| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, December 7, 1998
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
The Production Review Committee (PRC) went over the work plan for the
Artificial Production Review, but spent most of its time discussing the
contents and public release of the Scientific Review Team's report titled
"Review of Salmonid Artificial Production in the Columbia River
Basin." Another lively topic was who should sit at the table and for
what purpose at the workshop on policy issues scheduled for January 19-20.
A list of PRC attendees is attached at the end of this report.
Next Meeting: January 11 in Portland.
A Walk Through the Work Plan
and Talk of the Workshop
Committee chairman John Marsh described the work plan for the
Artificial Production Review (Attachment 1) using a graphic showing the 11
elements of the review and a timeline with dates for the completion of
each element. He noted that the completion date for Element 5, the report
to Congress, has been moved up from the end of June to early or mid-May of
1999. We thought the report would be more useful in discussions about
fiscal year 2000 funding if we got it to Congress earlier, Marsh stated.
It would also be able to inform discussions in the region about FY 2000
programs, he added.
Marsh explained that Element 4, "Regional Process for Development
of Recommendations," would involve public meetings to gather comments
and that those comments would be used to formulate final recommendations
to Congress, which the Council would consider in April. That would allow
the final report to be provided to Congress in early May, he said.
As for Element 3, the Artificial Production Review Workshop, Marsh
reported that a planning subgroup for the workshop met twice in the last
month and decided that the workshop should be two days (January 19-20,
1999), rather than three. Some Council members and senior staff
"weren't pleased" with what happened at the Multi-Species
Framework workshop and have said that the workshop in January needs to
produce a definite product, that the participants need to know what that
product is, and there needs to be a facilitator to push the group to
produce it, he explained. The Ulysses Seal group will not be used for the
workshop, instead consultant Jim Waldo will be the lead facilitator, and
Jean Edwards of Rep. Elizabeth Furse's office will be part of the
facilitation group, according to Marsh.
Who Will Get Invited to the Policy Workshop? Doug Dompier of the
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) asked how the 30
people that the work plan indicates are expected to participate in the
workshop would be selected. The planning subgroup discussed at length whom
to invite and decided it would be hard for the workshop to be productive
if 200 or 300 people attended, Marsh replied. It seemed important to have
good representation of all viewpoints, and we thought that meant about 30
invitees, who would be "policy-oriented people," he continued.
They could bring their senior technical advisors with them to
"whisper in their ears," Marsh stated. The technical advisors
wouldn't sit at the table, but would be available in the background, and
there would be a lot of breaks so that consultation could occur, he said.
The workshop invitee list is the original list of people invited to be
members of the Production Review Committee, Marsh indicated. We'll also
invite members of the Scientific Review Team (SRT), and some Council
members will want to come, he said. We won't turn anyone away, but we'll
try to keep it to 30 people and their advisors, Marsh stated. We should
emphasize that the 30-or-so chosen people are where it is expected that
the predominant conversation would take place, added Bob Foster of the
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). We don't want to exclude any
views -- we want all views "to be on parade," said Marsh. There
may be some minority reports that come out of the workshop, he added.
I've had no sense from the Council as to whether they are looking to
reform hatcheries or not, stated Dompier. Will they send a signal to this
group about what they're going to do? he asked. The workshop seems like it
could "just rehash the status quo," continued Dompier. I haven't
seen the Council give any hints, and so this workshop may be premature, he
said. We wouldn't be doing this if the Council didn't think some changes
ought to be made, but what they should be is controversial, responded
Marsh. I don't even hear the Council giving a sense that there's got to be
changes, said Dompier. I do, but you should pass your view on to the
Council, suggested Marsh. Up to now, we've been gathering data, and now we
are starting to get into the policy, which is the difficult part, he
added.
Maybe we should define Element 4 better, suggested Lee Hillwig of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If Element 4 lets the agency heads
develop recommendations with the Council, that could alleviate some of the
concerns; if not, we could end up with a report that has the names of the
agencies on it, but one which they don't feel they've had a real part in
developing, he said.
