10.2  Production and Watershed Principles

10.2A  Natural and Artificial Propagation

Artificial propagation is one means of increasing or introducing fish populations. These activities must be pursued carefully, because artificial propagation can detrimentally affect the long-term sustainability of native and introduced species that exist in the area where stocking occurs. Concerns include competition, predation and interbreeding with existing resident and anadromous species, especially native and naturally produced species. A full discussion of these types of concerns occurs in Section 7.1. The Council believes that many of the actions called for in that section should also be applied to resident fish. These actions are outlined below.

      The Council calls on all relevant parties to complete the following measures to address natural and artificial propagation for Columbia Basin resident fish species. Implementation will require a different scope of activities and level of effort depending on the type of propagation being employed. For example, a thorough and comprehensive approach to conserving genetic diversity is needed for native species. At the other end of the range, non-native species stocked for harvest without any expectation that they will reproduce naturally have minimal genetic diversity requirements. Within this range lie the genetic diversity needs of non-native populations introduced with the intent to encourage natural production. Considering the range addressed above, implement the following in a manner that avoids unnecessary delay and redundancy.

      To expedite implementation, where the following are substantially addressed under the National Environmental Policy Act and/or relevant state environmental policy acts, consider that process to be in compliance with this section. In addition, completion dates identified for this section are intended to discourage unnecessary procedural delays.

Relevant Parties

10.2A.1  Address resident fish as well as anadromous fish in developing a plan for conserving genetic diversity as called for in measure 7.1D.1. Complete plan addressing resident fish and submit to the Council by June 30, 1995.

10.2A.2  Address potential impacts on resident fish, where such impacts exist, in developing basinwide guidelines to minimize genetic and ecological impacts of hatchery fish on wild and naturally spawning species as called for in measure 7.2A.1. Complete guidelines and submit report to Council by December 31, 1994.

10.2A.3  The team of scientific experts that addresses hatchery impact assessment and basinwide hatchery operating guidelines called for in measure 7.2A.5 should address resident fish as well as anadromous fish.

10.2A.4  Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project activities called for in Section 7.3A.1, should address resident fish as well as anadromous fish.

10.2A.5  Measures addressing new program initiatives called for in Section 7.4A and measures 7.4A.1, 7.4B.1 and 7.4C.1, should apply to resident fish as well as anadromous fish.

10.2B  Comprehensive Watershed Management

Good habitat is important for resident fish, just as it is for anadromous fish. The degraded condition of resident fish habitat in the Columbia River Basin often rivals that of anadromous fish. For this reason, the program provisions noted in Section 7.7 (Cooperative Habitat Protection and Improvement with Private Landowners) should also apply to resident fish. The Council believes comprehensive, cooperative watershed management is essential to making good investments in protecting, mitigating and enhancing resident fish in the basin.

 Relevant Parties

10.2B.1  Implement Section 7.7 of this program to also apply to resident fish, including the model watershed provisions, where applicable.

10.2C  Diversion Screening and Passage

Bonneville, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, States, Tribes and Irrigation Water Users

10.2C.1  Annually, in January, provide the Council with a prioritized list of tributary screening and passage facility improvements for stream diversions in the Columbia River Basin affecting resident fish. Improvements can include new facilities and the upgrading and maintenance of existing facilities. The list should include gravity and pump diversions. Priority initially should be given to naturally producing weak stocks. Additionally, provide the Council by November 1995 with a list of diversions where fish screening is a secondary problem compared to impaired instream flows. Identify resources that will be needed to accomplish screening and passage work, and prepare a general operation and maintenance budget, including a schedule, budget, proposed cost sharing incentive programs, and monitoring and evaluation plans. To accelerate this effort, immediately identify and allocate a budget from all available sources for implementation of the plan.

Bonneville

10.2C.2  Based on the priorities indicated in Section 10.2C.1, provide funding for state and tribal fish screen programs to implement all priority screening projects. Innovative solutions that accomplish the same purpose as fish screening, i.e., conversion to electric pumping, conversions from surface to ground water, consolidations of diversions, etc., shall be encouraged. Funding shall be sufficient to:

• develop preliminary designs;
• see that necessary permit processes are carried out;
• make certain private landowner and public concerns are addressed;
• review detailed designs to ensure that biological and engineering criteria are met;
• monitor construction phases;
• establish written operating criteria;
• monitor operation and maintenance phases in compliance with criteria and recommend corrective actions if necessary; and
• conduct project evaluations.

Bureau of Land Management (Idaho and Oregon/Washington Offices), U.S. Forest Service (Regions 1, 4 and 6) and Bureau of Reclamation

10.2C.3  Require as a condition of both existing and new water use authorizations that diversion structures have functional fish screens and other passage facilities for man-made barriers to resident fish that meet the criteria developed by the Fish Screening Oversight Committee (see Section 7.10). For existing authorizations, wherever practical, and especially on high-priority diversions, the three agencies should coordinate with the state fish screen programs and proceed to design and install screens that meet Oversight Committee criteria on a multiagency or shared-cost basis, with authorization renewals contingent on reimbursement to the agency or other arrangements satisfactory to the agency. By March 1 of each year, the three federal agencies should report on their progress, including the number of such permits, estimated screening costs, resources needed to implement and monitor the program, and a time frame for compliance.

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Bonneville and Bureau of Indian Affairs

10.2C.4  The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes shall provide a prioritized list of adult and juvenile fish passage needs and accomplishments on the Flathead Indian Reservation annually to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Council. Bonneville and the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall fund an accelerated program to accomplish screening and passage work.

Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington

10.2C.5  If needed, enact legislation and provide for enforcement of laws to require water users to install, operate and maintain fish screens on water diversions within resident fish waters of the Columbia River Basin. Report to the Council on this measure by June 30, 1995, and annually thereafter.

< back  |  ^ top  |  next >