Artificial Production Advisory Committee
September 6-7, 2001 Minutes
| September 19, 2001 Northwest Power Planning Council, Artificial Production Advisory
Committee Agenda Items-
Ed Larson, Nez Perce Tribe and Sue Ireland, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho participated by telephone. Bruce Suzumoto opened the meeting at 9:12 am, September 6, 2001. Bill Bakke thought the minutes were getting more detailed but would still like more detail. Doug Dompier stated that he and John Ogan are communicating per last weeks issues. Bruce Suzumoto indicated that the schedule for the first few sub-basin plans might be aggressive and stressed that APAC products will fit into the sub-basin schedule. Keith Underwood expressed concerns that entities have too much work to get both sub-basin plans done and APAC products done. Brian thought that the two processes should be allowed to move independently as there is too much work to do. Lee Hillwig also expressed concerns about sequencing the schedule due to workload. Bruce Suzumoto stated the APAC work needs to feed into the sub-basin planning. Bob Foster announced he will be working soon for NMFS in its Olympia office and representing NMFS at APAC. Bruce Suzumoto presented an overview of the APAC work plan with a final APAC plan and budget to the Council in December 2001. The APAC review will take place from January through July 2002 with a draft evaluations report due at that time. Lee Hillwig expressed concern about how the APAC work fits with what's being done in HGMPs. He expressed concern about duplication of effort or the two processes resulting in different outcomes. Bruce Suzumoto stated that information from completed HGMPs would provide input to the APAC process. He also expects the APAC report to help focus on development of HGMPs. The whole group had a lengthy discussion about HGMPs and how they are completed and will evolve through time. They are a living document and will be changed as new information becomes available and objectives change. Doug Dompier stressed the need to stick with a hatchery format or reform will not happen. Doug Dompier expressed concerns about who the independent contractors would be and how they might relate to "independent scientists". In response to a question by Bill Bakke, Bruce Suzumoto explained that these contractors will be lined up over the next 3 months. After July 2002, the draft APAC reports will undergo APAC, public, and scientific review with a final product completed in December 2002. Bruce Suzumoto proceeded with an explanation of the review questions. Lee indicated USFWS has the 3A's ? Appropriateness, Alignment, and Accountability. Bob Foster stressed the need to consider tribal rights in more than US v OR as 9 tribes are not party to that process. Doug Dompier stressed the need to refer to hatchery impacts as having positive effects as well as the negative effects. Brian Zimmerman wanted to know how the evaluation questions would relate to the Performance Standards and Indicators and whether the Council is on to a whole new set of questions other than the Performance Standards and Indicators (PSI). Keith Underwood indicated his frustration that APAC is not answering needed questions ? nothing new is being done. Bruce Suzumoto moved on to the APAC evaluations and deliverables. Bob Foster wanted the benefits of hatcheries stressed. Bruce Suzumoto responded for Bill Bakke that the costs of hatchery programs and a comparison to benefits would be reported. Brian Allee summarized how all the processes can be viewed as integrating. Bruce Suzumoto proceeded to explain the uses of the Evaluation and then how it relates to other processes ongoing in the basin. Bruce Suzumoto proceeded into a presentation on what the overall planning of artificial production should be for the basin. Planning should proceed at the basin level in addition to the sub-basin level. Break Bruce Suzumoto led a discussion of what the evaluation template should contain. He used an overhead that was included in the meeting packet. Bill Bakke thought that a question needed to be asked about the legal mandate being met. Doug Dompier questions, has the legal mandate changed. Brian Allee said that questions in the PSI address legal standards. Lee Hillwig added that looking into conflicts between mandates would be necessary. Ron Peters and Lee Hillwig both emphasized the need to include tribal cultural values in the mandates. Brian Allee continued to quote from the PSI in the APR Report (99-15) ? stressing the point that we have addressed the needed information already in the standards. Doug Dompier stressed the need for the contractors to get all the needed information from all parties. Bob Foster stated that the contractors should have their draft reports reviewed by all parties so they don't just obtain input from the owner/operator of a hatchery program. Bill Bakke wanted