There's a "financial train wreck" ahead if the agency heads
don't think it's important enough to be at the workshop, commented Liz
Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. If there are
only 30 people, that speaks to agency heads, she said. Element 4 is
"where the rubber meets the road," stated Hillwig. It needs to
include agency heads being involved in the real recommendations coming
out, he said. I see Element 4 as public review, Hamilton stated.
It would be great if the workshop could be "a summit" of
agency heads, tribal chairs, and federal agency directors, but that isn't
going to happen, said Marsh, noting that it would take much more lead time
to get the event on their calendars. But the product of the workshop will
go to those people, he stated. Marsh indicated that the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission has already asked to be briefed on what comes out of
the workshop. We're getting the attention of policymakers, he said.
Agencies that are implementing artificial production have legislative
mandates, Hillwig stated. We can't just say, we won't do this or that any
longer, he noted. The agency heads will need to get involved in direct
participation with the Council based on what comes out of the workshop,
said Hillwig. The workshop will create policies that we want to come out
in the report to Congress, and the regional process will be aimed at
working out regional disagreements on the policies, said Foster. What goes
to Congress must be defensible on a policy and scientific basis, he
stated. I think the workshop will produce a set of policies that will be
fairly agreeable, and some of the U.S. v. Oregon policies will need to be
reflected too, Foster suggested.
Reaching Top Policymakers
What comes out of the workshop has to be reviewed by policymakers at
the highest levels, stated Hillwig. For example, if the workshop makes
recommendations that affect the legislative mandates of the USFWS with
respect to the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), our regional
director will have to address that issue, he said. That's not true, the
LSRCP has been changed in spite of the legislative mandate, stated Dompier.
If we want to change it, that's easy to do -- we've already done it, he
said. By putting out that concern, you will stop this process, Dompier
told Hillwig. Lee is saying that we need to get the top policymakers
involved, and the question is when that should be, stated Marsh. We'll go
into the workshop with a "strawman," and the workshop will
produce alternative policy recommendations, he said.
The intent of the hatchery review is that we develop a process to put
together all the salient information we need to make choices, said Tim
Stearns of Save Our Wild Salmon. We array the information and the
alternatives, and then we bring in the policymakers to make choices, he
stated. I'm nervous about whether we've done the groundwork to have this
workshop, Stearns said. I read the SRT report, and it acknowledges that it
was done by consultants and academics and that it didn't include
interaction with agencies and tribes, he stated. I'm nervous that such
interaction hasn't taken place prior to the workshop, Stearns said. We
have to ensure we get interaction between those who manage production
facilities, those who think they know where production facilities should
go, and the scientists, he continued. Those interactions should happen
before we bring in the policymakers, according to Stearns. The workshop
will do some of the things you are saying need to be done, responded
Marsh. We're missing a step if we think the SRT report is ripe enough to
go to the next step, asserted Stearns. I wish that report had a big
"DRAFT" written on it, he stated. We'll only get a limited
amount of the attention of policymakers, and we want to make sure we
"tee up" the artificial production choices for them, Stearns
said. Yes, we'll need to define how to use the limited amount of top
policymakers' time, agreed Marsh. I see that happening in Element 4, he
added.
The SRT report is not a draft, and it's up to us to figure out what to
do with it, said Marsh. It would be useful to have your written thoughts
about the SRT report before the workshop, he added. Send your comments to
me, Marsh suggested. We're interested in the accuracy of the document,
your evaluation of the citations, and whether there are conflicts in the
science that aren't fully laid out, he said. It would also be helpful to
hear how you think the report could convert to specific policies, Marsh
added.
Marsh said that Element 1, "Summary of Artificial Production Use
in the Columbia Basin," is intended to be a general document that
explains why we have such programs. A piece of this was drafted last
summer, and a technical writer is working on the section to get it into
shape, he stated. When contractor Bob Tuck turns in his material on policy
changes in programs over time, the technical writer will incorporate that
into this section of the report, Marsh explained.
According to the work plan, Element 11, "Independent Review of
Hatcheries in the Columbia Basin," will "identify specific
actions that might be taken for individual programs and projects."
