| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, April 12, 1999
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
The Production Review Committee (PRC) discussed three separate
statements of definitions and purposes of artificial production, formed a
subcommittee to develop performance indicators, and settled on April 22 as
the date for a daylong workshop to come up with definitions, purposes, a
policy statement, and an implementation plan to include in the report to
Congress. The committee, awaiting a revised “Review of Salmonid
Artificial Production in the Columbia River Basin," aired some
concerns about the Scientific Review Team’s (SRT) process for rewriting
its report.
HIGHLIGHTS
__________________________________________________________
PRC Public Meetings Lightly Attended
Skinning the Cat on Purposes and Definitions
Subcommittee Forms to Develop Performance Indicators
A New Workshop Date Set
_______________________________________________________________________
Committee Business
Doug Dompier of the Columbia Basin Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
suggested the agenda be changed so the discussions of the Scientific
Review Team’s (SRT) report and the April 19 workshop could take place
before lunch. Will the SRT hand out a revised report today? he
asked. Council staffer Mark Fritsch said he hoped there would be
something new from the SRT today. He explained that the final input
for the SRT report revisions was on Friday and that he hoped there would
be a conference call on Wednesday “to get them comfortable with the
changes” that have been made to the report. It has been difficult
to get all SRT members together at one time, Fritsch added. The tardiness
of the revised report is a little troubling, he acknowledged. We
wanted to get something out for people to use in writing up their comments
due April 16 on the draft “NWPPC Artificial Production Policy Statement,”
Fritsch said.
I made extensive comments on the SRT report, and I presume they will be
incorporated, Dompier said, adding that he was puzzled at having received
no calls asking for clarification. The SRT has been late on
everything it’s done, he continued. I think whomever is paying for
this should have a talk with the SRT about the deliverables, Dompier
suggested.
They are only being paid if they are producing something, PRC chair
John Marsh responded. We are deeply concerned about the schedule, he
added. Marsh indicated that he and Council staff would sit down with
SRT members in the next week and talk about performance and schedules.
You could revisit the question of “who” will do the next phase of
work, since it appears they are “incapable of doing anything on time,”
Dompier said. I suppose using the Independent Scientific Advisory
Board or a contractor would be a possibility, but at this point, we plan
to use the SRT for the next phase, Marsh responded.
I assume all of our comments were forwarded to them, Don Campton of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said. Yes, the staff responded.
The SRT report will not make everyone happy, Fritsch
acknowledged. The revisions should make it better, but not everyone
will be happy, he added. Dompier said his concern is in seeing a
document that is labeled scientific, but “is just personalities.”
I would be interested in seeing it before it goes to Congress, he
stated. We will have a conversation with the SRT, but we have no
commitments that any of the members will be here this afternoon, Marsh
stated.
We hope to make progress today on the definitions and purposes, Fritsch
said. Tomorrow we will get on the phone to Jim Waldo and debrief him
on this meeting and tell him where we are at, he explained, adding that
there is no agenda yet for the April workshop. After the workshop,
“we will start grinding out” what we will submit to Congress, Fritsch
continued. He noted that the schedule now calls for: the
comment deadline on April 16; the workshop on April 19; and two dates for
meeting with the Council’s Fish Four to bring them up to speed.
Fritsch suggested that an additional PRC meeting might be needed to get
the document for Congress into a form “we’re comfortable with.”
The Council meets May 18-19, and we hope to have something in final
draft for that meeting, Marsh said. The members will then have a
couple of weeks to think about the draft before their decision point on
June 8-9, he explained.
Dompier reported that there is a session of the U.S. v. Oregon parties
April 19 to discuss Imnaha steelhead, which means several committee
members will be tied up elsewhere on the day of the workshop. We’ll
need to talk to Waldo then to see if we can reschedule the date, Marsh
stated. Fritsch indicated he would call Waldo and try to get a new
date set before the PRC meeting was over.
PRC Public Meetings Lightly Attended
Fritsch reported on eight Artificial Production Review public meetings
held between March 16 and April 6 (Attachment 1) in Spokane, Kalispell,
Astoria, Yakima, Pendleton, Portland, and Boise. The audiences
ranged from three to 14 people at each meeting, and the focus was on
“big picture” issues, he said. At some meetings, people dove
into the Multispecies Fish and Wildlife Framework, Fritsch said, and there
was some discussion of ocean conditions and habitat. At Kalispell,
people talked about the need to protect critical habitat, he added.
