| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, May 11, 1998 | document 98-9
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
The Production Review Committee formed a
subgroup to meet with a soon-to-be-selected consultant, to discuss how far
back to dig for historical data on hatchery practices and releases, as well
as other particulars of the data compilation effort. A few members raised
concerns about the Council’s letter on the Mitchell Act budget request, and
there was a plea for coordinating committee activities with the fish
management plan negotiations that stem from U.S. v. Oregon. The
Science Review Team also reported on its progress.
Next Meeting: June 8 in Portland.
• SUBGROUP WILL RECOMMEND HOW MUCH HISTORY IS
ENOUGH -- The committee reviewed an April 13, 1998 version of the
Artificial Production Review Report Outline and Schedule. Trent Stickell of
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife pointed out that the schedule for
completing sections of the report is likely to slip. Lee Hillwig of the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) said the schedule depends on "how serious
the Council is" about seeing that things happen. There is concern about how
serious this process is, Hillwig added. Consultant Roy Sampsel said the
problem has been getting the "administrative pieces" together to hire a
consultant.
Sampsel asked for the committee’s view on how much data is needed to make
a credible study. Committee members offered diverse views on what the review
should encompass. The people who know what is going on are the management
agencies, according to Brian Allee of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
Authority. They know what data they have, and you need to get these guys
involved with the contractor if you are going to compile information on
production, releases, and returns, he said. You need a subset of this group
to provide guidance, Allee suggested. The subgroup will include fisheries
agencies from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and USFWS, Sampsel agreed. The subgroup will need
to meet with the contractor and make a recommendation at the next full
committee meeting, he added. May 27 is the date for the subgroup meeting.
• VIEWS ON THE COUNCIL’S MITCHELL ACT
APPROPRIATIONS LETTER -- Council staffer Mark Walker asked for comments
on Council chair John Etchart’s letter to a House Appropriations
subcommittee expressing support for the Administration’s FY 1999 Mitchell
Act budget request. We said we support the Administration’s request of
$14.765 million, at a minimum, and that some interests in the region think
$20 million would be more appropriate, he stated.
The principle here is to maintain the hatchery infrastructure while this
review is under way, Stephen Smith of NMFS said. But even if we get this
budget, there will be huge cuts in infrastructure -- be aware this is not
enough to maintain the infrastructure, he cautioned. I would urge your state
agency directors and the Council to talk about whether individual state
pressure could be applied to increase the funding, Sampsel said.
• A BRIEF UPDATE ON TRIBAL AND OTHER MEETINGS --
Sampsel reported that there have been some meetings with the tribes, and
there will be more. The tribal folks said: don’t surprise us, and give us
adequate time to review the information, he added. Committee members
indicated that as more products from the review are available, they would
like the Council to have additional agency and commission briefings.
• THE RESIDENT FISH REPORT -- Don Sampson’s
recommendation is to use the period from 1980 forward for the resident fish
review, Sampsel said. The reason is that earlier data is not available, and
the cost of making it available is prohibitive, he explained. Allee
suggested the subgroup formed to consider data needs also work on a more
realistic time frame for compiling the resident fish information, and the
committee agreed.
• LET’S COORDINATE WITH OTHER FORUMS --
The committee reviewed a list of executive, judicial, and legislative
activities that affect artificial production. The Columbia River fish
management plan negotiations, a court-ordered process that stems from the
U.S. v. Oregon decision, are "deeply involved" with artificial
production questions, Hillwig reported. There needs to be some connection
between the renegotiation of the plan and what is going on at this table, he
stated.
If that negotiation is to be instructive to this process, how is that to
happen? Sampsel asked. We’re trying to keep communication going among the
forums so we can maintain flexibility, Smith responded, adding that if the
products are to be effective, they have to "coalesce the three branches of
government." BPA has said it won’t fund any U.S. v. Oregon agendas,
Pat Oshie of the Yakama Indian Nation commented. We need to get with BPA and
find out what they are thinking, he added. We have to make sure the
processes here and in U.S. v. Oregon are going in the same direction,
Sampsel said. We will have a funding and implementation process as a result
of this review and one from U.S. v. Oregon, he observed. At our next
meeting, we will decide when that budget and implementation discussion needs
to take place, Sampsel suggested.
• THE SCIENCE REVIEW TEAM CHECKS IN --
Staffer Chip McConnaha presented the Science Review Team’s (SRT) work plan
and a report on technical briefings made to the team. The outline for the
SRT report spins off of the larger outline for the production review report,
he said. The work plan and report outline look "anadrocentric" -- a lot
about salmon and not about resident fish, Allee observed. We looked at our
charge as anadrocentric, McConnaha responded. At a minimum, the SRT should
cover resident fish programs funded by the Lower Snake River Compensation
Plan and by BPA, Hillwig said. I thought we were mandated to look at all
resident fish put into anadromous fish waters, Tom Frew of the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game said. The question here is the scope of the
investigation, Sampsel said. The subgroup can also address what resident
fish needs are to be included in the review, he indicated.
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 and ask for
Public Affairs. Electronic versions of this and other review documents are
available on the World Wide Web.
^ top
|
|
