Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download America`s Fishery Conservation Program Stakeholder
Document related concepts
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Conservation psychology wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Conservation movement wikipedia , lookup
Overexploitation wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
America’s Fishery Conservation Program Stakeholder Comments on the FWS Plan Session Transcripts July 26, 2002 BASSMasters Classic, Birmingham AL Facilitated and Prepared by Vern Herr and Brett Boston Group Solutions Corporation Box 940 Alpharetta, GA 30004 770.346-0500 (voice) 770-346-0555 (fax) [email protected] Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 1 Table of Contents Stakeholder Feedback on FWS Fisheries Strategic Vision Sign-in Sheet..........................................................................................................................................3 Vision ...................................................................................................................................................10 Actions will be weighed against these Criteria ................................................................................11 Implementation Actions .....................................................................................................................13 Goals, Objectives, and Actions ..........................................................................................................13 Partnerships and Accountability.......................................................................................................14 Aquatic Species Conservation Management....................................................................................16 Public Use ............................................................................................................................................21 Cooperation with Native Americans.................................................................................................25 Leadership in Science and Technology.............................................................................................26 Aquatic Habitat Conservation Management ...................................................................................28 Workforce Management ....................................................................................................................30 Final Feedback to the Service! ..........................................................................................................31 Wrap-up Messages .............................................................................................................................33 FWS Strategic Vision: Keypad Results ................................................................................35 Discussion Notes.....................................................................................................................................53 Q&A With Steve Williams.................................................................................................57 Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 2 Stakeholder Feedback on FWS Fisheries Strategic Vision Editor’s Note: Comments in italics, or noted with asterisks were captured by the facilitation team Comment is based on pg.4 p 2 Are these 800 employees enough to cover all the things that the Plan is trying to get done? Will the Fisheries Program (National Fish Hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers, Fish Health Centers, Fishery Resources Offices) be on the short end to do all the work needed? (1) Sign-in Sheet Brett Boston/Vern Herr Group Solutions, Inc. 0-770-451-0026 f-770-451-0401 [email protected] [email protected] __________________________________________________________________________ John Lott, South Dakota Dept. of Game, fish and Parks Phil Risnes, South Dakota BASS Federation David Derner Vermont BASS Federation Conservation Director Roger Trageser Randy B. Lee NC BASS Federation Conservation Director Chuck Harger Tennessee BASS Federation Conservation Director Terry Steinwand North Dakota Game Fish Dept. [email protected] Terry B. Johnson Arizona Game and Fish Department [email protected] Steve Burk Christine M Moffitt University of Idaho, USGS AFS REP to Planning TEAM [email protected] Cornell Stroik, Wisconsin BASS 414 761 2115 Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 3 Roger Richardson Delaware Federation Conservation Director Jack McGowan, Rhode Island Conservation [email protected] Larry Riley Arizona Game and Fish Department, Fisheries Branch [email protected] [email protected] Leonard Nichols Wyoming Federation Conservation Director Al STEVENS, MN DNR Jim Noah Misouri B.A.S.S. Federation State Conservation Director [email protected] Ken Kurzawski Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept., Inland Fisheries Division [email protected] Chris Horton Arkansas Game and Fish Commission [email protected] Don Brader Arkansas Game and Fish Commission [email protected] James Doss OHIO BASS Chapter Federation Conservation Director 43 Portsmouth Rd. Gallipolis, OH 45631 [email protected] Phil Risnes, Conservation Director South Dakota BASS Federation 26643 461 Ave. Hartford SD 57033 [email protected] John Lott South Dakota Dept. of Game, Fish and Parks Missouri River Fisheries Center 20641 SD HWY 1806 Fort Pierre, SD 57532 [email protected] Billy R. Graves New Mexico BASS Federation 13524 Witcher Ave., NE Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 4 Albuquerque, NM 87112 [email protected] Fred Harris, Inland Fisheries Chief [email protected] Randy B. Lee, NC BASS Conservation Director [email protected] Ted Crowell, Assistant Fish Chief Kentucky Dept. Fish & Wildlife Resources [email protected] John Romans KY Bass Federation Conservation Director [email protected] Robin Knox, Colorado Sportfish Program Manager [email protected] Scott Hendricks GA BASS Conservation Director [email protected] Elise Irwin, USGS, ALCFWRU [email protected] Pat Mangan US Bureau of Reclamation [email protected] Gary Martel [email protected] John H. Williams Southern Company Services, Hydro Services [email protected] Vern Wagner MN Bass Federation [email protected] Gary Tilyou, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries [email protected] 225-765-2343 Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 5 John Grizzle Auburn University, Auburn, AL [email protected] Steve waters [email protected] Stephen Norris Washington State BASS Federation POB 849 Mckenna, WA. 98558 email: [email protected] Jim Howard Alabama B.A.S.S. Federation, Conservation Director [email protected] George Thomlinson President Missouri BASS Federation [email protected] Jim Martin Pure Fishing PO Box 1183 Mulino, Oregon 97042 [email protected] 503-632-4270 Chuck Coomer, Chief, GA Wildlife Resources Division chuck [email protected] Roger Trageser 1st VP Maryland BASS Federation [email protected] Ira F. Palmer, Chief/ Program Manager District of Columbia's Fisheries and Wildlife Division [email protected] Chuck Lang BASS Conservation Director Oregon [email protected] Charlie Corrarino Oregon Dept Fish and Wildlife [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 6 Stacy Twiggs Texas Bass Federation President [email protected] Jay Walton Iowa Conservation Director [email protected] Allen Stevens MN DNR, [email protected] Scott Sewell Maryland Conservation Director [email protected] Noreen Clough NKC Consulting, Inc [email protected] Don Linder Oklahoma BASS Conservation Director [email protected] Gene Gilliland Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation [email protected] Don Anderson, Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market St., PSC 1X Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 [email protected] 423 697-6011 Mitch Hayes Indiana B.A.S.S. Federation Secretary [email protected] Mike Conlin Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources Chief, Division of Fisheries [email protected] Ron Dent MO Dept of Conservation 1110 So College Columbia, MO 65201 [email protected] state.us Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 7 Cindy Brunner College of Veterinary Medicine Auburn University, Auburn, AL [email protected] Will Courtney Louisiana Conservation Director [email protected] Russ Englebart Iowa BASS Federation President [email protected] Bobby Davenport Arkansas BASS Chapter Federation [email protected] Mitchell Perkins huntnbass1@aol Jim Summers WV BASS Conservation Director [email protected] Bret Preston WV Division of Natural Resources [email protected] Steve Burk Idaho State BASS Federation Conservation Director, [email protected] Alan Bryant Kansas Bass Federation Conservation Director [email protected] Lowell Aberson Kansas Dept. of Wildlife and Parks [email protected] Scott Bradford Maine Bass Federation Conservation Director [email protected] Bill Reichert Pennsylvania B.A.S.S Conservation Director 51 North 4th Street Cressona, PA 17929 [email protected] Dan Catchings, District Fisheries Supervisor Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources [email protected] John