| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Thursday, June 8, 1998 | document 98-12
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
MEETING SUMMARY
MEETING REPORT
MEETING SUMMARY
The Production Review Committee (PRC) reviewed the marching orders for
two recently hired consultants: Duane Neitzel of Battelle to prepare a
searchable database, and Bob Tuck of Eco-Northwest to conduct interviews and
gather information that may not be in written records. While the consultants
do those initial jobs, the committee decided it should clarify several
questions with the Science Review Team (SRT) and start talking about policy
issues associated with the Artificial Production Review.
Next Meeting: July 13 in Portland, at 9:30 a.m.
GETTING THE DATA ASSEMBLED
Consultant Roy Sampsel said the meeting would develop with the two
contractors the work to be done for Sections II and IV of the Artificial
Production Review's report. Section II is the "description and historical
overview of Columbia River hatchery programs and policy," and Section IV is
the "compilation of information regarding the historical record of
artificial production mitigation in the Columbia River Basin." Duane Neitzel
is now on board to assist the committee with Section IV, and Bob Tuck will
begin some of the Section II work, Sampsel stated. Neitzel said his work
will involve assembling available data sets from STREAMNET and the
Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) reports, as well as from state,
federal, and tribal sources, to develop a searchable database. He proposed
that Section IV include information on annual releases, hatchery practices,
contribution to harvest, and adult returns.
Neitzel said it's important for the committee and the SRT to prioritize
the information needed because of the 30 to 45-day quick turnaround for
producing the database. The committee asked how to contact the two
contractors:
Duane Neitzel of Battelle: phone - (509) 376-0602; e-mail - duane.neitzel@pnl.gov
Bob Tuck of Eco-Northwest: phone - (509) 697-9317; e-mail - salmon@wolfenet.com
INTERVIEWS WILL KICK OFF SECTION II WORK
Tuck explained that the first part of the Section II work will involve
conducting interviews with hatchery managers in the basin. The idea is to
identify some folks to interview who may have retired from state and federal
agencies and tribal governments, he said. Section II work will also involve
looking at information that may not be available in databases or in other
written reports, Tuck stated. Activities in hatcheries sometimes deviate
from the written record, and we want to see if that is so and coordinate
what we find with Duane's work, he said. Sampsel noted that this work would
help identify how shifts in management and policy have taken place, and he
suggested Tuck work with committee members to develop the questions to be
asked in the interviews. Sampsel said the interview results should be
available for the committee's review in 30 to 45 days. Let's let the two
contractors "get out and scratch" and see if we need more information beyond
what they come up with, he suggested.
IHOT SUMMARIES ROLLING OUT
Consultant Don Sampson noted that summaries of the IHOT reports are
being prepared for 67 hatcheries. He went through a sample summary report,
noting that it identifies objectives not being met and remedial actions
needed. Sampson said each summary will include a table of remedial actions
and costs, and a table on contributions to fisheries, spawning grounds, and
hatcheries.
It's important for us to capture what's there in the existing databases,
in the IHOT audits, and in historical trends through the interviews and to
do it as quickly as possible and bring it back to this table, said Sampsel.
Then we can say the database has to be able to answer these questions, and
if it can't, here's how it has to be changed, he continued. If it seems like
I'm pushing on this, I am, so we can get this information before us, Sampsel
stated. The committee recommended the summaries include a disclaimer that
says the remedial actions listed have not been prioritized or updated by the
agencies. Sampsel said the summaries would be done in 30 days, and that the
"heavy lifting" for the PRC will be to try to figure out the analysis once
it has the data.
THE RESIDENT FISH REPORT
Sampson reported on a conference call with resident fish managers in
which the managers questioned whether the Artificial Production Review is
serious about resident fish issues. Brian Allee of the Columbia Basin Fish
and Wildlife Authority said the resident fish managers have asked why they
should go to the trouble of collecting resident fish data if the SRT's
schedule doesn't include time to analyze it. If you want Sections II and IV
to encompass resident fish, the SRT's scope of work and schedule need to be
adjusted to incorporate resident fish information and analysis, he stated.
