| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, March 8, 1999
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
MEETING SUMMARY
MEETING REPORT
MEETING SUMMARY
The Production Review Committee (PRC) considered two subgroup
proposals: one to establish a common set of purposes and definitions for
artificial production; and one to embark on a performance evaluation
effort using performance indicators at the management level. The committee
thought both proposals needed more work.
· POLICY DOCUMENT IS OUT FOR REVIEW -- Committee chair John
Marsh reported that at its last meeting, the Northwest Power Planning
Council released the draft policy statement for artificial production for
public review. The document, titled "NWPPC Artificial Production
Policy Statement - Columbia Basin Hatcheries: A Program in
Transition," includes a "Facilitator's Report" on the
artificial production workshop held in January, as well as the
facilitator's recommendations for implementing reforms in artificial
production policy, he explained. Comments on the draft policy statement
are due by April 16, Marsh said. Public meetings will be held around the
region from March 16 to April 6, he stated.
Doug Dompier of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission asked
when the Council is slated to send its report and recommendations to
Congress. Probably in June, Marsh replied. The schedule will allow time
for the Science Review Team's (SRT) report to be revised and for people to
review it before it goes to Congress, he said. The policy statement, the
facilitator's report, and the SRT report will be sent to Congress as a
package, and if there are minority opinions, they will be included too,
Marsh stated.
· TRYING TO GET A COMMON SET OF DEFINITIONS AND PURPOSES -- Don
Campton of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presented a proposed set of
definitions and purposes for the policy statement. Committee members asked
numerous questions, for example, why the Regional Assessment of
Supplementation Project (RASP) definitions weren't used. Some members said
the group should try to "pin down a set of definitions to standardize
the vocabulary in the region," while others thought it would take too
long and wouldn't be a productive use of the committee's time. Tim Stearns
of Save Our Wild Salmon said it would be good if the PRC and the SRT could
use common definitions.
The proposal groups purposes into three broad categories: conservation,
augmentation, and research, Campton explained, adding that "research
may turn out to be the most critical of the three in terms of how we can
improve what we do." I have a fundamental concern about not having
mitigation as one of the purposes of artificial production, said Trent
Stickell of the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and a discussion ensued
about how mitigation should be addressed in the purposes and policy
statement.
The committee decided that members should review all the definitions
and purposes in the proposal as well as those in the draft policy
statement and provide comments to staffer Mark Fritsch by March 19. The
definitions subgroup will continue its work, and a new version of the
proposal will be circulated before the next PRC meeting, Marsh said.
· SMITH SUGGESTS AN APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION --
Stephen Smith of the National Marine Fisheries Service handed out a
"management framework" for the Mitchell Act program he said
could be a starting point the Council could use to look at the performance
of the hatchery system in the Columbia River Basin. Based on the
"Government Performance and Results Act of 1993," the framework
consists of strategic objectives, supporting performance objectives, and
annual performance indicators, he explained. With respect to the hatchery
evaluations the SRT is thinking of doing, I don't see much value in
sending out a team of scientists to evaluate performance, Smith stated.
Because hatcheries are changing so rapidly, it would be better to agree on
how to operate them in the future and how to measure their success or
failure, he said.
We could have the SRT help the PRC come up with a group of performance
indicators and give those to the managers, suggested Smith. It's better to
have the evaluation take place at the manager level, rather than create a
new level of scientific bureaucracy, he stated. A hatchery would report
annually, showing a graph or trendline to indicate how well a program is
doing in meeting its performance objectives, Smith explained. The
performance indicators would guide how investments are made, he said.
Committee members questioned how this approach would take into account
such factors as the effects of dams, the ocean, birds, and habitat on
hatchery performance. We should hold hatchery managers responsible for
what they control and not for what they don't control, commented Stearns.
Tom Rogers of the Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game called the approach "a
narrow view of what hatchery performance includes" and said it didn't
seem useful. The framework speaks more to the public and "to how the
real world looks at things," commented Liz Hamilton of the Northwest
Sportfishing Industry Association.
