Artificial Production Review Committee February 2, 1999 meeting

Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting

Tuesday, February 2, 1999

NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon

The Production Review Committee (PRC) worked its way through the "Artificial Production Policy Framework Proposal," which Jim Waldo's Facilitation Team prepared following the workshop on policy issues held January 19-20. After the document is revised to reflect the most recent comments, the PRC will recommend that the Northwest Power Planning Council release it for public review at its February 23-24 meeting.

SUMMARY

MINUTES

HANDOUTS

SUMMARY

THE FINAL DAY OF THE POLICY WORKSHOP
Committee chair John Marsh said the meeting would be the third day of the two-day Artificial Production Review workshop held in January. We have a draft document prepared as a result of the workshop, which we will review today, and then a small group will continue to work on the document for the next few weeks, he stated. Waldo explained his team worked with staff to meld "key policy directions" from the Council and policy issues brought up at the workshop into one document, the "NWPPC Artificial Production Policy Framework Proposal - Columbia Basin Hatcheries: A Program in Transition." The document provides a "policy framework" to "facilitate further regional discussion and agreement on artificial production policies and issues" and assist the Council in developing its policy recommendations to Congress, he said. Waldo also noted that the team prepared "genetics guidelines" at the request of workshop participants, and he distributed a handout showing the tasks the Science Review Team has agreed to address in revising its report, "Review of Salmonid Artificial Production in the Columbia River Basin," released late last year. Waldo explained the intent is to have a common set of policies for artificial production and then to decide what the objectives are in the sub-basins and what artificial production techniques should be applied. It is our hope the Council can say, here's the overall direction for the Columbia Basin, and here are the implementing steps and timeline to get them applied, he stated. At the workshop, it was clear many program managers know changes need to be made, but don't know how to get the resources to carry them out, according to Waldo. We need to talk about a transition program to get us down that road, and that will be part of what we say to Congress this spring, he said. · MARKING UP THE POLICY PROPOSAL -- The committee held a page-by-page discussion of the Policy Framework Proposal. Some members expressed concern about "negative language" in it and suggested taking a more positive and proactive approach. Bill Towey of the Kalispel Tribe warned against compartmentalizing resident fish in a separate section and called for an accurate description of the mix of species, habitats, and assemblages in the ecosystem. There were suggestions the document provide more "context" explaining the hatchery system and some disagreement over how Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements should be reflected. Stephen Smith of the National Marine Fisheries Service said the document needs to identify "the three 800-pound gorillas" driving artificial production issues: the Council's process, the ESA, and U.S.v. Oregon. Bill Bakke of the Native Fish Society called for a discussion of "critical uncertainties" to give Congress a realistic expectation of the outcome of the effort.

A DEBATE ON PREMISES AND HYPOTHESES
The group discussed hypotheses that underlie some of the policies, including "if hatchery operations are modified to mimic natural processes and stocks, higher survival rates will result." Participants said this would not apply to all hatcheries and that the statement needs testing. Pat Oshie of the Yakama Indian Nation said the question, can you modify a facility to produce a more natural fish, is already being tested in the basin and that the document should identify experiments that are under way. Tim Stearns of Save Our Wild Salmon raised the issue of "whether we should move to mimic natural processes if we are not also going to restore the watershed processes in the basin." Rather than working at a macro scale, he suggested setting up a handful of well-monitored experiments. I'm nervous about going back to a set of studies, with nothing getting done at the facilities, said Doug Dompier of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Don Campton of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said "integrating artificial production with the needs of naturally spawning populations" should be stated as a hypothesis and that there are various ways to accomplish that. He urged an emphasis on how the hatchery system can benefit wild fish, rather than on reducing impacts on them. The group discussed the strategy of isolating artificially produced stocks from wild stocks and agreed the document should indicate that opinions differ on the issue. A task force was set up to establish a uniform definition of the purposes of artificial production.

LOOKING AT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Brian Allee of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority said we need to have a common understanding of how to evaluate the performance of hatcheries and tell Congress how we are going to do it. Managers have to buy in to the approach for this to work, stated Waldo. He suggested the group try to come up with an initial set of performance indicators by May, and a task force was created to work with the SRT to get that job done.

