| |
Artificial Production Review Committee Meeting
Monday, September 14, 1998 | document 98-28
NWPPC Conference Room, Portland, Oregon
MEETING SUMMARY
The Production Review Committee looked at the database Duane Neitzel of
the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is assembling for Section
IV of the Artificial Production Review report. Bob Tuck of Sampsel
Consulting reported on interviews he is conducting for Section II and said
he would have a draft report by the end of the month. The meeting concluded
with a discussion of how to get at policy and management questions the
review needs to address. Cameron Oster, a new Northwest Power Planning
Council staffer, has been assigned to assist with the Production Review.
Next Meeting: October 21 in Portland.
· Neitzel Rounds Up and Displays Data --
Duane Neitzel of the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
distributed copies of graphs and charts developed from the database he
compiled for Section IV of the Production Review report. The charts and
graphs are what we got from the database in response to questions from the
Science Review Team (SRT), Neitzel explained.
The data used to generate the graphs and tables are from the Microsoft
Access database PNNL assembled, he said. The source for the release data is
StreamNet and for recovery data, it’s the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission (PSMFC), Neitzel stated. The data related to hatchery
descriptions and performance are from the Integrated Hatchery Operations
Team (IHOT) audits, he added. This data provides us the ability to generate
a hypothesis and then go into the database and answer it, he concluded.
We need to know what questions the database will be used to answer,
according to Roy Sampsel of Sampsel Consulting. We should shape the data
depending upon the questions to be answered, Stephen Smith of the National
Marine Fisheries Service concurred.
Committee chair John Marsh said he would get the questions from the SRT
and relay them back to the committee. He also instructed the committee to
get any questions they have about the data to Cameron Oster.
· Tuck Lists Recurring Policy Themes --
Bob Tuck of Sampsel Consulting provided the group with a list of
"specific regional policy issues" that he has heard repeatedly in the
interviews he is conducting with fisheries managers. People have been
"candid, helpful, and honest," he said. The first issue on the list is
"development and enforcement of a comprehensive regional policy concerning
the use of artificial production," Tuck indicated. The interviewees have
been blunt about saying "here we are 20 years after the Northwest Power Act,
and we still do not have a comprehensive regional plan for the basin," he
reported.
There is "considerable skepticism" about the genetic issue of wild fish
versus hatchery fish, Tuck said. Another issue that comes up consistently is
that the "region needs to develop the ability to mold bureaucratic
infrastructure to serve the biological needs of the resource and the
policies adopted by the region, rather than the other way around," he said.
The interviewees have pointed out the need for "a stable, long-term funding
commitment to implement regional artificial production policy," according to
Tuck, and they also say managers’ evaluations should not be based on numbers
or pounds of fish, but on what goals society has set for a hatchery. Several
committee members said evaluations are no longer done that way.
Tuck said he has gotten an appreciation for the context of three decades
of hatchery policy, beginning in the 1950s. Society has changed, and the way
we look at natural resources has changed, he added. Tuck indicated that he
would complete the interviews and have the text in draft form by the end of
the month.
· Whittling Down Policy and Management
Questions --We have to discuss how we are going to deal with the
management and policy questions for the review, Sampsel said. Some committee
members suggested we might want to have a facilitated workshop session to
narrow the 40 questions on the July 7, 1998 list, he said. We have a
discussion taking place on the policy level in U.S. v. Oregon,
Sampsel pointed out, and he wondered if a facilitated workshop would "cross
the line" for managers who are involved in negotiations related to the
lawsuit.
I would be very nervous about it, Bob Foster of the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife said of the workshop. We have had policy meetings
canceled twice because of the need to go to court, he said. We could ask
these questions at the U.S. v. Oregon meeting at the end of the
month, Foster suggested. I don’t think the workshop will work now, Smith
stated. I don’t think people would come -- they can’t talk yet, he said.
It’s worth talking about at the U.S. v. Oregon policy meeting, and
telling the parties they have "to air the options broadly," Smith added.
Trent Stickell of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife likened the
two processes -- the Production Review and U.S. v. Oregon -- to "a
train wreck." You have these trains coming down the track at each other, and
there is no coordination between them, he commented.