Brian Allee of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority said the
proposal offers the opportunity for the Council to tell Congress that the
region is working together on something constructive. Otherwise, I'm
worried this review will just turn out to be "the same old thing,
with scientists on one side of the fence, and the managers and the public
on the other," he said. Marsh asked Allee to continue to chair the
subgroup on performance indicators, to work with the SRT, and to try to
resolve some of the questions raised. Several committee members
volunteered to get involved, and Allee said he would report on progress at
the next meeting.
MEETING REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS__________________________________________________________
Policy Document Is Out for Review
Trying to Get A Common Set of Definitions and Purposes
Smith Suggests An Approach to Performance Evaluation
_________________________________________________________________________
Policy Document Is Out for Review
Committee chair John Marsh reported that at its last meeting, the
Northwest Power Planning Council released the draft policy statement for
artificial production (Attachment 1) for public review. The document,
titled "NWPPC Artificial Production Policy Statement - Columbia Basin
Hatcheries: A Program in Transition," includes a "Facilitator's
Report" on the Columbia River Basin Artificial Production Workshop
held January 19-20, 1999, as well as the facilitator's recommendations for
implementing reforms in artificial production policy, he explained.
Comments on the draft policy statement are due by April 16, Marsh said.
Public meetings will be held around the region from March 16 to April 6,
he stated.
Doug Dompier of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission asked
whether Marsh would continue as committee chair in light of his moving to
Parametrix. Marsh explained that he will be working as a consultant to the
Council on the Artificial Production Review two days a week and that
Council staffers Mark Fritsch, John Shurts, and Cameron Oster will
continue to work with the committee. Marsh said he can be reached at (503)
233-2400.
Dompier asked if the facilitators have completed their work. They are
done with the policy workshop, but they may get other tasks over the next
few months, Marsh replied. Dompier asked when the Council is slated to
send its report and recommendations to Congress. Probably in June, said
Marsh. Will Congress have a problem with that timing? asked Dompier. We
had decided to accelerate the date for submission up to May, but now we
have decided to take the rest of the time in order to do the job right,
replied Marsh. This schedule will allow time for the Science Review Team's
(SRT) report to be redrafted and for people to review it before it goes to
Congress, he said. The policy statement, the facilitator's report, and the
SRT report will be sent to Congress as a package, and if there are any
minority opinions, they will be included too, Marsh stated.
If the SRT report is going to Congress, we want to make sure we have a
chance to review the revised version before the Council sends it, said
Dompier. That's our intent, Marsh responded. Fritsch noted that Council
staffer John Harrison is doing the editorial work on the SRT report and
that he has been provided with all the comments made on the report to
date. He should get the report to the PRC in mid-April, Fritsch said. The
intent is to have a one-day PRC workshop on the policy statement after the
public meetings are held and the comments received, he noted.
Trying to Get A Common Set of Definitions and
Purposes
At the February meeting, the PRC established a task force, headed by
Don Campton of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to try to define a
uniform set of purposes for artificial production. Campton said that he
and Dompier were the principal authors of the proposal, which provides new
text to replace parts of Section 3 of the draft policy statement. The new
text is titled Section 3.2, "Definitions, Purposes, Objectives, and
Priorities of Artificial Production and Propagation" (Attachment 2).
Campton said that he prepared the new list of definitions by consulting
the Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project (RASP) and other
sources that had definitions. The list is not intended to be complete or
inclusive, but it does try to include the words that are the most open to
misinterpretation, he explained. For example, artificial production and
artificial propagation are often used interchangeably, but they have
different connotations, Campton stated. This list is an attempt to clarify
terms like that, he said. As for purposes, Campton said, "I had
heartburn" over the five purposes in the SRT report. Many were
redundant, and some I had never heard of, he stated. The proposal presents
the purposes in three broad categories: conservation, augmentation, and
research, Campton explained. Each of these purposes provides a long-term
goal that can guide management of specific programs, he said. A particular
program may have only a single purpose, or it may include all three
purposes, Campton noted. Research may turn out to be the most critical of
the three in terms of how we can improve what we do, he stated. Research
should be an integral component of artificial production, Campton said.
