Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, July 12, 1999
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
Handouts
- Attachment 1 – Draft Attachments of
policy documents
- Attachment 2 – Working Draft of
Performance Standards/Indicators
- Attachment 3 – Proposed
Artificial Production Review Implementation Work Group Schedule.
Performance standards were the order of the day for the Production Review
Committee (PRC). Brian Allee, who is chairing an ad hoc work group on
performance standards and indicators, presented a summary of efforts to
identify measurable standards. Staffer Mark Fritsch reported that a revised
version of the first two sections of the draft Artificial Production Review
report is available. Facilitator Jim Waldo told the PRC that the Council had
decided to delay the delivery of a report to Congress until October to allow
for completing the section on implementation. The first meeting of a work
group on process and coordination (implementation) was convened in the
afternoon. A list of PRC attendees is attached to this report.
Opening Comments
Facilitator Jim Waldo explained that the day would entail a PRC meeting
in the morning, with the afternoon dedicated to the first meeting of a work
group on process and coordination (implementation). The work group will
"assume we know what we are going to do" and work on "how we are going to do
it," he said. We are going to take the ideas and put together a serious
implementation plan, Waldo stated.
The Council Decides a Delay is Okay
Staffer Mark Fritsch reported that the staff made a presentation on the
Artificial Production Review at the Council’s June meeting in Astoria,
Oregon. The staff had revised Sections I and II of the draft Artificial
Production Review Report (Attachment 1) based on comments received by the
June 22 deadline and presented it to the Council, he said. We received a
dozen sets of comments, Fritsch noted. He indicated that the Council is
willing to delay submitting the report to Congress in order to make it "a
more solid document," particularly with regard to completing Section III,
which deals with implementing the hatchery reforms. There is a real need "to
put Sections I and II and the appendices to bed" and focus on Section III,
Fritsch stated. The redraft and the report’s five attachments (Attachment 2)
are both available for review, he noted.
Fritsch pointed out that a draft of Section III is also available
(Attachment 3) and would be the starting point for the implementation
discussion in the afternoon. He also indicated that there was a proposed
schedule of meetings for the work group, which could be firmed up later in
the day.
Waldo noted that the PRC had discussed at its last meeting "sequencing"
the information to Congress. He reiterated that the Council wants to see a
whole report and decided it was willing to delay a submission to Congress in
order to have one. The Council intends to convey the report in October, so
we need to finish our work in September, Waldo stated. There will be a phone
call to the appropriate Congressional staffers later this month to brief
them on the situation, he said.
The Council feedback on the report included the direction to make it
briefer and more to the point, Waldo said, adding that considerable text is
proposed for deletion and is redlined in the new draft. "Wordy" was the word
the Council used, Fritsch noted.
"I don’t think we know what the Council thinks – they have not engaged in
this process," Tim Stearns of Save Our Wild Salmon commented. He said he was
uncomfortable with the amount of interaction the PRC has had with the
Council and recommended that some committee members have a public session
with Council members. Stearns suggested that otherwise, the PRC could submit
its report and be surprised by the Council’s response because there has been
a lack of engagement.
I also follow the Multi-Species Framework process, he continued, adding
that he thought there was "a disconnect" between what is going on with
regard to artificial production in the Framework and what the PRC is doing.
We are clearly putting up performance standards and proposing to modify
hatchery operations, Stearns explained. What we are doing is not captured in
the Framework alternatives, he stated. The Framework outputs will start
about the time we release our report, and we don’t want to be going in
different directions, Stearns observed. "Confusion is a license for Congress
to do whatever it wants," he added.
Waldo suggested the PRC make it an "action item" to look at the Framework
plan summary and get an explicit answer to the concerns that Stearns raised.
Marsh said staff should see if it could schedule a panel of PRC members to
talk to the Council in August. Some interaction is advisable, Waldo agreed.
Isn’t there also the potential for a disconnect between this process and
U.S. v. Oregon? asked Bill Bakke, Native Fish Society. This afternoon
we will talk about U.S. v. Oregon, Waldo responded, adding that he
understood the negotiators had just passed a deadline and had another
meeting with the judge. Waldo observed that if all of the processes are too
dependent on each other, it could get difficult to make any decisions. We
have to try to work through this carefully, he said.
There is a slight possibility we could make the Federal FY 2000 budget
with a funding request, he reported, adding that there has been some
interest from Congressional staffers on the matter. The Executive branch
will be putting together something this fall, "and that may be our shot,"
Waldo said. We are beginning to look at "the money end of this thing," he
explained. The President’s next budget is coming together now, and "we need
to be in the budget in a significant way," Waldo said.
Facilitation team member Dan Evans explained that there is more money
available to the Federal government than anticipated and that there will be
considerable activity in Washington, D.C. this fall by those wanting to
capture additional funding. Many decisions on the Commerce Department budget
will not be made until this fall, he indicated. "We need to get our oar in
the water," Evans said. Commerce, Interior, and Energy & Water bills will be
possible vehicles for our funding, he added.
