| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Friday, January 30, 1998 | document 98-2
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
At its first official meeting, the Production Review Committee for the
Northwest Power Planning Council's review of artificial production in the
Columbia River Basin identified a preliminary set of technical questions to
be sent to the Science Review Team (SRT). The committee also laid out a
schedule for its work and talked about how the review would encompass
resident fish concerns. A list of attendees is attached at the end of this
report.
Next Meeting: February 26 in Portland.
HIGHLIGHTS
Opening Remarks
Council staffer John Marsh, who chairs the committee, welcomed those
present to the first official meeting of the Production Review Committee for
the Columbia Basin Artificial Production Review. He said that minutes would
be distributed within 10 days of each meeting.
Sorting Out the Science Questions
The committee went over several sets of questions about artificial
production to determine which should be sent to the Science Review Team (SRT).
This group, according to the scoping document for the review, is to conduct
"a scientific analysis of the use of artificial production as a tool for
mitigation and enhancement of fish populations in the Columbia River Basin."
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the U.S. v. Oregon
parties submitted lists of questions. There was also a third set of
questions submitted by other members of the committee, compiled and
distributed by Marsh. Don Sampson, consultant, noted that the tribes are
also preparing a list of questions, but they are not yet in final form.
Lee Hillwig of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted that the U.S. v.
Oregon parties grouped their questions according to the five tasks for the
review set out in the scoping document. Trying to get a manageable set of
questions to the science team was our thought, said Tom Cooney of WDFW of
the one-page list he circulated.
What should we do with this big stack of questions? Marsh asked the
group, noting that some of the questions overlap. Give them to the
scientific panel, responded Bill Bakke of the Native Fish Society. Let the
scientists figure out which are redundant, he said. We need to distinguish
between the policy and technical questions, stated Sampson. There's no time
or money to answer every science question out there about hatcheries, and
there are policy questions this group wants to answer, said Liz Hamilton of
the Northwest Sport Fishing Industries Association. The science should drive
the policy, stated Jim Myron of Oregon Trout. I agree, said Bakke. The
science group won't look at all these questions, but staff or consultants
might, said Brian Allee of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority.
Marsh Explains the Tasks
Marsh reviewed the tasks in the scoping document for the hatchery review.
Task 1 is "a summary of existing artificial production programs, agreements,
and law that mitigate for losses of Columbia River Basin anadromous and
resident fish." For that, I envisioned an update of the chapter in the
losses compilation the Council did in its fish and wildlife program in 1985,
he stated. That would enable us to know what all the programs are, Marsh
said.
Task 2 is the "scientific analysis of the use of artificial production as
a tool for mitigation and enhancement of fish populations in the Columbia
River Basin." The SRT would look at what science tells us about the use of
artificial production today, Marsh explained. For Task 3, "a summary of the
performance of existing and past artificial production efforts in meeting
mitigation and other stated objectives," we would hire consultants to
provide a record of how artificial production has been implemented in the
past 15 to 20 years, he said.
We need to complete Tasks 1, 2, and 3 and get the results before we do
Tasks 4 and 5, Marsh said. Task 4 is "an evaluation of the performance of
the existing artificial production programs in the Columbia River Basin."
The SRT would take all the information on what's happening with artificial
production in the basin and make recommendations on how to proceed, he
explained. Task 5 consists of "policy recommendations, including a set of
general principles regarding the use of artificial production as a tool for
mitigating and enhancing fish populations in the basin, and an analysis of
existing programs identifying changes required to meet the general
principles." The Council would make the recommendations based on the input
from the Production Review Committee and the results of Task 4, Marsh
stated. Hopefully, it would not be just the Council, but the region, he
added.
Cooney said some of the questions on the list Marsh distributed are
policy questions. I have a problem with giving policy questions to the
science team, he stated. There's a lot of redundancy in the questions, and
you need to focus them down so the SRT can understand what you are trying to
get, said Chip McConnaha, Council staff contact for the SRT. It's important
to finalize the questions for the tasks to be done first; the policy
questions will build from Tasks 1, 2, and 3, said Hillwig. I agree; we need
to get the questions for Tasks 1-3 delineated, said Marsh. That will help us
understand what can get done and what won't get done, said Rich Berry of the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).