After purposes, it's important to articulate objectives and priorities,
and the sections we have drafted here on objectives and priorities need to
be developed and discussed further, Campton stated. The sections of the
draft policy statement dealing with "mimicking wild stock rearing
conditions" also "caused me heartburn," he said. Campton
proposed a new Section 3.3 titled "Artificial production programs
must be integrated with the biological needs of naturally spawning
populations."
This proposal is intended to provide a foundation for further
refinement and development, Campton continued. The subgroup also talked
about taking the matrix in the "strawfish" from the workshop and
redoing it based on how the PRC decides to approach the purposes and to
send that out for review, he reported.
A Debate over Definitions
Why didn't you use the RASP definition of "supplementation?"
asked Bill Bakke of the Native Fish Society. This is essentially the RASP
definition, replied Campton. Bakke read the RASP definition and asked if
RASP underpins the policy document, why shouldn't we use that definition?
I have no qualms about doing that, stated Campton. I discussed these
definitions with NMFS personnel, and they have adopted working definitions
similar to those proposed here, he said. We've moved beyond RASP in our
management, and that's important to recognize, said Dompier. This is an
attempt to look at artificial production in terms of what we are going to
do, he stated.
Let's try to understand the two definitions first "before we head
to our policy corners," suggested Tim Stearns of Save Our Wild
Salmon. Let's try to pin down a set of definitions to standardize the
vocabulary in the region, he recommended. We ought to spend some time
comparing the definitions, Stearns said. Trent Stickell of the Oregon
Dept. of Fish and Wildlife circulated a statement of hatchery purposes
from the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team's comments on the
Oregon Plan, which includes the RASP definition (Attachment 3).
We were trying to modify the RASP definition so it would be
all-encompassing, said Campton. It would be helpful to include definitions
for stock population and life history, said Bakke. It would be helpful to
have a "blessed list" of definitions that we would manage by, he
added. In the Programmatic EIS for hatcheries, $200,000 was spent on a
definition for "stock," and they never decided what it was,
Bakke said.
It wouldn't hurt to get a common set of definitions and have it apply
to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), U.S. v. Oregon, and all the other
forums, said Stephen Smith of NMFS. I don't think we will get a common set
of definitions, stated Dompier. We'll spin our wheels for two months
trying to get to a definition of stock, he asserted. Let's review these
definitions, and if we don't like them, eliminate them, Dompier urged.
Let's not spend a lot of time on this, he added.
This is supposed to be a comprehensive, integrated review, and all the
agencies are represented here, stated Brian Allee of the Columbia Basin
Fish and Wildlife Authority. It would be nice to engage on something like
"supplementation" - it would really help to do that, he said.
Let's send these definitions out for review, but let's get the agencies
that have definitions to "get them up before this group" at the
next meeting, Allee recommended.
We need simple definitions that can direct policy that Congress can
understand, stated Smith. Let's not spend too much time on this - we're
missing the bigger issues, he said. Fritsch suggested putting the proposed
list from Campton's subgroup into a glossary for the policy statement.
RASP and the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT) are the
underpinnings for what we are doing, and at least we should consider
whether our terminology is consistent with theirs, said Hillwig. This
review could be "the review" that will drive artificial
production, and we should keep that in mind, he stated. There is also a
need to keep it simple, Hillwig added. It will take some thought as to how
to integrate all three of these considerations into a single approach, he
said.
The Oregon legislature coined a new definition of "restoration
fish," and we might want to tackle that too, said Bakke. The
definitions on the list [circulated by Stickell] are too long, commented
Stearns. We should look at the extent to which we can use standardized
definitions and create a common vocabulary that is relatively precise, he
continued. I'd like a set of definitions that has some rigor in defining
what we are trying to do, said Stearns.
If there is no coordinated set of definitions, we could make a list
with a key that indicates which agencies agree with which definitions,
suggested Bakke. We're "going way off again," and "Bill is
writing his testimony to Congress," commented Dompier. Let's
eliminate the definitions, he suggested.
I agree with Bill, said Kurt Beardslee of Washington Trout. The time to
work on definitions is now, he stated. There will be a lot of
misunderstanding if we don't agree on what these words mean, Beardslee
said. If we get started on definitions, we'll be here a year, observed Liz
Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. What's
important is that a person reading this document can understand what you
mean when you use a word, she said. Someone could go through all the
documents out there, such as RASP, IHOT, the tribal recovery report, and
the Washington wild salmonid policy, and lay out the definitions side by
side, and then the PRC could choose what it wants, suggested Stearns. Or
staff could do a survey of the definitions and choose some for the
committee to consider, he stated. That's what we did, said Campton.
