home
April 17, 2003 minutes of the Artificial Production Advisory Committee
Agenda items
- General Introduction
- Members Introduction
- Administrative Issues and Questions
- APRE/Draft HGMP Project overview and status
- Overview of Programs covered (Anadromous/Resident)
- Example of a specific program/ uses of reports
- Final reports
- APRE Implementation
- Comments / New Steps / APRE / HGMP / Discussion
- Next Meeting Time and Place / Final Wrap up/ Other
- Public Comment
The presentation content was from the meeting packet (2.2mb PDF).
Bruce Suzumoto: Bruce reviewed the history of the Artificial Production Review (see handout). The Artificial Production Review and Evaluation is Phase I arising from the earlier APR report. First step is a review of hatchery purposes relative to their legal underpinnings. This step is being followed by a review of benefits and risks of each hatchery. The APRE is developing a comprehensive database to be used by various processes in the region. APRE results and conclusions will feed into the Phase II and Phase III parts of the HGMP Process.
Since last APAC meeting, have completed the first round of provincial workshops; first round of meetings with hatchery operators (over 300 anadromous and resident fish programs) to gather hatchery specific data. Database system will be available to all soon. This database will produce the Phase I HGMPs.
Yesterday finished the first of the round 2 workshops ? Columbia Gorge. The meeting went well.
Doug Dompier: Who attended yesterday's Gorge workshop? Bruce indicated that the actual operators of the programs were invited, but no the CRITFC. Warm Springs Tribe attended.
Bruce: Next step is to deliver draft reports to the program operators. Then will have provincial and basin reports. Co-managers will have opportunity to review draft reports ? comments will be attached in the report. Want reports done by end of July. There will be about 300 draft Phase I HGMPs from this effort in addition to the reports of recommendations.
Doug: Senator Gorton is no longer in the Senate. Where does the final report go? Bruce thinks the report will go to the PNW delegation.
Dan Warren: Reviewed the APRE schedule in detail. See handout for details. The schedule was revised on April 16th.
Doug: Requested that CRITFC be added to mailing list to receive various documents.
ACTION: Bruce said that CRITFC will be added to the mailing list and receive reports.
Bruce: Individual hatchery program reports will reside on the web with the database. Individual provincial and the basin reports will be stand-alone documents.
Lars Mobrand: Lars gave a review of where his APRE effort is at this point. A key product is a summary of benefits and risks of each hatchery program. Another key product will be a detailed description of each program. This will allow evaluation of how each program is operating to meet program objectives and effects on other fish stocks. Guidelines from IHOT and Puget Sound were used to construct a set of guidelines to evaluate how well hatchery programs are operating to meet objectives and risks to other stocks. No hatchery program is free of risks. This will produce a profile of each program for benefits and risks.
Doug: Interested in knowing if recommendations will be made on how to improve hatchery programs? Lars responded that actions to improve programs can be drawn from the recommendations. Doug not aware that co-managers in US v Oregon have been asked to decide how programs should operate in the future.
Bruce: Most of the work Doug raised is to be done in the Phase II and Phase III HGMP process.
Doug: Concerned that a recommendation will be to mark all hatchery fish and harvest only on those hatchery fish. Tribes don't believe this should be a recommendation. Concerned that Norm Dicks has required marking all hatchery fish. If the APRE reports address the marking of hatchery fish, there will be problems. ?Remember that one man's risk is another man's benefit?.
Bob Foster: APRE is doing a set up for the Phase II and Phase III HGMP process. This is where these policy issues will be addressed and in linkages to subbasin planning.
Bruce: Phase II and III HGMP process will work with subbasin planners, US v Oregon, TRT, etc.
Lars: Our assignment is to look at current programs without passing judgment on whether the risks and benefits are appropriate or not.
Doug: Concerned whether policy people are involved in addition to technical people? Lars stated that the meetings so far have involved only the exchange of technical information. Each party is expected to share information with policy and other technical information.
Ed Larson: Interested in how APRE affects Tribal treaty rights. Bruce responded that APRE will not address how programs should or should not address treaty rights. APRE does not address how fish should be harvested.
