| |
Handout for Sep 14, 1998 meeting
Policy and Management Questions and Needs
Regional Policy and Goals/Role of Artificial Production
1. What is and what should be the overall role of artificial production in
the Columbia River?
2. How can artificial production be used to meet the needs of society for
sustainable populations of fish that support harvest, as well as other
competing resources? (How much artificial production is needed to meet
societies needs and what risks are society willing to take in regards to
artificial production?)
3. Should a coordinated wild, native salmonid management policy be
developed for the basin?
4. Should subbasin protocols be established for management and
conservation of hatchery and wild, native salmonids? Should these local
goals be coordinated on a regional scale for the purpose of monitoring and
oversight?
5. How does artificial production combine with natural production to fit
into our overall goals?
6. In a subbasin where hatchery and wild, native fish of the same species
are found, should the hatchery fish or the wild fish drive the hatchery
program and the management program? For example, the Warm Springs Hatchery
is regulated to meet wild spawner abundance goals above the hatchery and no
hatchery fish are allowed upstream to spawn with wild native spring chinook.
This is different from other hatchery programs where the production goals of
the hatchery are the primary management focus.
7. How should artificial propagation programs be changed to meet
conservation, mitigation/compensation and restoration needs?
8. Given that hatcheries are a necessary tool to mitigate for lost
natural production, where does is make most sense, (i.e., most effective in
production and cost) to locate production facilities?
9. Development and enforcement of a comprehensive, regional policy
concerning the use of artificial production is needed.
10. A regional consensus concerning expectations of artificial production
is needed that addresses replacement of natural production of fisheries,
supplementation, and conservation of ESA listed populations.
Performance Indicators and Audits
29. If Columbia Basin hatcheries were operated based on each performance to
achieve desired results, what should be the performance indicators for
conservation programs? Treaty Trust? Recreational fisheries? Commercial
fisheries? Administration efficiencies?
30. Should hatchery programs be managed to be results-oriented and
performance-based per the Government Performance and Results Act, with
funding decisions made based on the performance of each program in achieving
results as expressed in terms of adult fish or human activity associated
with adult fish?
31. Some natural resource regulation agencies open their doors for outside
performance audits from the scientific community. EPA is an example of this.
Would it improve the fish agencies if independent scientists gave them a
performance audit before getting federal funding? With regard to the
hatchery program, which is primarily paid for by federal dollars, would you
recommend a performance audit design and schedule?
32. Fish management agencies have been known to adopt administrative rules
to regulate their hatchery and wild fish management programs following a
public hearing process, yet lack the funding to carry out those rules and in
some cases rules are not carried out for other reasons than the lack of
funding. What can the agencies do to provide the public feedback on the
implementation of rules? This goes to the question of accountability.
33. What should define "success" for artificial propagation programs in the
Columbia River Basin?
34. A comprehensive, regional hatchery operations policy is needed.
35. Evaluations of hatchery managers need to be revised to reflect success
or failure of meeting specific goals at artificial production facilities,
not on numbers of pounds.
Funding
36. Should benefactors of Columbia River development, other than electricity
ratepayers and Federal taxpayers, (e.g., navigation, irrigation, ports,
etc.) provide mitigation funding for hatchery programs?
37. In each agency what is the funding allocation for artificial production
and for wild, native salmonid production? Is this funding allocation
appropriate given the problems associated with wild, native salmon decline?
Does this funding allocation represent an institutional barrier to
conservation of wild, native populations? How can this barrier be corrected
within each agency and by each agency in the Columbia Basin? (4 A &B; 5 A &
B)
38. The region needs a stable, long-term funding commitment to implement
regional artificial production policy.
Institutional/Legal Structure
39. What institutional structures are needed to meet the needs of society
for sustainable populations of fish that support harvest? (Are the current
laws, mitigation agreements, funding mechanisms, management approaches,
bureaucracies, infrastructure, and other aspects of Columbia Basin
artificial production appropriate?)
40. What is the desired institutional organization needed to protect and
maintain biological diversity and productivity of the basin's wild, native
salmonids?
41. There is no technical group in the basin, representing the fish agencies
and tribes, working on wild salmonid issues, research, program and project
development. Should there be such a group created, and what would be their
charge?
42. Do the tribal fish management agencies have a legal responsibility to
involve the public in their decision-making processes, to take public
comment and to revise decisions based on public input? Do the tribes have a
legal responsibility to follow federal and state regulations? For example,
do the Tribes have the legal responsibility to comply with the federal
Endangered Species Act or, at the state level, to comply with the Oregon
Wild Fish Policy or the Washington Wild Salmonid Policy? Is the non-Indian
public interest protected by tribal processes and decision making?
43. Should a system of accountability be established for each hatchery
program based upon meeting: (1) mitigation agreements, (2) contribution to
fisheries, (3) meeting biological standards related to wild, native salmon
risk criteria, (4) cost and benefit standards, (5) survival standards? If a
system of hatchery accountability is established, should standards be
adopted to bring the hatchery into compliance? If the hatchery fails to
comply with accountability standards, should the hatchery be terminated?
What would the criteria for hatchery termination be?
44. What are the institutional barriers among the fish agencies and tribes
to securing protection of biological diversity and productivity of wild,
native salmonids? Is this a policy question these agencies should address
openly with public participation and scientific review? How do we coordinate
these different policies and priorities to represent a coherent and
consistent approach to the use of artificial production in the Columbia
River?
45. The region needs to develop the ability to mold bureaucratic
infrastructure to serve the biological needs of the resource, and the
policies adopted by the region, rather than the other way around.
46. Artificial production decisions need to be based on long-term policies
adopted by the region, and not on temporary political trends.
47. Who would be the most appropriate to make changes?
48. Who makes the decisions regarding species reared and release
locations for all production programs?
49. Which federal, state, tribal, or PUD funded programs cannot be changed
without major reauthorization or approval of the operating or funding
agency?
50. What processes are necessary to enable a program to be modified or
species being reared changed? Which of these processes and facilities are
controlled by the fishery managers and which are controlled by other
entities?
^ top
|
|
home