THE PLAN TO TAKE IT TO THE COUNCIL
Marsh said a new version of the document, reflecting the comments, would be developed. A PRC panel will update the Council in February and recommend releasing the policy document for public review.
_________________________________________________________________________

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. Electronic versions of this and other review documents are available on the World Wide Web (http://www.nwcouncil.org/art_prod.htm).

MINUTES

PRODUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Monday, February 8, 1999
NWPPC Conference Room
Portland, Oregon

Next Meeting: March 8 in Portland.

HIGHLIGHTS

The Final Day of the Policy Workshop
Marking Up the Policy Proposal
A Debate on Premises and Hypotheses
Looking at Performance Standards

The Final Day of the Policy Workshop

Committee chairman John Marsh explained that the meeting would be the third day of the two-day Artificial Production Review workshop held in January. We have a draft document prepared as a result of the workshop, which we will review today, and then a small group will continue to work on the document for the next few weeks, he said. Council staffer Stacy Horton noted that the Congressional appropriations language asked the Council to "produce a formal recommendation for a coordinated policy for the future operation of federally funded hatcheries in the basin and how to obtain such a coordinated policy." It is important to keep the Congressional charge in mind, and the key piece may be obtaining "a coordinated policy," she observed.

Waldo explained his team worked with staff to meld into one document the "key policy directions" from the Council and the policy issues brought up at the workshop. It is titled "NWPPC Artificial Production Policy Framework Proposal - Columbia Basin Hatcheries: A Program in Transition" (Attachment 1).

The introduction to the document states that the proposal provides a "policy framework" to "facilitate further regional discussion and agreement on artificial production policies and issues, and to assist the Council in developing and refining its policy recommendations to Congress." It notes that the proposal is based on guidance from regional workshops, Council staff, and consultants, as well as "several important regional studies and reports," and that primary among these sources is the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) report, "Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries."

Waldo said that Section 2 deals with "Scientific Principles" and indicates these should be consistent with the Columbia River Basin Multi-Species Framework, and Section 3 covers some of the "Premises, Hypotheses, and Purposes" implicit in the initiatives discussed in the proposal. Section 4, "Artificial Production Performance Standards Policy and Coordination," Section 5, "Ecological Interactions Policy," Section 6, "Policies Regarding Genetics," and Section 7, "Fish Health," are based on the IHOT work, he stated. Waldo explained that Section 8 covers "Basin and Sub-basin Planning," noting that at the workshop, it became clear the region needs to talk about the application of principles and policies for artificial production in the context of sub-basins. This section of the document gets that issue on the table, he said.

Waldo indicated that workshop participants thought a set of "genetic guidelines" to further flesh out genetic policies should be developed, and as a result, the team prepared an outline titled "Genetics Guidelines" (Attachment 2). It was suggested that one of the key implementation requirements should be the participation of a geneticist in the sub-basin planning effort, he noted. The genetics guidelines document would be an attachment to the policy framework document, Waldo said.

SRT Report Revisions Under Study

At the workshop, there was a discussion about what would happen next with the Science Review Team's (SRT) report "Review of Salmonid Artificial Production in the Columbia River Basin" released late last year, Waldo reported. He distributed a handout (Attachment 3) listing the tasks the SRT has agreed to address with respect to that report, in response to the issues and concerns raised at the workshop. These include: n Adding appropriate materials addressing resident fish. n Adding a discussion comparing IHOT policies to the SRT report's recommendations. Workshop participants said IHOT ought to be a major reference, Waldo noted. n Including additional citations where appropriate. n Expanding the discussion of ecological interactions. n Addressing comments received on the report and making editorial changes.

The SRT appreciates the comments made on its initial report and believes there are additions to the report that are necessary, said SRT member Ernie Brannon. Until Task 3 (Performance Evaluation) of the Artificial Production Review is completed, the SRT report will not be put into final form, he noted. The SRT's report is based on a scientific perspective with respect to hatcheries - it's not a full report on Columbia River hatcheries, Brannon said. Will the final version get a review by this committee? asked Doug Dompier of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). I'll talk with the SRT about your desire to review it and report back to you, Marsh replied.

