| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Thursday, February 26, 1998 | document 98-4
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
The Production Review Committee discussed an outline and draft chapter
for its report on artificial production in the Columbia River Basin and
considered resident fish issues and the Science Review Team's progress. A
list of attendees is attached at the end of this report.
Next Meeting: April 2 in Portland.
HIGHLIGHTS
Considering the Outline for the Review
Arraying the Questions
Resident Fish Issues
Report from the Science Review Team
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations
First Chance to Mark Up A Product
Opening Remarks
Council staffer John Marsh, who chairs the committee announced that in
the future, agendas for the meetings would be sent out by e-mail a week in
advance. The committee also decided that HENCEFORTH ALL MEETINGS WOULD BEGIN
AT 9:30 AM.
Meeting handouts will be attached to the minutes of the meetings, which
are available through the Council's webpage, Marsh said, and he urged
committee members to call him if they don't get the materials they need.
Marsh also noted that Don Sampson and Roy Sampsel are on contract to the
Council to assist with the review. They are serving as staff at these
meetings and do not represent any particular interests, he stated.
Last week, we weeded out the science questions from the policy questions
in an effort to keep the Science Review Team (SRT) from answering policy
questions, noted Rich Berry of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).
Did we get a set of questions from Inter-Tribe (Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission)? he inquired. No, but Doug Dompier (of Inter-Tribe) said he
will look into getting them to us, Marsh responded. Did the questions sent
to the SRT indicate what agency prepared which questions? asked Dompier. I
asked for that, but didn't get it, stated Bill Bakke of the Native Fish
Society.
Considering the Outline for the Review
Marsh presented an outline of the report for the artificial production
review. He said it is an attempt to let people know what the products of the
review will be. "It's the meat of what we're going to do," Marsh stated. We
will not update the scoping document; instead, this will be our statement of
work, he said. The Production Review Committee will "drive the whole
process" and incorporate the different comments and concerns, Marsh added.
Dompier suggested that "steelhead" be deleted from the sentence in the
outline stating "The report will address all salmon and steelhead artificial
production regardless of funding source or purpose." He recommended that it
say "all salmon" or that it be specific and list all the species. There's no
intent to exclude anything, stated Marsh. He said the wording would be
changed to delete steelhead and a footnote would be added, which would list
all species covered. Bakke objected to deleting steelhead from the sentence.
Marsh then walked the committee through the seven sections of the
outline. We intend to have separate but concurrent efforts for salmon and
resident fish, he stated. Marsh said he and Sampson have been working with
the resident fish caucus of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA)
and that they will be the forum used to address the resident fish portions
of the report.
Why aren't you using the anadromous fish managers of CBFWA in a similar
way? asked Dompier. We have all the anadromous fish managers represented on
this committee, replied Marsh. There was an alternative in the scoping
document to do that, or to create this advisory committee, he explained. The
comments we got indicated a preference for the advisory committee, and the
Council decided that was how it would be done, Marsh said. With resident
fish, we wanted to use an existing committee, and the CBFWA caucus seemed
the most appropriate way to conduct a concurrent, but separate effort, he
stated.
Will the CBFWA resident fish folks integrate anyone from the fish
conservation community into their work? asked Jim Myron of Oregon Trout. We
haven't gotten that far yet, replied Marsh. Will we be able to review the
resident fish product? asked Lee Hillwig of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). This committee will get to look at drafts of all the
products, responded Marsh. Our focus will be on salmon, but you'll be able
to make the connections, he stated.
Sections of the Outline
I. Introduction. Marsh indicated that the Council will prepare this
section, which will generally describe the purpose and scope of the review
and the questions being addressed.
II. Description and Historical Overview of Columbia River Hatchery
Programs and Policy. We'll hand out a draft of this section today, Marsh
stated. It is an overview of what's happening in the basin, explaining the
programs and what's been going on, he said. This section is divided into two
parts, one for salmon and one for resident fish, according to Marsh. The
salmon section will summarize "existing artificial production programs,
agreements, and law that mitigate for losses of Columbia River Basin
salmon," according to the outline. The resident fish section will summarize
"existing resident fish artificial production programs, agreements, and law
that either mitigate for hydropower-caused losses or that occur in waters
where other artificial production activities mitigate for hydropower-caused
losses."