I don't want this committee to act as a filter on the questions, stated
Bakke. All the questions should go to the scientific community, he added.
We're trying to figure out which of the questions before us go to the
science group and whether there are questions that need to be on the list
that aren't there, stated consultant Roy Sampsel.
McConnaha noted that the SRT will meet February 9. After that meeting,
the SRT will report back to us on how it intends to address the questions we
gave them, and they may tell us, we threw out some of the questions, said
Sampsel. Task 1 involves gathering existing information -- it's a "stacking
exercise," he noted. Let's get on to Task 2 and see if we can lay out the
science questions embodied in what we have before us, Sampsel suggested.
The group considered WDFW's list, and Sampsel noted that it contains two
science questions. We don't need to debate them -- they fit in the science
category, he observed. The group agreed they should go to the SRT.
The committee discussed the Task 2 questions on the U.S. v. Oregon
group's list and agreed that most of them should be sent to the SRT. In a
few cases, questions were reworded. For example, "How can we expect a
naturally produced fish to survive in an artificial environment?" was
changed to "Can naturally and hatchery-produced fish survive and adapt to an
altered Columbia River Basin environment?"
The committee went through 42 technical questions on the list distributed
by Marsh and identified them as falling under Tasks 1, 2, 3, or 4, or some
combination. Occasionally, the committee reworded a question. For example,
"Should hatchery and wild salmonids be integrated so that they function as a
single reproductive unit within a subbasin or should the two be kept
separate..." was changed to "Can hatchery and wild salmonids be
integrated..."
The committee also reviewed the policy questions on the list and
identified several as science questions that should go to the SRT. What will
the SRT do with these questions? inquired Bruce Suzumoto of the Public Power
Council. They will collapse them into a set of "handleable questions" and
say what they can get done between now and June, responded McConnaha. You
won't get answers to every question, he said. The SRT will categorize them
in a way that embraces your concerns, according to McConnaha.
Should we prioritize the science questions to give more guidance to the
SRT? asked Steve Smith of the National Marine Fisheries Service. No, because
then you start filtering, responded Bakke. I can report to you how the SRT
boils the questions down, suggested McConnaha. We should either identify the
highest-priority themes for the use of their limited time, or we should look
at the categories they recommend and make sure they are the highest priority
for us, said Cooney. There's a big checkpoint in June, noted McConnaha. You
could ask for clarification for the next product at that time, he said. In
June, there will be "high-level generalized answers" and maybe later, they
will be more specific, McConnaha stated.
The feeling is that this group shouldn't filter, said Allee. The SRT
should do that, but it is important for them to report back so we can ask,
does this make common sense? he stated. The issue is, are they going to
spend time on the right kinds of questions, Allee said.
Are there four overriding things we could tell the SRT it should look at?
inquired Sampsel. That would give them guidance for the priority of what
they address, he stated. "They're big guys" -- we're trying to control
things too much here, commented Bakke.
I think it would be helpful for the SRT if you establish general
priorities, said McConnaha. If the SRT knows there is one overriding issue,
that would be help in prioritizing its work load -- it would not be control,
it would be helpful, he stated. We don't need to get into the minutiae; our
role is to assist Council staff to comply with the request from Congress,
stated Myron. We expect staff to get what it needs by June to provide a
report to Congress, he said.
Can we identify overriding or priority pieces of information to give
greater guidance to Chip [McConnaha] in presenting these questions to the
SRT next week? asked Sampsel. Hamilton suggested the need to look at
hatcheries as a mitigation tool. Myron brought up the need for coordinated
hatchery policy. The ultimate thing here is policy recommendations to
Congress, said Smith. The scientific analysis might lead us to policy
recommendations, and I want to be sure the basic data are collected to
address the issues, he continued. I don't think some of these questions can
be answered by anyone now because the data are not there, but I do hope to
get a substantial increment of improvement in what we know, Smith stated. My
concern is how to organize the questions we are sending to the SRT, he said.