Questions About the Performance Evaluation

Lee Hillwig of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) asked how completion of Task 3 would affect the report's recommendations. In Task 3, it may be found there are hatcheries that have done "a royal job" in meeting their responsibilities, Brannon replied. The SRT attempted in its initial report to demonstrate the job hatcheries are expected to do, and in some cases, haven't done, he said. Where there's evidence showing the recommendations were too broad or weren't correct, they will be changed after Task 3 is completed, according to Brannon.

What data will you use to do the performance evaluation? asked Trent Stickell of the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). We will look at the objectives of hatcheries and the tag return data on survival and recruitment, and where data are not available, our ability to evaluate will be limited, Brannon replied. The SRT and the StreamNet coordinators are putting together a data base that can be used for the performance evaluation, noted Marsh. It will be important for the SRT to confirm the objectives and data with the operators of the hatcheries to make sure the SRT is using the latest data, said Stephen Smith of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

I suggest that early on we do a performance evaluation prototype and put it out for review so people can evaluate it and find out if it works, said Tim Stearns of Save Our Wild Salmon. IHOT did a test audit at a hatchery for each agency and then went back and proofed the audit, and the SRT may want to do the same thing, suggested Bob Foster of the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). We'll talk more about the specifics of the performance evaluation and the schedule at the March 8 meeting, stated Marsh. He noted that the performance evaluation won't be done when the report goes to Congress in May, mainly because of the delay in getting the data base finished. The data base may be done by the end of March, Marsh said.

The review of individual facilities will first evaluate the facilities against their operating goals, and then it will consider the question of whether that mission should be continued, modified, or eliminated, said Waldo. That will get fed into the sub-basin work, he added. At the sub-basin level, it's important to evaluate current programs and objectives in the context of existing policies, said Hillwig. If there is a need for change, it doesn't mean you need new policies -- you may need new objectives, he stated.

The hope is that once we get through this, we'll have a common framework and common set of policies relative to artificial production, and then we will be able to decide what the objectives are in the sub-basins and what artificial production techniques should be applied, Waldo said. It would be our hope that the Council can say, here's the overall direction for the Columbia Basin, and here are the implementing steps and the timeline to get them applied throughout the basin, he added. Where there is a debate on purposes and techniques -- for example, whether a facility is needed -- such questions would have to be thrashed out before decisions on spending money are made, Waldo continued. At the workshop, it was clear many program managers know changes need to be made, but don't know how to get the resources to carry them out, he said. We need to talk about a transition program to get us down that road, and that will be part of what we say to Congress this spring, Waldo stated.

If the long-term goal is a unified plan, what's the time frame for that? asked Jeff Curtis of Trout Unlimited. The longer this "rolls around in an indecisive way," the worse off the fish and all of you are going to be, noted Waldo. This will be driven by Congress' patience, said Council staffer Jack Wong. Right now, there's "a restive quality" with respect to the Mitchell Act and Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) hatcheries that behooves us to move as quickly as possible, he noted. There's the impression that there's a lot of waste and chaos out here, and they are looking to this effort to get some guidance, Wong stated. We're competing for resources against other priorities such as health care, social security, and education, he said. We're trying the maintain the budget amounts for these projects and show Congress we are on a path that will lead to the goals we've outlined, Wong indicated. At the workshop, everyone wanted to figure out what the future road map is and get on with it, said Waldo.

If we hand a report on policies to Congress, what will hold the region accountable to apply it? asked Bill Bakke of the Native Fish Society. Money, replied Waldo. It's more than that, said Bakke. The region has to show it is implementing the policies somehow - it's that link I'm concerned about, he added.

Marking Up the Policy Proposal

The committee began a page-by-page discussion of the contents of the Policy Framework Proposal document. Some highlights are reported below.

A Lot of Time on the Introduction

Dompier expressed a concern about "negative" language, stating that the effort needs to get beyond talking about "the evils of hatchery fish" and should start focusing on objectives and management and use more positive language. Waldo noted that the language was not intended to be "a slap at hatcheries per se," but that in the past, the focus on hatcheries' interaction with wild stocks wasn't an important objective, and that point needed to be made. This doesn't say anything new that hasn't been said in the last 10 years - it just fuels the fire, commented Don Campton of USFWS. Let's not condemn the past; instead, let's move to assist in rebuilding of the wild stocks, he said. All hatcheries are not intended to be used to rebuild natural populations - there are other stakeholders out there that need to be recognized, stated Stickell.

