond that proposed for transfer. Therefore,
funding of new tribal facilities required under the Fish and Wildlife Program
as well as the reprogramming of the Mitchell Act and implementation of
John Day mitigation are also necessary measures for restoration.
Research, Monitoring and Evaluation, and a Coordinated Information
System
Action: As
an adjunct to the CRFMP and the Fish and Wildlife Program, representatives
of the federal government, the states and tribes need to establish a research
and monitoring program that sets long-term priorities and provides dispute
resolution.
Federal government agencies control priorities, methodologies, implementation,
and evaluation of research related to the impacts of federal hydropower
projects on the Columbia Basin's anadromous fishery resources. Except in
limited cases, federal research selection processes do not provide scientific
peer review. Further, timely access to data obtained by federal researchers
is problematic.
Other monitoring, evaluation and research on restoration is often uncoordinated
and unconnected to related restoration measures.
Because a comprehensive restoration plan requires a coordinated research,
monitoring and evaluation program that incorporates all life stages of
anadromous fish, the tribes propose establishment of a basin-wide research
and monitoring program that sets long-term priorities and provides dispute
resolution among federal, state and tribal entities.
The FERC structure provides for research planning and dispute resolution
as an element of its settlements. A similar policy-driven program is recommended
for other research, particularly that concerned with the operation and
structural modification of federal dams.
Harvest Management
Action: Fishing
regimes that are consistent with treaty fishing rights, and with allocation
and conservation issues, can be achieved through the current management
process.
The Columbia River Fish Management Plan, whose provisions expire in 1998,
and the Pacific Salmon Treaty are keystones of the harvest management process.
Consistent with court-approved standards for management of treaty fisheries,
the parties have an opportunity to update the provisions of the PST and
CRFMP based on the latest information on survival rates and catch levels
by modifying escapement objectives and harvest rate schedules as appropriate.
The parties should also increase coordination with processes in other areas,
such as hydro operations and habitat protection, to ensure adequate sharing
of the conservation burden.
Law Enforcement
Action: Continue
coordinated enforcement of harvest regulations and develop the capability
of law enforcement personnel to enforce habitat protection laws.
Law enforcement personnel recently completed a survey of irrigation diversions
and reported unscreened diversions to relevant agencies for enforcement
action. Basin fisheries law enforcement agencies needs to continue addressing
harvest infractions in a coordinated manner and expand their function by
training personnel to recognize and document violations of habitat protection
laws.
Continue to next section (Recommendations: Technical
Recommendations)
Table of Contents