Hamilton Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 8 Mississippi BASS Federation Conservation Dir. 404 Meadowlane Dr. Aberdeen, Ms. 39730 [email protected] Doug Powell Al. Power Envir. Specialist [email protected] Kevin Gaubert LA BASS Federation President 985 785-9069, [email protected] Thomas Pettengill Sport Fisheries & Aquatic Education Coordinator tompettengill.utah.gov 801-538-4814 Walt Maldonado Conservation Officer, Utah B.A.S.S. Federation [email protected] 435-564-8147 George Sommer President, Utah B.A.S.S. Federation [email protected] [email protected] (801)971-3496 cell Phone/fax (801)966-7810 David Derner Vermont BASS Federation Conservation Director [email protected] 46 Cooper Rd Milton, VT 05468 Jon Stewart Kansas Bass Federation President [email protected] Stan Cook Alabama, Chief of Fisheries [email protected] Jerry Moss Alabama, District Fisheries Supervisor, ADCNR [email protected] Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 9 Norm Willoughby Florida Bass Federation Secretary, [email protected] Ron Spitler Michigan BASS Conservation Director [email protected] Ed Moyer Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Director Division of Freshwater Fisheries [email protected] Doug Nygren Kansas Dept of Wildlife & Parks [email protected] Damon Lee Abernethy SCDNR 2007 Pisgah Rd. Florence, S.C. 29501 [email protected] Heath Morris Maine Bass Federation President [email protected] Gordon Robertson ASA JACK HENRY 18A MAPLE ST. DOVER,N.H. 03820 [email protected] 603-749-0422 (2) Vision - Page 3 Paragraph 2 The vision of the Service and its Fisheries programs is a future of healthy aquatic systems that are populated with an abundance of fish and other aquatic organisms. There is a hint of pride in Service Leadership reflected in the vision – an certainly that is appropriate. However, if we place our pride in partnership and use it the world will recognize the Service's leadership. (AZGFD) * Some concerns expressed that there isn't any issue above/beyond protecting what we have at this moment. Protect/enhance (2.1) Fisheries will work with partners to: How are they go to help provide opportunities in States with very little or no Federal Grounds? Such as Kansas ? Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 10 (2.2) PROTECT the health of aquatic habitats (2.3) RESTORE fish and other aquatic resources Need to define restore. Need a glossary of terms for the entire document. (2.4) PROVIDE opportunities to enjoy the benefits This cannot to once again become secondary to previous vision statements. (3) Actions will be weighed against these Criteria The Fisheries Program embraces a balanced approach toward aquatic resource stewardship that recognizes the need to conserve and manage self-sustaining populations and their habitats, and at the same time, provide quality opportunities for responsible fishing and other outdoor recreation activities. Fisheries will use five criteria to decide what fishery activities, opportunities, and issues to address and involve partners in these valuations. The criteria are based on the identification of a Federal role and a determination of whether or not the Service is the most appropriate Federal agency. The Service will weigh proposed and potential actives by: Please make sure the states are fully aware of these criteria. (3.1) C1-Extent of Fed authority & responsibility Don't seek more pervasive authority, seek to use what we have effectively and efficiently. Our Authorities (State and Federal) are powerful when used together (yeah, there's always some element missing). Public reaction to powerseeking can be very negatively perceived. If we use our authorities and responsibilities TOGETHER, we can accomplish great things I just hope that the fed does not make broad sweeping 1 size fits all regulations! We see it time and again in order to "make things easier" Water development agencies like Reclamation and the Corps have authorities, missions and organic acts that often do not give recreational fisheries a value commensurate with its social and economic value. Though the US Fish and Wildlife has recreational fisheries authorities it does not control as much recreational fisheries waters as federal agencies like the Corps, Defense and Reclamation that do not give fisheries priorities. (3.2) C2-Complements other fish & conserve efforts We respect the right of the Service to have a differing opinion but we do not wish to get blinded-sided or undermined by these opinions. (3.3) C3-Likelihood of measurable resource results Hugely important when setting priorities. If the public can't perceive tangible pay-off, support will wane for the Service's programs. (3.4) C4-Likelihood of economic or social benefits This should be one of the most important criteria (If not the most). Social and economic impact is very important to the policy makers and appropriation committees. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 11 Give recreational fisheries economic and social benefits equal standing to municipal, agriculture and hydropower values associated with Federal Projects and FERC relicensing (3.5) C5 - The extent of partner support This is by far the most important of the criteria listed. If you do not have the support of the states fishery agencies and the state angler groups, you will not be successful. (3.6) Other Criteria? ** it's the product of partner support more than the fact we have it. It has to be product driven! ** The likelihood ratings seem to reflect some paranoia that it may/may not happen. We still have some trust issues to overcome Is this because of past experience, or low believability here? At the field level, we don't see the same "walk" we see at the DC level Policies can be clear, but implementation is often open to interpretation (AZ) WI BASS Conservation Director: Many participants don't know how to communicate with congressmen. Money/blood are important. We need to be able to cross over the aisle to work with other parties on nonpartisan basis. Conservation is bigger than politics. UT: a lot of distrust comes from the lack of information and lack of communication from the Service. Projects with no news releases don't inspire confidence. More outreach to surrounding communities would help avoid misunderstandings CO: 2 primary areas for this. Internally it seems there are differences between programs that create resistance from Service personnel who have review responsibilities. Sportfish restoration has tremendous barriers to ecological services group. Overly protective barriers to development at the field level. These are big mountains to climb. Communication: we hear a lot about ESA, but little good about what's been accomplished with rec. species. IL: Past experience as burn victims is a barrier. We can make progress now. Have heard this before to some extent. Clinton's executive order sounded great, but fell apart in implementation in some situations. The fact that everyone is at the table today is a strong positive. Partner instead of send edicts OR: What do we expect to see in 5 years. This is a short timeline for some of the critters we're monitoring. Many won't be here to see the results that will take more like 50 years to accomplish anything significant How do you propose to balance all of these concerns? it is not clear within the plan as written. Are you going to follow the model of the North American waterfowl plan and modify how it gained support w Congress and stakeholders? Would focus groups help with the marketing of this plan. Use corporate partners to develop a step down marketing plan to push this plan at all levels. Politics and money (esp. corporate influence) need to be considered Also, conflicting authorization issues of agencies (particularly outside or DOI) need to be carefully considered and strategies for dealing with these conflicts should be established Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 12 The FWS staff that work with ESA in region 4 often work closely with the fisheries folks. Restoration efforts in many cases benefit recreational fishes through ecosystem management. (4) Implementation Actions In order to speed up the implementation of recreational access and aquatic habitat projects federal money should be allotted to the lowest administrative level like refuges or sub-regional offices for cost share grants with partners instead of regional or Washington level decisions of projects. To balance the concerns about decentralized decision making running amuck make grant decision makers responsible to the goals of the Fisheries Program Strategic Plan. (5) Goals, Objectives, and Actions The plan fails to distinguish adequately between desirable and undesirable nonnative exotic/indigenous fishes and native species. Established desirable exotics (i.e. some sportfishes) must be a management priority for states and the service. (AZ GFD). Does not appear that Ecological Services (traditional owner of FWCA coordination etc) and Endangered Species Offices (traditional owner of Recovery planning) participation has been solicited in development of the plan. That involvement is essential to development of the partnership that is desired, in particular with regard to recovery