Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, September 13, 1999
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
The Production Review Committee (PRC) discussed the revised performance
standards and indicators compiled by an ad hoc work group chaired by Brian
Allee of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. The PRC
also worked over a proposed outline and draft for Section III of the
Artificial Production Review report, which addresses implementing hatchery
reforms. Facilitator Jim Waldo said these documents would be
packaged for presentation to the Northwest Power Planning Council at its
meeting September 22. A list of PRC attendees is attached to this
report.
Next Meeting: October 11 in Portland (tentative). There may
be a conference call October 1 at 2 p.m., following the Implementation
Work Group meeting.
Highlights
Progress on Performance Standards and Indicators
An Outline and Draft Language for Implementation
Opening Comments
Facilitator Jim Waldo gave an update on the schedule for getting a
draft Artificial Production Review (APR) report completed. He said
that at last week’s Implementation Work Group meeting, members discussed
the need to get a draft of the implementation writeup to the Council by
September 22. We are going to get a package to the Council, but we’ll
keep polishing things up, he reported. The Implementation group will
meet again on October 1 and then turn a more final product around for the
Council by mid October, Waldo said.
We are proposing that a draft of the performance standards and
performance indicators, and the draft Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP)
be included in the report to Congress, he stated. We will let
Congress know that these are “information items” that are being
refined, Waldo added. We are not intending to have a polished
version of either document, but we will send them along as draft
appendices with the admonition that they are not final, he reiterated.
Progress on Performance Standards and Indicators
Brian Allee of the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority
presented the latest draft of the performance standards and indicators
(PS&Is) developed by a PRC ad hoc work group. The standards and
indicators are a common tool to be used at hatcheries across the region,
he stated. We have had lots of input from the group members, as well
as from others, Allee said.
He explained the PS&I document, noting that the group’s intention
was to identify performance indicators that are measurable, realistic,
feasible, clear and understandable, affordable, and consistent in their
application of policy and law. Allee said the standards and
indicators attempt to quantify the benefits and risks of using hatcheries
as management tools to achieve the five purposes of artificial production
the PRC has enumerated. He described the group’s analysis,
pointing out that it incorporated the Science Review Team guidelines, the
Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) performance standards and
indicators, as well as the Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection
Committee protocols. The document concludes with matrices that list
the benefits and risks, and whether they are present for each of the
purposes.
Allee asked whether the HGMP should be attached to the PS&Is.
It is referenced in Section III, so I didn’t know if we would need to
include it here, he remarked. I think we’ve got it covered in
Section III, offered Stephen Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
If we include it, we may be loading Congress up with a lot of detail they
don’t need, he added. Waldo said he agreed. Maybe we need a
reference section, Allee suggested, adding that he would prepare one and
include it in the PS&Is document.
Allee pointed out that the document contains new language stating that
the PS&Is are not in any way meant to limit Tribal Treaty/Executive
Order fishing rights. Bob Foster suggested that the document drop
“NMFS” in identifying the HGMP, and Allee agreed.
Waldo said Allee’s group had done a good job on the PS&Is, noting
that the level of detail and organization in the new document is an
improvement over previous drafts. The PS&Is add an element of
accountability and will help sell the APR’s recommendations, he added.
Doug Dompier of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC)
said he thought it was ironic that restoring natural runs was rated as the
most risky purpose. Allee acknowledged that most observers say there
will be some impacts from hatcheries on natural populations. The
PS&Is get at what the impacts will be and how they will be measured,
he explained. If we don’t put something out that shows we
understand the impacts, we will not have credibility, Allee stated.
This report goes to Congress, but I see our audience also as scientists,
who will read and scrutinize it, he said.
All of the PS&Is are addressed in isolation from other things that
are going on in the basin, observed Lee Hillwig of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). There may be risks from artificial
production, but what about the context? he asked. This needs to be
put in the context of the rest of the basin – it leaves out the rest of
the situation, Hillwig said. He added that it is also important to
point out that the risk of taking no action may outweigh any risks posed
by artificial production.
Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association pointed
out that she attended a meeting recently at Bonneville Dam during which an
environmentalist gave his perspective on how bad hatcheries are “while
we were standing on the dam.” I was wondering then whether
we would ever put this issue in context of other things that are going on
in the basin, she said. Hamilton also commented that a lot of the
PIs are not related to adult returns. That is what it’s all about,
she said. I’d like to see it stated more prominently that what we
are looking for is adults returning, Hamilton said.
