Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, July 13, 1998 | document 98-21
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
MEETING SUMMARY
MEETING REPORT
MEETING SUMMARY
· ARE THE POLICY AND MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS RIPE? -- Consultant Roy
Sampsel asked how to initiate a discussion of the 32 policy and management
questions developed by the Production Review Committee. We have said that
these questions will be "the meat of the issues" in the review, so how do we
proceed with a discussion? he asked. Sampsel indicated that the committee
needs to decide when the policy and management questions are "ripe" for
discussion and in what context.
A couple of committee members asked how the production review would be
integrated with the outcome of the U.S. v. Oregon negotiations. Which
process drives which? asked Jim Myron of Oregon Trout. Sampsel suggested
that if program changes are negotiated in U.S. v. Oregon, there has to be a
way to tell Congress what changes in funding are needed. In U.S. v. Oregon,
there is not "a time out" to see how these questions fit into the rest of
the context, according to Tom Scribner of the Yakama Indian Nation. We are
going through it as the court set it up, he said, and there is not any
coordination with this production review process. The connection takes place
when you deal with the federal funding for artificial production, Sampsel
responded.
The committee members decided that in preparation for the next meeting,
they will work on the following assignment: Take the management/policy
questions and provide input and guidance back to the Artificial Production
Review process on how to proceed both in process and time frame.
Council staffer John Marsh pointed out that there is also a link between
the Artificial Production Review and the foundation the Council and the
tribes are working on for the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. There are
eight draft principles and a draft paper out for review, he said. Sampsel
explained that the foundation and principles will be used to develop the
framework for the 1999 Fish and Wildlife Program and "to inform" the
National Marine Fisheries Service decision in 1999. In the Council's view,
the Artificial Production Review work will fit into the framework, Marsh
said.
· TUCK LISTS QUESTIONS AND INTERVIEWEES -- Bob Tuck of Sampsel
Consulting presented a list of proposed questions for the historical
assessment interviews he is conducting for Section II of the artificial
production report. He also offered a list of prospective interviewees, and
asked committee members to call with any additional names, questions, or
information on how to contact the interviewees. Tuck indicated that he will
talk to the resident fish folks at a meeting in Kalispell, Montana on
Thursday.
· NEITZEL GETS CRACKING ON DATABASE COMPILATION -- Duane Neitzel
of Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported on his progress
toward compiling the database needed for an analysis of the performance of
Columbia Basin hatchery programs. He said he met with members of the
Independent Scientific Advisory Board production review subgroup and a
staffer from Montgomery Watson on June 25 to discuss the data and databases
that are already available. I plan to meet with the subgroup again in about
two weeks, Neitzel said.
He outlined four products he will provide to the review: summary of data;
list of all production facilities in the basin; smolt production in the
basin; and adult returns. So far, we have databases from the Integrated
Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and STREAMNET, and we have
requested databases from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Neitzel reported.
· IHOT AUDIT SUMMARIES ROLLING OFF THE PRESS -- Don Sampson of
Sampsel Consulting presented seven completed summaries of IHOT audits. He
said he received some comments on the format and had responded to them.
Sampson walked the committee through sections of the summaries, which
include an executive summary; facilities description; remedial actions;
hatchery contributions to fisheries, spawning grounds, and hatcheries; and
annual operating expenditures.
Lee Hillwig of the USFWS raised questions about the utility of the
summaries in the overall review and whether they will meet the needs of the
Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP). We need to get these summaries
done by the end of July, Marsh pointed out. If there are comments, Don needs
them right away, he said.
· BROGOITTI STRESSES RESIDENT FISH COMMITMENT -- Marsh handed out
copies of Council member John Brogoitti's letter to Columbia Basin Fish and
Wildlife Authority Chairman Norman Campbell reiterating the commitment to
include resident fish in the production review. Bill Towey of the Kalispel
tribe has agreed to be the liaison for resident fish, Marsh said, adding
that Towey will attend future meetings of the Production Review Committee
and keep resident fish folks apprised.
