| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, August 10, 1998 | document 98-26
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
MEETING SUMMARY
MEETING REPORT
MEETING SUMMARY
· A SCHEDULE TO MAKE PROGRESS ON THE POLICY QUESTIONS --
Consultant Roy Sampsel led a discussion about when and how the committee
will determine the key policy and management questions to be addressed in
its report. Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
said the list of policy and management questions currently before the
committee needs to be pared down, and Lee Hillwig of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service noted that the U.S. v. Oregon negotiations may affect the
committee's decisions. Some of the questions on the list, such as those that
deal with funding, won't be answered in the U.S. v. Oregon discussions,
Sampsel said. If we have a policy discussion, it's time to bring in the
Northwest Power Planning Council and other policymakers, suggested Doug
Dompier of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Committee
members decided they would identify which questions on the list they
consider to be priority questions. Let's have a report from committee
members on their priorities and talk about paring down the questions on
September 14, said Sampsel. Then let's schedule an extended-day discussion
of the management and policy issues in October in order to frame
policy-level discussions to be held in November, he suggested. In November,
we'll have a "policy management engagement" with members of the Council and
other policymakers, Sampsel stated. Bill Towey of the Kalispel Tribe said
the ad hoc committee working on resident fish policy issues would supply its
priority questions to the committee for the September 14 meeting.
· INTERVIEWS PRODUCE ENLIGHTENING INFORMATION -- Bob Tuck of
Sampsel Consulting distributed a list of people he has interviewed and said
the response he has been getting is "100 percent cooperative, enthusiastic,
and helpful." The interviews have been "extremely enlightening," he
reported. I'm getting a lot of information, and my challenge is how to
package it into a useful format for this group, said Tuck. He said he will
complete the rest of the interviews by the end of the month and will have a
preliminary draft of his section of the report at the September 14 meeting.
· DATABASE WILL DEBUT NEXT MONTH -- Duane Neitzel of the Battelle
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory handed out a summary of data sets
collected to date and reported he had met with the Science Review Team (SRT).
Almost all of the SRT's questions relate to what fish are released from a
hatchery and where those fish end up, he said. Hatchery release and hatchery
return data have been downloaded from StreamNet, and hatchery recovery data
from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Neitzel reported. Coded
wire tag data are the data that will link release data to recoveries and
hatchery operations, he said. We have initiated a spreadsheet of data
extracted from the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) audit results,
Neitzel explained. He said he would meet again with the SRT on August 20 and
would have the database on a computer for the committee to examine on
September 14.
· FEEDBACK ON THE IHOT SUMMARIES -- Sampsel noted that all the
IHOT audit summaries have been completed and asked for feedback on them. By
taking the IHOT summaries, the database, and the information from the
interviews, we may be able to get to some answers, but I don't know how to
package it so that it's useful, commented Bob Foster of the Washington Dept.
of Fish and Wildlife. The audits are useful to tell what species can be
reared at what facilities, but not useful as a management tool, said Dompier.
The committee discussed the goals and contents of the audits, and Sampsel
said the remaining summaries would be sent out to the group by the end of
the week.
· CLOSING REMARKS -- Committee members asked for a response from
the SRT to comments they submitted on the framework paper written by Jim
Lichatowich. Sampsel suggested that the SRT make a report on that at the
September 14 meeting.
MEETING REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS
A Schedule to Make Progress on the Policy Questions
Interviews Produce Enlightening Information
Database Will Debut Next Month
Feedback on the IHOT Summaries
A Schedule to Make Progress on the Policy Questions
Consultant Roy Sampsel, who chaired the meeting, stated that the
committee had discussed a list of policy and management questions
(Attachment 1) at the last meeting, and at that time, several members said
they wanted to confer with their agencies and then offer feedback on dealing
with those questions. He pointed out that Liz Hamilton of the Northwest
Sportfishing Industry Association wrote a memo (Attachment 2), suggesting
that the questions need to be pared down. She also said that at some point,
it might be useful for the committee to try to respond to the questions
using "a facilitated writing format."
What do your agencies want to do with the management and policy
questions? Sampsel asked the group. We've begun a draft response to them,
replied Bob Foster of the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. There are
some questions that are redundant, and some that will require lengthy
responses, but most can be addressed with short answers, he said.
I agree with Liz that there are way too many questions, stated Doug
Dompier of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Somehow we have
to get to the real issues, he said, adding, I thought the Science Review
Team (SRT) was answering these questions. No, this committee created this
list of management and policy questions, and now we are trying to determine
how they are going to be addressed, replied Sampsel. The SRT is working on a
list of science questions, he added. We need to determine the key policy and
management questions that this committee's report will address, Sampsel
said.