The SRT needs to go back to the resident fish caucus and indicate how the
data would be analyzed and at what level of detail, said Sampsel.
FINAL REMARKS: MEET WITH THE SRT AND GET ON TO POLICY ISSUES
Tom Scribner of the Yakama Indian Nation asked for a presentation at the
next meeting on what the SRT's approach will be and whether it will be "a
theoretical modeling exercise." Now that we've kicked off the work with the
consultants, it's time for this committee to start focusing on policy, said
Stephen Smith of the National Marine Fisheries Service. So you'd like some
clarification and additional discussion with the SRT on where they're
headed, and we've agreed that policy management should be a major focus at
our next meetings, summarized Sampsel. Tim Stearns of Save Our Wild Salmon
commented that the Review shouldn't result in "a series of compendia that go
on the shelf." We need to "pioneer a path that makes it a safe atmosphere to
talk about how to reform a hatchery," he stated.
MEETING REPORT
Getting the Data Assembled
Interviews Will Kick Off Section II Work
IHOT Summaries Rolling Out
The Residents Fish Report
Final Remarks: Meet with the SRT and Get on to Policy
Issues
Opening Remarks
Consultant Roy Sampsel said the meeting will focus on Sections II and IV
of the Artificial Production Review's report outline. Section II is the
"description and historical overview of Columbia River hatchery programs and
policy," and Section IV is the "compilation of information regarding the
historical record of artificial production mitigation in the Columbia River
Basin." We'll develop the work to be done for these sections with the
contractors today, Sampsel said.
The group asked for information on how to contact the two consultants:
Duane Neitzel of Battelle: phone - (509) 376-0602; e-mail - duane.neitzel@pnl.gov
Bob Tuck of Eco-Northwest: phone - (509) 697-9317; e-mail - salmon@wolfenet.com
Getting the Data Assembled
Duane Neitzel is now on board to assist the committee with the database
piece of Section IV, Sampsel stated. I asked Duane, as one of his first
tasks, to review the "Database of Artificially Propagated Anadromous Salmon"
prepared by Natural Resources Consultants in 1995 (Attachment 1), Sampsel
said.
Neitzel said he talked about the work with Sampsel and Council staffer
John Marsh, who chairs the committee, and they indicated the product should
be a searchable database for use by the PRC and the SRT. Neitzel provided a
handout that outlines the tasks, methods, product, and schedule for his work
(Attachment 2). We will assemble available data sets from STREAMNET and the
Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) reports, as well as from state,
federal, and tribal sources, to develop the database, he said. There is a
lot of information, and because of the quick turnaround, the key is to find
out from the SRT what it wants, Neitzel stated.
It's important to focus on what's going to be necessary to do this
review, Neitzel said. He went over the categories of information proposed
for Section IV: annual releases, hatchery practices, contribution to
harvest, and adult returns. I listed these because I want to sit down with
you and the SRT and rank these items so that we produce what is needed in
the 30 to 45 days we have, and also so we can find out what's not in the
data, Neitzel explained. The Section IV work will focus on what happened, he
noted. For example, for annual releases, the date when a hatchery released
fish is a technical question, whereas why they did it would be part of the
historical overview in Section II, Neitzel said.
Q & A. Will we have a process to "truth" the data -- to see that
things did in fact occur? asked Doug Dompier of the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). We will look at how the information
from the different databases compares, so we will be doing some
truth-checking there, Neitzel replied. There are no plans at this point to
go to the hatcheries and verify the data, he said. It's a good idea and may
eventually have to be done, Neitzel added. I've looked at the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and IHOT databases, and cross-checking those
will be a good way to get at your question, at least initially, he said.
Do you know where to get the data in each state? asked Bob Foster of the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Some of the information
on the list we'll be able to get, and some we won't, and it's important to
know where the data is unavailable, replied Neitzel.
Annual releases give you "the when," but the rest of the information on
your list gives you "the whys," such as looking into hatchery practices,
said Dompier. How will you keep from getting into policy questions? he
asked. Bob Tuck and I will be talking about that, Neitzel replied. He
offered the example of rearing densities. I propose to report what the
practices related to density are at a hatchery, but what causes a change in
policy would fall under Bob's section, Neitzel said.