MEETING REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS
Are The Policy and Management Questions Ripe?
Tuck Lists Questions and Interviewees
Neitzel Gets Cracking on Database Compilation
IHOT Audit Summaries Rolling Off the Press
Brogoitti Stresses Resident Fish Commitment
Committee Business
Northwest Power Planning Council staffer John Marsh, chair of the
Production Review Committee, handed out the latest version of the outline
and schedule for the Artificial Production Review report (Attachment 1). He
noted that the deadlines for Sections II and IV have changed from June 1998
to August 1998. Consultant Roy Sampsel said there would be no Science Review
Team (SRT) report. In our discussion last week, [Council staffer] Chip
McConnaha indicated the SRT has been meeting and feels it is up to speed, he
said. We will get Chip's report at the next meeting, Sampsel added.
Marsh distributed copies of the comments submitted by Doug Dompier of the
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) on a paper written by
James Lichatowich (Attachment 2). Did anyone else submit comments on the
paper? Dompier asked. No, Marsh said, adding that Dompier had indicated he
had "major problems" with the paper, but that anyone who wanted to could
comment on the Lichatowich paper.
We would like to know how the paper is going to be used, Tom Scribner of
the Yakama Indian Nation stated. "The paper is anti-hatchery," and we were
told that Lichatowich is using it as the basis for part of the artificial
production report, he said. Our questions are how exactly the SRT is going
to use the paper, and what importance it has for what the SRT is doing,
Scribner explained. I would like to see the SRT examine both the paper and
my comments, Dompier said. Your comments have gone to the SRT, Marsh stated.
If anyone else has comments, provide them to me, and I will circulate them
to the SRT and the Production Review Committee, he added.
How will comments on the paper be incorporated into the process? Sampsel
asked. Would it be useful to set up another meeting with the SRT once you
have seen some of their material and commented on it? he asked. Several
members said it would be worthwhile. Given the schedule, we are talking
about a meeting next month, Sampsel noted. He said that Chip's report on the
SRT's activities could go out on e-mail, after which a meeting with the
Production Review Committee and the SRT would be scheduled. Let's see if we
can firm up the list of questions that would be central to our discussion,
Sampsel suggested.
I want to find out, given the theme of the paper, how the paper fits into
the SRT's assignment, Scribner stated. I second that, Bob Foster of the
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) said. The paper was not bad,
but it is from a certain perspective, he stated. Foster indicated that the
committee should know if the SRT is going to use the paper as a serious
reference for its section of the report. "It is somewhat biased," he added.
Are The Policy and Management Questions Ripe?
Sampsel turned the committee's attention to the list of 32 policy and
management questions distributed prior to the meeting (Attachment 3). These
are questions developed by this committee, and we have attempted to lump
them into several general categories, he said. Are there major questions
missing, and how do we get the discussion initiated on these? Sampsel asked.
Have the tribes' questions been incorporated into this list? Bill Bakke
of the Native Fish Society asked. It's important that they be included in
this document, he added. Marsh said some of the tribal questions had been
incorporated, but that many need to be framed differently to fit into the
list. Let's sit down and do that, he suggested to Dompier.
How do we proceed? Sampsel asked. We have said that these questions will
be "the meat of the issues" in the review, so how do we proceed with a
discussion? he asked. We have told the tribal governments that these are the
questions that we will bring to them for policy-level discussions, Sampsel
continued. How should we proceed with having these questions addressed by
state and federal agencies? he asked. Should they review them internally and
bring their input back here? Sampsel inquired. Some have suggested that the
approach be facility-by-facility, he said.
Hatchery-by-hatchery is the way to go, if we have the time, Dompier
stated. I would support that, particularly if we do site visits -- you can't
do an adequate job without going to the sites and seeing how things are
done, Bakke said.