both fish health and the Clean Water Act needs to be considered in the review. Neil Ward indicated that the anadromous outline should serve the resident fish reports with some changes in a few terms. Tom Scribner indicated that smolt survival during migration should be considered. Steve Smith wanted to know how much detail everyone thinks this review should gain before it overloads or duplicates the other more detailed processes. Several APAC members agreed that it was getting too detailed. Brian Zimmerman felt that the detail is needed to get to good recommendations. Brian Allee stressed that the APAC review is a 2-step process ? a purpose review first to be followed up by more detailed review in September of 2002 where the detail is needed. Keith Underwood felt the review needed to measure the success of a program by measuring fish in the creel. Needs to link the hatchery and its product to the fishing experience and success. It needs to be able to distinguish where a problem might exist ? in the hatchery, with the hatchery product, or in the environment to which the product is placed. Concerning legal requirements, the group added FERC license requirements (including settlements), Tribal Treaty rights, trust responsibilities, and executive orders. Also Clean Water Act, state laws, and Corps Section 10 permits need to be considered. Bruce Suzumoto introduced the subject of impacts of a program on other fish. Bruce indicated the need to coordinate with the harvest managers as Steve Smith indicated that a problem still exists in mixed-stock harvests that pursue hatchery fish. Doug Dompier expressed concern that weak stocks were being used to justify restricting mixed stock harvest. The group added Performance standards #8 and #1 as relevant to impacts to other fish. Ed Larson expressed the need to change harvest management if we are to restore the anadromous fish ecosystem. Ed hopes that APAC will address the harvest issues as they relate to hatchery propagation. Doug Dompier expressed concerns that the governors are seeking mass mutilation of hatchery fish to support selective fisheries and therefore hatchery reform will not occur. Lunch A decision was made not to split into the 3-separtate workgroups for the afternoon session, but stay together in one group. A question was asked as to why reforms had not taken place? Doug Dompier answered no penalty. Lee Hillwig answered that there has not been evaluations of hatcheries that were a guide for reform. Others identified that IHOT has yet to be implemented because the technical review did not answer the need for new policies. There was discussion by Lee Hillwig and Doug Dompier on whether other people need to be at the APAC table for a policy level review. Bruce Suzumoto stated that the reform requires both policy and technical issues. Brian Allee agreed with Doug Dompier that a big issue is harvest policy as it relates to how hatcheries are operated. Harvest policy people need to be involved if reform of hatcheries is to be most successful. Steve Smith agreed that there are two primary hatchery/harvest strategies in the basin and that it may be too soon to know which strategy is correct. Should the Council pursue an approach that implements both strategies on an experimental basis until sufficient hatchery effectiveness information exists and selective harvest information exists to settle on a single basin wide hatchery/harvest strategy? BPA's EIS is also asking the question about apparent conflicting policies and the effects of such conflicts on meeting their mission and effects on their budget. Bruce Suzumoto indicated that APAC is the only forum in the basin that is currently looking at artificial production on a basin wide scale and must address these issues. Guy Dodson Sr. indicated that there must be a negotiated agreement to proceed on these policy issues. Doug Dompier wants the Council to host a gathering of policy people to address how to manage the hatcheries. Its time for the Council members to talk to the policy leaders of the agencies and tribes and not just the technical people. Council operates best by addressing the big policy issues like it did in the past. Steve Smith suggested that a goal of APAC would be to not try to resolve the disagreement on the two big hatchery/harvest strategies, but to agree to disagree and move forward on how the hatcheries can be made consistent with future sub-basin plans and to gather as much information as fast as possible in hatcheries and harvest to help resolve the major policy disagreement. **APAC would like NMFS to clarify its BiOp RPA on the marking of spring Chinook. Does the RPA call for marking all hatchery spring Chinook or marking those destined for potential harvest? Bruce Suzumoto will pursue this clarification with Larry Rutter before the next meeting. Bruce Suzumoto used flip charts to record input on the key evaluation