Bob Foster of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife asked
about a comment attributed to Fritsch on page 6 of the public meeting
notes. Fritsch explained that his comment was in response to a
question from a gillnetter. I said that providing sustainable
harvest is the intent of the hatchery programs, he continued, and “in
the heat of the moment” I probably said that “harvest is the driver.”
What are your thoughts about the level of attendance at the meetings?
asked David Fast of the Yakama Indian Nation. What was the reason
for the low turnout? Aren’t people interested in this? he asked.
When we had hearings for the Yakima Hatchery, we drew lots of people, Fast
said. There are two legislative sessions going on right now, and
people are tied up with those, said Liz Hamilton of the Northwest
Sportfishing Industry Association. Stephen Smith of the National
Marine Fisheries Service suggested that “on-the-ground” hatchery
issues would interest the public more than policy.
People who attended were there because the topic was salmon, not
because it was hatcheries, Marsh said. The agency and tribal folks
did not come out much; the turnout was from the general public, he
explained. People wanted to know what was happening, Marsh said of
the attendees. The agencies and tribes did attend in Spokane,
according to Tim Peone of the Spokane Tribes. The comments you heard
there are what you’ll see in written form, too, he added.
Skinning the Cat on Purposes and Definitions
We expect to iron out our approach to purposes, definitions, and the
matrix at the April workshop, Marsh said. Today, we’ll start the
discussion to line up our alternatives, but we don’t expect a decision,
he added. Marsh noted that there are three handouts associated with
the definitions and purposes: a staff document of purposes and an
appendix of definitions (Attachments 2 and 3); a memo from Dompier that
uses the format in the staff draft, but suggests language changes
(Attachment 4); and a document from Gary James of the Confederated Tribes
of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, which adds a category of information
and makes language changes (Attachment 5). We need to talk at some
point about where this fits into the document for Congress; it’s labeled
Section 3.7 on the staff draft, but I’m not sure that’s where it fits,
he added.
Marsh explained the staff draft, noting that it begins by stating that
“purposes” refer to the specific uses of the tool of artificial
production at the population level. We see population as the species
within a subbasin, such as Hanford Reach fall chinook, he said. The
draft also states that motivations for using artificial production, such
as a legal mandate, are not purposes, Marsh continued.
The draft says that while artificial production is often thought to be
solely to address lost harvest opportunities, there are other reasons to
use the tool, including to conserve naturally spawning populations and for
research, Marsh explained. But we are not excluding harvest from any
population, even if harvest is not stated specifically as a purpose, he
added.
There are three major purposes for artificial production given in the
staff draft, Marsh pointed out: harvest, conservation, and
research. Under conservation, we have listed four types, he
said: maintenance; recovery; preservation; and restoration.
There is a hierarchy in the four types, Marsh explained.
Restoration, at one end of the hierarchy, refers to reintroducing a
population into habitat that does not currently produce it, he said.
Maintenance, at the other end of the hierarchy, refers to using artificial
product to increase production to the prior potential of the habitat to
maintain healthy populations, Marsh said. We have also put examples
of these purposes on the list of hatcheries that follows the explanations
on the staff draft, he pointed out, adding there is frequently more than
one purpose for a hatchery program.
Are these going to be definitions that the region agrees to? Bill Bakke
of the Native Fish Society asked, referring to the list of definitions
Marsh distributed. Our intention is to have these be something
everyone agrees to, Marsh responded. So if this goes in the report
to Congress, it means we all agree to these definitions? Bakke
asked. We’d like to reduce the disagreement, but we may not get
there, Marsh said. Bakke said he thought there should be a way to
tell Congress who does and who does not agree with the definitions.
If this is sent to Congress as what the Council thinks, that is one thing,
but to say that there is regional agreement is another, he stated.
The purposes in the staff draft are different from the way I’ve
thought about hatcheries, and they’re different from what I would have
put down, Foster acknowledged. But I like the definitions because
they look more toward a conservation ethic, he added. I think they
work with the first two paragraphs of the introduction, Foster said.
I have a big concern we are misleading Congress if we don’t state
what agreement there is, Bakke said. Congress has to be informed
about the extent of agreement among other interests in the region unless
this is just going to be a Council document, he indicated.
I’m assuming there will be a caveat attached to the report that
indicates these definitions apply within the region and not to USFWS
programs nationwide, indicated Ed Forner of the USFWS. The key use
for these types of definitions is in the Congressional appropriations
process, Smith said. It may be valuable for Congress to be able to
refer in appropriations language to this report, he added.