If you "threw all the hatcheries on the same table" and compared them on
the same criteria, you would see different results, said Liz Hamilton of the
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. Hatcheries have different
purposes -- would you do a sort of hatcheries based on their goals? she
asked. If a hatchery is for a particular fishery and contributing to that
fishery is the goal, and it is set at a number of smolts released in a
certain time, we'd report how the hatchery met the release dates and the
release numbers, responded Neitzel. So you're saying you are just preparing
the data portions and someone else is doing the other? asked Lee Hillwig of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Yes, replied Neitzel. The analysis takes
place in Section V, said Marsh. You would like to have the information
related to hatchery goals? Marsh said to Hamilton. Yes, you need to look at
different hatcheries by different standards, she stated. Supplementation
should be on the list of information for Section IV, Neitzel noted.
We need to make sure Section IV provides the information needed to do the
analysis, Marsh said. What's required is to set some priorities, stated
Neitzel. Duane's initial focus, stated Sampsel, is to try to sort data into
the categories we think we need. The question is, are there any other
categories besides the ones on the list that you think would be valuable? he
said.
Hatchery practices would be a lower priority than the other categories in
answering policy questions for Congress, stated Stephen Smith of NMFS. Why?
asked Bill Bakke of the Native Fish Society. Hatchery practices seem to have
less application to the policy questions for Congress, Smith replied. If I
were a member of Congress, I'd be real interested in hatchery practices and
what is being done at sites that are not meeting their goals, said Hamilton.
We could ask the database to identify facilities that met their stated goal,
and it could identify facilities that met their goals by objective, said
Sampsel. I'm concerned this is too simplistic, stated Hamilton, referring to
the "fish health and fish handling" topics listed under hatchery practices.
The point is to define whether the basic questions we need to ask are here,
stated Sampsel. Duane's first job is to stack the information -- to find out
what's available and stack it, he said.
Is this information going to be something you can interpret in Sections V
and VI? asked Hillwig. Let's find out what it is and lay it out in one data
form we can all look at, suggested Sampsel. Is a searchable database,
compiled from all the databases available, what you want in order to get the
base information you can use and review? he asked the group.
The information should indicate whether fish are released at the hatchery
or in the habitat, said Dompier. It's critical to know what species are
being released in the habitat and whether they are being acclimated or just
released, he added. Can that be done? Dompier asked. That's important
information when you are talking about release sites and release conditions,
replied Neitzel. The data needs to be specific on release sites, and we need
to be able to search the database and ask, are hatcheries reaching their
goals and objectives by objective? said Sampsel.
Can we discern if there's an Endangered Species Act (ESA) issue using
this form of a database? asked Tim Stearns of Save Our Wild Salmon. Probably
not on the first cut, but after the database is put together, you could go
back and ask questions about that, replied Sampsel. The database would be
searchable by watershed, said Neitzel.
Maybe Duane should review the list of questions this group put together
and doublecheck it with his list for the database to see whether there are
gaps, suggested Smith. Trent Stickell of the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) asked about treatment of cost analysis and cost/benefits.
The benefits information won't come out of the data sets -- that's part of
the analysis, said Sampsel. To determine the costs of facilities, you need
to know the economic benefits -- somewhere that needs to be done, said
Stickell. That's in Sections V and VI, said Sampsel. Duane's first product
is to provide data for analysis, he added. Does having a searchable database
allow us to get there? Sampsel inquired.
This fits anadromous fish real well -- what about resident fish? asked
Foster. We still have "a disconnect" with the resident fish people, and we
need to get more of a link between resident fish and anadromous fish,
replied Marsh. But let's get Duane started on the anadromous fish data, he
suggested. Duane will contact you as he proceeds, and we'll schedule update
meetings when he has something of value to report, said Sampsel. If
additional questions come up, get them to John or Duane, he added. I'll make
the list for Section IV comprehensive and get it to John and the SRT for
ranking, said Neitzel. We're talking about 30 to 45 days for the initial
database, Sampsel reminded the group.