Marsh said he didn't know who would do this task, but that it needs to be
done by the end of 1999. To do it, we need the policies that come out in
mid-May, the performance evaluation of the hatcheries (Element 9), and the
economic and social analysis (Element 10), which will be a limited
contract to look at costs and effectiveness in addressing agreements and
laws relating to Columbia Basin artificial production, he stated. Dompier
warned against the report laying out costs and benefits, saying if it
does, the region would be "back to fighting that old battle."
Hillwig questioned the parallel paths of some of the elements and asked
how the report to Congress could be made without the performance
evaluation. "It's a real chicken-and-egg thing," replied Marsh.
He noted with respect to Element 8, that the Battelle database needs some
improvement and that StreamNet "is helping us to do that." The
hatchery audits (Element 7) will be used in the analysis to help us figure
out what we are going to do in the basin, Marsh said.
My concern from the beginning, said Stearns, has been that we talk on a
general level, but what we need to do is "walk through a sample of
hatchery programs and walk through the recommendations and see if they
hold up or not." That's how we'll identify which programs are
working, and which are failing and need substantial revision, he said. We
need to be able to move to the specific at a fairly early stage, Stearns
emphasized.
Where Does U.S. v. Oregon Fit In? Stearns asked the group what the
Artificial Production Review plans to do about U.S. v. Oregon, which is
scheduled to be done by the middle of next summer. The U.S. v. Oregon
agreement will last for five to 10 years -- we need to be cognizant of how
this process fits in with U.S. v. Oregon, he said. If U.S. v. Oregon goes
one path and this process goes another, "we'll have some supreme
difficulties," predicted Foster. We need to have a unified pathway,
he said. If this process checkmates the U.S. v. Oregon process, we'll be
"in a world of hurt," Foster stated.
Since we don't participate in U.S. v. Oregon, we don't have a guarantee
that won't happen, said Marsh. But given the participation here by some
U.S. v. Oregon parties, I hope they will let us know if there are
problems, he stated. I think the U.S. v. Oregon parties will tell us as
part of Element 4, Marsh indicated. It's up to the folks who know what's
going on to let us know if we're off track, he added.
Committee Voices Concerns about
the SRT Report and Its Release
Council staffer Chip McConnaha and SRT member Rick Williams paid a
visit to talk about the SRT report, "Review of Salmonid Artificial
Production in the Columbia River Basin" (Attachment 2). Our purpose
is to tell you what the scope of the report is and to answer questions,
said McConnaha. He pointed out that a new version of the report, which
will correct typos and add some missing references, will be published
soon. It will be called the "December 1998 version" of the
report and will not contain substantive changes from the first version
(dated November 1998), McConnaha explained. He passed out a cover letter
that will transmit the December 1998 version of the report to the Council
(Attachment 3).
The report is a "state of the science" report, noted
McConnaha. It is a review by the SRT of artificial production based on
published and established literature -- it's not a new data analysis, he
said. The SRT "hasn't attacked the data at all" -- this is a
review of the literature, according to McConnaha. The report tries to
synthesize other recent scientific reviews, including the Independent
Scientific Group's (ISG) 1996 "Return to the River" report, the
National Fish Hatchery Review Panel's 1994 report, and the National
Research Council's 1996 report titled "Upstream: Salmon and Society
in the Pacific Northwest," he stated. McConnaha noted that SRT member
Ernie Brannon had made a presentation to the Council on the report last
week.
CRITFC has done a lot of documents on this subject, but none of our
documents were used in the SRT's review, said Dompier. I find it very
distasteful that you didn't have the courtesy to use our documents, he
stated. It wasn't an intentional slight, replied McConnaha. There are
probably 1,000 publications we could have put in here, he said. If your
publications bring in areas we didn't address in the report, that might be
significant, but there are lots of reports on hatcheries that aren't in
here, McConnaha stated.
If you are looking for a document to zero in on changes at hatcheries,
we have one published and out there, said Dompier. The individuals you
quote rehash "the same old, same old," he stated. I have a
problem with how the document was put together and the way tribal work was
ignored, even though the document talks about working with Native
Americans, he said. McConnaha noted that the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission participated in preparing the document.
Were any of these recommendations provided in other documents? asked
Dompier. You don't offer citations for any single recommendation, he
added. I don't think anything in here "comes out of left field,"
said McConnaha.