You should add a paragraph indicating that is what you did - that you
considered all the documents, that they varied, and that these are the
best you can pull out, suggested Hillwig. Let's all review these
definitions, Fritsch recommended. But we won't let the definitions stand
in the way of this process, said Marsh. Get your comments on the
definitions to Mark [Fritsch] by March 19, and Mark will work with the
definitions subgroup, Marsh told the committee.
It would be nice if the PRC and the SRT could use common definitions,
said Stearns. Could you ask the SRT to look at these definitions? he asked
Marsh. Hillwig recommended sending them to the SRT as the PRC's
recommendations for the SRT's revised report. I'll get them to John
Harrison, who is helping revise the SRT report, said Fritsch. Marsh said
additions to the list he heard mentioned include "wild and natural
stock populations" and "life history." I also heard the
shorter the definitions are, the better, noted Marsh. Allee recommended
looking at what the state and federal agencies use for definitions. The
Three Purposes
Discussion returned to the three purposes Campton proposed using in the
policy statement. We felt it necessary to bring the term
"conservation" to the forefront, explained Campton. We thought
an oversight of the SRT was the failure to recognize the role of research,
and we thought it should be brought out as a purpose, he stated. I like
these three simple things that have been put forth, commented Smith.
Stearns questioned equating mitigation with augmentation, and Campton
said that mitigation "is not a purpose per se." Mitigation is a
motivation for why we are using artificial production, he said. That's a
good point, but for as long as I can remember, there have been mitigation
hatcheries, noted Allee. We need to acknowledge that mitigation hatcheries
exist in the definition, he said.
In putting together the definitions, we wanted to make it clear what
hatcheries are being operated for, said Dompier. Most of the Council's
Fish and Wildlife Program is in fact research, not harvest or
conservation, he stated. Many of the programs serve a multiple purpose,
said Stickell. We pointed that out, noted Campton.
What about a facility like the Cowlitz hatchery, which involves
augmentation, conservation, and research? asked Allee. Despite your zeal
to be simple, I think you might need to elaborate, he stated. You can't
leave out the "typical hatchery definitional things," or people
will get more confused, said Allee.
The group discussed where the proposed new text would fit into the
policy statement. Stearns said, with respect to definitions, purposes, and
the rest of Campton's proposal, "let's get on the same page with the
SRT at some point." Your three overall purposes make sense, but with
respect to conservation, I don't want to lose what good the SRT report
had, he said.
What About Mitigation?
I have a fundamental concern about not having mitigation as one of the
purposes of artificial production, stated Stickell. Mitigation is a part
of the legal agreements, he said. Maybe at the front of this section, we
should include language that says something like "much artificial
production was begun to mitigate damages," suggested Stearns. There
are mitigation agreements that are legally binding, and they are a step
above this policy discussion, commented Smith. I think the mitigation
concept is at a much higher plane, above the objectives of what hatcheries
are operated for, he said. There's no purpose called
"mitigation" - it's too vague, it's a legal requirement, Smith
stated. Mitigation evolved from federal actions that destroyed natural
production, said Hamilton.
Mitigation is a legal category that carries a lot of weight, and it has
to be addressed, Bakke stated. You could put it up at the ESA level, said
Smith. Who's responsible for mitigation? asked Dompier. Mitigation needs
to be consistent with the ESA and treaty rights, and augmentation,
conservation, and recovery should be consistent with that overriding set
of rules, said Stearns.
Are we hung up on whether conservation captures mitigation or not?
asked staffer Andre L'Heureux. When you say you operate a hatchery for
mitigation, that doesn't tell me what you are trying to achieve with that
hatchery, said Smith. Mitigation is a higher issue, and it doesn't provide
enough information on why you are operating hatcheries, he added.
