| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, November 9, 1998
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
The Production Review Committee discussed what information is needed
for a "definitive list" of hatcheries in the basin. Consultant
Bob Tuck said he would have a draft of the historical overview (Section II
of the report) by November 25, and the committee pondered whether it could
have some policy recommendations to offer by early May. The voluminous
IHOT summaries will be out any day now, and plans are under way for a
January 19-21 workshop to get down to the nitty-gritty on policy..
· COMMITTEE BUSINESS -- Committee chairman John Marsh reported that
staffer Cameron Oster has put together a list of hatcheries in the basin.
We want to have a definitive list of the hatcheries that are addressed in
the Artificial Production Review, he said. Committee members suggested
several additional areas of information for the list: identify hatcheries
that are strictly for mitigation; identify the source of funding; identify
hatcheries that have broodstock programs; indicate which are working with
wild stocks; and indicate whether coho are late or early run. Information
on stocks may be difficult to come by, Marsh indicated. Randy Fisher of
the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission suggested the hatchery
information be mapped using the Geographic Information System (GIS).
Another question, he said, would be: "where are the fish being
dumped?" Fisher offered to talk to the GIS staff at PSMFC and begin
the mapping. Marsh reported that the Science Review Team (SRT) is
"very concerned" about Duane Neitzel's database because they do
not know where the data came from and cannot judge its quality. Marsh
indicated he would work with the StreamNet staff to get the database in
good shape.
· TUCK GIVES AN UPDATE ON THE HISTORICAL OVERVIEW -- Consultant Bob
Tuck reported he would wrap up all of his work on Section II of the
Artificial Production Review report by November 25. He said he was
drafting the anadromous fish portion and would be gathering additional
information for the resident fish portion. The resident fish folks are
wondering how they will be included in the review, Marsh said. We have
hired Robert Walker to address resident fish concerns, he reported. We
will try to incorporate resident fish into the workshop, and we are
looking at whether the resident fish portion of the production review
report will be on a different track than the anadromous fish portion,
Marsh said. The SRT has been accused of being "anadrocentric,"
and they admit that is true, but say that their report will be applicable
to resident fish too, he said. Marsh also reported that there would not be
a letter from the Council to the U.S. v. Oregon parties to ask about
coordinating efforts. At this point we are not prepared to send a letter
saying "this is our role, and this is yours," he said.
· GETTING CLEAR ON THE PRC SCHEDULE AND PROCESS -- The SRT's report
will be out at the end of November, according to Marsh, and the Artificial
Production Review's report to Congress is now set for the end of June.
There are concerns about how useful that timing would be for the
Independent Scientific Review Panel's review of projects and the
Congressional budget deliberations for fiscal year 2000, he added. If we
have a "state-of-the-science" report by the end of the month and
a workshop in mid-January, we might have something to offer by early May,
Marsh said. If we are going to have policies, there would have to be a
process leading up to them that includes policy-level people, Lee Hillwig
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pointed out. If the Council is going
to move quickly to send policy recommendations to Congress, we have to be
very careful to give people the opportunity to interact, Stephen Smith of
the National Marine Fisheries Service said. Marsh said he would put
together a proposed work plan and schedule. What is the ultimate decision?
asked Tim Stearns of Save Our Wild Salmon. It's a report and a statement
of how you apply the policy, Marsh responded. The policy could be applied
through budgets, legislation, or legal agreements, he said. It could also
be applied via Congressional appropriations language, Hillwig said. Smith
suggested that appropriations language is not a desirable outcome, since
it is not based on consensus.
· SUMMARIES IHOT OFF THE PRESS -- There were "some glitches"
in the earlier draft of the IHOT summaries, and those are being corrected,
according to consultant Don Sampson. He said he would incorporate
committee members' comments into the final draft and get the corrected
summaries to the Council by Thursday. The summaries will be on our web
page, Marsh said, and a limited supply of hard copies will be available.
· A WORKSHOP IN THE WORKS --Marsh reported that an Artificial
Production Review workshop is scheduled for January 19-21 at the Portland
Airport Holiday Inn. The point of the workshop is to try to make a bridge
between the science and policy, he explained. I expect all of the PRC
members to attend, Marsh said. The workshop will be run by the
Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, and the method they use requires a
full three days of attendance, he stated. In addition to members of the
PRC, people who are involved in the Multi-Species Framework will be
invited to attend, Marsh continued, adding that he expects about 100
people to participate. The objective of the workshop is to develop a
document that contains an array of potential policies and alternative
policies the region needs to consider; it would also include the upsides
and downsides of the policies, Marsh explained. The document will be
something this group can use to come up with a final report, he said.
Please Note: This summary is based on detailed reports of the meetings
of the Production Review Committee. The reports are prepared by Resource
Writers Northwest and distributed by the Northwest Power Planning Council.
To request a copy, please call the Council at 1-800-452-5161.
^ top
|
|
home