planning and aquatic habitat. (AZGFD) The plan does not adequately identify the extent to which these actions will be pursued by working through and capacity building within partners as opposed to the Service staffing up to provide services. The process we are engaged in today is extremely efficient and the opportunity is greatly appreciated. (AZGFD) Our authorities and responsibilities (State + Federal) are most effectively employed when employed together. When we are going the same direction, we are almost unstoppable. We make great partners, as long as we are willing to be partners. (AZGFD) There is a serious need for a glossary or some other collection of the terms used (including important modifiers) in this plan, and their definitions. We saw that subtle differences in understanding of the meaning of several terms could significantly influence our responses to importance or likelihood of implementation. The plan fails to adequately distinguish what is included under "aquatic Resources". Some reptiles e.g. garter snakes and mud snakes are in many ways more aquatic that some amphibians likes toads and barking frogs. (AZGFD) We need to watch out for our own turfism. Fisheries vs. Ecological Services and Endangered Species. Be cautious that we don't seek more than balance. The focus is on partnerships rather than on the products of partnerships, which are the products and services necessary to achieve the statutorily required mandates and desires of the public. Partnership is the means to achieve what is expected of us, not the goal itself. (AZGFD) The plan fails to adequately address issues of economic feasibility and effectiveness as well as ecological effectiveness or likelihood. (Like issues revolving around "eradication of ANS" - can we spend 95% of our resources to achieve a 5% value?). Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 13 Is there buy in from OMB/Congress/Administration that this plan will actually modify, supplement the FWS GIPRA Strategic Plan? (AZGFD) The objectives of this plan are not measurable. It is probably necessary to leave the objectives vague at this point in the process. At some point, specific measurable criteria must be established. Our perception of the importance and feasibility of the objectives will depend on how aggressive they are. For example, meeting participants struggled with the extent of some of the activities--recovery of all the endangered species? Eradication of all the nuisance species? Who will set the target numbers? (6) Partnerships and Accountability The Service will strengthen and revitalize its Fisheries Program and re-commit itself to partnership efforts to conserve the Nation's fish and other aquatic resources, focusing on seven areas: __________________________________________________________________________ We also refer to Partners as Customers - that implies obligation to meeting their needs. (AZGFD) Very important to restoring good reputation to the service. It is important to first make sure that the field level offices and the regional offices are on the same page with policy level issues. To prospective partners, the lack of effective communication within the service presents a very formidable obstacle to formation of partnerships. Efforts to form partnerships in the southeast were delayed by Washington DC level interference. Washington leadership needs to allow regional personnel to proceed with regional agreements. Communication is the key to make the outdoor public believe and trust the Service again. Especially communication with the people that live in and near where the project will take place. Newspaper, magazines, radio and television should always be used to inform the public. (6.1) Partnership Goal - Interactive Communication Open, interactive communication between the Fisheries Program and its partners. The Fisheries Program will develop and improve relationships with partners, focusing on the following areas: _________________________________________________________________________ I'm most concerned that this plan, has enough smoke and mirrors, that the service will have easy paths to achieve more success on paper then in the field. Regional professional society meetings may be a good forum for this and if implemented would allow more service staff and state biologists travel to meeting (6.1.1) Objective 1.1 Develop & improve long-term partnerships Develop and improve long-term partnerships with States, Tribes, other federal agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other Service Programs to develop collaborative conservation strategies for aquatic resources. _________________________________________________________________________ Instead of "Hold" you may want to consider "Facilitate". The word "Hold" implies that the FWS would assume leadership of annual meetings rather than being a partner in the meetings. Treat partners like true partners, i.e., don't screw with them. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 14 (6.1.2) Others? (6.2) Accountability Goal-Measure and report progress on the plan Effective measuring and reporting of the Fisheries Program's progress toward meeting short-term and long-term fish and other aquatic resource conservation goals and objectives. The Fisheries Program will develop effective accountability measurements and reporting, focusing on the following areas: __________________________________________________________________________ Set a regular reporting schedule. The strategic plan lacks "milestones" or measures of progress for all objectives. This is needed. (6.2.1) Objective 1.2 Develop fishery effectiveness measures Develop and implement performance measures to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of Fisheries Program resource activities and financial accountability. __________________________________________________________________________ Work with state's to find meaningful ways to measure success. Annual reports should be made available to all stakeholders. How will this plan modify the existing FWS strategic Plan (GIPRA)? One of the problems I've perceived between OMB and FWS flowed directly from the lack of emphasis on Fisheries (in particular Rec. Fish and outreach and education) in the FWS Strategic Plan. OMB was feeding back to FWS what you said was strategically important. This plan needs to somehow modify the FWS Strategic Plan and present the importance of these programs to the Administration, Congress, and OMB. (AZGFD) Action 1.2.1 - Instead of waiting for 6 months after the finalization of the Strategic Plan, the service instruct their regional directors to begin development regional plans immediately. Action 1.2.3 needs to have some type of report to stakeholders. ** What we need to hold the Service accountable for is measurable progress. Make all goals results-oriented 1.2.2. says the strategic plan (GIPRA) shortchanged rec. fishing. How can we readdress this? If it's not strategically important it's hard to fund A caution to not impose new reporting procedures to the existing bureaucracy. Attempt to use existing data and reporting processes to accommodate the accountability measurements. (6.2.2) Others? 1.2.4 Actions have materially affected the quantity and/or quality of fish and fish habitat, and same for other aquatic resources. i.e. results oriented! How you measure is very important but remember that w biological communities it takes a long time to measure benefits and may not fit into the politics that want immediate results. Monitoring efforts will be needed to measure the results and could offer great partnership opportunities w states. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 15 What are the current Fish and Wildlife GPRA goals and do they incorporate the goals of the Fisheries Program Strategic Plan? If not please include them in GPRA and in its criteria and reporting. (7) Aquatic Species Conservation Management The Fisheries Program maintains and implements a comprehensive set of tools and activities to conserve and manage self-sustaining populations of native fish and other aquatic resources. These tools and activities are linked to management and recovery plans that help achieve restoration and recovery goals, provide recreational benefits, and address Federal trust responsibilities. Sound science, effective partnerships, and careful planning and evaluation are integral to conservation and management efforts. Goals, objectives and actions were developed to direct Fisheries Program efforts for Native Species, Aquatic Nuisance Species, and Interjurisdictional Fisheries. __________________________________________________________________________ When looking at what is native and non-native species, policy makers should take into consideration the economic impact of the species. There may be cases of where will get into a negative economic impact situation with a native species. Non-native species may have more social benefits than the native species. The recovery of endangered species should not take priority over obvious social and economic situations. For example, the recovery of an endangered species that results in putting farmers out of business is not a satisfactory solution. In many cases