The point being made here is that mitigation is not the same as treaty
rights, but mitigation has to be defined more sharply with regard to legal
requirements, said Allee. It needs to be dealt with more explicitly, he
suggested. There could be a section that deals with mandates, L'Heureux
said. The policy statement has that in Section 3.1, said Hamilton. Maybe
we should take mitigation out of the definitions, she stated. Marsh said
the document needs to be consistent in its use of the word mitigation.
Allee suggested editing the footnote about purposes in Campton's
proposal to say that mitigation documents are legal documents and that
they state legal goals. Campton requested that committee members submit
suggested language changes in writing.
Marsh urged the committee to send in comments, especially on the
standard definition of mitigation, by March 19. The documents we reviewed
have a pretty standard definition, and the one we used was a condensation
of Oregon's, said Campton. Let's all look at how mitigation is used in the
policy statement and the subgroup's proposal, suggested Marsh.
Fritsch thanked Campton and Dompier for the work they did in putting
together the proposal for definitions and purposes. When will the PRC get
to see the next version? asked Allee. We will talk about it at the next
meeting, and so we'll try to get something out to you by March 31, or
sooner if we can, Marsh said.
Smith Suggests An Approach to Performance Evaluation
Marsh reported that he met with Smith and Allee about the specifics of
performance evaluation and that they discussed the concern that there is
not enough information for the SRT to do the kind of performance
evaluation originally envisioned. We are having second thoughts about
trying to do that, he stated.
Smith handed out a "management framework" for the Mitchell
Act Program (Attachment 4) that he said was a starting point the Council
could use to look at the performance of the hatchery system in the
Columbia River Basin. The genesis of this is the "Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993," which provides for "the
establishment of strategic planning and performance measurement in the
federal government," he indicated. Based on that act, NMFS has
proposed a management framework for the Mitchell Act program, consisting
of strategic objectives, supporting performance objectives, and annual
performance indicators, Smith explained. The idea is that you start at the
level of laws and treaties, then go to the policy level, then the
programmatic or individual hatchery level, then to strategic objectives,
and then to performance objectives and indicators, he said.
This document proposes five strategic objectives, he explained, and
with each, you step down to the performance objectives you are trying to
accomplish and the parameters you select to measure performance, according
to Smith. Every year a hatchery program would publish a report that shows
its progress toward meeting its objectives, he continued.
With respect to the hatchery evaluations the SRT is thinking of doing,
I don't see much value in sending out a team of scientists to evaluate
performance, stated Smith. Because hatcheries are changing so rapidly, it
would be better to agree on how to operate them in the future and how to
measure their success or failure, he said. We could have the SRT help the
PRC come up with a group of performance indicators and give those to the
managers and ask them to report annually, suggested Smith. It's better to
have the evaluation take place at the manager level, rather than create a
new level of scientific bureaucracy, he stated.
We are trying to clarify "the true results" that we are
trying to achieve with hatchery programs, and the idea is to be
results-oriented and performance-based, said Smith. A hatchery would
report annually, showing a graph or trendline to indicate how well a
program is doing in meeting its performance objectives, he continued. If a
program is doing well, you might decide to invest more in it, said Smith.
For an underperforming program, maybe you would do an IHOT audit and try
to improve it, and if you can't, you might say, close the facility and
spend the money elsewhere, he stated. The point is you would let the
performance indicators guide how you make investments, Smith said.
Smith described several of the strategic objectives for the Mitchell
Act Program as examples. Strategic Objective #3 is "build sustainable
fisheries," and it has a performance objective for sport fisheries of
"provide an increasing base of predictable sport salmon and steelhead
fishing opportunity centered on the take of hatchery fish." The
performance indicators are: "sport angler-days for salmon and
steelhead in waters containing Mitchell Act fish is increasing (rolling
4-year average)"; "harvest of sport-caught Mitchell Act fish is
increasing"; and "ratio of sport-harvested Mitchell Act and
regional hatchery fish to non-target fish mortality is increasing."
Each hatchery program would put out an annual report showing the
agreed-upon performance indicators, Smith said.