I’d be surprised if we get full consensus, Marsh acknowledged.
I’d like to, but it’s probably unlikely, he said. Marsh
reiterated that the committee will address the issues again at its April
workshop.
Dompier explained that in his memo on purposes, he tried to write so
Congress knows “exactly what we mean.” I tried to make it
straightforward and to clarify a little bit more, he said. Dompier
explained that he had added language to clarify that even with
conservation, there might be harvest at some point; runs that are being
restored in their natural habitat, we view as being harvestable. I
stuck to the staff’s format and tried to make it easier to follow, he
said.
I agree with your comments about conservation, Smith said. We
would not want Congress to think that there is not harvest in conservation
programs, he added.
A Different Point of View
There are two purposes for hatcheries, according to James:
harvest and natural production. The purpose is to augment and
mitigate for harvest, or to restore, conserve, or supplement natural
production, he stated. What other reasons do we operate hatcheries
for? he asked.
Why are you using natural production as a header instead of
conservation? asked Campton. The overall purpose is to address
natural production, James responded. Another purpose might be to
increase the amount of harvest – harvest and natural production are the
broadest generic definitions, and that is what I am starting with, he
said. Our subcommittee used conservation as a header since a
hatchery may exist because there is no natural production, Campton
stated. Natural production was a subset of conservation in our list,
rather than the other way around, he added.
But is the long-term objective to have a species “in a test tube”
to look at? Where are we going with these programs? James
asked. I’m taking the broad view, he stated. We are doing
this in order to march ahead toward increasing natural production, James
contended. We are doing it to conserve the natural genes, and that
gets back to natural production, he said. There are three
approaches, James said: restoration when a run is absent;
conservation to stop decline; and supplementation when a run is depressed,
but not gone. Restoration or conservation might phase into
supplementation, he added. Overall, a driving purpose of hatcheries
is to address the poor status of natural production, James stated.
How is supplementation a purpose? Lee Hillwig of the USFWS asked.
The purpose is to recover or restore, he added. You are using a
hatchery tool to release production that will come back to spawn
naturally, James responded. The purpose is to increase that spawning
through supplementation, he said. I think this simplifies things,
James stated. What other purposes are there? he asked. I don’t
know if research is actually a purpose, James continued, but he
acknowledged there are artificial production programs that are just for
research. I have to list research as a purpose, but 99 percent of
the time it is a component or a sub-element, not the driving reason for a
program, he explained. The driving reason is to increase harvest or
natural production -- one or the other, James reiterated.
The biggest difference we have here among these drafts is between Gary’s
and the staff’s, Marsh observed. And probably the biggest
difference is what Don brought up regarding the use of the terms
conservation and natural production, Marsh continued. The staff did
not use the terms Gary did; we said mitigation was not a purpose, he
pointed out. We said mitigation was a legal mandate, but not a
reason for using the hatchery tool to manage populations, Marsh
said. The same is true with supplementation; it wasn’t really a
purpose, it was a way to reach a purpose, he said.
Whether mitigation is a function or a motivation, it’s there, James
responded. Hatcheries are run for mitigation, he stated. I
look at supplementation as using a depressed stock to help itself, James
explained. You take production into a hatchery and put it back out there
– that’s a biological purpose, he said.
Marsh suggested that supplementation as defined in the Council’s
program is used as a way to achieve harvest augmentation or
conservation. James said he thought supplementation could be part of
many of the purposes he had listed. Conservation is “a strange
heading” – it’s an emergency tool to stop extinction and prevent a
population from falling below a certain level, he stated. But that’s
not the end of it – it is “a limited term” and does not belong “at
the head of the page,” James said.
I’m comfortable with the staff outline, Hamilton said. We are
trying “to get more bang for the buck both biologically and
economically,” she said, adding that the purposes statement should
reflect that to some extent, we can do what’s right both biologically
and for harvest.
If you have specific improvements to this language, bring them to the
workshop, Marsh suggested. When will you have a statement that “this
is the purpose of artificial production”? Will that be at the end
of the workshop? Peone asked. By May 18-19, we should have a final
draft that will include the purposes, Marsh responded. Is there a
hang-up with calling the #2 purpose “conservation,” as the staff draft
does? he asked. How do you conserve what has already gone extinct?
Peone asked. From the tribes’ perspective, preservation would be a
major header, he said.
Are you thinking about having six purposes listed, rather than having
two with four elements listed under conservation? Hillwig asked. No,
not in my opinion, Marsh answered. But is conservation the right
header? he asked. Conservation means more than preservation to me,
Hillwig responded. They are very different terms, he added.