The key question is how we can most benefit the SRT process, stated
Sampsel. We have a list of about 100 questions -- if we could identify two,
three, or a few of them that have higher priority, it would be useful, he
said. If we can't, okay, Sampsel added.
We have a diverse group here, and if we try to prioritize too much, it
will set people to focusing on their own interests, said Hillwig. Either
there are overriding questions, or there aren't, responded Sampsel. If the
answer is no, the list goes to the SRT, and they deal with it -- we know
they won't answer all 100 questions, he said. The questions provide
guidance, said Bakke. Are there overriding questions we can agree to? asked
Sampsel. No, said Bakke. The analysis the SRT will do needs to be in the
context of providing alternatives to the current management system in the
Columbia River Basin and helping make Task 4 recommendations, said Allee.
The SRT could get mired down in issues like disease pathology or gene flow,
he stated. The limitations are time and money, aren't they? asked Sampsel. I
can't presume to prioritize these questions for the science folks, said
Myron. But if there is an overriding policy issue, I don't mind trying to
determine it, he added.
It's too early to prioritize, said Bob Austin of BPA. It would be nice to
get an early report back from the SRT so we can see where things are headed
and how the SRT grouped things, he stated. Not to be controlling, but so we
can be truly advisory and point out anything they missed, Austin added. The
SRT ought to focus on adding to the existing body of knowledge -- I trust
them to identify five or six major themes, stated Cooney. Let's capture that
intent in the transmittal to the SRT, and Chip will report back to us after
the SRT meeting, suggested Sampsel. The context is to develop useful
alternatives to existing production programs, given existing constraints,
said McConnaha. The SRT has to understand the purpose and end- product and
what it is trying to contribute to, he added.
The SRT should identify positive as well as negative things about
hatchery production, noted Hillwig. The SRT should say, here are the good
parts of what's going on out there, and here are the bad parts, and answer
the question, how do we weed out the bad and keep the good, he said. That's
the bottom line we are looking for in the policy recommendations, Hillwig
stated. Can you e-mail us right away after the SRT meeting? Smith asked
McConnaha. Yes, he replied, adding that it may take a week for the SRT to
define the five or six major issue areas.
Marsh indicated that staff will assemble all the Task 2 questions and
give them to the SRT and also will send copies of the list to the Production
Review Committee members. Sampsel said when the tribes' questions come in,
they should be arranged by task and also distributed. Sampson noted that he
would see that the revised list of Task 2 questions gets to the tribes so
they can review it. Sampson also mentioned that the Council has talked about
future alternative scenarios for system configuration and the effects of
existing harvest agreements. How will things like this be addressed? he
asked. The science community won't dictate the policy issues, said Berry. I
look to them to tell us what is the sound science, he stated. We know the
constraints and will have to deal with the policy issues within them, Berry
added.
Should some members of this committee attend the SRT meeting? asked
Smith. It's a public meeting so anyone can come, responded McConnaha. But
I'd like to keep the input to a minimum so the SRT can efficiently organize
themselves and get down to work, he added.
Where Do Resident Fish Fit In?
So far everything we've focused on has been related to anadromous fish,
observed Sampson. Do all these questions apply to resident fish? he asked.
The Upper Columbia United Tribes and the Colville Tribes told the Council a
month ago that they see a distinct focus on anadromous fish in the way the
hatchery review is going so far, and that they are not sure it will provide
a useful review for resident fish, noted Marsh. Three alternatives have been
suggested, he said: 1) do separate, but concurrent reviews; 2) wait until
this review is done and then do a resident fish production review; or 3)
don't do a resident fish review.
Kirk Truscott of the Colville Tribes said their concern is with blocked
areas and that questions posed to date in this review deal with anadromous
fish issues that are not as important in blocked areas. We think resident
fish have unique issues that could be lost in this complicated anadromous
fish review, he said. Maybe it would be better to do the resident fish
review later and use whatever information is useful from the anadromous fish
review, Truscott stated.
Congress told the Council to do a comprehensive review of artificial
production in the Columbia River Basin, said Hillwig. If the intent of
Congress is an anadromous fish review, we need to clarify that, he stated.