the farmer was there and has existed along with the endangered species forever but when government intervenes both loose. In many cases the employees are untrained or oblivious to the actual situation that really exists. Habitats have been altered all across the country and the habitats that remain are no more native than introduced species. As long as introduced species do not or will not severely impact native species we should be able to manage with the species that are best suited to the existing habitat. In the Southwest it is very obvious that we need a program to reduce/eradicate Carp. The existing population is such that it is hindering or preventing the food chain from taking the natural course. Where or who has the responsibility for controlling aquatic nuisance species? Diversity has to be taken in context. It means rats, snakes, and roaches to some folks, just not in their kitchens. Find another term or be more definitive. Otherwise, PETA will make hay with this one. Kinda like asking someone if they beat their wife often. There is no correct answer. Some populations of native species cannot be realistically self-sustaining due to altered habitats. At what point do we recognize that these species are not/will not be self sustaining and manage the fishery accordingly (especially when non-native sportfish species are present). (7.1) Native Species Goal Self-sustaining populations of native fish and other aquatic resources that maintain species and provide recreational opportunities for the American public. The Fisheries Program will conserve native fish and other aquatic resources, focusing on the following areas: So, when are native fish, no longer considered replaceable/restorable? And who decides? This goal must either be restated to embrace "recreational fish" (including spp. that were not native but have been in the ecosystem for a long time and have value to society), or a new Objective identified that focuses on "non-native spp. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 16 Comments from participants at this meeting highlight the conflict between protection of native species and support for species having economic value or importance to recreational fishing. How will the USFWS reconcile that conflict? In the first paragraph under Native Fish, the plan uses the terms "as a result of an intentional introduction" to describe fishes of value. We begin to make a case for "naturalized" species. Some how we need to come to grips with nonnative species that are desired additions. Suggest a clearer definition of native species that does not preclude species that are introduced and of recognized recreational, economic and social significance. For example: Native species, with respect to a particular ecosystem, include species that have always been there or arrived via "non-man caused" introduction (natural migration) or have been introduced, or recognized, by a statutory management authority as having demonstrated recreational, economic and social benefits. Need a clearer definition of "aquatic nuisance species". Where I live there is only one native sportfish. All other sportfish would/could be considered aquatic nuisance species and potentially be removed. **AL: what does intentional introduction mean? p12 need more clarity ** Address the reservoir issue. These are entirely man-made structures! (7.1.1) Objective 2.1 Recover fish and aquatics under ESA Recover fish and other aquatic resource populations under the Endangered Species Act. __________________________________________________________________________ Strive for balance in program objectives and don't let this particular objective take precedence over recreational (social) objectives. In the executive summary, it states that 1/3 of the freshwater fish are listed as threatened or endangered. This seems high, just wanted to make sure we were not also including species of special concern. A down to earth real world approach is needed with the ESA. Not supporting species that are not endangered or that are now naturalized in an area would be a big mistake to continue by the Service. species In most cases the attempt to protect and establish ESA species back into their original water way most of the time cannot realistically be done in the whole water way. Realistically they can only be protected and managed in a smaller area. This can be done more cost effective and better success can be achieved by the Service The service should work closely with the states regarding their species of concern lists to avoid more fishes and aquatics on the ESA The hatchery system can (and do) effectively work with production of T&E species. the states need to help implementation of stock enhancement issues. (7.1.2) Objective 2.2 Restore declining fish pops/ avoid ESA Restore declining fish and other aquatic resource populations before they require listing under the Endangered Species Act. __________________________________________________________________________ Rescue of declining species is preferable to emergency actions. However, accurate information about size and health of populations is needed for this approach to work. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 17 An observation: In the group response to recovery / restoration of native, imperiled species, it appeared that was not highly valued by the group. That's an argument why the group should not be responsible for (lead) the recovery effort. If we do not value the persistence, survival, and conservation of these imperiled species, can we hope to achieve their recovery. We have, by our response, argued for the need to "team with others" who value the persistence and recovery of these species, in order to make progress in their conservation. (AZGFD) Again restoring ESA fish populations in a smaller area and not try to do the whole waterway it is more cost effective and success rate would be higher. Again, work closely with states and NGOs to avoid train wrecks. in Alabama, last week we identified 120 species of fish and that many mussels with conservation needs. 3 fishes were sportfish. partnering is critical. If ESA staff and fish staff can't work together w/i FWS, how will FWS work outside agency (7.1.3) Objective 2.3 Maintain healthy, diverse fish pops Maintain healthy, diverse fish and other aquatic resource populations. __________________________________________________________________________ It is difficult to respond effectively to these actions when they (on the surface) only address native, and in many cases endangered spp.. We could not support "sustaining populations of many endangered spp. without losing the opportunity to participate in the sport we love. I refer back to my statement about the Goal itself. Note that we manage aquatic communities not just individual species and many failures of ESA is that it is too species orientated and results in Band-Aid approaches to species but does not affect real problems w habitat alterations or land use changes. This group seems to be focusing on reservoirs. 50% of anglers fish in streams and rivers, and these systems have potential for management/restoration of diversity and rec. fish resources (7.1.4) Others? Must define native species vs. indigenous species. When does a introduced species become indigenous. Example is brown trout introduced 1800's or small mouth introduced in Oregon. Do not preclude established non-natives when obviously there are no impacts to native species. Be sure these are properly ID'ed (trout, bass established in altered habitats). (7.2) Aquatic Nuisance Species Goal Aquatic nuisance species not longer threaten the diversity or abundance of fish and other aquatic resources or interfere with subsistence, recreational and commercial activities. __________________________________________________________________________ This must be a top priority of the Service, and one that they stand in a unique position among Fisheries agencies. They cannot achieve the desired goal by themselves, or without Congressional acceptance and support. But we must do all that is possible prevent new introductions. Period! **WI has many streams with trout, smallmouth and certain minnow species. This could affect all of the above. Do we really want this? Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 18 Partner with USDA in their invasive species program (7.2.1) Objective 2.4 Prevent new intros of nuisance species Prevent new introductions of aquatic nuisance species. __________________________________________________________________________ I'm concerned about Great Lakes shipping and why these ships aren't treated with some chemical that would kill the nuisance species. "Aquatic nuisance species" usually refers only to higher animals or plants. Indigenous fish populations can also be threatened by exotic infectious agents--viruses, bacteria, protozoan parasites, etc. Preventing the introduction of those agents should also be part of this USFWS goal. Surveillance by the USDS (APHIS) to detect entry of exotic infectious agents addresses only the threats to food/agricultural aquatic species. This is where we need to spend the great majority of our time and money. Trying to eradicate or prevent the spread of an exotic after it has exited the barn door is (except in a few instances) like trying to stop the wind. There are truly nuisance species (e.g. zebra mussels, Chinese snakeheads, etc.) but many previously introduced fish species have and are providing excellent sport fisheries. I don't think these fish species should be lumped into the same category as the truly invasive species. Education/public information are important. State's can play an important role if funds are made available to attack the problem on a local level (i.e., provide funds for public information efforts). This is essential at the national level to protect our borders. We (as a nation) remain in a pre Some native species are both invasive and/or nuisance. Are we only referring to exotics? September 11 position related to invasive species. We are almost totally reactive in our laws and regulations Action 2.4.3 - should use "aquatic species" ** intentionally changes or not? will check (7.2.2) Objective 2.5 Minimize expansion of nuisance species Minimize range expansion and population growth of established aquatic nuisance species. __________________________________________________________________________ Some states have taken a regulatory approach to minimizing the spread of exotic plants (e.g. Eurasian water milfoil). This is a waste of time and manpower most states don't have. We don’t need "weed police', we need public outreach and education if we are to make a difference. Need a good definition of nuisance. Some agencies consider black bass a nuisance species. (7.2.3) Objective 2.6 Eradicate existing aquatic nuisances Eradicate existing aquatic nuisance species. __________________________________________________________________________ Eradication is not a doable goal to control exotics should be the goal Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 19 Change to managing because some waters need aquatic plants that don't have established emergent or submergent plant communities Some existing nuisance species could be eradicated, and many others could be controlled. The USFWS needs to determine where its investment in control of nuisance species would have the greatest economic and environmental benefit. These decisions must take local issues into account. Change to Manage or better control not eradicate Only when possible i.e. the snakehead situation I agree in principle with 2.4 and 2.5, but feel 2.6 is impossible and not even desirable in some instances. The Service needs to incorporate comments offered by this group, such that words like "manage" or control" are options for some spp. Where feasible to do so. (AZGFD) We need to increase capacity and capability at all levels (federal, State, tribal, and local). We must find a way to streamline response – because "rapid response" ain't. (7.2.4) Others? Can F&W Service provide financial assistance to states for a Aquatic Nuisance species coordinator? If not can they provide a position to do this within the region. Define ANS's. Most times control or containment are the only option when species become established. Federal Laws are needed to prevent state's from "breaking ranks". No more Arkansas bringing every Asian carp known. (7.3) Interjurisdictional Species Goal Interjurisdictional fish populations are managed at self-sustaining levels. __________________________________________________________________________ The Service needs to recognize that in many cases the fish populations of border waters are effectively managed by the states. Additional Federal involvement may not be necessary or desirable. (7.3.1) Objective 2.7 Co-manage interjurisdictional fisheries Co-management interjurisdictional fisheries. The Fisheries Program will increase its participation and assistance with other Federal, State, and Tribal interjurisdictional fishery management efforts, including commercial and subsistence fisheries management, in riverine, coastal, and marine ecosystems. __________________________________________________________________________ Keep up and expand the good work in supporting state efforts on large river initiatives i.e. LMRCC. The Services support of LMRCC has been vital and will be more so as implementation of the Aquatic Resources Management Plan progresses. We always need more that you can give. (7.3.2) Objective 2.8 Support/lead interjurisdictional. collaboration Support, facilitate, and/or lead collaborative approaches to manage interjurisdictional fisheries. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 20 (7.3.3) Others? Need to coordinate / facilitate common fish harvest regulations for rivers that states share, examples are sturgeon and paddlefish. To date USFWS has been a non player in discussions. Need to assist with interstate planning efforts to better manage large river systems. (8) Public Use Remove responsible and detail in the actions Would it be possible to re-think or re-word the portion involving DOD lands? Since the attacks of 9/11 security issues may present significant road blocks to better fishing opportunities on DOD lands. Please note that use of the term native species should not be used to the detriment of Largemouth and Smallmouth Bass. In many cases these are not native species but are the species that provide the recreation opportunity we are concerned about. As an example, we need Hatcheries to raise and replenish largemouth and smallmouth bass and not just trout which may be the native species in many cases. Plan should acknowledge the importance of recreational fisheries resulting from non-native introductions. These are critical in most reservoirs and commercially navigable rivers. (8.1) Recreational Fishing Goal - Quality Opportunities Quality opportunities for responsible fishing and other recreational enjoyment of aquatic resources on Service lands, on Tribal and military lands, and on other waters where the Service has a role. __________________________________________________________________________ Responsible? Are catch and release, catch and harvest, tournaments part of this? The Recreational Fishing - the second sentence reads funny. What does the 16% DO? Don't water down this goal. It should be "quality opportunities for sportfishing (recreational fishing)". Why should we cloud this goal with "other recreational enjoyment". If we need to deal with both, separate them and make clear what the "others" are. It would influence what is mission critical and what isn't. (AZGFD) Change to: "Quality opportunities for responsible fishing for NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE FISH SPECIES and other..." ** annual fish would help make this read better (16%...) MD: Potomac/Upper Chesapeake borders on defense areas have severely limited access to rec. fishing opportunities. . Post 911 concerns have limited access to anything close to defense areas. Is there some overreaction here? Can some of this be opened up? (8.1.1) Objective 3.1 Recreational fishing opportunities on FWS and DOD lands Enhance recreational fishing opportunities on Service and Department of Defense lands. __________________________________________________________________________ Must allow tournaments. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 21 Open military property tidal waters for bass fishing by boat. Focus on results not planning and plan writing. More access, permit tournaments FWS needs to increase communication with DOD so that recreational angling does not suffer unnecessarily while facilities are closed and restricted for security purposes. Don't use 9-11 as an excuse to exclude anglers from fishing waters around military installations. Include recreational fishing access and enhancement in performance evaluations for refuge managers. This included working with bass tournaments and tournament organizers as a legitimate form of recreational fishing. The general public does not understand the purpose of national wildlife/fish refuges. Many people think a "refuge" should provide absolute protection from human exploitation. This attitude must be changed if Objective 3.1 is to be achieved. USFWS must educate people about the goals of the federal refuge program. Work with congress to include recreational fisheries as an authorized purpose for Corps and Reclamation Reservoirs Increase fisheries opportunities for population centers in order to get the most bang for the buck in providing opportunities for enjoyment. (8.1.2) Objective 3.2 Provide fish for education and outreach Provide fish and other support for recreational fishing and aquatic education and outreach programs. __________________________________________________________________________ License fees for use of these resources should be taken into consideration. Fees should be eliminated or reduced. For Educational purposes or the use by non-profits. Depends on what type of educational programs. Provide advocacy for educational programs also funding at local levels USFWS should invest in public education and outreach at the national level, as well as supporting state and tribal efforts. The voting public needs to identify the USFWS as a source of information and support in much the same way they see the U.S. Forest Service as an advocate of forestry resources. I agree