III. Overview of Scientific Basis for Columbia River Production Programs.
Marsh explained that this section of the report will look at the state of
the science in a risk-analysis format. He pointed out that the members of
the SRT, who will carry out the analysis, are: Council staffer Chip
McConnaha, chairman; three Independent Scientific Advisory Board members --
Jim Lichatowich, Richard Williams, and Brian Riddell; Ken Currens, Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission; and Ernest Brannon, University of Idaho.
The outline indicates this section will be "a scientific analysis of the
use of artificial production as a tool for mitigation and enhancement of
fish populations" in the basin, with an emphasis on salmon. It also says
this section of the report will "review and summarize what current
scientific knowledge tells us about how artificial production should be
used, how it should not be used, and relative biological risks involved in
using it for different types of situations."
What will we do if the SRT crosses the line into policy? asked Dompier.
If we see that, we will tell them, replied Marsh. This is not a secret
process -- we're trying to develop something useful to the region, he added.
IV. Results: Compilation of Information Regarding Historical Record of
Artificial Production Mitigation in the Columbia River Basin. This section
will contain a summary of data to provide a history of the performance of
each specific Columbia Basin salmon artificial production program and
"pertinent resident fish production programs," according to the outline. The
Council and a contractor will put this together, Marsh said. We won't
re-create what we have -- we'll use the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team
(IHOT) audits and the USFWS programmatic EIS on artificial production, he
added. Hillwig noted that the final programmatic EIS should be out in a
month to a month and a half. Don Sampson is taking the lead on the resident
fish portion of this section, Marsh said.
V. Discussion: Performance Review of Columbia River Hatchery Programs.
According to the outline, this section will be "a summary of the performance
of existing and past artificial production efforts in meeting mitigation and
other stated objectives." It will take the work done in Sections III and IV
of the report and analyze what has happened and what can be done in the
future, said Marsh. The SRT and the Independent Economic Analysis Board have
the responsibility for this item, according to the outline.
What is meant by "performance?" asked Pat Oshie of the Yakama Tribes,
pointing out that some hatcheries' goals involve the production of numbers
of fish and others involve pounds of fish. Is that performance? he asked.
We'll look at it programmatically, to identify how well programs are meeting
objectives, and why or why not, replied Marsh. I don't know how far we'll
get into each hatchery and raceway, he said. It's not meant to be an
indictment of what's happened in the past, Marsh added.
What time frame are you looking at? asked Oshie. He pointed out, for
example, that the objectives of the Klickitat facility have changed a lot --
are you talking about the goals in 1952, when it was built, or in 1996?
Oshie inquired. We haven't gotten to that yet, replied Marsh. Some have
suggested performance over the last 15-20 years, he noted. The objectives
have changed a lot at hatcheries, said Dompier. Going back 15 years wouldn't
be wise, he stated. You have to look at changing objectives and why the
changes occurred, Dompier continued. Most of the changes were
management-driven, and it's critical not to lose sight of the
management-driven changes, he said.
VI. Summary of Scientific Conclusions. This section, to be done by the
SRT, is a summary of conclusions and recommendations reached in Section V,
according to the outline.
VII. Policy Analysis and Recommendations. This section, according to the
outline, is expected to provide a set of general principles regarding the
use of artificial production as a tool for mitigating and enhancing salmon
populations and for resident fish mitigation, enhancement, and substitution
in the basin. The Council and the Production Review Committee are the
responsible entities.
Marsh distributed a chart of the schedule. He said Section II of the
report is in draft form now and will be completed by June 1998. Section III
is scheduled to be done by the end of September 1998, Section IV probably by
this summer, Sections V and VI by January 1999, and Section VII in June
1999, Marsh stated.
Arraying the Questions
Marsh handed out a list of "questions identified for consideration in the
artificial production review". He asked for volunteers to group the
questions under the sections of the report outline. Hillwig, Brian Allee of
CBFWA, and Trent Stickell of ODFW volunteered for the job. Marsh asked them
to do it by March 13 so he can send a new version of the list out to
committee members before the next meeting.
Resident Fish Issues
Sampson explained that the strategy discussed with the resident fish
caucus of CBFWA is to parallel the anadromous fish process and use the same
outline. Some decisions need to be made on the type of resident fish
programs to be included in the review, he stated. The summary in Section II
of the report will look at programs that mitigate for hydropower-caused
losses or that occur in waters where other artificial production activities
mitigate for hydropower-caused losses, Sampson noted. It will include
information from the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, USFWS-funded
hatcheries, BPA reports, and Lower Snake River Compensation Plan reports, he
stated. We will have to decide what other information to include, Sampson
said.