Sampsel asked if staff has talked with the Council about doing a later
resident fish review. We had a preliminary discussion with the Fish Four and
told them we added upriver tribes to this review, replied Marsh.
"We can go to this well once for a drink," stated Bakke. We should
include resident fish in this review -- I'm not sure we can replicate this
evaluation for resident fish at a later time, he said. The review is
anadromous fish with resident fish rolled into it now, stated Truscott. I
don't see language in the Congressional bill that differentiates anadromous
fish and resident fish, said Myron. I'm hearing a desire for a separate but
equal review on a concurrent time frame, said Sampsel. How difficult would
it be to develop the questions for such an approach? he asked. It's
difficult even to get all the players together due to the remoteness of the
upper basin, Truscott said. He noted that the resident fish managers have a
meeting set for February 4 and that perhaps they could develop some
questions then.
Should the SRT address whether the review should answer resident fish and
anadromous fish questions separately? asked Hillwig. When the SRT was
assembled, was it assembled assuming it would be for resident fish or
anadromous fish? asked Sampsel. It was focused more on anadromous fish, but
it wasn't exclusive, replied Marsh. Maybe we should see what the resident
fish managers recommend, keeping in mind Bakke's comment, which is that you
won't get a second request from Congress to do this kind of a study, stated
Sampsel.
If the SRT thinks two reviews should be done, would there be funding to
do both? Hillwig inquired. These decisions need to be reached quickly,
Sampsel stated. My concern, which may stem from the way I've seen questions
posed for the existing review, is that we don't lose resident fish
objectives and goals, said Truscott. Maybe the questions can be revised, he
said.
We support the resident fish review as part of the comprehensive hatchery
review, said David Arthaud of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. One of our
questions involves federal and state hatcheries stocking rainbow trout in
steelhead waters, he noted. We don't want that question left out of the
review, Arthaud stated.
I think we should keep resident fish in this review, said Sampson. There
is only so much energy, commented Sampsel. Truscott asked for the questions
from the committee to be sent to him so the resident fish managers can
discuss them at their Feb. 4 meeting.
Sampson Lays Out A Schedule for the Review
Sampson outlined a proposed schedule for the review, noting that it
doesn't incorporate resident fish elements. If we add resident fish, we'll
need to make changes to reflect that work, he said. Sampson's outline is
reproduced below, along with a summary of the discussion.
Proposed Schedule
STEP 1: FEBRUARY - JUNE 1998
Task 1. Summary of Existing Production
Who: NWPPC staff.
When: First draft to Production Review Committee (PRC) by
mid-February for review.
Review: PRC provides comment to NPPC by mid-March.
Complete: Final report by mid-April.
Question: Resident Fish? - Summary of Existing Production -- Schedule
and tasks to complete.
Task 3. Summary of Performance of Existing and Past Hatcheries in
Meeting Mitigation Objectives.
Who: NPPC staff and consultant.
When: First draft by end of March -- PRC review by end of April.
Second draft by mid-May -- PRC review by first of June.
Complete: Final draft by mid-June.
STEP 2: FEBRUARY - SEPTEMBER 1998 Task 2. Scientific Analysis of
Hatcheries
Subtask 21: Prepare policy and technical/scientific questions.
Who: PRC/SRT.
When: Final draft of technical/scientific questions by NPPC staff by
February 5.
Review: SRT reviews technical/scientific questions on February 9. SRT
completes refinement of questions by mid-February.
Complete: SRT initiates analysis of technical/scientific questions by
March 1, 1998. SRT provides schedule of product completion with review by
PRC. Reviews between March - August 1998. Final analyses by mid-September
1998.
Task 5(a). Identify Policy Decision Forum, Processes, and Timeframes
for Policy Recommendations to NPPC/Fish Four/Fish Managers Who: PRC
identifies existing forums, processes, and timeframes. NWPPC staff drafts
alternatives and schedules for PRC review by end of February. Review:
PRC (and fishery managers) review alternatives and schedule and comment by
mid- March. Identify public review requirements by mid-March.
Recommendations to NPPC on FY 1999 Congressional actions/strategies by mid-
March.