Waldo suggested there be a paragraph or two in the main report
characterizing what benefits we are looking at from hatcheries, so if
someone does not read anything else, the message will be there.
Allee said he would give that some thought and try to capture it for the
report. Hamilton noted that one of the speakers at a public meeting in
Idaho pointed out that “given what the fish have to go through in both
directions, hatcheries are doing a good job.” Maybe in the
summary, we ought to talk about all of the complexity there is to deal
with here, Waldo commented.
Some say restoration should be the highest goal, Dompier observed, yet
there are hatcheries that operate just to feed the fisheries. We
need to be clear about what the goal is when we evaluate success, he
said. Smith agreed. You have to ask, what is the result you
are managing toward? he stated. We have to be clear about what
results we are aiming for, Smith said.
He also noted that as a “selling strategy” for the APR’s
recommendations, the PRC should consider how they link up with the 1994
Government Performance Act passed by Congress to encourage “good
government.” We might want to refer to the Act in our report and
how it relates to hatchery reform, Smith suggested. He went on to
say the PRC efforts have to be put into the context of what is being done
in other forums. In five years, we will be reporting on the results
of our performance indicators – reporting on both the benefits and
risks, Smith stated. When those of us who see hatcheries as a good
tool put these benefits and risks on the table, we want others to have to
do the same, he said. Cost-effectiveness is another element the
region needs to consider, Smith added.
Hillwig recommended that an addition to the paper should also state
that there are risks of not having artificial production programs because
of the other activities in the basin that are harmful to fish. “Doing
nothing is a risk,” he stated.
In the Columbia River Basin we have done nothing at times until we were
into a situation that requires captive broodstock programs, Waldo
observed. We have focused on the risks of action, he said. How
do we address this question? Waldo asked. Allee suggested the idea
could be inserted into the main report. He added that in the
implementation phase of the review, PIT-tag studies offer a new way to
measure success. A hatchery can be successful, but because of its
location upriver or because of other factors, you won’t see adult
returns, he said. PIT-tags are now starting to give specific data
about the returns and the performance of fish, Allee pointed out. If
you are going to evaluate the success in other areas of the recovery
effort (habitat, harvest, and hydro), you have to have a way to measure
it, he said. The PIT-tag studies would give you significant data on
survival through the mainstem, Allee added.
I’m uncomfortable with putting anything in the report about reach
survival, Hamilton stated. Currently, the big debate in the basin
has to do with delayed mortality – “the D-value” – associated with
the hydro system, she said. The reality is that those who fund and
rear the fish won’t buy into measuring by adult returns, Dompier
stated. We’ve argued that issue in court, and we haven’t won, he
said. In terms of the other “Hs,” Dompier suggested the PRC keep
its review “clean and simple,” with a focus on hatcheries and how they
will be reformed. Otherwise this will get too ungainly, he stated.
We have to include something here about resident fish, Bob Foster of
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stated. It’s in
here, but it could be made more explicit, Allee responded. He also
cautioned that the risk in the evaluation of hatcheries is that someone
will do “a numerator/denominator exercise” to determine success.
If you are going to evaluate hatcheries, you have to look at mortalities
throughout the ecosystem, Allee stated. You have the tools for that
and if you don’t use them, you have “to live or die” on adult
returns, he said. We are in an environment now in which the ocean is
an adverse condition, Allee said, and that has to be factored in.
Waldo noted that Allee and the work group had put a lot of effort into
developing the PS&Is. I think this effort will pay off more than
anything else we have done, Smith commented.
Tasks for Staff: Waldo summarized the discussion with the
following assignments: 1) we will develop language for the main
draft that summarizes what we are trying to accomplish; 2) we will
incorporate the idea that success will ultimately be measured in terms of
adult returns and that there is a need to account for conditions in the
Columbia River system, other than hatcheries, in order to develop
measurable, realistic, and achievable goals and to get an accurate
evaluation of hatchery performance; and 3) we will indicate that the PRC
was not charged with looking at the overall Columbia River system or other
activities that affect fish and that we recommend PS&Is, similar to
those the PRC has developed for hatcheries, be identified for these other
areas.
An Outline and Draft Language for Implementation
Waldo suggested the group begin by reviewing the goal statement on the
Section III outline. Dompier offered a few wording changes in
section a, and Hamilton suggested that the goal ought to include securing
adequate funding to carry out the activities. Dan Evans of the
Facilitation Team said he viewed that as an objective that would lead to
achieving the goal. Some programs can be reformed without more money
and/or reprogramming existing funds, Dompier observed.