“There are 10 ways to skin this cat, and the Council skinned it one
way,” Smith said. I don’t want to spend more time on it, he
stated.
I agree – we have to get down to the question of are we going to
reform these hatcheries or not, Dompier said, urging the committee to move
on. We had a subcommittee that worked on this and came up with a
format, George Nandor of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
concurred.
Should we incorporate Doug’s language into the staff version since
they are so close? Fritsch asked. No, the committee responded.
Why did the staff add the sentence “production levels are in balance
with available habitat quantity and quality”? Campton asked. We
thought of that as fairly minor, but we will think about it more, Marsh
responded.
Bring the three statements to the workshop, Marsh said. “All
three are alive,” he said, suggesting that committee members discuss
them within their organizations. We will work on them at the
workshop, Marsh stated.
I’d expand the definition of research, Smith suggested. And
Campton noted that the original draft had a lengthier definition.
That information is now in the footnote, and maybe we should bring in back
into the text, Marsh observed.
Subcommittee Forms to Develop Performance Indicators
Marsh explained that the matrix of purposes is a re-write of what was
in the “strawfish” at the first workshop. The matrix (Attachment
6) has five columns: purpose, application, concerns, guidelines, and
performance indicators. Marsh asked Brian Allee of the Columbia
Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority if there was progress to report on
fleshing out the performance indicators, a column that is currently blank
on the matrix.
The idea, which originated with Steve Smith’s presentation, would be
to try and look at factors that are specific indicators for performance,
Allee explained. We now have a draft matrix to work with, and it’s
time to get together to see about filling out that column, he said, adding
that another approach would be to drop performance indicators from the
matrix.
Performance indicators are a way to focus attention on how to evaluate
these applications and to look at things that are measurable, Allee
said. The thrust would be to provide more specifics, along the
lines of the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team’s (IHOT) document, he
continued. My understanding of the IHOT document is that it focused
on how you operate hatcheries, and the performance indicators would go
beyond the hatchery environment to evaluate things in the programs, Allee
said.
This effort may involve a long-standing work group that goes far beyond
the report to Congress, he continued. This would not be “just to
whip something on a piece of paper for Congress,” but would be a serious
effort, Allee said. You can’t do that with a quick analysis, he
added. Allee said Congress should not misinterpret that the
artificial production review report is “a definitive document – that
is a myth.”
This would be a way to define what the performance is, he said.
It seems like a logical extension of what the SRT was trying to do, but
they will likely “get bogged down” because it is a difficult task,
Allee went on. This effort would get at regionally accepted
indicators of performance, he said, adding that there is a possibility a
subcommittee could meet soon to come up with something as “grist
for the workshop.”
When you send the report to Congress, you may just have a description
of what you plan to do, Smith said. To get agreement on performance
indicators will take longer, he added. Smith also noted that the
matrix “only looks at negatives” and needs to have the positives
stated as well. “The message off of the matrix is very negative,”
Hamilton agreed.
I don’t see a process for implementation clearly outlined, and it’s
something we really need, Hillwig said. Performance indicators are a
critical part of implementation, he observed, adding that they would
indicate when and why to change a program and would guide decisions.
How do we implement the policy? Hillwig asked. Policy and
implementation will be topics at the workshop, Marsh responded.
It’s time to look at each and every hatchery – why was it
implemented and is it performing for that purpose, Dompier stated.
If a hatchery is for augmenting fall chinook harvest, we should ask, are
they being caught, and if not, why, he said. We need to get the team
to really look at it, Dompier said. If the hatchery’s purpose has
changed, then we need to ask whether it is meeting the new purpose, he
continued. This part of the process should not be that difficult –
we should be able to sit down and say whether a particular hatchery is
performing, Dompier stated. It’s time to get on with, he urged.
I like performance indicators, and if it takes time beyond our report
to Congress to come up with them, that’s okay, Bakke agreed. Smith
suggested another column be added to the matrix, one that identifies the
benefits. We should have risks, benefits, and performance
indicators, he said.
We need to identify what information we can collect and what we can’t,
suggested Tim Stearns of Save Our Wild Salmon. Let’s develop a
common methodology to take each hatchery through and come up with a
complete context, including state of the habitat and the river, he
urged. And we need to be clear about which things that affect
hatcheries are within the control of the hatchery manager and which are
not, Stearns added. That is important – to identify outside
influences that a manager may not control, agreed Tom Rogers of the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game.