Questions and Comments
How do you deal with factors such as the effects of dams and the ocean?
asked Stickell. You have to take such things into account before you can
take dollars away from hatcheries, he said. Smith indicated that Strategic
Objective #5, "research and monitoring," addresses some of those
factors. We should manage to increase a trendline, and the trendline may
be affected by factors such as dams, he said. But we need to challenge
ourselves to say, "if we can't change X," how can we provide the
results we want, Smith stated. The intent is to see how we can move the
dollars around to get the result we want, and a result is not just keeping
a hatchery operating, he said.
Stickell brought up the example of the Yakama Indian Nation's hatchery
program. If that program proves not to be successful due to dams or to
birds eating the fish, would you pull that program? he asked. The idea is
to report what's happening and determine what is success, replied Smith.
If you don't get the fish, it tells you that you have to go do something
about it, rather than just keep funding a program year after year, he
stated.
Stickell asked about the program for reintroduction of coho in the
Clearwater. Smith said you don't compare sportfishing with treaty rights -
you function within the objectives, he stated. There are legal
requirements and objectives you have to achieve and the cost-effectiveness
evaluation doesn't cross those boundaries, according to Smith. Stickell
inquired how the approach would affect treatment of lower river hatchery
programs versus upper river programs. You are not trying to accomplish the
same things in the upper and lower basins because they fall within
different strategic objectives, stated Smith. It's a comparison with, not
between, said Allee. The context here is how a hatchery is used as a
management tool to improve fishery management in the basin, he stated.
We need to be careful in analyzing the cost/benefits of these
hatcheries, said Stickell. There are programs with negative cost/benefits,
and the further upriver you go, the more you probably have that result, he
added. As managers, if we see a performance indicator going down, we need
to ask: how do you manage the shape of the indicator? said Smith. This
will help clarify where problems are occurring, and it gets the data on
the table so we can make judgments, he stated. I'd rather see this done by
the managers and have the other co-managers look at the data than to have
another level come in and look at the data, Smith indicated.
One concern I have is that once you have established indicators, some
might say "this program is not working," and should be
discontinued, while the problem is that you have different standards,
Hillwig stated. Captive broodstock programs are a perfect example, said
Stickell. They are multimillion-dollar efforts, and you need to have them
if you want to "maintain what's left," he stated. The budget
analysts could say that one is more cost-effective than another; for
example, that Youngs Bay is more effective than the Clearwater, and why
not move all the fish down there? Stickell said. You have to lay out all
the legal standards and policies, and you don't compare across programs in
that way, responded Smith. We need to get agreement on what we are trying
to achieve and how to measure it, he continued. This approach would create
a situation where "it's more quantifiable between the H's,"
according to Smith.
An Easy Target
Hatcheries are an easy target, observed Stickell. People need to
realize the big picture and consider all the H's, he said. This proposal
doesn't come across as a comprehensive review of a project, Stearns told
Smith. It's clear that flows, passage, birds, the ocean, and habitat need
to be considered, he stated. We should hold hatchery managers responsible
for what they control and not for what they don't control, Stearns said.
Stearns asked if the approach has been field tested to see if the
information is available, and if Smith intended that the evaluation would
be done hatchery by hatchery, basin by basin, or program by program? It
has not been field tested on a program basis, replied Smith. You would do
it hatchery by hatchery, program by program, and then combine them to
reflect the basins, he said. You need to try to standardize the
performance indicators as much as possible across hatcheries, Smith
stated, asking, for example, is number of redds a performance indicator?
Smith noted that his handout was written two or three years ago. Today,
I'd write it differently, he said. This is only an example of what you can
get out of the Council's review and how we could get some clarity in the
region on why we are running these hatcheries and how well they are doing,
stated Smith.
This is a narrow view of what hatchery performance includes, observed
Tom Rogers of the Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game. It doesn't include things
like remedial actions, he stated. I don't see the usefulness of this
document, said Rogers. This is a very narrow audit, and it needs a lot
more, he added.
Performance indicators are no good if you can't collect the data, said
Smith. This wasn't intended to be an audit - it is intended to measure
performance on a relative basis, he indicated. IHOT focused on the
internal operations of hatcheries, Smith said. This steps back and looks
at it at the policy level, he explained. I'd like to know how the IHOT
measures connect to these, said Stearns. This speaks more to the public
and the business community than IHOT, said Hamilton. Yes, said Smith,
adding that this approach tries to link hatcheries back to public
objectives and to look at how we can demonstrate the success and failure
of such facilities. Overhead rates are one reason that hatcheries in the
region are so expensive, he pointed out. How do you look at what you are
getting for those? Smith inquired.