The resident fish caucus decided that Kirk Truscott of the Colville
Tribes will chair a subgroup to compile information and be the liaison with
the Production Review Committee, Sampson noted. We will meet Tuesday and
Wednesday of next week to discuss the approach for compiling this
information and the types of hatcheries to be included in the review, he
said. Keep in mind that the resident fish issues are as contentious as the
anadromous fish issues, Sampson stated.
The subgroup will also meet next week to scope the information needed for
the report, according to Sampson. Truscott will be the key contact for that
work too, he said. I suggest that the subgroup, instead of a contractor,
synthesize the information and prepare this section of the report, said
Sampson. It will be similar to the draft anadromous fish report you will see
later today, he added.
Why should that group make the decisions about resident fish hatcheries?
asked Dompier. If the group that operates the hatcheries is the one to
decide whether to put the hatcheries up to be examined, they won't be
examined, he stated. We need a good list of hatcheries and where the
releases are happening, said Dompier. We are still debating whether to look
at state hatcheries and their releases into non-anadromous fish waters,
replied Sampson.
We've talked about including hydropower mitigation hatcheries and
hatcheries that release resident fish into areas where other
hydropower-funded facilities release fish, said Marsh. Why not look at all
of it? asked Dompier. Let's do "the study of all studies" for hatcheries,
including resident fish, he urged. The Council said that all anadromous fish
production should be covered, but that all resident fish production is too
broad, replied Marsh. The two types of resident fish artificial production
to be covered by this review, he said, are: -- "Resident fish artificial
production that addresses hydropower-caused losses"; and -- "Resident fish
artificial production, regardless of purpose, released in waters where
salmon or resident fish artificial production that is addressing
hydro-caused losses is also released." Those are the sideboards the Council
put on resident fish, Marsh said. Was the intent to include releases into
reservoirs? asked Stickell. Yes -- we are trying to separate out releases
into lakes that have nothing to do with hydropower losses, replied Marsh.
Stickell expressed concern that the review "will just get pieces of
state-funded programs." How can you do an evaluation when you are "picking
it apart into pieces?" he asked.
This is not to review hatcheries as facilities, but to review artificial
production programs, stated Hillwig. Isn't the point to evaluate the
cost-effectiveness of hatcheries? asked Stickell. Let's open it up and look
at everything, urged Dompier. I'm concerned that otherwise it will just be
"another hatchery-bashing" operation, he said. I want to see the real
impacts, Dompier added.
How difficult is it to display resident fish artificial production for
all the states? asked Sampsel. I suggest you collect all the information and
set standards for analyzing the impacts of production programs, he said.
When you are done, you'll be able to see the relative costs of looking at
all production, and a smaller group can decide the next tiering from the
gross total, Sampsel suggested. In developing information on artificial
production in relation to resident fish, we should get the numbers, the
release sites, operations costs, and the like, he said.
Who wants to work on the resident fish issue? asked Sampson. Stickell,
Myron, and Randy Fisher of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
volunteered.
Stickell questioned the part of the report that calls for summary of the
performance of existing and past resident fish artificial production
efforts. What's important is what we are doing now, he said. If this report
is to show "we've come a long way," we have to show the trend, said Hillwig.
Congress will be reading this, and we'll need to show where we were and
where we are now so they can see the trend, he stated.
It bothers me "how people evaluate performance in a short time and
declare failure," for both anadromous fish and resident fish, said Allee. If
you limit the history, you may limit the review of performance, he stated.
Some people say, let's only do existing programs and the past is irrelevant,
said Marsh. Others say that we have to look at it all because we need to
show how much it's changed, he stated. They are both good arguments, Marsh
said. You may need to clear the matter up, "otherwise you could put yourself
in a box," stated Allee. You have to look over a broader time frame to see
variability over time, he said.
From an operating agency's viewpoint, what we can give is from 1980 on,
stated Berry. We don't have the funding to get earlier information, he said.
We'll try to create as accurate an historical record as we can without lots
of historical research , summed up Sampson. I'd like to see one person
responsible for this, and why not you? said Bakke to Sampson. Members of the
committee could contract to do the work, but if not, we could do what you
suggest, responded Sampson.