questions. These charts should be viewed for this input (see Attachment). Brian Zimmerman expressed concern about the review being a programmatic evaluation or a technical evaluation. Bruce Suzumoto suggested it is both. Brian Allee and Ed Larson stated that the IEAB should be requested to investigate the economic benefits of hatcheries ? not cost-effectiveness or cost/benefit, but cash flow or economic activity associated with the hatchery product. Steve Smith suggested that the outcome of the purpose review could be some hatchery programs getting a green light to IHOT-based investments, ESA reforms, and other funding actions. Other hatchery programs might be identified as needing to await completion of sub-basin planning before investing new funds. And finally other programs could be problematic and/or controversial in their purpose or success and be put to a more detailed review process ? not ready for reform investment until the issues are resolved. Again, considerable information was recorded on flip charts by Bruce Suzumoto. (See Attachment) Break Bruce Suzumoto started the afternoon session by asking where the raw information for the APAC evaluation review might be gathered. This information was recorded on several flip charts (Attached). Bruce Suzumoto then asked who in APAC could help in the review. Also Bruce asked for suggested names for the independent contractors. These names were recorded on flip charts. Doug Dompier suggested hiring one consulting firm to supply all of the needed personnel. Doug is concerned about the independence of anybody. Who are they and where are they? Dan Warren suggested looking for a Project Manager /data manager to add to the team for gathering and organizing the information. Tom Rogers stated that agency and tribal people will be required to locate and provide the information. Bob Foster suggested Montgomery/Watson. Brian Allee suggested costing out several options: several independent specialists, and a large firm. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Lee Hillwig suggested funding agencies and tribes to do the work as part of sub-basin planning. Doug Dompier stressed the need for the Council to set the vision for hatcheries in the basin. Steve suggested the policies and principles in the APR report. Doug was more interested in the vision of the Council in how to apply these policies and principles. Tom Scribner stated that if the Council could do one thing it would be to articulate its vision on this hatchery and harvest issue ? and broader goals. Keith Underwood is concerned about a top down approach to fish management rather than relying on the sub-basin, bottom up approach. He expressed that there may be too much overload on the APAC to try an in depth basin strategy. Thinks we should focus on a "sum of the parts" approach vs. an engineered approach at the big scale. The group discussed ways of balancing top down and bottom up. Bruce Suzumoto stated that the APAC could develop a basic model that allows analysis of alternative basin production scenarios. Brian Allee suggested top down thinking applied to resident fish at the Province level. Bruce suggested provincial goals and objectives for resident fish and a model at the provincial level. Meeting was adjourned at 3:59pm. Meeting will re-convene Friday September 7, 2001.
FRIDAY SESSION Meeting was opened at 8:05 am by Bruce Suzumoto. Bruce Suzumoto continued his polling of potential names for contractors to do the review and evaluation. This information was recorded by Bruce on the flip charts. (see Attachment) Keith Underwood proposed that criteria for selection of contractors were more important than actual names. Brian Zimmerman suggested different people and backgrounds for the first phase of the review as compared to the second phase. Suggested that even legal backgrounds might be appropriate for the first phase. Doug Dompier suggested Lewis & Clark Law School personnel and students. Ian Fleming suggested one or more people to summarize the information and one or more to analyze the information. Steve Smith suggested a blend of local and distant personnel across the required skills to get a blend of backgrounds. As a team this might produce the best product. Keith Underwood insisted that some of the people be from outside the region. Ian Fleming suggested tying in with NSF panel looking at Atlantic salmon issues. Lee Hillwig suggested expertise in fish health and physiology in addition to basic fish culture experience. Steve Smith suggested a green, yellow, and red light outcome of the hatchery review. Green light programs would be available for immediate funding, yellow light would need to await completion in sub-basin planning, and a red light would send a program to a more detailed review. Ian Fleming - Commented on needing to look at the "scheme of hatcheries" in the basin and leave the politics out. Doug Dompier expressed