Lee Hillwig of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pointed out
that the Columbia River fish management plan negotiations under U.S. v.
Oregon will have an effect on what the PRC does. He suggested that the
policy and management questions need editing. We talked about how U.S. v.
Oregon would inform this process at our last meeting, noted Sampsel. We need
to decide when to start talking about these questions, he stated. If you're
not ready, say so, Sampsel urged.
It's appropriate to address these questions now, but the results can't be
cast in concrete, responded Hillwig. As the U.S. v. Oregon process goes
along, additional questions may arise, and some questions may be answered,
he stated. When do you think it is appropriate to engage in a discussion on
the management and policy issues? Sampsel inquired. Should it be in the
early fall, after the SRT has made its initial report? he asked. Liz
suggested we have a workshop to pare down the question list, and that may be
a good idea, Sampsel said. I'm not opposed to paring the list down, but I'd
like to know when the Columbia River fish managers will answer the questions
and give the answers back to us, stated Jim Myron of Oregon Trout. The
principals will negotiate a new fish management plan, but they won't be
providing answers to the questions back to you, said Foster. The questions
will not be answered as a policy response externally, he stated.
The Columbia River fish management plan process will answer some of these
questions, but that process will last longer than this one, noted Tom Rogers
of the Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game. Some of the questions on this list,
such as those dealing with funding, won't be answered in the U.S. v. Oregon
discussions, said Sampsel. Is it possible to have a discussion on these
policy and management questions external of the U.S. v. Oregon process, as
far as your management is concerned? he asked. If the answer is yes, we can
look at a schedule for talking about these questions; otherwise, we'll be
left with these questions to deal with at the end, Sampsel said.
Where and How to Zero In I
f we do a policy discussion, it's time to bring in the Council and other
policymakers, suggested Dompier. We are staff, he said. There are some major
items on the table, such as funding issues and the MOA on direct USFWS
funding, noted Sampsel. There may be only four or five management and policy
questions that you want to zero in on in this report, he continued. The
question is, what do you want that focus to be? What do you want to suggest
to Congress? Sampsel asked the group. For example, he said, do you want to
recommend expanding the Mitchell Act language to do more than hatchery O&M?
Is that an issue you want to get into? Sampsel asked. As for the funding
issue, since the request for the Artificial Production Review report came
from a Congressional appropriations committee, I'd think they would want
this group to make recommendations for funding, he stated. Should we have an
expanded discussion on management and policy issues to narrow the list as
Liz suggests? he asked.
There are too many questions here, said Hamilton. It would take an
eternity to answer every one of them, she said. I suggested a facilitated
document-writing process, which is a real-time, computer tie-in process
aimed at providing a product from a group effort, Hamilton explained. But we
can't do that until we pare down the number of questions, she stated. I
don't think these questions could be answered in that sort of process, said
Dompier. We are planning to use it for a Federal advisory committee in
Washington, D.C. next month, and we also used it in an Oregon Dept. of Fish
and Wildlife process, Hamilton pointed out.
Flagging Priority Questions
Would an appropriate first step be to ask folks to identify which they
consider to be the priority questions that should be addressed in this
report? asked Sampsel. He suggested the group try to do that by the next
meeting. I'm afraid if we don't start, we'll end up in April and won't have
made much progress on policy and management issues, which are as important
as the scientific issues, Sampsel stated. I think we can do it by September
14, said Foster. The SRT went through a process to boil the scientific
questions down to five or six, and I think we can do something similar,
stated Hillwig. The question is, in instances where an agency or tribe "has
ownership" in a question, it may say, we want that question, he said. We
need to make an effort to pare down the list of questions, but it will take
a full-day meeting, according to Hillwig. That makes sense to me, commented
R.Z. Smith of the National Marine Fisheries Service. The questions from the
agencies and tribes are the most important questions to be answered, stated
Hamilton. It's time to engage the members of the Northwest Power Planning
Council on this, said Dompier. If we try to pare the list down, people will
still go to the Council with the questions they are interested in, he
stated. I'd rather see where the decisionmakers are on this, Dompier said.
Let's have a report from committee members on their priorities and talk
about paring down the questions on September 14, said Sampsel. Then let's
schedule an extended-day discussion of the management and policy issues in
October in order to frame the policy-level discussions to be held in
November, he continued. In November, we'll have a "policy management
engagement" with members of the Council and other policymakers, Sampsel
said. We can decide who should be there -- whether it should be agency
directors, fish and wildlife committee chairs, etc., he stated. Those with
economic interests on the river, such as utilities, might also want to
participate, Sampsel said.