Interviews Will Kick Off Section II Work
Bob Tuck explained that the first part of the Section II work will
involve conducting interviews with hatchery managers in the basin. The idea
is to identify some folks to interview who may have retired from state and
federal agencies and tribal governments, he said. Section II work will also
involve looking at information that may not be available in databases or in
other written reports, Tuck stated. As we know, activities in hatcheries
sometimes deviate from the written record, and we want to see if that is so
and coordinate what we find with Duane's work, he said. I also thought of
looking at state archive material, Tuck noted. I want to work with
interested members of this committee to develop a format for the interviews,
he added.
Sampsel noted that this work would help identify how shifts in management
and policy have taken place. He suggested Tuck work with committee members
to develop a range of questions to be asked in the interviews and to ensure
that the interviewees span the range of knowledge needed for the committee
to determine if what is shown in the data is reflected in the policy. The
intent, said Smith, is to find out if the retired people agree with what's
in the data base, and to ask such questions as: Were certain things done,
and why were they done, from a perspective Congress would be interested in.
"Why" is a big part of the interview process to me, said Smith.
It's important to get agreement on the questions to be asked upfront,
said Sampsel. You need to decide what basic questions you want to have
covered in the interviews, he stated.
Consultant Don Sampson circulated minutes from the historical overview
subcommittee meeting (Attachment 3), pointing out they include a list
showing data and format available for hatchery databases of various tribal,
state, and federal agencies. In addition, he explained the statement of work
for Section II of the report. The work, Sampson said, includes contacting
"appropriate hatchery management personnel (past and present) from tribal,
state, and federal fish and wildlife agencies to investigate, collect, and
record reports, interviews, written communications, and other pertinent
information in order to prepare a written narrative for an historical
overview" of hatchery programs and policies for anadromous and resident fish
hatcheries in the Columbia River Basin. The contractor, he continued, should
focus on "summarizing existing hatchery programs, agreements, and laws which
initiated the hatcheries, including the purpose, program objectives,
funding, locations and dates of operation, fundamental changes in stocks or
locations of release, or changes in program objectives, etc." The contractor
would summarize trends in production programs in terms of releases, stock
changes, major policy or technological changes, and evaluation plans and
prepare an initial investigation report to the PRC, which identifies the
availability of the historical information within 30 days. The contractor
would prepare a draft of the historical overview for anadromous fish and
resident fish within 45 days, Sampson said. If there is anything else the
contractor should do beyond this, you should tell us, he stated.
Q & A. What's the reach of your historic perspective? asked Bakke.
As long as the retired people are alive, replied Sampson. You'll find in
Oregon there is a lot of information in the archives from 1877 to the
present, he added. The report would focus on major changes and trends,
Sampson said. Jim Lichatowich has captured some of that information in his
framework paper, noted Bakke. A lot hasn't been captured, and there are
people who know why certain changes took place in the hatchery arena, said
Sampsel. It's important to talk with them, and that will give the background
for why this committee may decide to recommend certain policy actions in the
future, he said. This is the background piece for the report to Congress,
stated Sampsel. Let's let these folks "get out and scratch" and see if we
need more information beyond what they come up with, he suggested.
In the interviews, will you know beforehand what the hatchery was
intended to produce so you can ask, why isn't the facility meeting the
objectives? asked Tom Scribner of the Yakama Indian Nation. It's important
to do the homework and to know who an interviewee worked for, his
responsibilities, and what was going on in the agency when he worked there,
Tuck stated.
You need the database before you start talking to people -- isn't the raw
data the first product for Section II? asked Hillwig. Then you would get
information from the interviews and see how it affects the database, he
said. We are pretending here that we don't know anything, commented Sampsel.
We know an awful lot, he said. The question, according to Sampsel, is does
the statement of work paragraph that Sampson read capture the range of
questions that needs to be asked?
I don't see my piece of the puzzle as a database, said Tuck. My piece is
to look at the database and go and ask people, are there things that aren't
written down, but are in your experience? he explained. It's a way to
uncover the historic pieces of the puzzle that were never written down and
never got into the record, Tuck stated.