Some of us sit in the U.S. v. Oregon negotiations, and we discuss this
kind of thing, according to Foster. He suggested "there is some disconnect"
between the negotiators and the Production Review Committee. That's why we
are raising these issues, Sampsel said. We know the negotiations are taking
place and that there are discussions going on in the subregions and
individual watersheds, he continued. But the negotiations will not be public
until they are complete, Sampsel said. He indicated that the committee needs
to decide when the policy and management questions are "ripe" for discussion
and in what context. These questions do not have to be discussed now, but we
need to be thinking about them and about "which process is going to inform
the committee's report," Sampsel advised. Our initial report in September
could acknowledge that the U.S. v. Oregon discussions are going on and that
the outcome will become part of this report, he suggested. We don't want to
have processes "bumping into each other," Sampsel stated.
When do these things become integrated? Which process drives which? asked
Jim Myron of Oregon Trout. U.S. v. Oregon is a court-ordered process, and it
is very structured, observed Lee Hillwig of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(USFWS). There has to be a connect, but it can't truly be done until that
process is finished, he said. This group's work should help the U.S. v.
Oregon parties, Dompier said. In the end, it will be very complementary, he
stated. I can't see this process being as detailed about production as U.S.
v. Oregon, Hillwig said. This process is more on the policy level, he
observed.
It starts with the laws, Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing
Industry Association said. There are laws that drive all of this, and we are
all in the same legal framework, she stated. Our role is not to set the
production goals, but to say how we meet them, according to Hamilton.
It would be helpful for you to go to your agencies and ask how we want to
deal with the policy management questions on the hatchery program in the
region, Sampsel said. He also said that a part of the question is how any
changes that are negotiated would become part of the law and the funding
structure in the future. I'm trying to lay out a logical way for getting
there, Sampsel said. What are we going to say to Congress about what needs
to be changed in the law? he asked.
Sampsel gave several examples of changes that could be in order if new
funds are needed or if existing funds need to be redirected. I see these as
major policy management discussions, and you need to have them even if
specific subbasin production is being discussed in U.S. v. Oregon, he added.
Until there is a definitive need to change the funding mechanisms, we
would be reluctant to support that, Dompier said. Before that happens, there
would have to be a definite commitment to change the programs -- then it
would be easier to talk about moving money, he stated. Sampsel suggested
that if program changes are negotiated in U.S. v. Oregon, there has to be a
way to tell Congress what changes in funding are needed. Obviously, we need
more time to think about the policy management questions, he concluded.
Think about how and when it will be timely, Sampsel counseled.
The Framework Link
The "other link" here is with the foundation the Council and the tribes
are working on, Marsh said. There are eight draft principles (Attachment 4)
that have been identified by the staff working on this, he pointed out. The
staff has also written a draft paper entitled "Development of a Regional
Framework for Fish and Wildlife Restoration in the Columbia River Basin"
that describes the process and elaborates on the principles, Marsh said. He
indicated that in the Council's view, the Artificial Production Review work
will fit into the framework.
Where is this effort coming from? Bakke asked. The initial work is from
the Council staff, Sampsel said. It has been discussed at every Council
meeting over the past year, Marsh added. Is this your invention or has it
been collaborative? Bakke asked. At this stage, it is mostly a Council
product, Sampsel said. Are you expecting to put it out for comments and then
revise it? Bakke asked. Yes, was the response. When will it be adopted?
Bakke asked. This will be "the skeleton" for the Council's Fish and Wildlife
Program, if it goes forward as expected, Marsh responded. We have not called
for program amendments, but this is the structure for them, he added.
Sampsel explained that the foundation and principles will be used to
develop the framework for the Council's 1999 Fish and Wildlife Program and
"to inform" the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) decision in 1999.
The principles and the draft paper went to the Independent Scientific
Advisory Board (ISAB) for review last week, which will take 30 to 45 days,
he said. It sounds like you have two framework processes going, Bakke
observed. That question has come up before, Sampsel acknowledged. The
question is how do you deal with existing efforts that are already going on,
he said. All of this needs to be discussed within the context of the
framework and other ongoing activities, Sampsel stated.
