March 21, 2002 minutes
April 23, 2002
Artificial Production Advisory Committee - Anadromous Fish Workshop
Date: March 21, 2002
Time: 10:00 am to 1:00 pm
Location: Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR
Agenda Items
- General Introduction
- Members Introduction
- Administrative Issues and Questions
- Overview of HSRG Process in Washington
- Description of Work for Each Province
- Schedules
- Discussion of Data and Information Collection and Interviews /
Responsibilities for Council / Contractors / NMFS / Tribes and
Agencies
- Wrap up
The presentation content was from the meeting
packet (220k PDF).
Bruce Suzumoto opened the meeting at 10:08 am. This was a
meeting of the anadromous fish workgroup members of APAC
Bruce Suzumoto ? NWPPC is gearing up to start the Hatchery
Evaluation process at the end of April or early May. NWPPC is
finalizing fiscal issues with BPA, work products, and schedules.
NWPPC has been meeting with NMFS to integrate the needs of the two
organizations.
Bruce Suzumoto ? Reviewed the agenda and introduced Lars
Mobrand and his work up in Puget Sound. During the meeting, NMFS
will discuss their plans for hatchery information. Finally, the
group will review the planned tasks for the hatchery evaluation.
Bruce Suzumoto ? Reviewed the work steps for the Artificial
Production Review and Evaluation (APRE) (from packet). The early
steps of APRE will be shared tasks with NMFS, steps 1 and 2. Then
APAC and NMFS will conduct parallel processes using the same data set.
Doug Dompier- Expressed concerned that reform of hatcheries may
not occur. Concerned that outdated hatchery programs would be
updated. Bob Foster assured Doug that the NMFS process will
seriously look at hatchery reforms. Larry Rutter expressed
uncertainty about how the Council and NMFS process will integrate back
together. The outcomes of the NMFS ESA process and the APRE process
are uncertain at this time. Doug is concerned about which process is
in charge. Doug is concerned that existing hatcheries might just be
modernized and not reformed.
Bruce Suzumoto ? The APRE will review hatchery programs in the
Gorge, Intermountain, and Mountain Snake provinces first.
Lars Mobrand ? Puget Sound hatchery review has been ongoing
now for 3 years. Hatcheries had unclear goals, uncertain
performance, and required changes to meet the requirements of the
ESA. A scientific panel was formed consisting of agency and
independent scientists. The goal was to reform hatcheries to ensure
increased benefits and reduced risks. The panel started with
constructing a scientific framework from which to evaluate hatchery
programs. The framework was peer reviewed. The Panel then
created a Premise or Context for the hatchery programs ? including goals
for the programs and their relationship with habitat, harvest, and fish
management objectives. Puget Sound was divided into regions similar
to the Columbia Basin's provinces. Each region was then defined by
its habitat conditions, harvest objectives, stock status, and long-term
management goals. This information was gleaned from managers and
other stakeholders. The premises were established to which the
hatchery programs were evaluated (by program, not facility). The
operations of the hatcheries were evaluated relative to the purpose and
goals of propagation programs. The hatchery program was profiled
through the application of about 150 questions. Much of this
information was gathered from existing reports, supplemented with
interviews with hatchery managers. This data gathering was followed
by workshops with fishery managers to ensure accuracy of
information. The Panel then developed conclusions about the
propagation programs. These draft conclusions were then presented in
a second workshop with fishery managers ? an exit interview. The
first report, including 3 Puget Sound regions, was finished in early 2002
and is available on the website for Long
Live The Kings. The report has 281 reform
recommendations. Some recommendations were broad-based, others were
program and facility specific. Recommendations ranged from minor
improvements to a recommended hatchery closure.
Doug Dompier ? Followed the HSRG process. He liked the
make-up of the HSRG ? it included agency personnel and not only
independent scientists. Doug expressed concerns about the about the
membership of the ISAB and its recent conclusions regarding artificial
production programs. Doug believes the membership of the ISAB should
be more similar to the HSRG and that the Council should alter the
membership of the ISAB.
Lars Mobrand ? The attitude of the HSRG was on how to improve
each program. The Panel found that many hatchery managers were
disconnected from the overall management framework and appreciated having
their ideas integrated into the reform process. The hatchery
managers brought many good ideas into the review. These were
integrated with an overall hatchery management framework and with the
habitat goals. ESA issues were considered up front. The Panel
made recommendations for decision makers and did not adopt the ?paralysis
by analysis? path. The HSRG supplemented the HGMP template with
more benefit information and more cumulative effects analysis.
Doug Dompier ? Expressed concern about the polarized hatchery
processes and debates on the Columbia River.
Dan Warren ? Explained the 6 steps of the APRE process and how
some of them integrate with NMFS process (see pg 23 of packet).