Why Didn't We Get a Preview?
We were surprised when this report came out to the public, said Hillwig.
I'd have thought that this committee would have been given the courtesy of
seeing it before it went public, he stated. We talked about that, but
"higher policy folks in the Council organization" said they
thought it was important to get the document out, responded Marsh. Don't
feel like you don't have an opportunity to make comments, he added. Your
comments will be incorporated into the workshop and the public process,
Marsh said.
We were assured at this table that we'd have a chance to review and
comment on any report that goes to Congress, said Hillwig. I haven't read
all the report, but it appears to be a review of what hatcheries were 20
years ago, he said. I've said here many times that there have been lots of
changes in hatcheries in the last five years, Hillwig continued. I
repeatedly asked for "some positives" to be included as well as
the negatives -- in this report, it appears that there's nothing positive
going on in hatcheries, he said. In addition, it appears that this
committee is on board with the process that produced this report -- if I'm
here as part of the process, I want to be able to comment, Hillwig stated.
This report is not a product of this committee, said Marsh. Congress
will see this report and will say this comes out of the Artificial
Production Review, which had the participation of state and federal
agencies, responded Hillwig. I'm not saying there are not problems with
hatcheries, but we think we need cooperation in getting to the solution,
he stated. The news reports that came out after the report was released
weren't good, Hillwig said. If we could have reviewed the report, we could
have helped this come out as "not a hatchery-bashing process,"
he stated. We all got calls from the media, noted Hamilton. It should have
been made available to you a week or two before the Council meeting, said
Marsh.
When things like that happen, it gives the perception that it was
intentional, said Hamilton. The SRT didn't make the decision and neither
did I, stated Marsh. You can take the message to those who did about what
their decision caused, suggested Hamilton.
A lot of the recommendations in here are happening -- is there any
effort to quantify that? asked Hamilton. That's the next phase, replied
Williams. The whole process has been constrained by the dates by which we
have to get things to Congress, he said. This report brought out a lot
more positive aspects of hatcheries, but we were put in the position of
making recommendations without analyzing data, and that's the next step,
Williams noted. For those of us that rely on hatcheries, "we got a
big, black eye," commented Hamilton. It wasn't our intention to do
so, said Williams.
Hillwig referred to the parts of the report that deal with spawning
timing and said, it's been years since hatcheries have done that. In
addition, we are making great progress on the transfer of stocks and that
wasn't reflected in Ernie's presentation, he stated. Hatcheries are
important to keep the stocks from going down in the future, Hillwig said.
It appears the focus is being put on hatcheries as the problem, when we
know there are lots of other problems out there like the hydro system, he
continued. The USFWS wants to make significant and substantive comments on
this report, and whether you take them seriously and look at incorporating
them into the report will determine the USFWS's role in this review,
Hillwig said. That role is under review now, he noted.
When will your comments be ready? asked Marsh. We should have a report
to the SRT in early January, Hillwig replied. We'd be more interested in
commenting on a complete product, stated Hamilton. The next step depends
on the database, said McConnaha. There are significant problems with the
database to work on, so after "the dust dies down on this,"
we'll get with the SRT to see what questions we can answer from the
database, he stated. I anticipate a more "data-rich analysis"
can take place in the early spring, said McConnaha.
Your document missed a lot of the hatcheries, said Dompier. Please tell
us so we can put them in the corrected version, responded McConnaha.
The key is how you link the data with the hatcheries, said Trent
Stickell of the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). We have lots of
questions about the data, and we'll see if the database is rigorous
enough, replied Williams. If this report is one part of the process, why
doesn't the document say that? asked Stickell. What I see on the cover is
that this is the review of artificial production in the basin -- it
doesn't say this is a part of the review, he added. You should put on the
cover that this is Section 3 of the review's report, advised Hillwig. This
looks like it is the whole thing, stated Stickell. When the committee
sends its report to Congress, this will be one of the attachments, Marsh
noted. WDFW Responds in Writing
Foster pointed out that WDFW has responded to the SRT report with
written comments (Attachment 4). The release of the report "caught me
off guard," he said. The recommendations in the SRT report were
similar to the policies of the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT),
but IHOT wasn't referenced, Foster pointed out. The Jonathan Brinckman
(Oregonian) article set me back the worst, he stated.