concern about giving the politicians too much latitude with the outcome of the hatchery review. Bob Foster suggested that sub-basin planning will set the local goals and objectives for use of hatcheries. Lee Hillwig suggested the APAC make suggestions on how to improve a program if it shows up to be a problem. Bruce Suzumoto agreed that it's both ? identifying if problems exist and what to do to improve the program. Tom Rogers expressed concern about APAC micro-managing individual hatcheries. Bruce Suzumoto wanted to start a discussion about the big basin-wide picture ? future of salmon and salmon economics. Ian Fleming felt we needed the basic information first before entertaining the big picture and how to shape it. Keith Underwood stressed the need to stick with a bottom up approach from the sub-basins. Steve Smith suggested we needed a basic discussion of the big picture so that the review process collects the right basic hatchery information for a later detailed big-picture review. Brian Zimmerman expressed concerns about APAC analyzing major production policy issues with the membership of APAC. Such effort needs higher-level policy people. Bruce Suzumoto suggested APAC members be conduits to their policy people for these issues or bring them to APAC for such discussions. Keith Underwood is concerned that going into the big picture policy arena, might lead to fishery co-managers killing the APAC process before it gets started. Lee Hillwig was concerned that if hatchery planning is only based on sub-basin planning, it won't consider the broader regional and international implications. FWS can't participate if the process is only sub-basin based per policy issues. Steve Smith suggested APAC consensus on Phase I and Phase II of the review, but problems arise on the big picture policy discussions. Perhaps everyone can agree to collect the information in the review that can then be used later by APAC or US v OR, or some other gathering of managers to review the big picture policy issues. But collect the information now. Break Bruce Suzumoto suggested Council staff prepare the review templates and brief the Council. Doug Dompier wanted Council talking to fishery agency and tribal leadership before showing them draft templates for the review? Bob Foster thought the Council needed to be briefed ASAP or we will miss too much time. Doug was comfortable with a briefing of the Council, but not specific approval of the templates without prior OK by APAC and policy level briefings. Bruce Suzumoto offered for APAC members to assist him in a Council briefing. Next Council meeting is September 26-27 in Spokane. Bruce Suzumoto is thinking the next meeting of the anadromous sub-APAC on October 10th in Portland. Keith Underwood said the resident fish people are meeting in Lewiston on October16th and 17th. Will look for a resident fish sub-APAC meeting on the 15th in Lewiston. Brian Allee returned from a meeting at BPA on funding HGMPs. There is lack of clarity from NMFS BiOP on HGMP's There are HGMPs and HGMP+s. Sarah McNary requested that APAC help clarify. Brian stated that the HGMP template was included in the APR report. BiOp came out later and mentioned the HGMP+. Want APAC to clarify. Lee stated that NMFS/FWS has the action agencies providing HGMPs instead of biological assessments. But the HGMP+ was to cover hatchery issues above the jeopardy standard to cover recovery as well. These are dynamic documents that will change as programs to change to meet future needs. The HGMP+ was to cover not just existing hatchery operations, but reformed or expanded operations to help where necessary in recovery. Doug Dompier demanded that APAC not get involved in this issue. Just have the Council put in their program that BPA fund HGMPs and get past this muddling. Steve Smith requested that NMFS and USFWS who are meeting on Monday on this issue, prepare a 1 page written explanation. Bob Foster suggested that NMFS and USFWS should deal with this issue. Lee Hillwig clarified that the issue isn't the HGMP template ? it's the same as the HGMP+. The issue is that NMFS and USFWS are requiring BPA through the BiOp to prepare HGMPs on more than just those actions to prevent jeopardy from a hatchery, but to include in the HGMPs actions at hatcheries that improve viability of listed populations to help the hydro system get to "no jeopardy" through off-site mitigation. Doug Dompier wanted to be sure that the right and knowledgeable people from NMFS give any presentation to APAC on this HGMP people. Steve Smith requested that he give a presentation on the Safety-Net Propagation Program at the next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 am. These minutes are an accurate and complete summary of the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the Artificial Production Advisory Committee meeting held on September 6, 2001 and September 7, 2001. Signed by |