Liked the questionnaire used by the HSRG as it focused on risk and benefit
issues. Have been working hard with NMFS on defining the common
tasks.
Bob Foster ? NMFS can use 1-time data collection, using
existing HGMPs, existing BiOps, etc. Need to have a common data
system with the APRE. Wants to see draft HGMPs completed early on
? using same contractors as APRE. Then go to the managers to fill
in the HGMP gaps to achieve a complete draft HGMP. Then these
completed draft HGMPs will be used in the Collaboration process, including
US v OR. Following the collaboration process, then final
HGMPs will be done. The current APRE budget covers Phase I of the
NMFS process. Another contract would need to be put together to fund
Phase II collaboration.
Bruce Suzumoto? The original APRE budget process was for Phase
I.
Larry Rutter ? In the NMFS collaboration process, all of the
relevant states and tribes will be involved in the discussions on each
part of the Columbia River basin. Larry is concerned that in the
Columbia River process there is no 3rd party pulling the
entities along in a collaborative process. Puget Sound had both an
HSRG and Jim Waldo pulling the managers. Don't need to reconstruct
all of the entities in the Columbia Basin, but work through them.
Bruce Suzumoto ? Is the TRT a scientific review body?
Larry Rutter? Haven't fully figured out yet how the
TRT and the subbasin planners interact with each other and with the HGMP
process. The TRT will be reviewing subbasin plans to consider their
ability to recover the ESU. The Phase III, final HGMPs will reflect
the interactions and iterations of the TRT and subbasin planners. In
the Collaborative process, Larry expects 80-90% agreement on hatchery
programs amongst fishery managers. For those programs for which
there is not agreement, the alternatives would be provided to the TRT for
their analysis.
Lars Mobrand ? The review of hatchery programs needs to have
assumptions about key issues such as ocean fisheries, mainstem fisheries,
mainstem passage. Don't want to bring the debate on these issues
into the hatchery reform process. If nothing else, be clear on the
assumptions about these system issues because they have significant
effects on the hatchery programs. These assumptions need to be made
early in the process.
Doug Dompier ? Wanted to be sure that the hatchery database is
accurate this time around, not like the last time, earlier in the APR
process.
Dan Warren ? Presented the 5 tasks common to both the APRE and
HGMPs (pg 28 of packet).
Larry Rutter ? NMFS stills plans to have HGMPs hosted on a
webpage to fulfill its ESA regulatory requirements, but they should be
linked to a database system that can be queried for information.
NMFS does not need to actually host the HGMP webpage ? they could link
to others? sites.
Lars Mobrand ? Need to have one entity responsible for
ensuring that the hatchery data set is current.
BREAK
Dan Warren ? Presented schedules for the APRE (pg 29 of
packet).
Bob Spateholts ? In response to questions from Doug, NMFS will
use HGMPs from managers of hatcheries. Where the HGMP does not
exist, they will be put together in draft using the APRE consultants in
collaboration with the hatchery managers. At Phase III, NMFS will
need final HGMPs from the operating entity to meet ESA legal requirements.
Dan Warren ? Presented information on who will be responsible
for the various steps of the process (pg 32 of the packet). Much of
the information will be gathered by contractors. States and tribes
will receive funds to participate with contractors in gathering and
reviewing information, including participation in workshops.
Larry Rutter ? The Premises that are needed for this APRE will
be determined in Step 2. These assumptions need to be developed by
managers and consultants together.
Doug Dompier ? Interested in knowing who will be the
consultants in the process. Larry and Lars responded that the data
collection phase is an unbiased process and should be based on the ability
of the consultants to gather the information. Doug expressed concern
about the possible use of Stephen Smith given his employment history with
NMFS.
Dan Warren ? Will expand the list of participants of the
5-step process to include staff of fishery managers.
Bruce Suzumoto ? Will hold off on setting the next meeting
date for APAC. The next communication will be the Council staff and
contractors contacting fishery managers in the initial provinces.
Bob Spateholts ? There needs to be contacts with the hatchery
managers to determine funding needs for data collection.
Dan Warren ? The funding now is for Phase I, to complete the
first draft of HGMPs. The funding for NMFS? Phase II and III is
not understood yet and determined. Everyone agreed that more detail
needs to be generated to explain Phase II and III and how the APRE and
HGMP process converge later in the process. Dan will be staying in
touch with APAC members with e-mail updates.
Meeting ended at 12:55 pm.
These minutes are an accurate and complete summary of the matters
discussed and conclusions reached at the Anadromous Workshop of the
Artificial Production Advisory Committee held on March 21, 2002.
Bruce Suzumoto
see attendance list (20k
PDF)
|
home