This shouldn't set anyone back too far on their heels, responded
McConnaha. There's a lot of convergence in IHOT, in the tribal plan, and
the ISG -- they're all converging and that should lend credence to the
whole process, he said.
Foster said the report doesn't mention some things that WDFW is doing
in the mid-Columbia, and Hillwig said it didn't include such activities as
the Shoshone-Bannocks' use of streamside incubation. Tom Rogers of the
Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game said there was a lot of emphasis on the LSRCP,
but that the Idaho Power program, which has put out a lot more fish, only
got one sentence. We weren't looking at specific hatcheries, said
McConnaha.
Stickell asked how the report can make the point that "hatcheries
have generally failed to meet their objectives." If you look at the
LSRCP, anyone can see that they didn't provide mitigation -- that's why
we're here, said McConnaha. We didn't get the fish back that we lost, he
stated. But the goals were set unrealistically, responded Stickell. The
point is, with the hatcheries we have, there is no way we could bring back
the historic runs that were once in the Columbia, he said. But you can't
say that hatcheries have failed -- there are a number of them that have
met their objectives -- it depends what the objectives are, Stickell
stated. Under the existing hydropower system and habitat conditions, you
can't meet the objectives, said Hillwig, but he noted that in places like
Dworshak, objectives are being met. Dworshak is maintaining the genetic
pool of steelhead, and that is an example of a positive thing, he added.
It's important to qualify why hatcheries haven't met their objectives, and
with the existing hydro system, they can't, said Stickell.
This report doesn't talk about specific programs, and clearly, that
concerns all of you, stated Marsh. The performance evaluation is where we
will talk about that -- why the objectives are or are not being met and
that will lead to what you do about it, he added.
If we could have reviewed this ahead of its release, we could have
worded the recommendations in the report differently and not so
negatively, stated Stickell. There is not one positive thing in them
related to the positive things hatcheries have done, he said. One thing
that Ernie Brannon is very interested in bringing to the review is the
distinction between the effects caused by hatcheries themselves and by the
management of hatcheries, noted Williams. He went over the 10
recommendations in the report and explained the background discussions the
SRT had about some of them.
This report is so generalized, commented Dompier. At some point, you'll
have to look at the objectives of specific hatcheries, he said. Frankly, I
liked your recommendations -- some of these are things we've been saying,
Dompier pointed out. We've been calling for reform since 1982, yet in the
press, we get lumped in with agencies and others where reform is needed,
he stated. Even though CRITFC staff papers were not included in the SRT
report, the fact that we came to the same conclusions independently is
significant progress, commented McConnaha.
How will you structure the data analysis? asked Foster. There's a
subgroup working to put the database into shape, replied Marsh. Battelle
"developed a front end" to the database, and we are working with
it to make it useful, he added. Will you put it out to the agencies for
review? asked Stickell. We'll figure out how to do something along that
line, responded Marsh. It is going to take a couple of months just to get
the data straightened out, said McConnaha.
Get Your Comments on the SRT Report in by the First Week in January
If we make comments on the SRT report, will you rewrite it? asked
Dompier. There'll be no rewrite, but the comments will be used in the
workshop, replied Marsh. In order to do that, we need to have your
comments in early January, he stated.
With respect to the recommendations in the report, how will you account
for what agencies are doing -- we need to give credit to those in
compliance, said Stickell. The policies will be applied in the performance
evaluations, replied Marsh.
You should consider the possibility of having a supplement to the SRT
report if the agencies have real concerns about things that have not been
included, recommended Hillwig. If you get your comments in by the first
week of January, we'll synthesize them into a supplement for people to
review and use at the workshop, Marsh said.
From what we've seen so far, there's no problem with the science,
stated Hillwig. I have a problem with the fact there is information
missing which shows that hatcheries have made great strides over the past
five years, he continued. That'll be important to Congress, and if we show
that, it will encourage them to provide funding, Hillwig said.