I see a swing here from what Section II was intended to be, said Hillwig.
No, we're saying Section II documents changes in policies and objectives,
stated Sampsel. Our first go-round on Section II had a certain amount of
data in it, said Hillwig. Is it now going to be a narrative only? he asked.
This is just a piece we are asking Bob to do, replied Sampsel. It will be
compiled into Section II -- there isn't a change, he stated, adding that the
piece will come in in 30 to 45 days and be available to be reviewed.
With this, I see us going back further in history than I envisioned, said
Stickell. The PRC is an advisory group to determine how much information and
what types of information are important and at what level of detail, said
Sampsel. The policy started in the mid-1800s, said Stickell. What we need to
focus on is 1950 forward, said Smith. That's when modern hatchery
construction started, he added. Why not the beginning of time? asked
Stickell. Let's let the contractors go out and do the work and bring back
the results, and if we find we need a more detailed discussion of what
Oregon was doing in the 1800s, we'll deal with that then, said Sampsel. Is
this enough information to let Section II go forward? he asked.
I'd be happy to talk with each member of the committee individually, Tuck
volunteered. Let me start, and you can do mid-course corrections as I go
along, he suggested. My personal frame of reference, Tuck stated, is that
two things shaped the Northwest -- the Bonneville Project Act and the
Mitchell Act. I start there and come forward, he said.
Hatcheries were set up in the mid-1800s with specific goals -- the
reports are there, and if we want to look at policy, that's a good place to
start to get an overview, said Stickell. "I'll be on your doorstep," Tuck
told him. "Just bring money," quipped Stickell. If we find costs that need
to be covered, we should identify them so we can figure out how it can be
done, said Sampsel. By the first of next week, people will get an e-mail
with the names of the individuals Bob plans to interview, along with a
schedule, Sampsel summed up.
IHOT Summaries Rolling Out
Sampson noted that summaries of the IHOT reports are being prepared and
provided to the contractors. He distributed one of the summaries, for the
Clearwater Hatchery for spring chinook and summer steelhead (Attachment 4).
The reports are done by species, Sampson said, noting that there are 67
hatcheries with these types of reports. He pointed out the IHOT audits were
done in 1996-97 by Montgomery Watson under the Northwest Power Planning
Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. Sampson said that IHOT established five
basic policies covering hatchery coordination, hatchery performance
standards, fish health, ecological interaction, and genetics. The IHOT
reports identify remedial actions needed, with compliance cost estimates, he
noted. Sampson went through the contents of the sample summary report,
noting that it identifies objectives not being met and remedial actions
needed. Tables provide information on detailed expenditures at the hatchery
for the two fish species, he said.
This summary is lacking in a lot of areas -- to get the details, you have
to go to the actual report, commented Stickell. The part that's missing is
the economic contribution -- you've got the costs, but where are the
benefits? he said. This is what is in the summaries so far -- is there
additional information the summaries should capture? asked Sampsel. After we
get the summaries and the other information we are gathering, we'll decide
how we want to display and analyze it, he said. Tom Rogers of the Idaho Fish
and Game Department noted that the production goals for the Clearwater
Hatchery have changed. The IHOT report dealt with "a moment in time," and
Bob will have to flesh out additional information about what happened at the
hatchery, he stated.
Did the IHOT team develop a format for the summaries? asked Hillwig. No,
replied George Nandor of ODFW. We proposed the work to be funded in another
contract, said Foster. What was proposed would have been useful, stated
Sampsel. We are now dealing with what information is in the audits that can
be summarized and whether additional information is needed, and my guess is
yes, he said. But we need to get all the information in one place so we can
make those judgments, Sampsel added. It's important for us to capture what's
there in the existing databases, in the IHOT audits, and in historical
trends through the interviews and to do it as quickly as possible and bring
it back to this table, he said. Then we can say the database has to be able
to answer these questions, and if it can't, here's how it has to be changed,
Sampsel continued. If it seems like I'm pushing on this, I am, so we can get
this information before us, he added.