A Working Draft on Performance Standards
Brian Allee of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA)
presented a draft paper (Attachment 4) that captures the work of an ad hoc
group to develop performance standards and indicators for each of the
purposes identified for artificial production. We are attempting to get a
greater level of detail every time we go through, he explained, adding that
the process of developing the standards is "iterative." The work group is
meeting weekly, and so far has developed standards and indicators for
augmentation, preservation/conservation, and restoration, Allee reported.
We’ve tried to lay out standards and indicators for both benefits and risks,
he said.
We are wrestling with the level of detail and are not sure how much to
provide, Allee continued. We are also integrating the standards included in
the Science Review Team’s (SRT) report, he added. We are not finished yet
with that, Allee stated.
He went through the specific performance standards and performance
indicators the work group has identified. The following recaps the major
points Allee and the PRC members made during the discussion.
Allee said the standards for the augmentation purpose are the most fully
developed at this point. The first standard on the list for augmentation
benefits is: Provides predictable, stable, and increased opportunity for
harvest. That includes harvest to meet Treaty/Executive Order and Non-Treaty
obligations, C&S obligation, and recreation. The question is what would you
do to provide for these, Allee explained. The performance indicators listed
for the standard state: Manage for trend line, by increasing or decreasing,
comparing past trend with future. That statement is followed by several
subcategories, including: sport – increasing the number of angler days;
anadromous fish – Treaty and Non-Treaty fishery; and resident fish – Tribal
Treaty/Executive Order and Non-Treaty fishery.
We realize this is "anadrocentric," but we are working on the resident
fish aspect, Allee noted. Jason Scott from the Kalispell Tribe is going to
be working with us on that, he added.
A second standard states: Provide a genetic reserve. The group discussed
whether the Genetic Management Plans the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
is preparing would cover that standard. Allee listed the remaining
standards: Enhances local, tribal, state, regional, and national economies;
fulfills legal/policy obligations; contributes to ecosystem function; and
provides fish to satisfy legally mandated harvest in a manner that
eliminates impacts on weak, wild stocks.
For augmentation risks, Allee listed nine standards: overharvest of weak
stocks due to mixed-stock fisheries; exceed the carrying capacity of
fluvial, lacustrine, estuarine, and ocean habitats; detrimental genetic
impacts from hatchery vs. wild interaction; unpredictable egg supply leading
to poor programming of hatchery production to maintain Treaty/Executive
Order and Non-Treaty fisheries and spawning escapement; cost of program
outweighs the value of the harvest (Non-Treaty commercial);
cost-effectiveness of program to various Treaty/Executive Order and
Non-Treaty recreation fisheries; ecological interactions; disease transfer;
and impacts on life history traits of wild and hatchery fish from harvest
and spawning escapement.
Have you considered a standard that captures an increasing trend line for
adult returns indexed to ocean conditions? asked staffer Bob Lohn. Work
group member Stephen Smith of NMFS indicated there had not been a discussion
of ocean conditions. We need to index this to a broader range of conditions,
including flow, habitat, passage, and water quality, Stearns suggested. The
standards are too narrowly drawn; you have to take into account both
hatchery and wild fish, he added. If the number of fish is stable, but the
wild population is going down, we are not getting out of our Endangered
Species Act (ESA) or genetic problems, Stearns commented.
The standards should be parallel among purposes and so should the
benefits and risks, Bakke said. We want to be able to go from purpose to
purpose and see parallel information, he stated.
Under the cost standards, we need the cost per adult return, regardless
of the purpose, according to Nick Gayeski of Washington Trout. We need the
full economic costs of every fish in order to evaluate the costs among
hatcheries, he said. Waldo suggested that the information on cost could
backfire, with people elsewhere in the country using the data to question
why any money should be spent on Columbia River fish recovery. Allee pointed
out that from the tribal perspective, the value of the fish is not solely
economic. We need caveats that deal with things other than economic, he
said.
Allee said the standards and indicators for the preservation/conservation
purpose represented the group’s "first blush" with the topic. So far, only
one standard is listed for benefits: conserve genetic diversity. For risks,
three standards are listed: survival of captive broodstock product
post-release vs. wild; cost-effectiveness of program; and habitat conditions
have been addressed.
Is there any agreed-upon standard in the basin for entering into a
captive broodstock program? Gayeski asked. NMFS has a report that covers it,
Smith responded.
Some of the things we are seeing with captive broodstock are
"horrendous," but I don’t think people are really looking at this, according
to Doug Dompier of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC).
Let’s put the issue on the table and recognize that with captive broodstock,
we are taking real risks with salmon, he stated.