Bill Towey of the Kalispel Tribe pointed out there is an ad hoc committee
working on resident fish-specific policy questions. Should we supply our
pared-down list of questions at the September 14 meeting? he asked. Yes,
replied Sampsel.
To the extent there are questions on the list that are not ripe, or that
the agencies in the negotiations won't or can't answer, they should be put
on a separate list, suggested Myron. I don't think there are any questions
on the list that would prejudice the negotiations, stated Foster. The
answers from the U.S. v. Oregon negotiations need to be consistent with the
answers to these questions, stated Hillwig. The questions aren't the
problem, he said.
So this group will have its material in by September 14, and in October,
we'll have an extended discussion of the management and policy questions in
preparation for us to engage in a discussion at the policy/management level
during November, recapped Sampsel.
Interviews Produce Enlightening Information
Bob Tuck of Sampsel Consulting handed out a list of people that he has
interviewed (Attachment 3). The response I've been getting is "100 percent
cooperative, enthusiastic, and helpful," he noted. The interviews have been
"extremely enlightening," stated Tuck. The retired agency people are pleased
to have someone come and talk to them, he said. They have shared many things
about the history of fish and hatcheries in the basin, Tuck stated. It's
been extremely positive, and I'm getting a lot of information, he said. My
challenge is how to package the information into a useful format for this
group, Tuck stated.
I am continuing the interviews and also pulling together historical
documents, including authorizing legislation, Tuck continued. It's quite a
wide challenge, he stated. I'm concerned about the "lack of memory" about
what promises were made, said Hamilton. I'd like to see where the
authorizing legislation made commitments to fish people and see that
reiterated right up front in the report, she stated.
Are you taping the interviews? asked Bill Bakke of the Native Fish
Society. If you are, I hope there will be an attempt to archive the tapes,
he added. All but the first two or three interviews are on tape, and the
disposition of the tapes will be up to the contracting authority, replied
Tuck. When will the interviews be completed? asked Sampsel. By the end of
the month, Tuck said. I hope to have a preliminary draft of the results
available at the September 14 meeting, he added. Sampsel said he would talk
with committee chair John Marsh about the disposition of the interview
tapes. It's very important to make sure these oral histories are captured,
commented Bakke.
What's your timeline for resident fish interviews? asked Towey. I will be
making resident fish contacts in the next couple of weeks and will let you
know the schedule, replied Tuck.
Database Will Debut Next Month
Duane Neitzel of the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
handed out a summary of the data sets collected thus far as part of the
development of Section IV of the report (Attachment 4). He said he had
talked with Jim Lichatowich and members of the SRT and that almost all of
their questions relate to what fish are released from a hatchery and where
those fish end up. Hatchery release and hatchery return data have been
downloaded from StreamNet and hatchery recovery data from the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission, Neitzel reported. He explained that he has
source data from Washington, Idaho, and the USFWS and has requested source
data from other agencies. The temporal component of these data varies by
hatchery, with some going back to the 1950s, and some only a couple of
years, Neitzel said. The data that we have in our system is all anadromous
salmonids at this time, he noted. Coded wire tag data are the data that will
link release data to recoveries and hatchery operations, Neitzel said.
We have initiated a spreadsheet of data extracted from the Integrated
Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) audit results, Neitzel continued. We have
the IHOT summaries and are going through the primary data from the audits,
he said. We will meet with the SRT August 20 to answer their questions,
Neitzel stated. The SRT's main priority is the link between releases and
recovery, he said.
Will the hatchery release data you have show whether fish are released at
a hatchery or in a stream? asked Dompier. There are some cases where that's
not clear, but a lot of the information about whether releases were instream
or not will be identifiable, Neitzel replied. The usefulness of the data
depends on whether a person can tell that, said Dompier. That's where the
debate is, and I hope that information comes out with this product, he
stated. We'll find that nearly all salmon are released at hatcheries, and
they go back and forth from the ocean to hatcheries, Dompier said. Hillwig
commented that it would be useful to tie this data into the information Tuck
has gotten in the interviews. Tuck noted that the interviews were not
producing detailed information about where releases took place. There is
some of that information in the IHOT audits, and given time, you can ferret
it out, said Neitzel.
Things are starting to come together with the information from the
interviews, Neitzel's work on the database, and the IHOT summaries, said
Sampsel. The question is, how do we get the additional information we need
and characterize where there is a lack of knowledge, he stated. At the
September 14 meeting, I will have the database on a computer for the
committee to look at, said Neitzel. He added that he plans to meet with Tuck
to compare the results of their work.