It's better to capture why and how the thinking about artificial
production has changed over time, instead of going back a hundred years,
said Bob Austin of BPA. For resident fish or anadromous fish, the important
thing is: what was the reason for a hatchery's authorization and how has it
changed over time? stated Sampson. We need to do an accurate concise
overview of that, he said.
Report from the Science Review Team
Council staffer Chip McConnaha reported that the SRT looked at the
technical questions sent by the Production Review Committee and indicated
they are "appropriate and doable." The SRT will try to collapse the
questions into a smaller subset -- maybe five or six -- that will eliminate
any duplication, he said. There is an outline of the SRT's contribution to
the review's report, McConnaha noted. I'll get you copies of the outline,
with the questions folded in, within a week, he said. The SRT is very
interested in getting the contractor for the review on board, according to
McConnaha. As soon as the contractor is selected, the SRT wants to hold a
meeting and talk about data needs, he said.
McConnaha pointed out that the SRT will institute a more formal
notification process for its future meetings. Dompier inquired if the SRT
had been given any instructions about using historical literature or
peer-reviewed material. We've given them no directions, and we'll leave it
to them -- I assume it will be a mixture, replied McConnaha. We will provide
the SRT with a list of the members of the Production Review Committee as
their designated formal contacts for your agencies, he said. I encourage the
SRT members to contact us as they go along, stated Hillwig.
I noticed that many of the science questions this committee went over at
its January 30 meeting dealt with supplementation, said Oshie. We are
working with the state of Washington to develop answers to many of those
questions, he stated. We don't want premature answers from the SRT, and we
are concerned that the SRT's answers won't be consistent with the work we
are doing, Oshie said. Your report could indicate that these questions are
being researched by the Yakama Tribes and the state of Washington, David
Fast of the Yakama Tribes told the committee. Your work won't be done in
time to provide it to the SRT, noted Hillwig. We are finding that to be true
in other areas, he added. This sounds like a policy-level decision, said
McConnaha. It will be difficult for the SRT to say we can't look at a
question because someone else is looking at it, he stated. If there is
coordination to be done at the policy level, you should wrestle with it and
let us know, McConnaha said.
You wouldn't want to reach a conclusive answer without us having a chance
to do the work and provide answers, stated Oshie. Many are doing interesting
work that may have a bearing on this, said McConnaha. Some questions won't
have answers for years, noted Austin. The review should identify where
answers are being studied, he added. If next year your research indicates
something contrary, obviously the science would be revised, said McConnaha.
We don't want to make production decisions on the state of the science now
because we are working on it, Oshie stated. We are always cutting across
ongoing research, noted McConnaha. I have the same concern, said Berry, who
recommended that the review's report acknowledge that some questions are the
subject of ongoing research.
I thought this review was to look at 100 or more hatcheries and what they
have done, not at what Pat Oshie is describing -- that's cutting-edge
research, said Dompier. My concern is that the review will just be another
"slam the hatcheries" program, he stated. I can't imagine that the review
wouldn't acknowledge the research that is going on, said McConnaha.
We are assuming that the deadline for the SRT's work is this September,
McConnaha stated. I'd be more comfortable if we decided that in some formal
way, he added. Where does the Council stand on the schedule? asked Hillwig.
The Fish Four reviewed it and said it looks good, and we are discussing it
with Congressional staff, replied Marsh.
Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations
Sampsel said he is preparing a report on what to tell Congress about FY
1999 appropriations for federally funded hatchery programs. We'll be able to
tell them about the status of the direct-funding efforts for the Lower Snake
River Compensation Plan, he said. There's not a lot of interest in the
Mitchell Act yet in D.C., Sampsel reported. The House wants all desires for
appropriations in by March 15, noted Fisher. Realistically, we can't get
them anything by the 15th, but we propose to have information about funding
levels for the Mitchell Act and the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan
around the 17th, said Sampsel.
Sampsel said he plans to meet with tribal communities to discuss the
proposed federal budget legislation and get their input in the coming week.
He said he would meet with the Yakamas, the Warm Springs, the Umatillas, and
the Nez Perce between now and March 16. Sampsel said the 1996 federal agency
Memorandum of Agreement on BPA fish and wildlife funding suggested that
direct BPA funding of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan be examined.
If there is agreement between BPA and USFWS to direct fund it prior to the
Washington, D.C. budget cycle, we would withdraw that funding request from
the appropriations bill, he said. Sampsel distributed a draft Memorandum of
Understanding on the direct funding of the Lower Snake River Compensation
Plan.