U.S. v. Oregon probably has the strongest legal basis, Foster
said. But there are many things going on -- this process, the fish and
wildlife framework, the Council program, and FERC relicensings, he pointed
out. Stickell suggested the group draft something and send it to the U.S.
v. Oregon policy group before its next meeting, so members would be
prepared to respond. There is a lot of talk about hatcheries in U.S. v.
Oregon, Smith said. Lots of people want to have a say on hatcheries, and
they’re not all in U.S. v. Oregon, he continued.
Sampsel said there would be value in engaging the U.S. v. Oregon
policy group. Let’s make some phone calls and do a little checking before we
commit to a letter, he suggested. Sampsel recommended that a couple of
committee members get together and try to develop a strawman list of policy
issues for everyone to consider. That is a way to start synthesizing the
list, Sampsel added.
MEETING REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS
Neitzel Rounds Up and Displays Data
Tuck Lists Recurring Policy Themes
Computer Glitch Holds Up IHOT Summaries
Whittling Down Policy and Management Questions
Committee Business
Committee chair John Marsh introduced Cameron Oster, a new Northwest
Power Planning Council staffer, who is assigned to assist with the
Artificial Production Review. Marsh reported that there has been a few weeks
delay with completing some portions of the draft Production Review report.
The delays are for good reason, he added, noting that none relate to
"critical path" products that will hold up other work.
Neitzel Rounds Up and Displays Data
Duane Neitzel of the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) distributed copies of graphs and charts developed from the database
he compiled for Section IV of the Production Review report (Attachment 1).
We met last week with the Science Review Team (SRT), and they had a bunch of
questions, he said. The charts and graphs in the handout are what we got
from the database in response to their questions, Neitzel explained. One of
the values of this exercise is that it will highlight errors and omissions
in the database, he stated.
The data used to generate the graphs and tables are from the Microsoft
Access database PNNL assembled, Neitzel said. The source for the release
data is StreamNet, and the source for recovery data is the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC), he stated. The data related to hatchery
descriptions and performance are from the Integrated Hatchery Operations
Team (IHOT) audits, Neitzel added. We did find that the locational
designations are different among the databases and that does cause some
problems, and the geographic coordinates for hatcheries are not in StreamNet,
PSMFC, or IHOT, he said.
The SRT asked how many fish have been released, Neitzel said. If you
look at the charts in here, you can get a sense of that, he explained,
pointing out that there are tables organized by state showing the number of
fish released, the hatchery, and species, and a line graph that shows the
time frame. They asked about the total releases over time, Neitzel said,
pointing out the graphics that summarize that information. The next set of
questions dealt with the number of releases by authorization, for example,
the Mitchell Act, he said. We broke that down by species, Neitzel pointed
out.
The Lower Snake River Compensation Plan used to have an American shad
program, and for about 10 years, there were shad releases from the Wallowa
Hatchery, Neitzel said, adding that there are many such interesting pieces
of information in the database. Frank Young of the Columbia Basin Fish and
Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) asked the source of the data on shad and
suggested it might be an error. In response to a question, Neitzel said the
time frame used on the charts reflects what is available in the StreamNet
and PSMFC data.
Then we got into the estimated recovery based on the coded-wire tag
data, Neitzel continued, stressing that the recovery numbers are estimates,
not observed data. The returns are segregated according to where they were
reared, he said. SRT member Jim Lichatowich asked for a presentation of the
release data in three-dimensional chart form, Neitzel said, explaining the
3-D example in the handout.
These charts have been sent to the SRT, and we will discuss them on
Friday, he said. If you find anything that looks strange in the data, give
me a call, Neitzel added. This data provides us the ability to generate a
hypothesis and then go into the database and answer it, he concluded.
How significant is it that the quality assurance (QA) has not been done
on the data? Marsh asked. I don’t know what QA has been done, Neitzel
responded, but in the long run it’s going to be important. What about the
problem with the geographic locations? Marsh asked. Give us an example, he
requested. The PSMFC will have a recovery location that is not referenced to
one of the Council’s subbasins, Neitzel responded. It makes it difficult to
make a query of the data, he explained, because if the references aren’t
consistent, the response may be that there is nothing to report. You have to
be careful, Neitzel indicated. The IHOT data does not have latitude and
longitude, so I will have to provide it, Neitzel said.
