10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland

1. General Introduction
2. Members Introduction
3. Administrative Issues and Questions
4. Review Agenda
5. Issues to Follow-up on from Last Meeting
6. Regional Subbasin Planning Effort
7. APR/Implementation; Workplan Goals, Products and Schedule
8. Public Comment

Bruce Suzumoto: opened the meeting at 10:07 am, followed by self-introductions of APAC members. An attendance list was developed, meeting packet was distributed and the agenda was reviewed.

Bill Bakke: wanted meeting recorded and minutes more thorough. Also requested hard copies of presentations ? these are in the meeting packet.

Brian Allee: gave overview of the big picture. APAC is not performing in a vacuum. APAC is integrated in other NWPPC processes ? provincial reviews then sub-basin plan then second provincial reviews. Brian presented APAC in context of sub-basin planning using chart.

Tom Backman: concerned that a sub-basin approach may not fully account for the legal and fishery mandates from which certain hatcheries were initiated. Brian responded that the sub-basin context is important, particularly from a scientific viewpoint, but must account for mandated purposes. This issue is also a key reason for developing basin production goals and strategies that Bruce Suzumoto wants to further discuss later in the agenda.

Brian Allee: further explained how the NMFS recovery process should integrate into the NWPPC?s processes. The FERC processes also need to integrate with sub-basin planning. FERC mandated hatchery programs need to be accounted for in the plans.

Doug Dompier: wants to see the NWPPC?s processes also feeding back into the NMFS and FERC processes. The arrows on the chart need to be double headed. Changes will be made.**

Bob Foster: requested the arrow from the Hatchery Reform Work Plan also feed into sub-basin plans as well as the second provincial review. The change will be made.**

Doug Dompier: requested the chart show any USFWS ESA resident fish processes. This will be put before USFWS to expand the chart.**

Brian Allee: His understanding is that USFWS is using a modified HGMP for its resident fish ESA work.

John Ogan, NWPPC counsel: referred APAC back to the APR report for many members? concerns as these are addressed in the report. John reminded APAC that this work is being undertaken because it was requested by Congress. John reviewed Congress? concerns that led to the APAC work and Congress? desire to get information from both the science and management communities. NWPPC?s role is mainly as a facilitator. Success will depend on the needs, desires and effort of the APAC members. These efforts should lead to better recovery strategies and justification for upgrading aging hatchery facilities.

Doug Dompier: raised concerns that states and Federal agencies have elevated mass marking programs for selective fisheries since Congress requested the hatchery policy review. John Ogan suggested better resolution of mass marking issues if discussed in the specific and not generically. John requested Doug formally send him any request (and it be shared with APAC) for looking into specific mass marking issues.

John Ogan: explained the NWPPC refers to the APR report in each of its funding actions for artificial production to be sure new actions are consistent with the APR policies. John believes the APR policies apply to any federal funding for hatcheries. NWPPC?s interactions with Congress on hatchery funding is based on APR policies. The same applies to the old reimbursable programs, like Lower Snake River Compensation Program.

Trent Stickell: wanted clarification on whether APAC is for only federally funded hatcheries, or all hatcheries. Bruce Suzumoto. stated the review will be for all facilities, not just federally funded. This answer satisfied Trent?s concern.

John Ogan: gave a background on the ongoing U.S. v Oregon. NWPPC is not discouraging the parties to US v Oregon to pursue this forum. The parties are currently negotiating agreements, balancing US v Oregon and ESA. If any APAC members have concerns about APAC activities and US v Oregon, they should be documented specifically and submitted to John for review and resolution, rather than encumbering APAC activities as unresolved issues.

John Ogan: requested the double-headed arrows between processes include US v Oregon; that US v Oregon members take APAC information back into US v Oregon. Both efforts should be seen as mutually beneficial.

Trent Stickell: mentioned there are other forums besides US v Oregon that must be interactive with APAC, including The Oregon Plan.

In response to a question by Bill Bakke, John Ogan clarified that any production agreements coming out of US v Oregon that require BPA funding will come through NWPPC and will be reviewed relative to APR policies. NWPPC members are also likely to influence such funding needs even if they don?t come directly through the Council to be sure actions are consistent with the Council?s F&W Program. Council will likely review any future CRFMP for consistency with sub-basin plans and APR policies.

John Ogan: said he will be available as a resource to APAC members to help answer questions and provide input.

Rob Jones: discussed HGMPs and clarified ESA decisions on hatcheries in the basin. New tools are now available to comply with ESA, besides normal section 10 permits and section 7 consultations. Rob handed out a May 23, 2001 letter from NMFS to BPA to clarify ESA issues and HGMPs specifically (attached).