Sampsel said his report should be available by the end of next week, and
he indicated it will include recommendations, as well as "a specific
stacking of information" about the programs. The Council will take up this
topic at its work session in Spokane March 17-18, he stated.
First Chance to Mark Up A Product
Marsh circulated a draft chapter for Section II of the report titled
"Artificial Production Requirements for Mitigation of Anadromous and
Resident Fish Losses in the Columbia River Basin," prepared by Council
staffer John Harrison. Marsh asked for comments from the committee by March
13. Comments can be e-mailed to Harrison at jharrison@nwcouncil.org.
Harrison explained that he put the draft section together by starting
with the losses statement about hatchery production in the Council's 1987
Fish and Wildlife Program. I expanded that and tried to bring it up to date,
he said. Your review will tell me if this is what you want as an overview,
stated Harrison. He added that the draft is quite preliminary and that many
editorial notes still appear in the text.
Harrison pointed out several issues the draft chapter raises. For
example, we need to define what resident fish production we want to cover,
he said. Harrison noted that some of the information in the tables at the
end of the chapter deals with the number of fish released at hatcheries, but
does not indicate where the fish were produced. One of my major concerns in
determining the cost-effectiveness of hatcheries is how you credit
hatcheries for what they produce, and the tables don't do that, noted
Stickell. Since this section is an overview, it may not be appropriate to
have tables in it, stated Harrison.
Sampsel said that a table done by CBFWA managers and reviewed by the
Production Review Committee dealing with costs associated with individual
hatchery facilities is the best piece of information of this type. Instead
of tables, I think it would be good to have the historical story of these
programs, for example, a discussion of the legislation that authorized the
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, said Sampson. It would also be good to
review changes that have modified the objectives of hatchery programs over
time so that people understand the context of what will come later in the
report, rather than having detailed tables, he stated.
Harrison asked the committee to comment on the format of the chapter and
whether it proceeds logically. He said he would also like comments on what
pieces are missing and what other policy issues need to be addressed.
This is the only place in the report that will track policy and law
changes in these programs, so please review it in that light, Marsh
recommended. Will we look at individual facilities and changes at individual
facilities in here, and if so, who will do it? asked Sampsel. That has to be
done -- to lay out how and why individual facilities have changed over time,
said Dompier. That's critical, and that's what leads to changes in
objectives, he stated.
Who will provide the information and that narrative? asked Sampsel. Some
is written and will need to be provided to John Harrison, said Marsh. What
isn't written needs to be identified, he added. Should, for example, the
Lower Snake River Compensation Plan office in Boise provide the history of
that plan? asked Sampsel. R.Z. Smith of NMFS pointed out that what's unique
about the Mitchell Act is that it is only half-a-page long and generally
says "do good things." It's more ephemeral than the others, he noted. I
suggest the information for the Mitchell Act and the Lower Snake River
Compensation Plan be developed by their lead agencies in conjunction with
the tribes, said Sampsel. We'll ask the mid-Columbia PUDs to develop
information for their hatcheries, said Marsh. You need to get a clear
snapshot of the BPA-funded facilities with different objectives, stated
Sampsel.
When an agency does its own review, it puts it own spin on it -- how will
we resolve that? asked Dompier. We have to start by getting the baseline
information from known sources, then we'll look at it and massage it, and go
from there, replied Sampsel. We need information on the table, as quickly as
possible, from those who are responsible for these programs, he said. Who
will be the gatekeeper to make sure the agencies get the information to us?
asked Allee. John [Marsh] and I will work on it, and we'll have a report at
the next meeting, said Sampsel.
Adjourn
Production Review Committee February 26, 1998 Meeting Attendees
Bill Bakke, Native Fish Society
Brian Allee, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
Bob Austin, BPA
Bob Foster, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Lee Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Rich Berry, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Trent Stickell, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Jim Myron, Oregon Trout
Randy Fisher, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Doug Dompier, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Tom Rogers, Idaho Fish and Game
Pat Oshie, Yakama Tribes
David Fast, Yakama Tribes
Roy Sampsel, Sampsel Consulting
Don Sampson, Sampsel Consulting
Theodora Strong, Sampsel Consulting
Dennis Rohr, Chelan/Douglas PUDs
R. Z. Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service
Sharon Sawdey, FishPro, Inc.
John Marsh, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
Chip McConnaha, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
Andre L'Heureux, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
Jack Wong, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
^ top
|
|
home