Is it the intent of the document to address policies that would be applied universally throughout the basin? asked Bill Towey of the Kalispel Tribe. Yes, responded Waldo. Towey said that there isn't a consistent layout in the document and that its descriptions don't make it clear whether it covers "the ecosystem or just part of the ecosystem." The first part of the effort is to establish a common set of policies, and the second part is to determine how you apply them to a more complete look at the ecosystem and a multi-species set of decision factors, stated Waldo. At the workshop, you said this needs to occur in sub-basins, he added.

The most important thing is to describe accurately what exists in the Columbia Basin and to indicate that anadromous fish are not the only thing going on in the basin, said Towey. A good product would describe the mix of species, habitats, and assemblages we're actually dealing with, he stated. We've never fully described the realities and the diversity of species, Towey said. We define the ecosystem as what is present today, not as it was historically, stated Brannon. Some things are still evolving, and that's an issue in evaluating performance, he added.

The document lacks a description of the context in which we are all working, observed Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. The hatchery system was built in response to an extremely degraded system, and that's not articulated here, she stated. It appears as if, "if we did x" or got rid of hatcheries, that wild fish would do better, Hamilton said. That's disingenuous, she stated. Maybe everyone understands the context, "but with term limits, I'm not confident of that," said Hamilton.

The question remains as to whether the document will be ecosystem-based or whether resident fish will be treated as a separate section, which is usually what happens, said Towey. There's real harm in that, he stated. There's a danger in compartmentalizing resident fish aspects - we need to look at all the interactions, Towey said.

In the document, we must ask if "our professional knowledge is being read into a statement," commented Tom Frew of the Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game. Congress doesn't have our background, and we need to make sure that our statements are thorough enough for Congress to use, he cautioned. We are not writing policies for Congress, but for people on the Columbia managing resources, noted Waldo. This will frame the actions to be taken on the river, he said. There will be a separate report to Congress that will reference this, and that is where good statements of context will be needed, Waldo stated.

The Role of the ESA

Stearns pointed out that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) "tells us to favor native runs," and "if there is a conflict with non-native, that we'll favor native." We are looking at separate, but interrelated ecosystems, and we need to define where they intersect, he said. I'm uncomfortable with being resigned to the existing ecosystem - we're trying to make this ecosystem better for native species, Stearns continued. There's a growing consensus on the need for hatchery reform, he said.

The ESA is just one component of this, stated Dompier. Until we adequately describe the geographic areas, we can't have a meaningful discussion on the tradeoffs between native and non-native, said Towey. Some sub-basins are healthy and recoverable and some aren't, said Stearns. Are we looking at one-size-fits-all or segmenting? he asked. The intent is one set of policies to be applied across the basin, responded Waldo.

Foster suggested that "native" be deleted in the sentence that says "These policies should apply to all native fish populations in the Basin, whether or not they are listed under the ESA." "Native" is appropriate because it's a management priority, said Jim Myron of Oregon Trout. You want policies for non-native fish because they affect native fish, said Towey. Hamilton urged taking the word out, stating that "it's too narrow" and that Congress didn't ask for policies for native fish. Hillwig said it should be revised to direct the policies toward management actions, rather than toward fish. Stearns said it would be worthwhile to debate: "is the highest purpose managing for native populations?" We are looking at all hatchery production in the basin so the policies should look at controlling non-native interactions that impact native fish, said Curtis. He suggested that there's a hierarchy beginning with the legal standards of the ESA with respect to managing for native fish and that maybe the document should reflect that hierarchy. Marsh said the staff would incorporate the comments in the rewrite of this part of the document.

A Debate on Premises and Hypotheses

The group spent some time discussing two hypotheses that the document indicated underlie many of the recommended policies: n If hatchery operations are modified to mimic natural processes and stocks, higher survival rates will result. n With the increased juvenile survival of artificially produced fish, fewer hatchery fish will need to be released to meet existing or increased levels of adult survival.

The first would drive significant modifications of older programs, and we wanted to see if this hypothesis should be pursued - that's why we called it out for discussion, said Waldo. We should push it as an experimental approach at facilities with a conservation mission, but it can't be applied programmatically to all old hatcheries, said Smith. There are other things we can do that have a better biological payoff, he stated.