Jeff Curtis of Trout Unlimited asked about the recovery numbers. These
numbers seem awfully low, he commented. That’s what’s in the PSMFC data,
Neitzel said. I don’t know if the numbers are right -- this is just what the
region is using, he said. Neitzel added that looking at the numbers and
asking questions is the only way to get at whether the databases can be
used. The recovery database has two million lines of code, so it takes a
long time to run, he pointed out. Stephen Smith of the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) suggested the data could be cross-checked with what
PATH is doing. I’ve heard you have to be very careful using the coded-wire
data, he said.
David Wills of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service questioned whether the
recovery estimates are correct. He suggested the numbers didn’t appear to
have been "expanded" beyond the original tags recovered. Without knowing the
rate of tag recovery and how to expand the numbers, you can’t use this for
recovery data, Wills stated. If someone does an analysis of hatchery
effectiveness from this data, it could be wrong, Bob Foster of the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife indicated.
The discussion here means we need to know how the data is going to be used
and what questions it will be used to answer, according to Roy Sampsel of
Sampsel Consulting. It’s critical that the feedback you get on Friday comes
back to this group so the quality is assured, he said, adding that
additional data needs can then be evaluated more specifically. Sampsel asked
Neitzel to explain the 3-D chart. It displays the total releases by year and
by hatchery, Neitzel replied. You can see when they started and how they
progressed, he added. You can see there is a great deal of variability in
releases from particular hatcheries, according to Brian Allee of CBFWA. You
have a different time sequence with the releases and with recovery, so it’s
a little harder to reconcile, he pointed out.
How do you credit the returns back to the hatchery that released them?
Trent Stickell of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) asked.
The returns are ascribed to the hatchery where the tagging occurred, Neitzel
said. The coded-wire tag is assigned to a particular hatchery, and this is
how the data is presented in StreamNet, he explained. That system doesn’t
credit the hatchery where the fish were reared, so you could end up with
hatcheries that appear to produce no fish, Stickell said. If the SRT is
going to look at performance by recovery data, if that is their intent, they
have to be quite careful, Allee observed. Stickell suggested some of the
graphs are "very busy," and there might be a better way to display the data.
Neitzel said he wanted to be clear about how he is supposed to get the
questions from the SRT that the database is going to address. The data you
have gotten is what we have to work with, Sampsel said. The question is
whether it is displayed in a useful manner, and that depends on what the
data is to be used for, he stated. If it’s to help the SRT to review
artificial production on the basis of certain questions, that would be
helpful to know, Sampsel said. Maybe the SRT should feed the questions back
to this group, and we can inform you if reconfiguring the data would be
useful, he suggested. That would be the "feedback loop," Sampsel said.
I tend to look at these graphs and charts as important references for
our audience to see as backup documentation, he continued. It needs to be
displayed in a way that is easy to read, Sampsel stated. That will be
important in the final report, he added.
There is "a huge hole" in the data for Idaho, according to Tom Rogers of
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and he indicated that needs to be
remedied. The coded-wire tag question is still up in the air, and it needs
to be explained -- is it or is it not based on expanded numbers, he added.
The managers who know what’s in here ought to be "qualifying" this data
to the SRT, Allee suggested. People who have insights need to look at this
-- if the insights don’t get to the SRT, they could come to erroneous
conclusions, he said. We need to clear up the matter of what questions they
are going to use this for, Sampsel stated. Let’s go to the scientists and
ask what their questions are, he suggested. Foster said he thought it would
be impossible to verify all of the data. But if you know the questions, you
can look more specifically, he added.
The total release data doesn’t reflect that there have been three or
four distinct phases in hatchery production over the past 120 years,
according to Bob Tuck of Sampsel Consulting. For example, feeding fry did
not start until after the turn of the century, he pointed out. It’s becoming
clear in the interviews I am doing that there is a qualitative part of the
picture that is important, Tuck indicated.
We should shape the data depending upon what questions are to be
answered, Smith stated. That’s what I’m saying, Sampsel agreed. Should we
have Duane go and meet with the SRT and report back to us? he asked. Foster
suggested Neitzel get the questions from the SRT and get them to the
Production Review Committee before its next meeting.
Stickell asked about the data on releases separated according to the
various authorizations. I took the total releases and the authorization
information from IHOT, Neitzel said. I used a query such as: give us the
total releases made under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan, he
explained. How do you arrive at the state-funded component? Stickell asked.