I'd like to take the time to have our people who worked on IHOT look at
these and see if they envisioned summaries like this, said Hillwig. We can
get our comments to Don quickly, he added. That type of work takes time and
money -- we were looking at stacking the audit summaries and having a piece
to go from, said Sampsel. I'd be comfortable with what Don has done if there
were a qualifier in there that says "this is not approved by the agencies,"
and that there may be additional remedial actions the agencies think are
needed beyond what is identified in the summaries, said Foster. The agencies
didn't tell the contractor what they wanted as remedial actions, noted
Nandor.
The summaries should reflect the data source, the dates the report and
summary were done, and the disclaimer is totally appropriate, particularly
if the agencies haven't reviewed the remedial actions, said Sampsel. Each
summary will also include a table of remedial actions and costs, and a table
on contributions to fisheries, spawning grounds, and hatcheries, Sampson
noted. He said the remedial actions table will include a note saying that
the actions have not been prioritized or updated by the respective agencies.
Is this work product scheduled to be done in 30 days? asked Brian Allee of
the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). Yes, replied
Sampsel. The "heavy lifting" for the PRC will be to try to figure out the
analysis once it has the data, he added.
The Resident Fish Report
Sampson reported on a May 26 conference call with resident fish managers
in which he said the question was raised whether the Artificial Production
Review is serious about resident fish issues. The managers discussed the
fact that the SRT's plate seems to be full with answering questions about
anadromous fish, and if additional questions on resident fish are posed, it
may take the SRT more time to complete its work, he said.
The resident fish managers need to review the anadromous fish questions
to see what additional resident fish technical questions need to be
submitted, Sampson stated. The SRT needs to revise its statement of work to
encompass addressing the resident fish questions, he said. As they collect
Section II and Section IV information, Duane and Bob will need to access the
resident fish information in your databases, Sampson told the group. The
resident fish group also needs to appoint a chair, he stated, noting that
Bob Foster's name came up in the conversation. Foster wasn't on the call, so
no action was taken, Sampson said. CBFWA has volunteered Diana McDonald to
provide administrative support for the chair, once that person is selected,
Sampson said.
Don't assume that the anadromous fish questions and policies will
transfer automatically to resident fish, Allee told the group. This
committee shouldn't be "anadrocentric," he advised. The resident fish
managers have asked, why go to the trouble of collecting resident fish data
if the SRT won't have much time to devote to analyzing it? Allee said. If
you want Sections II and IV to encompass resident fish, the scope of work
and schedule for the SRT need to be adjusted to incorporate resident fish
information and analysis, he stated. Allee added that CBFWA is acting as
"the eyes and ears" for the resident fish managers and trying to see that
they get information.
The SRT needs to go back to the resident fish caucus and indicate how the
data would be analyzed and at what level of detail, said Sampsel. Yes --
it's "not a trivial deal" with respect to the SRT's time, said Allee.
There's a consultation scheduled with resident fish tribal policy leaders
and staff in Spokane June 10 involving the Colvilles, Spokanes, Coeur
d'Alenes, and the Kalispels, Sampsel said. That discussion may shed some
light on how the resident fish piece fits into the Artificial Production
Review, he stated.
Does the committee think the SRT should get going on its analysis and
that the resident fish managers should write questions, even if the analysis
has to be done as a second phase after anadromous fish? asked Sampson. The
committee expressed no opposition to the idea.
So we will develop some questions specific to resident fish, and we need
feedback from the SRT, said Sampsel. The resident fish caucus needs to talk
to the SRT, he stated. We think the resident fish analysis is useful and
important, but the level of detail required may change after this week's
consultation meeting, Sampsel said. Si Whitman of the Nez Perce Tribe said
the resident fish analysis is important and that it relates to the
anadromous fish analysis. We'll report back on this, Sampsel told the group.
Bob Tuck will need to know whether to schedule interviews with resident fish
people, Sampson noted. The important thing is to get the feedback to the
folks doing the work, agreed Sampsel.