We ought to say this hypothesis needs to be tested and will be tested, so we aren't just "mandating things through some dogma," said Brian Allee of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). It is being tested by the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project operated by the Yakama Indian Nation and the WDFW, said Pat Oshie of the Yakama Indian Nation. We are testing the question: can you modify a facility to produce a more natural fish? he stated. It's premature to make judgments until we get results, and we are just in the first year, Oshie noted. We won't know the results for five years, he added. Even if the Cle Elum hatchery is successful, how it works there is different from how it works at other places in the basin because conditions are different, said Stickell. That's right, but our project can provide indicators that can be applied on a broader basis across the basin, Oshie responded. This document should point out that these hypotheses are being examined in the basin, he stated.

Waldo asked Brannon how certain the SRT is about basinwide use of these techniques. The SRT's view is that these are hypotheses that can be tested, Brannon replied. If you are trying to emulate natural populations, certain things have to be done to mimic natural processes, but whether it improves survival is another issue, he said. Myron suggested changing "will" to "may" in the hypotheses, which prompted Dompier to wonder if the group "is slipping back to the status quo." The point is, we will treat all these things like experiments, said Stearns. There is a question about whether we should move to mimic natural processes if we are not also going to restore the watershed processes in the basin, and some think you have to do that, he stated. We keep wanting to do things on a macro scale, but maybe it would be better to set up a handful of well-monitored experiments, suggested Stearns.

I'm nervous about going back to a set of studies, with nothing getting done at the facilities, said Dompier. We need to monitor all the actions, whether it's hatcheries, barging, etc., and close the feedback loop, said Stearns. The specifics Pat Oshie was talking about are very appropriate, commented Allee. There are other examples of constructive things under way in the basin, and you should list them in this document, he recommended. Myron urged the section be rewritten to capture Stearns' comment that everything we do is experimental and needs to be constantly re-evaluated.

The issue is integrating artificial production with the needs of wild stocks to reduce impacts and to provide net benefits to wild stocks, said Campton. We should go back to the SRT and see exactly what they had in mind here, he suggested. You could also manage hatchery populations as totally isolated and that could reduce impacts, Campton said. The document doesn't say anything about maintaining genetic integrities of wild populations, he added.

The document states in Section 3.2.2 that while there was general acceptance at the workshop of the premise that mimicking wild stock production, rearing, and release can improve survival and ultimately reduce impacts on wild stocks, there was also support for the notion that "it may, in some situations, be advantageous for both wild stocks and fisheries to artificially produce stocks that do not compete - in time or place - with wild stocks for the same ecological niche, assuming straying can be managed and the artificially produced stock can be properly isolated."

I suggest putting "integrating artificial production with the needs of naturally spawning populations" as a hypothesis, and stating that one way to do it would be to mimic wild stock production, and another way to do it would be to increase survival, said Campton. Is it survival to return to the hatchery or to spawn naturally? he inquired. The idea is ultimately to have hatchery programs systemwide have a net benefit on wild populations, Campton continued. But how to go about this is open to debate, he stated, adding that the techniques include mimicking natural processes and isolation.

Campton urged the document to be proactive and say how the hatchery system can benefit the needs of wild populations, not just focus on reducing impacts. Tom Scribner of the Yakama Indian Nation noted there are things that we can agree on that can be done now, like semi-natural rearing ponds for fish. Hillwig agreed there are actions that can be implemented now, and he said that the SRT can help address this topic. The operators know - we shouldn't ask the SRT, said Dompier. Some of these things are being done, but dollars are the driving factor in how much, Stickell observed.

A Purposeful Task Force

Dan Evans of the Facilitation Team led a discussion of the need to establish a uniform definition of purposes for artificial production and asked if there are other definitions in addition to those provided in the document. Horton said "mitigation for subsistence fisheries" needs to be included. Campton listed augmentation, mitigation to replace what's been lost, and conservation of indigenous genetic resources. Evans noted that Stickell had provided him with the Oregon Plan, which contains a set of purposes.

Evans recommended establishing a task force to define a common set of purposes. Campton was appointed chair, and the members are Dompier, Brannon or another SRT rep, and Marsh or another Council staffer. The task force should complete its work by February 19, Evans suggested.