Maybe it’s time “to bring the world back in,” Dompier
observed. But if we bring everybody else back in – the Corps, the
Forest Service, BLM – we will skate right over hatchery performance, he
said. It is time to take a hard look at hatcheries against the
performance indicators and ask how they are doing, Dompier stated.
If the team goes out to do this, we can make progress; but if we worry
about everyone else, we will end up with the status quo, and “we will
have failed,” he said.
There seems to be interest in coming up with the performance
indicators, Allee observed. It’s a more realistic and professional
way to look at this, but “it is not simple,” he added. Allee
suggested the Council tell Congress about the methodology the region will
pursue – what we are going to do and when. I thought there was to
be a second phase to the report to Congress that would include increasing
levels of detail, he said. To say we have a quick answer
misrepresents the issue to Congress, Allee said.
This effort ought to involve the managers – it can’t be turned over
to the SRT or anything like that, Dompier said. We have people
within the agencies and tribes who know the programs and can get at this
quickly, he added.
If we are talking about doing this hatchery-by-hatchery, we will get
into implementation, Hillwig said. Congress wants an artificial
production review, not a hatchery-by-hatchery report, he said. The
report to Congress should give an overall review that says: here is what
is happening and here is the transition needed, Hillwig recommended.
Congress wants to know that the programs are sound and that there is
policy behind them, he said. And we need to say that the programs
want to make a transition and indicate what we need to make that happen,
Hillwig stated. We need to give Congress programmatic information
and process, he said.
A subgroup can accomplish describing the methodology and what the
performance indicators will look like, Smith said. I agree that we
need to do a facility-by-facility review, he added. This is a good
group to start drafting the information, let the SRT review it, and then
follow up after the report goes to Congress, Smith said.
I’m still not convinced you look at this facility-by-facility to
define the performance criteria, Hillwig said. He listed several
issues, including harvest benefits, straying, and terminal
fisheries. There is a lot we could do without a facility-by-facility
review, Hillwig added.
The performance indicators would go to the manager in charge of the
hatchery – once they are established, it is up to the operating entity
to measure and report the progress, Smith observed. There is no
reason for this group to get involved in that, he added. You set up
an agreement for reporting on the performance, and you don’t start with
audits, Smith stated.
We do need some standard criteria or every hatchery will have its own,
Fast pointed out. Without standard criteria “you’ll have 50
stories and no way to compare them,” he added. If a hatchery does
not meet the criteria, you ask “why” and think of ways to change
things or cut out what’s not working, Fast suggested.
I’m hearing an implementation discussion -- performance evaluation
and implementation will be big topics at the workshop, Marsh
observed. At the workshop, we’ll come up with a policy statement
and an implementation plan, he said.
After polling the PRC, Allee set up a session for the performance
indicator subcommittee on the afternoon of April 19 at CBFWA headquarters.
A New Workshop Date Set
Fritsch reported that the workshop is rescheduled to Thursday, April 22
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Council headquarters in Portland.
Fritsch also handed out copies of a revised statement of purposes that
James submitted during the meeting (Attachment 7).
No SRT members will making it here this afternoon, Marsh said, adding
that Fritsch hoped to have a revised SRT report to release before the
April 22 workshop.
Fast asked what exactly will go to Congress in June. We will send
recommendations in the form of a policy statement and recommendations for
implementing the policy statement, Marsh responded. Will we report
on what we intend to do and then continue the work? Fast asked.
There will be tasks after the June recommendations go to Congress, Marsh
confirmed.
Adjourn
Production Review Committee
April 12, 1999 Meeting Attendees
Brian Allee, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
Bill Bakke, Native Fish Society
Don Campton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Doug Dompier, Columbia Basin Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Barry Espenson, Columbia Basin Bulletin
David Fast, Yakama Indian Nation
Ed Forner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bob Foster, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Tom Frew, Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Mark Fritsch, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff
Jeff Gislason, Bonneville Power Administration
Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
Lee Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Gary James, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (by
telephone)
John Marsh, Contractor to Northwest Power Planning Council
George Nandor, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Pat Oshie, Yakama Indian Nation
Tim Peone, Spokane Tribes
Tom Rogers, Idaho Department of Fish and Game
Dennis Rohr, Consultant to Chelan and Douglas PUDs
Tom Scribner, Yakama Indian Nation
Russell Simmons, NAC
Stephen Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service
Tim Stearns, Save Our Wild Salmon (by telephone)
David Wills, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jack Wong, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff
^ top
|
|
home