The authorizations are in the IHOT database -- it says which legislation
funded the release, Neitzel responded. Stickell suggested the IHOT data
would capture "a snapshot in time" for the split between state and federal
funding. That may not be appropriate to apply across the board, he added.
The committee members discussed whether it would be better to use the
funding split set out when the hatchery was authorized, but Stickell noted
that too could change over time.
The significance is how the data is going to be used, Sampsel stated.
Trent’s point is that some of the information should not be used for an
across-the-board analysis, he added. We need to see what the questions are
so we know whether the data needs to be restacked, Sampsel stated.
Task Item for Staff: Marsh said he would get the questions
from the SRT and relay them back to the committee. If you have questions
about the data, get them to Cameron, he stated. Cameron’s e-mail address is
coster@nwcouncil.org -- all questions should go through Cameron, Marsh added.
If you find anything that looks strange in the results get a hold
of Neitzel, duane.neitzel@pnl.gov
Tuck Lists Recurring Policy Themes
Tuck provided the group with a list of "specific regional policy issues"
(Attachment 2) that he has heard repeatedly in the interviews he is
conducting with fisheries managers. The different phases of hatchery
operations have been pointed out to me several times, and most relate to
nutrition, he said.
People have been "candid, helpful, and honest," and they realize
hatcheries are of considerable concern and controversy, Tuck said. Most of
these people have been very involved in hatchery decisionmaking over the
last 40 years, he explained, adding that they have been candid about
mistakes that were made. No matter where you are on the spectrum of opinion
on hatcheries, the historical record "is what it is," Tuck stated.
He went through the list of themes that have continually come up in the
interviews. The first one on the list is "development and enforcement of a
comprehensive regional policy concerning the use of artificial production."
That one "always" comes up, he said. The interviewees have been blunt about
saying "here we are 20 years after the Northwest Power Act, and we still do
not have a comprehensive regional plan for the basin," Tuck reported. They
say the region is not going to get anywhere until there is regional buyoff
on what you want hatcheries to do, he said.
Tuck said the interviewees feel that hatcheries will do what society
asks them to do, and most feel the hatcheries were successful in doing what
they were supposed to at the time they were managers. If society has new
goals, they feel we have to get together and come up with what they are, he
explained.
There is "considerable skepticism" about the genetic issue of wild fish
versus hatchery fish, Tuck said. The interviewees acknowledge that in the
1950s, they never thought about genetics, he continued. Another issue that
comes up consistently, Tuck said, is that the "region needs to develop the
ability to mold bureaucratic infrastructure to serve the biological needs of
the resource and the policies adopted by the region, rather than the other
way around." Bureaucracies are hard to change, and they recognize the
bureaucratic infrastructure is an impediment, he explained.
Another item that comes up "again and again" is the need for "a stable,
long-term funding commitment to implement regional artificial production
policy," according to Tuck. The last item on the list also comes up
routinely, he pointed out: "evaluations of hatchery managers need to be
revised to reflect success or failure of meeting specific goals at
artificial production facilities, not on numbers of pounds." The
interviewees see evaluation as a problem, and they say it should not be
based on numbers or pounds but on what goals society has set for a hatchery,
Tuck said.
In Oregon, we don’t evaluate managers on numbers of fish, Stickell
pointed out, adding that he did not recall it ever being done. Others
suggested that policy has changed in most states, but the perception may
linger that evaluations are still done that way.
If you recommend changes in the existing system, you need to know what
you are trying to do in what time frame, Sampsel observed. He commented that
several items on the list need "good management thought."
The interviews have been "extremely enlightening," Tuck said. He noted
that a lot of siting decisions were made because of "where do you have
water," rather than on regional need. A lot were "serendipity," Tuck said,
adding that political decisions also entered in. That is not unique to
hatchery siting, Sampsel observed. The information suggests a piecemeal
approach, and now you need a comprehensive production plan, he added.
Smith said he was uncertain you could develop a basinwide policy that
would not change immediately. We are in a transition, he added. NMFS’
Endangered Species Act policy on salmon was written with "one mandate" in
mind, but now the agency is learning more about what hatcheries can do in
meeting Treaty trust responsibilities and augmenting fisheries, Smith
observed. We have to be careful not to bind ourselves to something that we
will have to begin making exceptions to, he said. Smith also pointed out
that one item on Tuck’s list says "develop a regional wild salmonid policy,
subbasin by subbasin." How can we have a subbasin approach with wild fish
and a basinwide approach with hatcheries? he asked.