When you met with "the science folks," what were they interested in?
Sampsel asked Neitzel. Their main concern was looking at what's been
released historically and being able to correlate that with recovery,
Neitzel replied. For example, what's been released from this hatchery or
from this watershed, and can I see annual or decadal changes for the stock,
and what are the recovery and hatchery return data, he explained. Another
way to put it, according to Neitzel, is where have fall chinook been
outplanted from the Columbia River Basin and where they have returned and
been recovered? That's the main line of their questions, he said.
Did they ask whether mitigation achieved is a definition of recovery?
asked Bakke. They looked at the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and
utility mitigation and how it tied back to mitigation goals, replied Neitzel.
Did you discuss what fisheries a particular hatchery is contributing to and
the straying problems with hatcheries? asked Myron. Not straying as much as
hatchery operations -- how hatcheries are operated, the differences by
watershed and by stock, and how these are related to trends for release and
recovery, responded Neitzel. Ken Currens had a lot of genetic interaction
questions, but most of the discussion was about long-term trends, Neitzel
stated.
Will straying questions be answered in looking at the recovery data?
asked Myron. That's difficult, said Neitzel. In many cases, it wouldn't show
up, stated Foster. Maybe you could get it if you had the PIT tag data, he
added.
Sampsel asked the group if it had any advice for Neitzel about presenting
the information. I'd like to see where hatcheries are meeting their goals
presented in a concise and non-scientific manner, and to see what's
happening at hatcheries that are more successful, said Hamilton. The IHOT
auditors asked about goals, and that set of data is in that database, so we
should be able to do that, stated Neitzel. I hope we'll be able to query the
database as questions come up, said Hillwig.
Feedback on the IHOT Summaries
Sampsel noted that all the IHOT audit summaries have been completed and
asked the group for feedback on the summaries distributed at the last
meeting. The question is, are all the questions being addressed that this
group wants to see addressed, said Bakke. Our ex-IHOT representative
reviewed some of them and said the summaries are simply a more condensed
version of the IHOT audit -- that bits and pieces of information were pulled
out and condensed into a few pages, said Hillwig.
By taking the IHOT summaries, the database, and the information from the
interviews, we may be able to get to some answers, but I don't know how to
package it so it's useful, said Foster. I had a discussion with Inter-Tribe,
and they asked how specific we would get in dealing with specific
facilities, reported Sampsel. I told them we hadn't gotten to that point
yet, he said. The audits are useful to tell what species can be reared at
what facilities, commented Dompier. They are not useful as a management
tool, he added.
When I see goals stated in terms of eggs, fry, and smolts, there's no
accountability, said Hamilton. Are any goals expressed in terms of adult
returns? she asked. Some hatcheries do that, replied Neitzel. He noted that
the IHOT audits included quantitative data for such things as rearing
densities and temperature compliance and that the database will try to
provide such information. We'll get copies of the remaining summaries out to
you by the end of the week, said Sampsel. Closing Remarks
Given the IHOT summaries, and what the committee will get from Tuck and
Neitzel, Sampsel asked the group how it wants "to stack additional review
and analysis of those products" to help it deal with the policy and
management questions. Is this getting close to being a useful product for
tribal managers? he asked Dompier and Si Whitman of the Nez Perce Tribe. I
just want it out of the way, replied Whitman. Dompier asked about a response
from the SRT to the comments he made on the Lichatowich framework paper.
Foster said he had also submitted comments and was expecting a response.
Let's have a report from the SRT on that at the September 14 meeting,
suggested Sampsel. We'll get Foster's comments on that paper out to the rest
of the committee, he said.
On September 14, we'll decide how we will conduct the extended discussion
at our October meeting, which will lead to the policy management discussion
in November, recapped Sampsel.
Adjourn
Production Review Committee August 10, 1998 Meeting Attendees Bill Bakke,
Native Fish Society Doug Dompier, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission Dani Evenson, Sampsel Consulting Bob Foster, Washington Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife Jeff Gislason, BPA Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing
Industry Association Lee Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rayola
Jacobsen, Northwest Power Planning Council staff Jim Myron, Oregon Trout
George Nandor, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Duane Neitzel, Battelle
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Tom Rogers, Idaho Dept. of Fish and
Game Roy Sampsel, Sampsel Consulting R. Z. Smith, National Marine Fisheries
Service Bob Tuck, Sampsel Consulting Si Whitman, Nez Perce Tribe Frank
Young, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
Participating by Telephone:
Bill Towey, Kalispel Tribe
^ top
|
|
home