Final Remarks: Meet with the SRT and Get on to
Policy Issues
Dompier said the Lichatowich framework paper mentioned at the last
meeting is a "hatchery-bashing study" and if it becomes the framework for
the SRT's report, "it won't work." Those who have comments on that report
and its relationship to the SRT work plan should get them to Chip McConnaha
and the SRT, stated Sampsel. We said in our work plan that we would revisit
the work outlined for the SRT after we get in the results of the work we
discussed today, he said.
At the last meeting, a letter from the Council to the House
Appropriations subcommittee about Mitchell Act funding was distributed, said
Dompier. He pointed out that CRITFC wrote a letter to the Congressional
committee in response to the Council's letter, and he passed out copies
(Attachment 5).
Marsh reported that the SRT hasn't met since the PRC's last meeting. They
will meet soon with Duane and Bob, he noted. Sampsel said now that products
are beginning to come out, most will be distributed by e-mail prior to the
meetings at which they will be discussed. He urged anyone who isn't on the
e-mail distribution list to contact Marsh.
When we go through this exercise to get a database, how will we apply it
to reforming a hatchery and its practices? Stearns inquired. How will this
exercise restore confidence in hatcheries and reform them? he asked. That's
the heart of what we get to in Sections V and VI, responded Sampsel.
At the next meeting, I'd like Chip [McConnaha] to come and tell us how
the SRT process will work, said Scribner. I'd like to know what their
approach will be and whether it will be a "theoretical modeling exercise,"
he said, adding that previously, the SRT indicated it would be a literature
review. I recommend some case studies be done in categories like species
interactions and genetics, said Sampson.
Now that we've kicked off the work with the consultants, it's time for us
to go back and focus on Sections V and VI, said Smith. We should go through
and determine how to prioritize the questions on the list and start focusing
on policy while the consultants work, he stated. I got the sense the SRT has
decided what the questions are going to be -- that they took what we gave
them and that's it, said Dompier. What's being suggested is getting together
with Chip and the SRT and also getting this committee back to discussing the
policy management issues, stated Sampsel.
I thought the SRT sorted and prioritized the technical questions, said
Allee. On the policy side, we need to begin to have those discussions, he
stated. With all the different viewpoints, it's very appropriate to start to
communicate on what we are really doing, Allee added. So you want to have
some clarification and additional discussion with the SRT on where they're
headed and maybe do some case studies, said Sampsel. And we've agreed that
policy management should be a major focus of our next meeting, he added.
It might be premature to have it at the next meeting, said Smith. We may
need to have you come in with some methods to help the committee reach as
much consensus as possible, he stated. We should begin looking at the policy
forum, recommended Sampson.
I don't want this effort to result in "a series of compendia that go on
the shelf," said Stearns. We should make sure, he continued, that we get to
where we can take a facility through a review and say: What is its purpose?
What's the context? How do we gauge its effectiveness and its engagement
with the ESA? and How do we come up with a reform plan? We need to "pioneer
a path that makes it a safe atmosphere to talk about how to reform a
hatchery," Stearns said. I don't want this to be "a paper exercise" that
doesn't give us guidance to do such things, he stated.
Let's go back to the policy management discussions, and let's put
"clarification and update with the SRT" as an item on the next meeting
agenda, suggested Sampsel. Let's not concentrate on the database now --
let's get to the policy issues, and maybe identify some individual
facilities we want to look at, per Tim's suggestion, he said. Adjourn
Production Review Committee June 8, 1998 Meeting Attendees
Brian Allee, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
Robert Austin, BPA
Bill Bakke, Native Fish Society
Doug Dompier, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Randy Fisher, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Bob Foster, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
Lee Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jeni Lassell, Student Intern, Sampsel Consulting
John Marsh, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
George Nandor, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Duane Neitzel, Battelle Tom Rogers, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Roy Sampsel, Sampsel Consulting Don Sampson, Sampsel Consulting
Tom Scribner, Yakama Indian Nation Stephen Smith, National Marine
Fisheries Service
Trent Stickell, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Theodora Strong, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
Bob Tuck, Eco-Northwest Si Whitman, Nez Perce Tribe
Participating by Telephone:
Stacy Horton, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
Tim Stearns, Save Our Wild Salmon
Adjourn
^ top
|
|
home