Curtis said the one time he "got yelled at in public" when working for
Congress was trying to draft legislation about hatcheries. We could deal
with all kinds of complex issues, but we could not come up with hatchery
policy for the Northwest, he pointed out. On a bunch of Northwest issues,
"we are getting whacked," Curtis said, pointing out that the House of
Representatives proposed cuts in Corps of Engineers’ appropriations. Unless
we have some sort of regional policy, without too many exceptions, I don’t
think the funding will be there, he stated.
Tuck said he has gotten an appreciation for the context of three decades
of hatchery policy, beginning in the 1950s. Society has changed, and the way
we look at natural resources has changed, he said. Tuck related an anecdote
from one of the biologists interviewed, who said he was one of only two
people in the audience at a hearing in the early 1950s dealing with
construction of the Hells Canyon complex on the Snake River. We know how
much that has changed, Tuck said.
We need to be cognizant that all the talk about hatcheries is not
negative, Stickell pointed out. There is some "hatchery bashing" going on,
but we get positive feedback too, he said. It’s not all "doom and gloom,"
Stickell added. These folks have been very supportive of hatcheries, Tuck
responded. They have all said that if the region is to have meaningful
anadromous salmonid recovery you have to have production, he said. Tuck also
pointed out that he had asked the former managers why they thought "the
golden era" had ended, given that there have been so many advances in
nutrition and healthcare for the fish. They all say, "we don’t know," he
reported.
I have a few interviews remaining, and I have to finish the report, Tuck
said. I hope to have the text in draft form by the end of the month, he
said, adding that there is more to do on the resident fish side. I’d like to
have pieces of your report provided to this group as soon as possible,
Sampsel stated.
Computer Glitch Holds Up IHOT Summaries
Don Sampson was frustrated in completing the IHOT summaries by a computer
glitch, which he is resolving today, Sampsel reported. He will be printing
copies today, and 15 sets of the summaries will be here tomorrow, Sampsel
said. The next steps will be to verify a few of them -- we can pick those we
want to check on, he added.
Whittling Down Policy and Management Questions
Marsh handed out copies of Section 7 of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife
Program (Attachment 3). This is informational, and we’ll be discussing it in
the future, he said.
We have to discuss how we are going to deal with the management and
policy questions (Attachment 4) for the review, Sampsel said. Liz Hamilton
of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and Jean Edwards of
Representative Elizabeth Furse’s office suggested we might want to have a
facilitated workshop session to narrow the 40 questions on the July 7, 1998
list, he said. I think that may be useful, Sampsel said, pointing out the
difficulty of wrestling with the issues and turning them into
recommendations for Congress. The Council’s program needs to be updated in
1999, and this process might be very informative to that, he stated.
We have a discussion taking place on the policy level in U.S. v.
Oregon, Sampsel pointed out, and he wondered if a facilitated workshop
would "cross the line" for managers who are involved in negotiations related
to the lawsuit. Could some guidance from U.S. v. Oregon come back to
this table? Sampsel asked.
The U.S. v. Oregon discussions have been broken down into four
subregions, Foster responded. At the policy level, we can discuss our own
positions, but we cannot discuss those of others, he said. I would be very
nervous about it, Foster said of the workshop. We have had policy meetings
canceled twice because of the need to go to court, he said. We could ask
these questions at the U.S. v. Oregon meeting at the end of the
month, Foster suggested.
How do you make commitments on future production funding in U.S. v.
Oregon? Curtis asked. Aren’t you hindered? he inquired. The options are
not far enough along for funding discussions, Smith replied. I have always
said the outcome in U.S. v. Oregon has to be "a three-legged stool,"
and at some point, we have to hook up with funding, he added. "We could be
at cross-purposes," Curtis observed. The states, feds, and tribes could come
to a conclusion that could not be funded, he commented. We have to have the
funding connection, and it has to "dovetail" with groups like this, Smith
stated.
The basic communication about who’s doing what and which forum is the
place for the discussions needs to happen, according to Edwards. That’s why
I thought a regional workshop might be useful to help resolve this and drive
to some conclusion, she said.