Looking at Performance Standards

Hamilton and Hillwig asked for parts of this section, such as those dealing with the impacts of artificially produced fish on wild stocks, to be revised to be more positive. Towey requested that it address "fishery resources" instead of "anadromous salmonid and other fish resources." Curtis asked that ESA issues be covered in the language dealing with basing artificial production on environmental conditions. I'm trying to tighten up the standards where you have ESA-listed fish so you can show Congress you are following the law, he stated. Curtis suggested using stronger language than "considerations" when talking about ESA-listed species.

Hatcheries operate under the Biological Opinion, and that takes care of ESA issues, said Stickell. He questioned the need to use ESA language in this document. I disagree, said Curtis. It's helpful to be specific about how you will look at impacts as they relate to ESA species, he stated. Towey recommended the introduction discuss the ESA and any other issue that "transcends the whole document." One main thing driving the assessment of what to do in the future with artificial production is the ESA, said Waldo. At some point, the question will be asked of NMFS, if people follow these policies, will they get an affirmative Biological Opinion, he stated. And the same question could be asked of USFWS in terms of resident fish, Waldo added. Should the document make it explicit that the intention is that if you follow these policies and their implementing actions you could expect to get that result? he inquired.

If you put that in here, the policies would have "to be crystal clear" - if you are going to get that specific with the ESA, there can be "no wiggle room," said Dompier. There's a suite of measures rather than a prescription with respect to the ESA, said Hamilton. We can't do it here - there has to be flexibility for the managers to respond, she added.

The Three Gorillas

We want this document to complement what we do with the ESA, said Smith. We need some introductory language that indicates this effort is complementary to the ESA and U.S. v. Oregon, he added. We have "three 800-pound gorillas" in the region: the Council's process, the ESA, and U.S. v. Oregon, according to Smith. The document needs to recognize that these three programs are driving artificial production issues, he said. If you do that, you have to take into account other federal mandates and mandates from entities like public utility commissions, said Stickell. Performance Measures

Allee suggested that the text needs to say how such things as "the biological carrying capacity of receiving streams" will be measured and evaluated. We need to evaluate impacts "instead of a priori determining that they are negative," he added. We need to make it clear where performance methods are spelled out in the document, said Allee. Hillwig suggested having a flow chart that shows the progression from the general to the more specific, e. g., the progression from performance standards to performance indicators.

The leadership needs to come from the management agencies, Allee said. We need to have a common understanding of how we are going to evaluate the performance of hatcheries, he stated. There can't be one system for the managers and one for the SRT - that would be untenable, Allee said. We need to tell Congress how it's going to be done, and the managers are key in filling out the matrix that will match performance standards with hatchery purposes, he indicated. Managers have to buy in to the approach for this to work, Waldo agreed. For this to be real, it has to get beyond philosophy, he added.

Before we agree on how to measure performance, don't we have to agree on the underlying science? asked Myron. We won't get there, responded Smith. So how do you establish standards? asked Myron. That's where you go to the objectives, replied Hillwig. Our objectives are the basis for developing performance indicators and evaluating programs, he said. Change doesn't concern us, but being driven to changes that are not consistent with the mandates we have to operate by, that is a concern, according to Hillwig. We need to define the evaluation protocol down to the sub-basin level if we can, suggested Stearns.

A Set of Indicators

Smith said the document should state that performance indicators need to be developed. I agree - that lets Congress know how you are going to measure, said Allee. We should try to get the performance indicators developed by May, he stated. If we don't, I'm afraid Congress won't get enough information and will think "we've obstructed something," Allee said. By May, could we try to come up with an initial proposed set of indicators that we could tell Congress about? asked Waldo. The performance indicators, which are "the next sieve," have to be in the same matrix with the purposes and performance standards, said Hamilton.

I think we should include Steve's comment that it may be decades before we agree on the science, stated Myron. The disagreements are more likely to be over priorities, said Waldo.

Waldo suggested the group consider developing an initial set of performance indicators to have ready when the main document is sent to Congress, with the assumption the group would spend more time on them before the indicators are made final. The interaction of the SRT and program managers will be required, and I'm not sure how that will be accomplished, he said. A few years ago, we took a first cut at performance indicators for the Mitchell Act hatcheries, and I could bring those to the next meeting, Smith suggested. Oshie noted the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) has developed a comprehensive monitoring plan for spring chinook and that YKFP project staff should participate in development of the indicators.