Complete: No later than mid-September.
STEP 3: PROJECTED COMPLETION DATE - JUNE 1999 Task 4. Evaluation of
Performance of Existing Hatcheries based on Task 2 and 3 Analyses.
Question: How do we best frame this task to prepare alternative policy
recommendations?
Task 5. Develop, Review, Recommend Columbia River Artificial
Production Policies Develop Implementation Actions, Costs, and Schedules.
Report to Congress.
Questions and Discussion
Step 1. Do you have a public review process? asked Allee. Not for
this task, Marsh replied. Mid-February may be a little ambitious as a
deadline, given the list of questions we worked on today, commented Hillwig.
Are you using a standardized format for Task 1 so that resident fish people
can be on the same page? asked staffer Stacy Horton. No, Task 3 may be
closer to what you are looking for there, replied Marsh. The resident fish
people can provide a lot of the information you need, Horton said.
Step 2, Task 2, Subtask 21. How does this fit with what the
state of Oregon is doing? asked Myron. One of the issues Oregon's
independent science group is addressing is hatcheries, but a schedule has
not yet been established, replied Berry. They may decide to wait and see
what this committee does, he added.
Step 2, Task 5(a). Members of the committee noted that
public and tribal review of the alternatives for a policy decision forum,
process, and timeframe would be needed. In particular, the policy decision
forum issue requires more discussion, several members of the committee said.
I suggest a small working group be formed to look at all the existing forums
and develop a set of options for this committee to discuss, said Sampsel. We
need to address the offer the Council made last fall to expand the Fish
Four, he added. Where does that stand? Sampsel inquired. The Fish Four sent
a letter inviting federal agencies and tribes to sit with the Fish Four
during the fish and wildlife program rulemaking, Marsh explained. The
Council didn't get any replies to the offer and is thinking of sending
another letter, he said.
The key thing is the decision process, said Smith. And the question is,
is the Council sharing it or reserving it? he asked. We shouldn't ask the
Council about this -- this committee should make a recommendation to the
Council, advised Hillwig. Staff should clarify what the Council wants in an
expanded Fish Four, and if the Council anticipates the expanded Fish Four
would be the vehicle for Council review of this committee's recommendations,
said Sampsel. He reiterated his suggestion that a small group define the
ongoing processes in the region, including state salmon initiatives and NMFS
efforts. I'll volunteer for the small working group, Smith told Sampsel.
It's important for the public to be able to figure out how all these
processes fit together, stated Myron.
Step 3, Task 4. Sampson said Tasks 1 and 2 would drive the
schedule for this product. Hillwig noted that it has to fit with the 1999
appropriations process. March or April might be workable for recommendations
to Congress, but if the intent is to get into the Administration's budget
request, that has to be February, he said. They lock up the agency budgets
by September, stated Sampsel. Everything for 1999 is published and "ready to
be dropped next week," he said. While the process for 1999 is done, you can
still do interim recommendations related to 1999 budget issues, stated
Sampsel. Congressional committees will consider budget recommendations in
March and April, and they will go to markup in August and September, he
explained. The Council in the past has made recommendations about federal
appropriations, such as those for the Corps, Sampsel said. He suggested the
Council make a decision on the recommendations at its March 17-19 work
session in Spokane.
Tasks 2, 3, and part of 1 will give us the data base and
"snapshot" of what's going on in the region, observed Sampsel. Does Task 4
drive your policy recommendations? he asked. It's never been clear in my
mind, said Cooney. Before we do Task 4, we need initial policy discussions
to allow us to have a framework of what we are trying to evaluate, he
stated.
The scientific questions and broad policy questions have to interface in
Task 4, said Sampson. We have to look at the combination of the two and say,
what do we do next, and what are the alternatives based on the scientific
recommendations, he stated. We're missing a step between Tasks 4 and 5, said
Smith. Is it to say what the effects of the alternatives mean? asked Hillwig.
We could do Tasks 4 and 5 and then do a futures analysis, suggested Smith. I
wouldn't bother Congress until we've done Tasks 2, 3, 4, and a futures
analysis and packaged them into Task 5, he added.