Key points that Rob Jones emphasized: 1) the ESA processes are driven by the hatchery operators? needs to get take coverage per the ESA, 2) there are options for ESA and the new option is the 4(d) Rule that involves the submission of an HGMP, 3) Limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule applies to artificial production, 4) there is also a separate Tribal Rule, 5) the 4(d) Rule does not apply to endangered species, only threatened species, and does not apply to Snake basin salmon, 6) HGMP decisions under the 4(d) Rule are made in the region, 7) the FCRPS Biological Opinion offers funding for HGMPs, 8) NMFS has received a number of HGMPs, but they are still early in the NMFS review process.

Doug Dompier: asked if NMFS were developing HGMPs for the Mitchell Act facilities. Rob Jones responded that such HGMPs would be developed by hatchery operators and processed through NMFS.

Tom Backman: encouraged APAC members to review the LSRCP proposal for developing HGMPs that was submitted by USFWS. This can be viewed on the CBFWA web site as a Mountain Snake project.

Lee Hillwig: confirmed that a resident fish version of the HGMP exists to address USFWS ESA processes.

Doug Dompier: asked who is funding Mitchell Act hatchery HGMPs. Rob Jones responded that states and NMFS are preparing these HGMPs via Mitchell Act funding.

Bruce Suzumoto: stated that HGMPs appeared to be better formats for collecting needed hatchery information compared to Section 10 permits and section 7 consultations. Bruce also concerned that NMFS processes are not explicitly recognizing APAC and NWPPC processes. Rob Jones stated that NMFS is committed to full coordination.

John Ogan: mentioned that from discussions with BPA and NMFS, he expects the Hydro BiOp Implementation Plan will explicitly integrate activities of APAC and APR policies.

Lynn Palensky: gave an overview of sub-basin planning. Don?t know yet how this will finally all fit together ? coordination between processes. Current F&W Program is a hierarchical and nested approach. More emphasis is being put on project review rather than annual project proposal. Sub-basin plan development will go through 2005.

Sub-basin summaries are looking at current situations whereas sub-basin plans will look to the future.

Steve Smith: stated that sub-basin planning charts need to explicitly demonstrate the input of artificial propagation activities such as the HGMPs and upcoming Hatchery Purpose Review. This is critical to ensuring that sub-basin planning include the mandates for artificial production at the basin level and well as the sub-basin level. This is important to address Tom Backman?s earlier concerns, particularly at the goals and objectives level of planning.

Lynn Palensky: emphasized the need to set up groups or processes to integrate APAC work with sub-basin planning groups.

John Ogan: mentioned that high-level discussions are ongoing between NWPPC, BPA, and NMFS on integration of ESA recovery planning and sub-basin planning. Rob Jones mentioned that NMFS is very concerned that planning not stop at a level of de-listing goals, per ESA, but go higher to meet broader fishery objectives.

Bill Bakke: expressed concerns about the standards, goals and objectives for addressing natural populations in the provincial and sub-basin plans. Lynn Palensky replied that this would come from APAC and TRT via ESA. NMFS is limited to ESA-listed species and only to the de-listing level. Bob Foster encouraged Bill to view the sub-basin summaries for addressing natural population objectives.

Bruce Suzumoto: introduced the overall work plan and budget for APAC activities. NWPPC approved the APAC work in concept. Upcoming tasks include finalizing a template for the Hatchery Purpose Review. The template will undergo scientific review. The actual work is scheduled to begin in January 2002. The budget includes funds for fish managers to participate. Bruce will assemble a team of individuals to perform the review. The review steps were presented by Bruce on a chart that was included in the meeting packet. The process leads to a list of projects to improve hatchery operations and information to input to sub-basin planning. All work needs to be completed by the end of 2002.

The budget for the review is $869,000 (+/- 25%) that has been allocated by province.

Doug Dompier: asked who the independent contractors would be. Bruce Suzumoto replied that NWPPC would be seeking recommendations from APAC.

Lee Hillwig: expressed concerns about the work from the APAC review being loaded on top of ESA BiOp workload.

Keith Underwood: expressed concerns that the APAC review will finish up after some of the sub-basin plans are completed. There is a need to keep working to ensure integration of the efforts. One or the other schedules need to change.**

Lee Hillwig: wanted to know to what funding process the review would be submitted. The funding has not been given final approval. Final budget approval needs to occur well before December to get fish managers on board on schedule.