We should interact with the SRT on performance indicators, stated Waldo. If we can say to Congress, we are looking at all the issues, we'll go a long way toward addressing their concerns, he said.

A task force was appointed to take a first cut at developing performance indicators and report back at the next meeting. Allee will chair, working with members Oshie, Smith, Hillwig, Foster, Towey, Stickell, and Council staff.

Stickell noted that there is a gap in information since 1994, when the IHOT numbers were developed. A lot has changed since then, and how to cover the period from 1994 to today is a challenge, he said. The SRT and StreamNet are trying to put together a data base that goes beyond 1994, noted Marsh.

Dompier and Smith criticized Section 4.4, which deals with minimizing impacts on wild stocks. Dompier said it showed "no grasp of what goes on on the river" and called it "a good fuzzy-wuzzy statement that doesn't have any reality whatsoever." Smith said the strategies mentioned to mimic natural population parameters and the recommendations about the design of new facilities are "directions we want to move to" for hatchery programs to rebuild listed wild stocks, but not for other hatchery programs. A lot of these are nice to do, but low on the funding priority list, he stated. Hillwig said the section needs rethinking. Waldo said the section would be redone, but noted that it is another example of things to be tested as part of an adaptive management feedback loop. We should test, and if we find an activity is valuable, we should do more of it, and if not, we would not, he said.

Bakke said the document needs an introduction that talks about legal mandates and critical uncertainties in order to give Congress a realistic expectation about the chances of this document being agreed to and fully implemented in the region. We have said the likelihood of agreeing on the science is not good - we should give them a more realistic picture of what to expect from this kind of exercise, he stated.

Isolation Scribner called attention to item 4.5.5 under Section 4.5, "Mimic Wild Stocks," which says that in some situations, "it may be advantageous to produce cultured stocks which are intentionally isolated in time or location from wild stocks to meet fishery needs without competing or intermingling with related wild fish in freshwater and estuarine habitat, assuming straying can be controlled." In the U.S. v. Oregon process, that is what's happening with the philosophy of the states and what they want to do with the future of the hatcheries - it's a major component of the states' position, he said. I agree, said Foster. Bakke asked about the assumption that straying can be controlled. I assume there will be "gene cops," who say there can be this many fish in this tributary and this many in that one, Scribner replied.

This kind of manipulation has led to the problems we have, said Dompier. We have to get away from these kinds of programs that have no respect for the fish, he added. "Nobody gave us the right to be God," and we should tell those who do this to "cease and desist" - the fish do not deserve this, stated Dompier. We could pull that section out and treat it as an operational hypothesis, as an alternative path to replicating and mimicking the timing of wild runs in an area, Waldo suggested. Dompier said hatcheries were not built to do that and we don't accept that. There are different uses for hatcheries, stated Foster.

There are agencies that intend to pursue this in a strong way and others that object, and the region is going to have to come to grips with this, said Waldo. The public has to be told that the fish are going to be manipulated for the purpose of an agency to serve its constituency, said Dompier. It's the role of the Council to get the information out, he added.

This is one issue that we are not going to resolve today, and in the document, we should reflect the different perspectives and what the implications are, said Waldo. The process to decide this is U.S. v. Oregon, said Smith. It's one of the critical uncertainties that Bakke mentioned, said Myron. It's also a debate that is going on internationally, noted Hamilton.

In the Section 4.6, "Use Sound Science," Smith cautioned about stating how "scientifically defensible" artificial production programs have to be. They should be comparable to the "other H's" and mitigation options, he said. Steve's point is that the hydro system may change, and we'll be approaching risk differently than today, stated Hillwig. Who will determine "sound science?" asked resident fish consultant Robert Walker. Stearns recommended deleting "sound" in the section title.

With respect to Section 6, "Policies Regarding Genetics," Dompier asked if funds will be provided to hire geneticists. We'd want to try, within the budget, to find some of the best people in the country and ask how they would advise the region to develop and evaluate genetics programs, replied Waldo. Stickell wondered how private hatcheries in the basin would be controlled with respect to complying with genetics guidelines.

