March 17-18, 2001 (University of Washington, Department of Fisheries) Meeting Summary Meeting Minutes Meeting Agenda Presentations Technical Documents Attendees Meeting Summary SEI Science Panel First Workshop, March 17-18, 2001 Main Points The rules of operation of the panel were developed. The action and regulatory agencies set out their previous scientific and management positions. New information was presented on estuary function, and on coastal cutthroat. Panelists encouraged the agencies to abandon a focus on past frustrations, to coordinate efforts, and make an effort to work across institutional boundaries. Panelists asked for changes to the proposed workshop program to increase emphasis on salmonids. Panelists asked that presentations be made by scientists rather than managers. The group agreed to the development of a conceptual model to guide analysis of effects. Panelists supported an approach based on analysis of risk, and explicit discussion of uncertainties. Highlights of the March Proceedings Courtney emphasized that the scientific process is designed to understand the uncertainties associated with the various issues and the risks associated with the predicted outcomes. The purpose of the workshops is to focus on the potential effects of dredging and dredge disposal on salmonids and salmonid habitat. Courtney reaffirmed the independent nature of the Science Panel, formed to give an impartial evaluation of the scientific facts; it is not the purpose of the panel to make decisions. Courtney indicated that the principal agencies will be involved in consultation activities throughout the process; they will make separate and independent decisions and evaluations. The agencies have identified four issues of importance for the panelists to individually evaluate in four separate workshops: Changes in estuary conditions due to salinity intrusion. Redistribution of sediments. Sediments with toxic components. Monitoring and mitigation strategies. Background The Army Corps stated that most disposal sites will not affect salmon in any way. The Corps has selected sites that are deeper than fish tend to go, or located in the middle of channel, where fish don't migrate. State of the Estuary While lots of data exist, little has been published. There is a dearth of information on how long fish stay in the estuary, but biologists agree on a range of 2-6 weeks, depending on the stock. Estimations of habitat loss vary widely. Sediment travels mainly along the bottom. Dams have greatly reduced sediment load due to changes in flow. Summary and Status of Coastal Cutthroat Trout The general lack of information on coastal cutthroat highlighted for the panel many of the uncertainties facing the Biological Assessment process. The Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed for the panel that fish are not flushed through the system (i.e., their movement is not correlated to the hydrograph of the river). Estuary Paper NMFS asserted there has been both a qualitative and a quantitative change in shallow-water habitat opportunity from historic times. Most fish going through the Columbia River system are hatchery fish which, because they are released late in their development, are strong fish that tend not to go into off-channel rearing areas. Native fish reach the estuary at a younger age and tend to reside in peripheral and side-channel areas, where the habitat has been greatly reduced and degraded. NMFS wants more information on how changing river morphology might impact these peripheral areas. The Corps model tells the story only of the channel. Technical Issues Overview NMFS clarified that because no environmental baseline on estuarine conditions exists, the agency must move cautiously in evaluating potential impacts of the project. The Science Panel felt strongly that biologists must clarify how they will apply the physical information, "otherwise the list is infinite." NMFS made it clear that the agency is not interested in attempting to re-create conditions in the estuary of 100 years ago. Tortorici: "We're talking about assembling information to understand how we got to where we are now, and then overlaying that project on top of it." The Corps stated that the Columbia River system is a bedload-dominated, sand-wave system. It is "very clean"; only one of nine standard pesticides has been detected in the channel. Because of this, the Corps determined that dredging would pose no significant impacts to the physical environment, and inferred that there would be no significant impacts to salmonids. The Corps stated that, in the multi-agency discussions about the consequences of the proposed action, they received concurrence on how to proceed. Kim Larson: "....where I think we're in disagreement is did we adequately predict the physical impacts?... I don't think we've ever been in disagreement with NMFS on the value of the estuary to juvenile salmon, it's interpreting what the physical impact is going to be and what that means for the fish." The group identified the issues raised during previous discussions and negotiations, including those stated as the reasons for withdrawal of the biological opinion. This list of issues (Document 2) will be a focus of discussions through the rest of these workshops. Panel Discussion The panelists were generally critical of the overall lack of coordination on the part of the agencies. Several panelists urged the principal parties to work together to develop a common framework for evaluating the issues. They asked that the appropriate scientists be present at future meetings to help clarify technical issues for the panel. At the same time, the panel was generally sympathetic for the frustrations experienced by all parties. The panelists also suggested that a workshop be added on salmonid biology, and the two sediment oriented workshops be combined. To address the panel's interest in having a framework, a suggestion was made to develop a "conceptual model" to help sort out the connections among important interacting factors. Such an approach would help identify uncertainties and would also establish a framework for a management program. All agreed this was a good idea that would be refined over the course of SEI meetings. Bartell characterized the problem before the panel as "multi-dimensional." The agencies need to define how many and which dimensions will be used in the decision-making process. "Once we define what that finite set of dimensions is, that can determine how well we can quantify where the system is along each of those dimensions. That will provide a quantitative baseline of current conditions." Boesch admonished the parties to "acknowledge the unknowns, but recognize that we do know a lot that allows us to make some predictions." He urged the Corps to move away from addressing an environment as complex as the Columbia River system on an issue-by-issue basis to a more systematic approach. And he urged NMFS to "state its case much more forcefully in terms of how this issue of potential risks to survivability in the estuary" fits into a broader, more systematic approach. The panel reaffirmed its commitment to an impartial evaluation of the facts. Goldman: "It seems to me that our job really is consensus building between the groups. We're not empowered to decide this for you. What we'd like to do is bring out the major issues and help you resolve them; to come to some kind of a conclusion that you can all live with.... I'm just hoping that by keeping up the communication, and by our presence essentially forcing a new level of communication and understanding, we can in fact move beyond this conflict."