Doug Dompier: wanted to be sure that hatchery benefits are considered along with risks.

Bill Bakke: wanted to be sure needed research and M&E are considered in the review.

The review will be conducted on about 120-140 programs.

Bob Foster: wanted to be sure the template covers adult utilization in addition to adult returns to cover the benefits of hatcheries ? the concern expressed earlier by Doug Dompier.

Trent Stickell: indicated that the 120 may be 360 if this review is by sub-basin, by species. APAC needs to consider this.

Brian Allee: raised an issue as to what extent this review will integrate the performance standards and indicators.

Doug Dompier: requested the NWPPC staff do a trial application of the performance standards and indicators to 2 hatcheries to see if they work. Trent Stickell whole-heartedly supported Doug?s idea.

Bruce Suzumoto: mentioned that the Purpose Review Template will be applied on a trial basis prior to full application.

Steve Smith: reminded people that the purpose review is not a surrogate for good completed HGMPs. The HGMPs are the source of implementation of performance standards and indicators.

Keith Underwood: wanted to know if cost-benefit analyses would be undertaken for hatchery improvements. Doug Dompier warned about using cost-benefit analysis rather than cost-effectiveness analysis.

Steve Smith: indicated that the purpose review will provide valuable information on the extent of hatchery reform that has occurred.

Bob Foster: was concerned about how NWPPC would deal with disagreements that should arise from the hatchery review. How will different sets of information be forwarded to NWPPC - via majority and minority reports? Brian Allee mentioned that such disagreements would arise in sub-basin planning too. Plans will not be adopted until there is agreement. Funds will not be allocated to sub-basins without agreement.

Ian Fleming: suggested that the reports include a list of each programs benefits and problems. Trent Stickell stated that HGMPs are to include risk/benefit assessments.

Bruce Suzumoto: presented a list of more detailed questions that might be included in the template. In response to a question from Lee Hillwig, Bruce stated that an APAC work group would help develop the template.

Doug Dompier: stated that the review should include why the hatcheries were started, how they have been changed, and do they need further change.

Bruce Suzumoto introduced the need for basin-wide planning in addition to sub-basin planning. Bruce questioned whether the entire mix and timing of anadromous fish is what is best for the region. Bruce explored what vision we should share for the basin overall. There are different ways of viewing this vision ? based on historical runs, based on what the habitat and hatcheries can provide, based on what the various user-groups desire. What is the strategic vision for the basin overall??

Doug Dompier and Bruce Suzumoto: discussed the level at which such a vision should be addressed ? basin-wide, by province, upper river, lower river? Bruce wants APAC to address an overall strategic vision for the basin, apart from good sub-basin planning.

Doug Dompier: warned about altering the basin?s fish to meet man?s expectations and desire rather than putting the fish back into their natural habitat. He warned that the region not repeat the mistakes in fish management and hatchery usage of the past that we are currently correcting.

Lee Hillwig: suggested we first add up the runs likely from sub-basin planning and then adjust the overall result if necessary to meet other regional goals. Trent Stickell suggested we build from the ground up (sub-basins) rather than from the top down.

A discussion ensued about an iterative planning process between sub-basin plans from the ground up and a basin-wide plan, top-down. Steve Smith stated that some basin-wide guidance could be provided to sub-basin planners to direct any flexibility that might exist within the sub-basin plans.

Ian Fleming: was concerned about such basin-wide planning affecting the estuary and other common habitats.

For the next meeting, Bruce Suzumoto wanted to form some work groups. One group would help develop the template for the hatchery review. Two other groups would address goals and objectives for anadromous fish and resident fish. This could be done in a 2-day meeting in about 3 weeks. The work groups would work on their assignments and then report back to the overall APAC.

The meeting will likely be September 6-7, starting at 9am on the 6^th; go ? day on the 7^th. The CBFWA members meeting is on the 5^th. Meeting likely to be at the airport Embassy Suites.

Kaitlin Lovell, Trout Unlimited: expressed concern about the HGMP process being a self-evaluation of hatcheries and not being objective. Steve Smith mentioned that NMFS? process has HGMPs being reviewed by the public before NMFS makes a decision. Also the Council will be hosting performance reviews of hatcheries relative to their performance standards and indicators. This process will also be in the public.

Let Dan Warren know if you want to be on another committee for the next meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 3:45 pm.

** action items

Attendance

Others attending meeting:

John Ogan, Northwest Power Planning Council
Lynn Palensky, Northwest Power Planning Council
Patty O?Toole, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
Katlin Lovell, Trout Unlimited
Kristin Stickell, Public

^ top