Return to the Sub-basins

Stearns asked about the current status of sub-basin planning. It's dormant, replied Waldo. Sub-basin plans have been used by the managers, but it has not been a basinwide unified effort, he said. The section on sub-basin planning in the document aims to lay out a process to get the plans as uniform as possible and to use them as the basis for decisionmaking on artificial production programs, Waldo explained. If we are going to resurrect sub-basin planning, there's a big dollar amount that goes along with that, said Stearns. The workshop participants thought this should be a big priority in terms of time and money, responded Waldo. They said this was the place where decisions on how to use artificial production tools would be made, he continued. It was clear that quite a bit of work had been done, and that we would build on it, Waldo added.

Since we have done sub-basin planning before, we should say in the introduction of the document when it was done, what was accomplished, and how much it cost, recommended Bakke. If funding can't be secured, how will implementation occur? asked Myron. The sub-basin planning process is where you'll help determine changes in the role, purposes, and scale in what have been historic missions at hatcheries, Waldo said. If we don't get the funding, we're in deep trouble, he added.

What if Congress says it's a great idea, but do it within the existing budget? asked Myron. If all the groups in the region agree it's significant, the funding can likely be gotten, replied Waldo. Our Washington, D.C. representatives want to do the right thing for fish, and if we show them what we plan to do, they'll go to bat for it, he said.

Sub-basin planning is larger than artificial production and involves numerous land and water management efforts by many agencies, noted Bakke. How will we get the buy-in from land managers? he asked. I can't imagine starting a whole new sub-basin planning effort at this time, said Smith. The watershed councils are out there spending money, and the document should note that U.S. v. Oregon is looking at things on a sub-basin basis, he stated. The watershed councils in Washington are focused on habitat, but haven't gotten into the fish management side of rebuilding populations, noted Waldo.

Waldo said his team would rework the section and urged committee members who have thoughts on how to address sub-basin planning to contact him. The challenge is to make sure this work gets done on the basis of sub-basins, but not to reinvent the wheel, he noted.

The report should have a section on "unanswered questions" and uncertainties and how they could affect the outcome, suggested Myron. One thing we didn't discuss today is the individual IHOT reports, said Hillwig. The intent in IHOT was to have each report evaluated, and that never happened, he stated. Many of us are concerned about that, and we need to discuss it, Hillwig noted. That should fit in with the performance evaluation step, he added. The Plan to Take It to the Council

We are shooting to have this document reworked for the February 23-24 Council meeting, said Marsh. The idea is that the Council would release it for a public review, which would extend until early April, he stated. We will incorporate the comments heard today and try to provide the new version to the PRC, recognizing that you all will have a shot at it when it goes out for public review, Marsh continued. Because the Council will need to have the document four or five days before the meeting, we have about one and one-half weeks to put the new version together, he said.

We will also ask several members of this group to be on a panel to talk to the Council about this effort, noted Waldo. I'll look to the ad hoc workshop steering subcommittee to put together the panel, but if anyone wants to be on it, let me know, said Marsh. The panel session is tentatively set for 10 a.m. on February 24, he noted. Adjourn Production Review Committee February 8, 1999 Meeting Attendees

Brian Allee, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority Bill Bakke, Native Fish Society Ernie Brannon, Science Review Team Don Campton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jeff Curtis, Trout Unlimited Doug Dompier, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Dan Evans, Gordon Thomas Honeywell Bob Foster, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Tom Frew, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Mark Fritsch, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff Jeff Gislason, BPA Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association Lynn Hatcher, Yakama Indian Nation Lee Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Stacy Horton, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff Andre L'Heureux, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff John Marsh, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff Jim Myron, Oregon Trout Pat Oshie, Yakama Indian Nation Cameron Oster, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff Dennis Rohr, Consultant for Chelan and Douglas PUDs Tom Scribner, Yakama Indian Nation John Shurts, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff Stephen Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service Tim Stearns, Save Our Wild Salmon Trent Stickell, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Theodora Strong, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff Bill Towey, Kalispel Tribe Jim Waldo, Gordon Thomas Honeywell Robert Walker, Resident Fish Contractor David Wills, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jack Wong, Northwest Power Planning Council Staff Frank Young, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority.

^ top