How is this integrated with U.S. v. Oregon? Bakke asked. You have a set
of principles agreed upon and the foundation for a framework that, once it
is built, can be used to analyze specific goals and objectives, Sampsel
responded. It can highlight which courses of action have the greatest chance
of success and identify where there are risks of not achieving the goals, he
said. The foundation is ecological and watershed-oriented and broader than
either past Council programs or the NMFS Biological Opinion, Sampsel added.
What is it that people are going to do before the next meeting? Marsh
asked. With input from Sampsel, he wrote the following assignment on the
board: "Take the management/policy questions and associated handouts,
including the framework paper and list of eight principles, and provide
input and guidance back to the Artificial Production Review process on how
to proceed both in process and time frame."
We want you to say, "we need to have a discussion of these issues in this
order and on this time frame," Sampsel elaborated. There are assumptions
being made right now about the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and
whether those costs will be a direct cost to BPA or a reimbursable cost, he
pointed out. That's an important policy issue that needs to be discussed,
Sampsel said.
How much of the Council's program is related to hatcheries? Hamilton
asked. For 1998, I think it's $50 million or less, out of $127 million -- a
lot is capital, Marsh replied. And "the bow wave" keeps getting bigger and
bigger, Dompier observed.
In U.S. v. Oregon, there is not "a time out" to see how these questions
fit into the rest of the context, Scribner said. We are going through it as
the court set it up, he said, and there is not any coordination with this
production review process. You have set up the framework in the
negotiations, and that should be informing this review, Sampsel observed.
The connection takes place when you deal with the federal funding for
artificial production, he said. "It's a money question, and if you change
the money needs, it should feed back to here," Sampsel added.
The resident fish folks are not involved in U.S. v. Oregon, Brian Allee
of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) stated. This is a
policy deliberation, and they have a role to play here in policy and
management, he said. They need to be informed of this task before the next
meeting, Allee added.
I'm trying to understand how these processes fit together, Trent Stickell
of the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) said. We are not able to
talk about what goes on in U.S. v. Oregon , he stated. We are saying that
when it is a ripe issue, it will inform this process, Sampsel responded. He
suggested that if the discussions affect funding, the production review will
want to consider that in its report to Congress. When we know the outcome of
U.S. v. Oregon, we will want to report to Congress about what we see as the
changes that will need to be made, Sampsel said, adding that there is no
clear way now to change the mechanics of funding. He noted that by law, the
Council's Fish and Wildlife Program cannot be inconsistent with the outcome
of U.S. v. Oregon.
What happens if there are inconsistencies? Scribner asked. Sampsel said
it isn't clear. You have this production review process, U.S. v. Oregon, the
framework development, and other activities going on, and all of them will
come together in a relatively short time frame, he noted. There will be
limited resources available as you go into the five years after the
Memorandum of Agreement ends, Sampsel continued. The BPA rate case and
subscription process also feed into this, he observed. The point is, the
policy and management issues may not be ready for discussion, Sampsel
concluded.
It is likely there will be inconsistencies between this review and U.S.
v. Oregon, Bakke said. What is the value of what we are doing here? If there
is no relationship between this and U.S. v. Oregon, "the 800-pound gorilla,"
what are we doing? he asked. I accept there may be a conflict between the
processes, but I don't accept that they are irreconcilable, Sampsel replied.
Congress asked that this review be done, and it has been broadened beyond
just looking at federal funding of federal facilities, he added.
We have always said that U.S. v. Oregon has to have a "three-legged
stool" to stand, Stephen Smith of NMFS said. Harvest, production, and
funding all need to be addressed, and "this group is critical to the third
leg," he explained. We will resolve harvest and production in U.S. v.
Oregon, but not funding, Smith stated.
The Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) has decided to defer
recommendations on hatchery funding pending the outcome of this group's
report, according to David Fast of the Yakama Indian Nation. What will they
gain from this group? What are they going to use? he asked. The Council's
process is now being negotiated in litigation, and the Council has papers
out on sequencing its fish and wildlife prioritization activities and on its
future role, Sampsel responded. [Council staffer] John Shurts has
highlighted the comments that are coming in on the roles and processes in a
memo, he pointed out. Additional questions on how the ISRP proposes to do
its work in the future is a piece of that discussion, Sampsel continued. I
hope that in the course of the next month, those discussions on how the
Council will proceed will inform the 2000 budget process, he said. CBFWA is
providing agency and tribal input into the process, Sampsel added. Things
are going on that should inform the decisions that need to be made, he
concluded.
Tuck Lists Questions and Interviewees
Bob Tuck of Sampsel Consulting presented a list of proposed questions for
the historical assessment interviews he is conducting for Section II of the
artificial production report (Attachment 5). He also offered a list of
prospective interviewees (Attachment 6). If there are additional questions
and names that need to be added or if you can help me locate folks on the
list, please call, Tuck requested. If you have an interest in something
related to a particular facility that might not come to light with these
questions, let me know, he added. Several committee members provided
information and a few new entries for the list of interviewees. I talked to
Diana MacDonald of CBFWA, and we will talk to the resident fish folks at a
meeting in Kalispell, Montana on Thursday, Tuck reported.
Do you have a time line for completing this? Fast asked. I'm obligated to
be done by the end of July, Tuck replied.
Neitzel Gets Cracking on Database Compilation
Duane Neitzel of Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported
on his progress toward compiling the database needed for an analysis of the
performance of Columbia Basin hatchery programs. He offered a brief write-up
(Attachment 7) and a sample of the database he is working on (Attachment 8).
Neitzel said he met with members of the ISAB production review subgroup
and a staffer from Montgomery Watson on June 25 to discuss the data and
databases that are already available. The ISAB is very interested in PIT-tag
data, "the lowest common denominator," he said. It's really important to
them -- if a coded group of smolts has been treated differently, it will
have an impact on the analysis, Neitzel indicated.
He outlined four products he will provide to the review: summary of data;
list of all production facilities in the basin; smolt production in the
basin; and adult returns. I am continuously updating a spreadsheet for the
data summary, and I will be sharing that with you, Neitzel explained. So
far, we have the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT), USFWS, WDFW,
and STREAMNET databases, and we have requested databases from ODFW and the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, he reported, adding that the databases
are not consistent. The agencies had different needs when they compiled
them, Neitzel noted.
All of the production facilities in the basin are listed in the IHOT
database, he continued. I should be done with that product by the middle of
next week, Neitzel said. With regard to smolt production, he indicated that
the priority data are: release location, species, life history, program,
production type, and tag identification.
I plan to meet with the subgroup again in about two weeks, Neitzel said.
They want "an iterative discussion," so we get what they need and don't end
up with stuff they do not, he said. We are putting all of the files into
Excel so they can make queries, Neitzel stated.
Did you get NMFS' database? Smith asked. I have not gotten it yet, but I
have a call in, Neitzel responded. Allee suggested that Neitzel contact the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission in Olympia, Washington about obtaining
its database. I thought it was just on Puget Sound, but I will look at it,
Neitzel said. It's quite comprehensive, Allee replied.
IHOT Audit Summaries Rolling Off the Press
Don Sampson of Sampsel Consulting presented seven completed summaries of
IHOT audits. They are: Clackamas, Clearwater, Grays River, Hagerman, Kalama,
Niagra Springs, and Warm Springs. He said he received some comments on the
format and had responded to them. One comment suggested that "IHOT" not
appear on the cover page, according to Sampson. I left it there because I
wanted to be sure people know right away what they are reading, he said.
Dompier asked if the summaries could be more specific about which species
are being addressed. I am using the information from the IHOT audits, and
I'm not adding anything, Sampson replied. If we are going to suggest
changes, for example that a hatchery begin raising chum as opposed to coho,
we have to know if the facility is capable of rearing the new species,
Dompier said. But that question was not part of the IHOT audit, Foster
pointed out. Sampson added that the audits were not that detailed.