There is "a philosophical dilemma" here, Allee observed. When we see
declines in stocks, some people say to do nothing, yet we could lose the
stock, he said. "It’s a valid debate," Allee added. Before anyone enters
into a captive brood program, we should have standards, Gayeski said. In the
"strawfish" we had a proposed standard, Fritsch said. Maybe we should
incorporate it into the report, he suggested. Lee Hillwig of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service pointed out that some programs are at "cross purposes."
How do we handle that? he asked.
Allee presented the standards for the restoration purpose, noting again
that the work is preliminary. The restoration benefits standards are:
increase numbers of natural spawners; maintain full range of life history
traits of parental population; monitor and evaluate juvenile production in
tributaries and as returning adults; and produce fish for harvest in excess
of biological escapement. For restoration risks, the standards are:
depleting population spawning in the wild through broodstock collection;
exceeding the carrying capacity of fluvial, lacustrine, estuarine, and ocean
habitats; and causing detrimental genetic impacts from hatchery vs. wild
interaction.
Is there anything that addresses what stock is selected for a broodstock
program? Hillwig asked. Should there be a standard? he asked. There is a
standard in the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team report, and the Genetic
Management Plans will have one, Allee responded. Did you give thought to
using the Genetic Management Plans as a standard? Hillwig asked. Dompier
questioned whether it would be wise to incorporate the Genetic Management
Plans into the Artificial Production Review. That’s a new process, and it is
untested, he said.
Stearns said the performance standards and indicators should meet the
following goals: the tool needs to be relatively simple; it should focus on
things that can be measured consistently and on measurements that can be
repeated from one time to the next; the indicators should be on things that
can be compared among watersheds so that work in one watershed can be
exported to another; the measures are things on which action can be taken;
and the ultimate package has to be affordable.
Hillwig asked Stearns to clarify his statement about simplifying the
tool. You want measures that are understandable by Congress and by program
operators, Stearns responded. I want a product that gives Congress
confidence in what we are doing, he added. Hillwig observed that "we have to
have the science behind us" and that means incorporating what the SRT has
recommended.
A Surrogate Strategy
There was a suggestion that we develop surrogates that could be used
throughout the basin, Waldo said. This will have a bearing on our
implementation approach, he observed. Does the group agree surrogates are a
good idea? Waldo asked. We could identify what the surrogates might be and
have a scientific review of them, Bakke suggested.
With resident fish, it is difficult to have surrogates – an anadromous
fish surrogate is unlikely to be useful for resident fish, Jason Scott said.
There is a wide variety of species with resident fish, and you are talking
about unique facilities, he explained. For example, there is only one
Kootenai River sturgeon hatchery, Scott pointed out, adding that he would
discuss the issue with resident fish managers, who are meeting later in the
week.
I’m assuming there would be two implementation approaches: one for
resident and one for anadromous fish, Waldo said. We don’t need more
research, Dompier stated. We don’t need to test theories; we need to sit
down with managers and get to it – then changes will occur, Dompier said.
"We need to get down to the real nitty-gritty of reform," he added.
We also need to flush out what we can afford to measure and what we
can’t, Smith observed. By that standard, some of these indicators will go
away, he said.
Waldo suggested the group concentrate on the information that will "make
a difference" and on what is available. That will help us make some
provisional decisions on implementation, he said.
Wrapping Up
Staff will take a slimmed-down version of Sections I and II to the
Council on July 21 or 22, Waldo said. If someone has "major heartburn" over
something in the two sections, let us know, but we think it is ready to go
out, he added. In October, we will blend Section III into the report,
Fritsch said.
The deliverable on performance indicators is due to the Council in
mid-September, Allee said. We’d like to work on it until the end of August,
he added. Will the SRT have looked at the performance standards by
September? Stearns asked. I hope so, Allee responded. We will need to frame
the question to the SRT so that they can be done with their review quickly,
Waldo said.
The PRC meeting adjourned, and the work group on process and coordination
(implementation) convened in the afternoon.
Adjourn
Production Review Committee
July 12, 1999 Meeting Attendees
Brian Allee, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
Bill Bakke, Native Fish Society
Doug Dompier, Columbia Basin Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Dan Evans, Gordon Thomas Honeywell (Facilitation Team)
Bob Foster, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Mark Fritsch, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff
Nick Gayeski, Washington Trout
Lee Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Stacy Horton, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff
Bob Lohn, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff
John Marsh, Contractor to Northwest Power Planning Council
Cameron Oster, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff
Tom Rogers, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Dennis Rohr, Consultant to Chelan and Douglas PUDs (by
telephone)
Jason Scott, Kalispel Tribe
Stephen Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service
Tim Stearns, Save Our Wild Salmon
Trent Stickell, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Jim Waldo, Gordon Thomas Honeywell (Facilitator)
David Wills, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
^ top
|
home