It will take money to transform the system, Waldo commented, and we
would be doing a disservice to Congress not to mention the need for
funds. Smith suggested language to state that the hatchery
improvements would minimize risk to naturally spawning fish. Why not
just use the five purposes the PRC agreed upon as the purposes referred to
in section b of the goal statement? Foster suggested.
Hillwig asked Waldo to clarify what he meant by the term “reprogramming.”
I need to be clear about what you mean because within the USFWS,
reprogramming has a specific meaning – it doesn’t just mean moving
money from one hatchery to another, he explained. It can also mean
moving money from one program to another, Hillwig stated. He
recommended Waldo work with the Council’s attorneys and public affairs
staff to be sure the term is used appropriately. Hillwig also said
the goal statement should account for other activities in the basin that
affect fish, including habitat, harvest, and hydro.
Waldo said the drafting team would sharpen up the language in sections
a and b, and add a section d that pertains to funding. Section c is
a significant change from our earlier version, he pointed out. It
states, “Develop initial review process to enable reform initiative to
proceed before subbasin planning is complete.” This came out of
our discussion in the Implementation Work Group last week, Waldo said.
Allee pointed out that the Council is now on a course that might not
mesh well with the statement. They are proceeding to do reviews on a
“province” basis, and things could move along more quickly than we
might have thought, he said. If we are not mindful, we could be left
in the dust, Allee added. Can our recommendations be adapted to the
Council’s approach? Hillwig asked. Allee explained that there are
two parallel processes going on: the first is the province review,
and the second is the long-term subbasin planning.
Hillwig noted that the outline uses the term “hatchery” where it
might be more appropriate to refer to “artificial production programs.”
The focus has to be on programs, he stated. On the Columbia River,
there are multiple purposes for hatcheries, so I think the correct thing
is to refer to programs, Foster agreed.
The outline suggests the principles, purposes, policies, and
performance standards would be applied to determine “whether, where, and
why” to use artificial production. Some in Congress will grab on
to “whether to use” and see this as a potential way to close down
hatcheries, Hillwig pointed out. The semantics are important, he
added. Hillwig also noted that some hatcheries provide benefits
outside the subbasin in which they are located, so success should not be
defined in terms of providing benefits within a particular subbasin.
The Strategic Underpinnings
You have people out there who oppose hatcheries, and they are trying to
cut the funding, Waldo explained. He said that the strategy
incorporated into the draft document is to state that “you are willing
to accept true reform.” Waldo enumerated various reasons for the
opposition to hatcheries, including the threat to naturally spawning
fish. Our strategy is to state that you will evaluate and reform the
hatchery programs, being honest about the benefits and risks, he
continued. In many cases, the benefits will outweigh the risks,
Waldo added. The process outlined here could be viewed as “strictures
on the managers or it could be the best defense you have,” he stated.
Dompier recommended a wording change to the description of the role of
the ad hoc interagency team. I’m suggesting the team actually
re-evaluate the hatchery purposes, not just develop a process for doing
so, he said. In the text of Section III, we proposed that the ad hoc
team develop an approach for re-evaluating the purposes, Waldo
responded. Some people see the team as the driver to ensure the
recommendations are implemented, he said. Foster suggested the
wording be “evaluate” and not “re-evaluate” the purposes.
I sense here a shift from looking backwards to looking forward and
deciding on the future purposes of the hatcheries, Waldo commented.
He asked for other opinions on the role of the ad hoc team. Dompier
said the ad hoc team had to be involved in the evaluations.
Otherwise, if you just ask the agencies, they’ll come back with the same
view they have always held about how the hatcheries should be run, he
indicated.
The ad hoc team will identify what the current purpose is and what it
should be in the future, Hillwig said. In the long term, however, as
we do more planning, these purposes may change, he said. The ad hoc
team should continue to function to identify purposes and to go back to
the agencies to talk about implementation, Hillwig suggested.
We all agree that somebody needs to develop an action plan, Waldo
said. Maybe we should say that the ad hoc team will determine who
should do the evaluation, he suggested. We shouldn’t presume to
make that decision for them, Waldo said.
Let’s strike “ad hoc” from the description, Hillwig
proposed. The point is to make it clear that the team is not a
permanent body, Waldo responded. He suggested that the term “ad
hoc” could come out, but the idea that the team would be convened
temporarily should remain in the text. Hamilton suggested that there
may need to be a statement that indicates different types of expertise
will be needed, depending on the issue. I see the team as charged
with thinking through how all of this is going to happen -- the team has
to identify who is going to implement the actions, Waldo responded.