Bruce: Explained that IHOT served to address issues internal to the hatchery, but did not address guidelines and policies of how the hatchery program effects issues outside of the hatchery.
Lars: Proceeded to show a summary data report on Skamania Steelhead in the Klickitat River as examples of an APRE Report and HGMP Report. The database is password protected to prevent others from changing the data. APRE Report includes a status review of stocks in the subbasin and the goals for other stocks affected by the steelhead. The next report section is a description of the steelhead hatchery program. The third section of the report identifies guidelines for risks and benefits that are met or are not met. The report will not recommend changes that need to be made to improve benefits or reduce risks, or whether the risks and benefits are appropriate.
Doug: Sought clarification about the definition of a ?segregated? program. Doug questioned how the Klickitat steelhead program could be labeled as a segregated program. Doug concerned that this is not a segregated program in practice.
John Arterburn: Wants to get a copy of Lars? report.
ACTION: Mail out hardcopies of Lars? presentation to those on the phone.
Lars: Does not want to duplicate other databases like Streamnet and Fish Passage Center.
Bruce: Now want to address the linkages to the HGMP process being coordinated by NMFS.
Rick Applegate: Has been retained by NMFS and BPA to oversee the HGMP process. Challenge is to link fragmented processes into a productive outcome. HGMP process is designed to implement an action item in the FCRPS Biological Opinion. The APRE Phase I process is aggregating a lot of data of high value to the HGMP process. Documents from the APRE process will be taken into the HGMP process. Recommendations from APRE process will be adopted into the HGMP process or noted where not used. Need to secure a substantial amount of funding. Processes must deliver rational products through rational processes. There are a variety of legal issues that must be accounted for with US v Oregon being a dominant one. HGMPs will need to reflect outcomes of US v Oregon. HGMPs must pass ESA muster and serve US v Oregon needs. Must be sure there are no disconnects. There will not be an effort to circumvent or avoid US v Oregon process which is now looking to develop a new Columbia River Fish Management Plan. May want to seek technical advice from TRT at any point. HGMP process must also integrate with subbasin planning. All of these processes will be on their own schedules, but will exchange information whenever productive. Iterative exchanges between subbasin planning and HGMP process. Subbasin planning primarily addressing habitat issues. Phase I of the HGMP process is being undertaken by Lars? work. Appears to be lots of critical data gaps. Knowing what critical data you have and don't have is a key finding. Phase II of the HGMP process will engage fishery co-managers and others to get ESA approval for hatchery programs. Phase III of the process will review the aggregate of hatchery programs at the ESU level. NMFS wants approvable HGMPs by this fall for ESA purposes. Also want to link approved HGMPs to the next Provincial Review process for funding of reforms. The carrot in this process is getting the funding to implement the reforms.
Doug: If the HGMP process is going to slip, should the APRE process also slip? Rick indicated that HGMP process should not slip that much.
Rick: No process in the Columbia Basin trumps another. Need to account for ESA, US v Oregon, and the Council process.
Steve Smith: How or when does US v Oregon fit into Phase II and III plans? Rick indicated that the new Judge has asked for a new Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP) by years end. Iterations will occur regularly between US v Oregon and development of Phase II and III HGMPs. The sequencing between a new CRFMP and Phase III HGMPs is not yet determined. Doug sees progress in development of new CRFMP.
Bruce: At end of APRE, Council will be producing an issue paper on the goals and objectives of hatcheries in the basin. Need to review changes in conservation management and the economics of harvest. Also looking for funding other than just BPA for hatchery reforms.
Dan: Looking to have another APAC meeting in early June.
Bruce: Very pleased with progress of work.
Bob Foster: People working on the database are committed to maintaining the database. Bruce indicated that this will be a critical element for future consideration. Doug suggested using Streamnet.
Meeting adjourned at 12:13pm.
These minutes are an accurate and complete summary of the matters discussed and conclusions reached at the Artificial Production Workshop Advisory Committee Meeting held on April 17, 2003.