We've done quite a bit of work today -- couldn't we flag the relationship
between Tasks 4 and 5 as a major agenda item when we come back together?
asked Sampsel. It's a question of how to frame Tasks 4 and 5 to inform
policymakers, said Cooney. I'm concerned that regardless of what the
recommendations are, there's a concurrent need to deal with implementation
and fiscal realities, said Sampsel. Task 5 involves making the
recommendations operational and developing an implementation plan, he
stated. That goes along with the recommendations for legislative action,
said Hillwig. The Mitchell Act might be a potential implementation
mechanism, suggested Myron.
What About IHOT?
We're struggling to figure out how the Integrated Hatchery Operations
Team (IHOT) audits fit into this process, Marsh said. IHOT has a proposal in
for $124,000, and the first work item is to prepare summaries of their work,
noted Sampsel. The proposal should be approved and IHOT directed to provide
the summaries to the hatchery review, he recommended. It would be good to
discuss the milestones and the need for timeliness for that deliverable
because I think the IHOT schedule could be a little off from this one, said
Allee.
Why do you need the IHOT group to do this work? Why not the contractors
who did the audits? asked Suzumoto. What would the summaries look like, and
do you need a team of people to do them or could just a few people do them
more quickly? he asked. There's a lot of misinterpretation with regard to
IHOT, said Hillwig. The IHOT team is the best one to do the summaries, he
added. There was not enough funding so the IHOT process was never finished,
noted Berry. I'd like to see it completed, he said. Its results are a key
component for this process, Berry stated. It would be useful to quantify
what the IHOT product is, said Sampsel. If the audits can't be finished in
time to fit the schedule of this review, we have to think whether it is
worthwhile to finish them, stated Suzumoto.
Marsh brought up the question of how legislative recommendations can be
put together by mid-March. At the end of next week, when the FY 1999
Presidential budget drops, a small group of "Mitchell Act people" and others
should be convened to talk about what's in it, suggested Sampsel. That group
could make recommendations to this committee in February on what we could
suggest the Council testify about, he said. Smith, Bakke, and Marsh
volunteered to be part of the group.
I didn't realize this group was interested in pursuing Mitchell Act 1999
funding, said Smith. That and other things, stated Marsh. It's a key piece
of funding, Sampsel said. Discussions of the Mitchell Act may attract a big
group, not a small group, Smith observed. When will we know what's in the
budget? he asked. Next week or no later than Feb. 9, said Sampsel. It was
agreed that the small group meeting would be held from 1:30 to 4 pm on Feb.
19, with the place to be determined.
Coming Up Next
The committee agreed the next meetings would be held on February
26, April 2, and April 30. The February 26 meeting will run from 9 am to 3
pm. The agenda will include discussions of:: -- the full list of science
questions arrayed by task, including the tribes' questions and the results
of the resident fish managers' meeting; -- the report from the SRT's Feb. 9
meeting; -- FY 1999 funding recommendations to Congress; -- the first draft
of the summary of existing production; -- how Tasks 4 and 5 fit together;
and -- resident fish portion of the review. Adjourn
Production Review Committee January 30, 1998 Meeting Attendees
Bruce Suzumoto, Public Power Council Brian Allee, Columbia Basin Fish and
Wildlife Authority Bob Austin, BPA Tom Cooney, Washington Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife Lee Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rich Berry, Oregon
Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Jim Myron, Oregon Trout Randy Fisher, Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission Don Sampson, Consultant Phil Roger,
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Bruce Lovelin, Columbia River
Alliance Roy Sampsel, Sampsel Consulting Bill Bakke, Native Fish Society Liz
Hamilton, Northwest Sport Fishing Industries Association Steve Smith,
National Marine Fisheries Service Tom Clune, BPA John Marsh, Council staff
Jim Middaugh, Council staff Chip McConnaha, Council staff
Participating by Telephone:
Kirk Truscott, Colville Tribes Keith Underwood, Spokane Tribes Jim Hoff,
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife David Arthaud, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
Pat Oshie, Yakama Tribes Stacy Horton, Council staff.
^ top
|
|
home