Are there papers that document the recent changes? asked Stearns. Yes,
responded Hillwig, citing the work of the hatchery evaluation teams,
reports on spawning timing, and others. There's a lot of disease-related
information out there, he added. It would take a major effort to prepare a
report on this, which includes references like the SRT report does, stated
Hillwig. I wonder if there's a "series of snapshots" and a
bibliography that ought to be forwarded to the SRT, said Stearns. There
needs to be something on this that can be handed to other hatchery
managers -- that's one of the things I'm hoping will come out of this, he
stated.
Dompier questioned the SRT's recommendation that the Council appoint
"an independent peer review panel to develop a Basinwide artificial
production program plan to meet the ecological framework goals for
hatchery management." There is no such thing as an
"independent" group, he stated, adding that consultants and
academia "don't know much about the Columbia River and the
programs." Let's have experts who know the river and the programs
involved, Dompier urged.
George Nandor of ODFW called attention to the point made in Foster's
comments that the IHOT policies weren't mentioned in the SRT report. If
the SRT had had radically different recommendations than IHOT, "we'd
be peeling all of you off the ceiling," replied McConnaha. The fact
that there is agreement is positive, he said. But the words were
different, Foster pointed out. We'll have a hard time living down the fact
that the press made so much of this, he said. It was "a real
bummer" we didn't get to see the report before it went out, Foster
stated.
What's the possibility of revising the SRT report to put in the things
left out and to change the cover? asked Stickell. We are correcting the
typos, and you should tell me if we left out some hatcheries, or if there
are errors, McConnaha said. But we aren't going to redo the report -- we
have to get on to the next things, he stated. The cover should identify
which section of the report this is, stated Stickell. Hillwig said the
committee needs to be able to make corrections where they may in fact help
and to have its comments included. Otherwise, this will be used as a
"hatchery-bashing document," Dompier warned. I was struck by the
positive tone that came out of this compared to other studies that have
been done, McConnaha observed. The report should have been peer-reviewed,
said Dompier. Send in your comments by the first week of January, Marsh
urged the group.
Other Items, including
Resident Fish
Marsh noted that consultant Bob Tuck, who was scheduled to give an
update by phone on his work for the summary of the report, was not
available.
Marsh said the committee would have a short meeting on January 11
"to get a feel for what comments came in" on the SRT report. It
may only last an hour or two, he stated.
Robert Walker, the contractor working on resident fish, reported that
it is difficult to get resident fish "on the train" of the
review, rather than "having it be a side car or a caboose." I've
contacted a number of you to get information about state-owned and
operated hatcheries, he noted. I haven't seen Bob Tuck's report yet, but
when I do, we'll see how it dovetails in, Walker said. I hope we can
integrate resident fish into the review through the workshop process, he
stated.
Adjourn
Production Review Committee December 7, 1998 Meeting Attendees
Bill Bakke, Native Fish Society
Doug Dompier, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Bob Foster, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Jeff Gislason, BPA
Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
Lee Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John Marsh, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff
George Nandor, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Cameron Oster, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff
Tom Rogers, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Trent Stickell, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Robert Walker, Resident Fish Contractor
David Wills, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Frank Young, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
Participating by Telephone:
Dennis Rohr, Consultant Tim Stearns, Save Our Wild Salmon
PRODUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY
Monday, December 7, 1998
NWPPC Conference Room
Portland, Oregon
The Production Review Committee went over the work plan for the
Artificial Production Review, but spent most of its time discussing the
contents and public release of the Scientific Review Team's report titled
"Review of Salmonid Artificial Production in the Columbia River
Basin." Another lively topic was who should sit at the table and for
what purpose at the workshop on policy issues scheduled for January 19-20.
Next Meeting: January 11 in Portland, at 9:30 a.m.
· A WALK THROUGH THE WORK PLAN AND TALK OF THE
WORKSHOP
Committee chairman John Marsh described the elements of the work plan
for the Artificial Production Review and noted that the completion date
for Element 5, the report to Congress, has been moved up from the end of
June to early or mid-May of 1999. He reported that the Artificial
Production Review Workshop will be held January 19-20, 1999. Some Council
members and senior staff "weren't pleased" with what happened at
the Multi-Species Framework workshop and said that the January workshop
needs to produce a definite product, that participants need to know what
that product is, and there needs to be a facilitator to push the group to
produce it, Marsh stated. Jim Waldo will be the lead facilitator, he said.