In the long term, hatchery use will be based on the subbasin plans, but
until then, the decisions on hatchery purposes will be based on other
decisions, Smith said. Even the short-term review of purposes will
require the HGMPs, he stated.
Waldo turned to a diagram he had put on the board. We see these
as the pieces, he said:
HGMP, PS&Is, Multi-Species Framework, IHOT audits, U.S. v. Oregon,
Management Decisions, Previous Subbasin Plans, and Hatchery Biological
Opinions. None of this depends on brand new research, he
explained. These pieces will give you the current and future program
purposes, Waldo said. In the long term, the purposes will be based
on the subbasin planning, he stated. The final outcomes will be
management plans, ESA compliance, and funding.
This is a sequencing issue – the ad hoc team is going to manage
things to see that this process happens, Allee observed. If we are
going to integrate this into what else is happening in the basin, we need
to be aware that these province reviews will be taking place within the
next three years, he said. Allee suggested that the team would need
to get under way soon. Hillwig wondered whether the HGMPs would be
ready in three years. Others indicated that NMFS intends to meet
that schedule.
Getting Hatchery Owners On Board
Dompier pointed out that as it is described, the funding review process
would leave out a whole lot of programs in the basin. We can’t
allow transition funding to be so accessible that entities don’t reform
their programs, he stated. The provisions on the outline call for
the Council to host a periodic regional hatchery review and for funding to
be a “one-time through” process, Waldo explained. Funding is
linked to meeting the policies, principles, and performance standards, he
said.
Foster suggested the description of the periodic review be couched in
terms of an opportunity. People need to see this as an opportunity
to get funding from another source, he said.
Congress directed the Council to do the APR, Allee pointed out.
The rationale for participating is that this has been asked for by
Congress, but “the stick is, if you want money, you’ll do this,” he
added. I was more concerned about getting the PUDs into the process,
Foster said.
Many of the PUD facilities are coming up for relicensing, Waldo said,
adding that having a new program that sorts out these issues would be
viewed “as a plus, not a minus.” It could also be seen as a
source of additional funding, he said. In response to Dompier’s
comment, Waldo said transition funding would be tied to getting into the
Council’s hatchery review process. If a hatchery does not
participate, it would not get funding, he said. We have to make it
clear that they have to put their programs on the table, Waldo
stated. I think the PUDs will be motivated to participate, he added.
Smith pointed out that for Mitchell Act hatcheries, the agencies go
back to Congress for funds. The intent is to bring the
non-Council-funded programs into this process; we will get everyone at the
table operating with the same rules, he said.
Foster suggested changes to the language in section 3k to remove the
word “closings” and substitute “modifications.” Hamilton
objected to the idea in section 4c3 that if a hatchery is closed, hatchery
funds could be reprogrammed to other activities. These are already
underfunded programs, so we don’t want to see hatchery funds going to
other activities, she stated. Take the funds and use them to run
other hatcheries better, Hamilton suggested.
Hillwig recommended the writers be careful to refer to integrating the
hatchery reforms with existing policies, wherever that would be needed.
Schedule for Future Drafts
Waldo said the Facilitation Team would revise the drafts of the
PS&Is and Section III and distribute them to the Council members
within the next few days. We will continue to refine the drafts, he
added. We are trying to get this tuned up by October 1, Waldo
said. You will get a revised Section III at the same time it goes to
the Council, he told the PRC, adding that there is nothing to stop people
from beginning to comment on the draft ahead of October 1.
###
Handouts from the September 13, 1999 Meeting
Attachment 1 – Draft of Proposed Performance Standards and Indicators
Attachment 2 – Proposed Outline for Section III of the Artificial
Production Review
Report: Implementing Reform in Hatchery Policy and Practices
Attachment 3 – Draft of Section III
Production Review Committee
September 13, 1999 Meeting Attendees
Brian Allee, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
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
Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
Lee Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Stacy Horton, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff (by telephone)
John Marsh, Contractor to Northwest Power Planning Council
Cameron Oster, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff
Tom Rogers, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Tom Scribner, Yakama Indian Nation (by telephone)
Stephen Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service
Kurt Truscott, Colville Tribe (by telephone)
Jim Waldo, Gordon Thomas Honeywell (Facilitator)
Neil Ward, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
^ top
|
home