Sampson walked the committee through sections of the summaries, which
include an executive summary; facilities description; remedial actions;
hatchery contributions to fisheries, spawning grounds, and hatcheries; and
annual operating expenditures. He indicated areas where comments were made
on the format. Before I print out more copies of the summaries, I want to be
sure that we are getting closer to what people want, Sampson said.
Do the reports have any further breakdowns on costs? Hillwig asked. No,
Sampson said. Bakke noted that Sections 4 and 5 are inconsistent with regard
to how far back the information goes. Is there some way to reconcile that?
he asked. Not unless you go to the original facility, Sampson said, adding
that the data is what was in the IHOT audits.
Dompier suggested that some of the tables in the summaries serve little
or no purpose. The tables show the relative costs and production levels,
Sampson said.
Could we have an index of the performance measures? Hamilton asked.
That's a good idea, Sampson replied. She also asked if the term "satellites"
refers to using acclimation sites. Can we see whether there is a difference
when acclimation sites are used versus when they are not? Hamilton asked.
You would need the original operation plan to know that, Foster said.
Are the remedial actions prioritized? Hamilton asked. No, Sampson said.
Is that a valuable exercise for this group? she asked. The managers need to
look at that information, but the funding for completing the task was cut by
the Council, George Nandor of ODFW stated.
Hillwig raised questions about the utility of the summaries in the
overall review and whether they will meet the needs of the ISRP. I suggest
you run them by the ISRP to see if they have a use for them and whether the
format is what they need, he said. It might be useful to include a paragraph
in the report to explain that funds for doing the prioritization were cut,
Stickell suggested.
We need to get these summaries done by the end of July, Marsh pointed
out. If there are comments, Don needs them right away, he said.
I fear this may be a way of getting at modernizing the lower river
hatcheries, Dompier stated. I realize they need to be fixed up -- that's
what IHOT looked at, he said. But we cannot use this to say "this is it, now
let's prioritize the actions," Dompier said. I think you have characterized
the IHOT study incorrectly, Stickell observed.
In the next version, you will see all 67 hatcheries with a summary of the
performance measures, Sampson concluded. Why are there just 67? Dompier
asked. Some of the hatcheries were grouped together, Nandor explained. Are
resident fish included? Dompier asked. No, Sampson replied.
Brogoitti Stresses Resident Fish Commitment
Marsh handed out copies of Council member John Brogoitti's letter to
CBFWA chairman Norman Campbell reiterating the commitment to include
resident fish in the production review. Since we last met, we sent out this
letter so we could figure out how to coordinate better with the resident
fish managers, he explained. Bill Towey of the Kalispel tribe has agreed to
be the liaison for resident fish, Marsh said, adding that Towey will attend
future meetings of the Production Review Committee and keep resident fish
folks apprised.
The resident fish caucus is going to get together Thursday, and they will
talk to Bob Tuck about scheduling interviews, Sampsel noted. If anyone wants
to talk to John Brogoitti about the Artificial Production Review, I can
schedule it for you, Marsh said.
Get Your Homework in Early
Hamilton suggested that the committee members submit their thoughts on
the policy and management questions ahead of the August 10 meeting "so we
have something to discuss." If we want to set a deadline for people to
submit things, I will distribute what comes in, Marsh agreed. The questions
are philosophical, and "we could argue them forever," Dompier commented. We
are not asking for answers -- we are asking, is this the right set of
questions, Marsh responded. If you get something to me by August 1, I will
send it around to the committee, he said.
I'd like to know how the SRT is progressing, Dompier said. The SRT is
going to give us something in September, Marsh said. I'd suggest that on
August 10 we see where the SRT is on Section III of the report, so we could
have an understanding of where they stand on the scientific basis, Allee
said. They might have a draft by then, Marsh indicated. Is their process
going to involve a draft that can be reviewed? Hillwig asked. That's up to
the Council, and I don't have an answer, Marsh said. You should all have the
questions that are being addressed and a detailed outline of Section III, he
added.
Adjourn
^ top
|
home