Where is the coordination done among the various programs? Sampsel
asked. Is it in U.S. v. Oregon, or is just a piece done there? Is it
a Council initiative? he inquired. Those are threshold questions about where
and with what authority decisions are to be made, Sampsel pointed out. Some
things you can tie back to U.S. v. Oregon, but when you talk about
issues that involve the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for example,
it’s more difficult, Foster observed.
It’s a good idea, but I don’t think the workshop will work now, Smith
stated. I don’t think people would come -- they can’t talk yet, he said.
It’s worth talking about at the U.S. v. Oregon policy meeting, and
telling the parties they have "to air the options broadly," Smith added.
Stickell said he thought the situation was "like a train wreck." You have
these trains coming down the track at each other, and there is no
coordination between them, he commented.
U.S. v. Oregon probably has the strongest legal basis, Foster
said. But there are many things going on -- this process, the fish and
wildlife framework, the Council program, and FERC relicensings, he pointed
out. The funding decisions that are being made now may not make any
long-term sense, Sampsel observed.
Stickell suggested the group draft something and send it to the U.S.
v. Oregon policy group before its meeting, so members would be prepared
to respond. Sampsel said a letter should come from the Council. If we took a
crack at putting it together, can we run it past you and get it out this
week? he asked. If we can get something out for framing the issue, does that
make sense? Sampsel asked the committee.
Does everyone here agree on what the product is supposed to be that goes
to Congress? Edwards asked. I sense everyone has their own view, and I’m
proposing a forum to come up with a joint statement and a list of the areas
of agreement, she said.
There is a lot of talk about hatcheries in U.S. v. Oregon, Smith
said. Lots of people want to have a say on hatcheries, and they’re not all
in U.S. v. Oregon, he continued. How do we accommodate that? Smith
asked. How do organizations like Trout Unlimited participate? he inquired.
Stickell reiterated the need to write to U.S. v. Oregon parties and
ask about a workshop and how they perceive the efforts working together. I
think the policy committee has to have time to share something before "it’s
in concrete," Smith stated.
You also have funding requests going to Congress from the states right
now, Sampsel pointed out. There is real value in asking the U.S. v.
Oregon policy group about this and value in a broader discussion in the
region, he said. Is it possible you could have negotiations under U.S. v.
Oregon and an agreement that would be binding, whether or not there is
broader review? Tuck asked. That could be the case, others replied. The
judge can’t authorize funds, Sampsel pointed out. Whatever comes out of
U.S. v. Oregon, you have to deal with what would happen if you don’t get
the funding to implement it, Smith said.
Sampsel said there would be value in engaging the U.S. v. Oregon
policy group. What is the protocol? he asked. Everyone drives the process
together, Foster said. Let’s make some phone calls and do a little checking
before we commit to a letter, Sampsel suggested. As we have additional
discussions here at the Council and if a course is decided on, we will
e-mail you, he said. Convey any more thoughts you have on the matter to
John, Sampsel added.
Many people agree this list of policy issues has to get smaller, Smith
stated. Without a workshop, how do we do that so it is meaningful? he asked.
Will the Council want to get involved? Foster asked. Yes, they definitely
will, Sampsel replied. Let’s get a couple of us together and try to get out
a strawman list for everyone to consider, he recommended. That is a way to
start synthesizing the list, Sampsel added.
Task Item for Staff: Make inquiries about sending a letter
from the Council to the U.S. v. Oregon parties relating to the policy
and funding questions. Pare down the list of policy issues into a strawman
for the Production Review Committee to consider.
Marsh said the next scheduled committee meeting falls on October 12,
Columbus Day. That’s a holiday for some of the members, he pointed out. The
group decided to reschedule its next meeting for October 21.
Adjourn
Production Review Committee September 14, 1998 Meeting Attendees
Brian Allee, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
Jeff Curtis, Trout Unlimited
Jean Edwards, Representative Elizabeth Furse’s Office
Dani Evenson, Sampsel Consulting
Bob Foster, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Jeff Gislason, BPA
James Horton, Sampsel Consulting
Stacy Horton, Northwest Power Planning Council staff (by
telephone)
John Marsh, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
George Nandor, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Duane Neitzel, Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Cameron Oster, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
Tom Rogers, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
Roy Sampsel, Sampsel Consulting
Stephen Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service
Trent Stickell, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Theodora Strong, Northwest Power Planning Council staff
Bob Tuck, Sampsel Consulting
David Wills, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Frank Young, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority
^ top
|
|