Workshop invitees will be the people originally invited to be members of
the Production Review Committee, plus members of the Scientific Review
Team (SRT), stated Marsh. The intent is to keep it to about 30
policy-oriented people, who may bring their technical advisors to
"whisper in their ears," he said. The committee discussed how
the workshop fits in with work plan Element 4, "Regional Process for
Development of Recommendations." The workshop will create policies we
want to come out in the report to Congress, and the regional process will
aim to work out regional disagreements on policies, said Bob Foster of the
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Some of the U.S. v. Oregon
policies will need to be reflected too, he stated. Lee Hillwig of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) said what comes out of the workshop has
to be reviewed by policymakers at the highest levels. Tim Stearns of Save
Our Wild Salmon suggested there needs to be more interaction between
agencies and tribes and the scientists before the workshop takes place.
· COMMITTEE VOICES CONCERNS ABOUT THE SRT REPORT
AND ITS RELEASE
Council staffer Chip McConnaha and SRT member Rick Williams paid a
visit to talk about the SRT report, which had been presented to the
Northwest Power Planning Council the week before. McConnaha said a new
"December 1998" version of the report, which corrects typos and
adds missing references, would be published soon. The report is a review
of artificial production based on published literature -- it's not a new
data analysis, he noted. The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
has done a lot of documents on this subject, but none were used in the
SRT's review, said Doug Dompier of CRITFC. I find it distasteful you
didn't have the courtesy to use our documents, he stated.
We were surprised when this report came out to the public, said Hillwig.
I'd have thought this committee would have been given the courtesy of
seeing it before it went public, he stated. The report appears to be a
review of what hatcheries were 20 years ago, according to Hillwig. I've
said many times there have been lots of changes in hatcheries in the last
five years, he stated. In this report, it appears there's nothing positive
going on in hatcheries, Hillwig said. If we could have reviewed the
report, we could have helped this come out as "not a hatchery-bashing
process," he added. It should have been made available to you a week
or two before the Council meeting, but the SRT didn't make the decision
and neither did I, Marsh responded. You can take the message to those who
did about what their decision caused, suggested Liz Hamilton of the
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association.
The USFWS wants to make substantive comments on the report and whether
you take them seriously and look at incorporating them into the report
will determine the USFWS's role in this review, Hillwig said. That role is
under review now, he noted.
If this report is one part of the process, why doesn't the document say
that? asked Trent Stickell of the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. The
cover doesn't say this is just part of the review -- it looks like it is
the whole thing, he said. Foster pointed out that the recommendations in
the SRT report were similar to the policies of the Integrated Hatchery
Operations Team (IHOT), but IHOT wasn't referenced. There's a lot of
convergence in IHOT, in the tribal plan, and the Independent Scientific
Group -- that should lend credence to the whole process, responded
McConnaha.
Stickell took issue with the report's statement that "hatcheries
have generally failed to meet their objectives." It's important to
qualify why hatcheries haven't met their objectives, and with the existing
hydro system, they can't, he said. If we could have reviewed this ahead of
its release, we could have worded the recommendations in the report
differently and not so negatively, Stickell stated. You should consider
having a supplement to the SRT report if the agencies have real concerns
about things that have not been included, recommended Hillwig. If you get
your comments in by the first week of January, we'll synthesize them into
a supplement for people to use at the workshop, Marsh told the committee.
· OTHER ITEMS, INCLUDING RESIDENT FISH
Marsh said the January 11 meeting would be short and devoted to
"getting a feel for what comments came in" on the SRT report.
Robert Walker, the contractor working on resident fish, reported it is
difficult to get resident fish "on the train" of the review,
rather than "having it be a side car or a caboose." I hope we
can integrate resident fish into the review through the workshop process,
he said.
_________________________________________________________________________
Please Note: This summary is based on detailed reports of the meetings
of the Production Review Committee. The reports are prepared by Resource
Writers Northwest and distributed by the Northwest Power Planning Council.
To request a copy, please call the Council at 1-800-452-5161.
^ top
|
|
home