In response to a question from Rogers, Smith agreed that factors such
as birds and dams affect the success of hatchery programs. But you can't
find that out with this approach, said Rogers. And the next thing is that
you'll see an article in the Oregonian saying that "hatcheries have
failed to meet their objectives," said Stickell. "You're getting
that now," commented Smith.
Hatcheries are an easy target, said Stickell. You have to look at the
whole picture - you have to look at the limiting factors, he stated. The
SRT does not have the data to do an evaluation of the hatchery program,
and "it's scary" for them to do it without the data, Allee said.
The problem we are trying to address with this proposal arose in
connection with a discussion of IHOT performance standards for genetics in
my subgroup at the workshop, he noted. We decided it would be good to get
the SRT and the managers together to try to better define performance
standards for genetics, Allee stated. A Constructive Concept
Steve has provided a constructive concept -- an example -- to deal with
the problem that hatcheries are being evaluated even though people don't
know what the performance indicators are, continued Allee. Scientists have
one point of view, and managers and the public have another, and they
don't agree, he said. We need to try a constructive approach, otherwise we
won't get anywhere, Allee stated. The point is that this provides a set of
performance indicators, he said.
I was enthused by the concept and the move to something constructive
because I'm worried that this review for Congress will just turn out to be
the same old thing, with scientists on one side of the fence, and the
managers and the public on the other, stated Allee. With this, we could
tell Congress that we are working together and trying to do something
constructive, instead of letting them conclude "the whole thing is a
disaster, and we should defund all the hatcheries," he said.
I want to be sure we don't give the hatchery-bashers more ammunition,
stated Hillwig. We need to try to gear the indicators to purposes and
objectives, and not things like harvest and fish returning, he said.
I like this document - it speaks to how the real world looks at things,
commented Hamilton. We've talked about this review for a year, and
hatcheries do need to be put into context, she said. There are lots of us
who are working on improvements in this system so fish can thrive and
grow, Hamilton stated. If we don't put it in context, we will be providing
tools to bash hatcheries, she said.
There are ways to account for discrepancies in performance indicators,
and it won't become ammunition for one side or the other, said Smith.
There are hatcheries that are not producing benefits, and we're going to
have to move out of them in the next 10 years, he stated. Some program
dollars are being spent to maintain genetic resources that otherwise would
be lost, said Stickell. This approach would lead to a better regional
debate about using artificial propagation to maintain existing genetic
resources versus things like passage improvements, Smith responded.
Sometimes benefits are two or three generations down the road, said
Campton. We'll need to have benchmark indicators in three to five years
that can show we're going in the right direction, he suggested.
Marsh asked Allee to continue to chair the subgroup on performance
indicators, to work with the SRT, and to try to resolve some of the
questions raised. We need more input, Allee said. We won't be able to
create this for the Columbia River by May or June, Smith said. The
question is whether we will propose this approach to Congress and ask the
SRT to help us put this together, he stated.
This is another track and will take longer than June to accomplish,
agreed Marsh. Bakke, Foster, Hamilton, Hillwig, Rogers, and Stearns
volunteered for the subgroup. We'll give a progress report on our efforts
at the next meeting, Allee told the committee. Adjourn Production Review
Committee March 8, 1999 Meeting Attendees
Brian Allee, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority Bill Bakke,
Native Fish Society Kurt Beardslee, Washington Trout Don Campton, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Doug Dompier, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission Barry Esperson, Columbia Basin Bulletin Bob Foster, Washington
Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Mark Fritsch, Northwest Power Planning Council
Staff Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association Lee
Hillwig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Andre L'Heureux, Northwest Power
Planning Council Staff John Marsh, Parametrix/Consultant to Northwest
Power Planning Council Cameron Oster, Northwest Power Planning Council
Staff Tom Rogers, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Stephen Smith, National
Marine Fisheries Service Tim Stearns, Save Our Wild Salmon Trent Stickell,
Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife David Wills, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Frank Young, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
^ top
|
|