with stocking for kids fishing events where they are under license age. You may have problems with private aquaculture claiming that you are taking business away from them. I also think you need to continue to supply non-native fish to the states where recreational fisheries are being developed or maintained. This should only be for species that the states cannot provide on their own. (8.1.3) Objective 3.3 Promote the value of recreational fishing Recognize and promote the value and importance of recreational fishery objectives in implementation of other Service responsibilities. __________________________________________________________________________ Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 22 Recreational fishing is very important to the economy. I do not think the political arena is aware of the impact it has on the economy. It is important that this be communicated with the policy makers at all levels of government. The vague term "other recreational enjoyment" must be more thoroughly defined at the Service or Regional level. In the upper Miss region, tournament fishing needs to be permitted on refuges. If we are to continue to properly manage fisheries in this country, continued and expended funding for the Rec. Fishing and Boating Foundation is absolutely critical. If we don't market effectively we will lose our anglers and our funding base for conserving our aquatic resources. State's need assistance with establishing a higher priority for recreational fishing on federally-controlled reservoirs. (8.1.4) Others? What role does or could FWS provide in promoting recreational fisheries and public use facilities on other federal lands outside jurisdiction of FWS? Sometimes states need their support in these efforts and they are silent partners in our efforts to improve recreational fisheries. (8.2) Mitigation Fisheries Goal - Other Agencies The Federal government meets its responsibilities to mitigate for the impacts of Federal water projects, including restoring habitat and/or providing fish and associated technical support to compensate for lost fishing opportunities. __________________________________________________________________________ Several southeast hatcheries have been on the chopping block for a long time. My concern is that some or all of these will remain vulnerable to USFWS whims while we are working toward implementation of "The Plan". It is the stated promise of the U.S. govt. to provide for mitigation. To date the govt. has chosen to direct USFWS to keep that commitment. If the plan's goal to get other agencies to pay for mitigation is not realized or only partially accomplished, the USFWS must continue to keep the govt's promise and not unilaterally decide to scrap hatcheries in the name of cost savings. This should be a high priority and used as a way to gain funding. All new projects should be required to address mitigation as part of the cost. This should be a big selling point to get additional funding. Federal Gov't has to keep its promises. Anglers rarely distinguish among those of us who provide services to them. Keep the promises of the U.S. - then seek compensation from others if necessary, but don't break the faith. I am concerned if acquiring compensation from beneficiaries results in compensatory reductions in budget for FWS - watch out - sometimes you get what you ask for. (AZGFD) ** Concerns about threats to hatcheries in these. Must no add additional activities until this can be clarified. Can't lose anything more until we figure out how to implement new stuff. ** Real mitigation responsibilities. Consider what's included in this term. Fisheries science has changed since this term was coined. ** We could accomplish some dollars, especially for new projects. Would provide immediate budget relief Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 23 (8.2.1) Objective 3.4 ID mitigation responsibility of feds Identify the mitigation responsibilities of Federal agencies for Federal water projects. __________________________________________________________________________ The USFWS should acknowledge situations where restoring endangered species is not feasible and shift mitigation efforts to establishment of recreational fisheries, even if recreational fisheries are based on the propagation and stocking of non-native species. In regards to mitigation related to locks and dams on Ohio River. Stocking and hatchery programs do nothing to improve bass fishing on the river. I believe a strong habitat restoration program is needed in conjunction with the control of siltation of backwater spawning areas and the dredging of those areas that have silted in and been lost as spawning areas. In many cases mitigation needs to be readdressed. Projects that were considered to have a negative impact on local recreational fisheries when they were constructed would now be considered to have a positive recreational benefit. In these conditions the states may be the appropriate source of hatchery products. Current emphasis for habitat restoration resulting from lock and dam construction and operation is on cost-share programs that states often cannot afford. Mitigation for these federal water projects must include responsibility to mitigate impacts on recreational fisheries. Habitat improvements and restoration is the most important aspect of mitigation in these systems. Need to do more than just identify the federal agencies that is the easy part cooperating and being one strong voice w states on mitigation issues sometimes it is difficult to get FWS interested in some of the mitigation issues that states deal w particularly w COE in our midwestern states. I would like to see that all species of fish (warm and cold water), are mitigated. Our state supports cold water species of fish, but has little concern for warm water fisheries. Cold water fish hatcheries are abundant, yet no warm water hatcheries are available. These habitat restoration and dredging programs costs should be completely covered by the federal govt. and not a cost share program. This is a direct result of locks and dams. Ohio CDR (8.2.2) Objective 3.5 Meet FWS responsibility for mitigation Meet the Service's responsibilities for mitigating fisheries at federally funded water projects. __________________________________________________________________________ Mitigation should be reviewed, and related to need for both recreation and recovery. We need programs that are doing the right things for the right reasons, not just because they were agreed to decades ago. Continuing to meet mitigation responsibilities to state agencies is very important to sustaining fishing and fisheries. What kind of fish to be produced for mitigation purposes? There needs to be an emphasis on sportfish as well as native species. Flesh out the goals and criteria for hatchery rearing. Who should raise native vs. non-native fishes, (private, state, tribal, federal). The Fish and Wildlife Service's responsibilities give it primacy for rearing federally listed fishes. Determine whether it is most cost effective for federal hatchery to raise at their facilities or contract to private or state hatcheries or staffing public hatcheries with contract staff. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 24 (8.2.3) Objective 3.6 Recover 100% costs from water projects Recover 100% of costs for mitigation activities associated with hatchery production and stocking from the water project sponsor. __________________________________________________________________________ Where a certain region of the country or Federal Agency benefits from a project where mitigation is necessary, that region or agency should be responsible for paying the costs. This is one of the most important points in this plan. I encourage the service to work with states to determine costs and work to gain necessary appropriations ASAP. This is an excellent idea. All federal projects would benefit from a periodic review that looks at the benefits and impacts in consideration of current societal values. Sometimes it may be more cost effective to pay states to stock fish rather than have federal hatcheries duplicate efforts in developing specific hatchery techniques etc. This is part of the balance with social / economic determinants in who should stock. FWS should help states get reimbursements from other federal agencies for mitigation stockings not duplicate efforts. Many times in MO we find that FWS raised fish w/o an intended purpose and then calls our agency to see if we want the fish that they raised so need better coordination sometimes service is caught in middle as one states want a fish raised for waters shared across state lines and the other state does not want those species stocked or the other states have a higher priority for these fish. This will take a connected effort ahead of time for service to rectify these opposite views between states, stakeholders or other fed agencies. Look to the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund funding from minerals revenue as an example of how mitigation for federal water development projects can be funded. Hydropower, irrigation and municipal water supply revenue should be recovered more efficiently from the federal power marketing agencies. Federal flood protection, disaster assistance, and flood insurance appear to operate at cross purposes. Cost savings from preventing flood damage to private property or insuring flood prone properties could be redirected to conservation easements or purchase of riparian and floodplain lands for fisheries habitat preservation and restoration. (8.2.4) Others? (9) Cooperation with Native Americans To what degree does a tribal interest take precedent over the interests of the majority of hunters and anglers in that region? Actions and expenditure of funds should take into account the number of people and whether or not the general hunting and fishing population receive benefit. NM: what constitutes establishment of gov't to gov't relationships? A: specific establishment in certain areas; more ambiguous in others. Specific to the resources on their land, a lot of variability (9.1) Native American Assistance Goal Assistance is provided to Tribes that results in the management, protection, and conservation of their treaty-reserved or statutorily defined trust natural resources which helps the Tribes develop their own capabilities. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 25 __________________________________________________________________________ ** to what degree is a tribal interest weighted with or against hunters/anglers in a specific region? 2 situations. 1 involving tribal lands. They're sovereign 2. Balanced relationships on adjacent lands. (9.1.1) Objective 4.1 Provide tech. assistance to tribes Provide technical assistance to the Tribes. __________________________________________________________________________ Provide assistance for tribes which enable them to become more self-sufficient in aquatic resource management efforts. The USFWS should still provide technical expertise and hatchery products for tribes but actual management efforts should be conducted by tribes. The United States State Department does not fund other sovereign nations equally nor should it fund First Nations equally. Financial, social, strategic needs should be considered on who and what to fund for Native Americans. (9.1.2) Objective 4.2 ID sources of funds for tribes Identify sources of funds to enhance Tribal management. __________________________________________________________________________ Tribal casinos should be a viable source of funding to support conservation efforts on tribal land. (9.1.3) Objective 4.3 Provide fish for tribal resource mgt. Provide fish for Tribal management. __________________________________________________________________________ The objective here should be to train tribes to build and sustain independent tribal fish hatcheries. (9.1.4) Others? (10) Leadership in Science and Technology This should be the number 2 priority after workforce. Definitely need help with drugs for aquaculture. ** sometimes too much emphasis on state of the art as opposed to what works well. Sometimes good enough is good enough ** applied in 5.2. Separate shared and applied ? Share all research! Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 26 (10.1) Science and Technology Goal Science developed and used by Service employees for aquatic resource restoration and management is state-of-the-art, scientifically sound and legally defensible, and technological advances in fisheries science developed by Service employees are available to partners. __________________________________________________________________________ Good Science is absolutely essential to sound management. Bad in Bad out! technology in the fish genetics area is needed for conservation of t&e species and other fishes (stripers, sturgeon). this could be coordinated with other partners in BRD. (10.1.1) Objective 5.1 Utilize science to form policy Utilize appropriate scientific and technologic tools in formulation and executing fishery management plan and policies. __________________________________________________________________________ Very often the ability of the UWFWS to utilize science and technology to enhance fish populations and habitats is limited by policies and actions of other federal agencies and current administrations. An example of this is the USFWS' effort to manage the endangered pallid sturgeon in the Missouri River system, while the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Bush administration continue to ignore the USFWS' biological opinion on management of the Missouri River for endangered species. Utilize scientific studies performed by others as well as your own. Policy decisions will always be based on economic and political considerations as well as on scientific evidence. That reality makes it even more important that the USFWS provide current, scientifically sound information to the decision-makers. The executive office should not be able to interpret or change scientific findings of DOI scientists. this should be a peer review process in DOI or other departments. take politics out of science. the units and centers were moved to help accomplish that goal. There appears to be less effective communications between fisheries researchers by USGS and the FWS and state agencies. (10.1.2) Objective 5.2 Share aquatic science & tools with partners Develop and share applied aquatic scientific and technologic tools with partners. __________________________________________________________________________ Only if turf wars and competition for recognition and funding can be realized. Service is low on science internally now and must partner to obtain this science. They can not produce it in house. Suggest partnerships with Universities will help very much as well as working with other agencies with strong science. Partnerships with local groups for data gathering is productive for all. Sometimes we lose sight of the intelligence of the general population in the data gathering process. This data can then be analyzed by staff or other agencies. The fish disease laboratories and training centers are essential to the cooperative partnership in controlling pathogens, culturing fish and training both federal and state employees. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 27 This is an important objective and would hope that additional courses could be offered to states once technology or techniques are developed. How do you plan on using expertise that states and other agencies have do not reinvent the wheel. Support fish disease centers and fish health diagnostic services that the FWS offers now continue w this program. In other words do a good job of continuing w the things the Service is providing before you change or enter into this new paradigm for the service!! This will be important for your regional managers to convey to stakeholders in their planning efforts. (10.1.3) Others? (11) 6. Aquatic Habitat Conservation Management I am all for aquatic habitat management and feel it is the most important component of fisheries management. However, we do not need to 'fully' understand all aspects of a watershed before making obvious improvements. Effective enhancement and protection of fisheries resources cannot be separated from enhancement and protection of the aquatic habitat. It is essential that the USFWS expand its efforts in this area. ** Should include something on the Services review of Federal permits to guarantee that we don't have these problems. FWS review would help to prevent these. This is a plan for the fisheries program, not the entire FWS. Made an early decision to keep our focus tight. Fisheries program is committed to raising awareness and support for the plan; can't dictate policy on Refuges or broader areas. OK: Sounds like a very inclusive goal that doesn't separate State/Federal responsibilities and roles from those of partners and other stakeholders. How can this be clarified? Stronger partnerships or clearer lines where Service responsibilities and roles end. Martin: A hot topic for the stakeholder workgroup. It’s easy to get tangled up when too many small projects overlap and lose some "big picture" perspective. The Service has primary responsibility for habitat on Service lands; it shouldn't overlap with State responsibility on State lands. Development of regional and local work plans will help address this. Sometimes the Service will lead. Sometimes it will partner. Sometimes it will need to follow. (11.1) Aquatic Habitat Goal America's streams, lakes, estuaries, and wetlands are functional ecosystems that support self-sustaining communities of fish and other aquatic resources. __________________________________________________________________________ A must! Habitat is the key issue for fisheries and sustaining them. Many habitats that are altered are more suited for introduced species that are providing important sport fisheries and recreation that are significantly impacting local economies. These types of fisheries need to be recognized and the values accepted. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 28 (11.1.1) Objective 6.1 ID aquatic habitat needs on national scale Facilitate management of aquatic habitats on national and regional scales. __________________________________________________________________________ Habitats are important in sustaining aquatic populations. Impacts on habitats can have negative impacts with just subtle changes in water levels required for flood control or power generation. We should look for a mean that minimizes the effect to the fishery and local economies. Define Facilitate. Could be interpreted as tell partners how things will be done. (11.1.2) Objective 6.2 FWS provide opinion in FERC & wetlands Expand the use of Fisheries Program expertise to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts of habitat alteration on fish and other aquatic species. __________________________________________________________________________ Very important. Action 6.2.2 - does actions to remove barriers mean dams and could it state to provide access beyond barriers for fish migration? This is an important service to states because states are not as familiar with FERC relicensing- states do not know now what expertise that USWFS can offer this may better fit w another objective. Need assistance with dam removal. 6.2.2 We need to know whether this action indicates a desire to remove ALL barriers, or where feasible, or where the social, etc values exceed those of leaving the barrier? Would or could the word avoid be used to eliminate any future flatwater projects. The service needs to dedicate/train/recruit staff that can deal with the issues of regulated rivers and FERC issues. in Alabama 11 projects are up for relicensing and additional staff to deal with this and help the state is zero. this is critical because 50year licensees are forever. Other water resource issues could be dealt with by specially trained/recruited staff. This should not just be for clod water fish , but include all species. (11.1.3) Objective 6.3 Increase quantity/quality of habitat on FWS land Increase the quantity and improve the quality of aquatic and riparian habitat on Service lands. __________________________________________________________________________ This should be a high priority, but most include rec. fishing. Need to provide habitat that is doable in terms of hydrology, land use changes etc that will provide habitat to meet the needs of entire fish communities. In other words some systems are too altered to provide the habitat that was originally present. States and other agencies stakeholders need to be involved in the planning process. **Some want this to be a higher priority. Service has greater control over these lands. Service lands are NOT the only place the Service will be active. It is the place the Service will LEAD. Doesn't mean the Service won't be invited to participate in other situations with STATES as a follower or partner Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 29 (11.1.4) Other? Provide courses to states in watershed and river system planning efforts ** We must be very clear about what lands we're talking about. Very little Service lands are there in some States. Outreach efforts have to clarify what we're talking about (12) Workforce Management Workforce Management should be priority 1. With all the open positions and lack of training and other issues this has to be the top priority. Try to avoid a top heavy system with too many bureaucrats! Provide the "partners" with the same training so they can assume some of the responsibility of achieving expectations. (12.1) Workforce Management Goal And adequately-sized and strategically positioned workforce with state-of-the-art training, equipment, and technologies in their career fields is maintained and supported. __________________________________________________________________________ Hire people with a background in fisheries. Don't worry about diversity. Workforce management is critical Utilize business management and make the workforce your highest priority. ** Must instill more Service employee respect for consumptive users. It's not all bad. A tradition for Tribes and many rural groups. Has been missing in the past Don't restrict job applicants to existing FWS employees. If you want people with an expertise in fisheries hire those people, rather than hiring people from within the agency that must be made a fisheries professional through on the job training. (12.1.1) Objective 7.1 Staff at levels to meet goals and objectives Staff Fisheries Program field stations at level adequate to effectively meet the Service's goals and objectives in fish and other aquatic resource conservation. __________________________________________________________________________ For a program to be successful, adequate personnel will be required. However, this personnel must be at the working level. Organization should be such that minimizes the bureaucracy know throughout government. It should be structured with working management to reduce the number of people between where the work is being done and the policy makers. Amen! Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 30 For effective implementation of recreational fishing objectives, it is important to consider the recreational fishing background and interests of prospective employees. Hiring personnel without recreation fisheries interests to implement recreational access and management programs is not productive. The workforce is the key to everything! Get your house in order before you ask other folks to help. Without detailed plans you can not ask for additional headcount. You must track to the project and the workforce involved. Increase staff at state field offices with strong recreational fisheries management backgrounds. (12.1.2) Objective 7.2 Provide employees training and opportunity Provide employees with opportunities to maintain competencies in the expanding knowledge and technologies needed to improve opportunities for professional achievement, advancement and recognition. __________________________________________________________________________ Ensure that training is definitely job related. Emphasize the importance of the fisheries staff's participation in professional organizations such as the American Fisheries Society. There seems to be a substantial number of senior fisheries staff in DC and the regions that are not AFS members. These staff would benefit greatly from interactions with AFS members and participation in the Society. AFS would benefit from having the perspective and participation of these staff members. Don't overspend on training and workshops, but make sure your folks are adequately trained to do the job. (12.1.3) Objective 7.3 Provide employees w/ resource for job Provide employees with access to facilities and equipment needed to effectively, efficiently ad safely perform their jobs. __________________________________________________________________________ A no-brainer. (12.1.4) Other? Very skeptical because of past big government track record. One very important and effective tool that USFWS should continue is to provide financial assistance to states to hire term employees in state agencies for short term monitoring or management efforts examples are some RTE management or species of concern or aquatic nuisance species coordinators or river planning efforts. This may be more cost effective and promote better partnerships w states. Work to minimize red tape that fisheries staff must deal with. There needs to be more energy spent on producing results than on pushing paper. (13) Final Feedback to the Service! Terms and definitions should align with state fish management definitions, i.e. invasive species, aquatic nuisance species. State introduced non-native species? Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 31 I sure hope that the new director will turn the agency around and do as he said- "Put the fish back into the Fish & Wildlife Service"! I truly believe that the Intent of this plan is in the best interests of everyone, and I appreciate the fact that there are now people in positions of leadership, that obviously are genuinely concerned with the future of conservation issues throughout the country. With a little work, this program will definitely become the "back-bone" of our future. Steve_ID I would like to see the goals re-ordered so that Workforce is first and Science is 2nd. This stands to a monumental tool to be used by all involved here today. I hope that this is used correctly and in our best interests. All in all the people we are DEPENDING on seem to be straightforward with us. We will wait and see.... I have to have enough details to get funding for this to work. Actions speak louder than words. States need to be convinced the Service has changed and will support our efforts in recreational fishing. The Endangered Species Act has far exceeded its useful life and has become a social and economic detriment to many US citizens. It's time to rethink the purpose for this act and take action to change the law that provides environmentalists the basis for litigation that is preventing Federal Agencies from accomplishing the work the American people need and expect. In too many cases environmentalists and bureaucracies are going against the will and desire of the people. The Endangered Species Act has been used to block rec. fishing when the rec. fishing had not caused and will not caused any endangerment to the species. Agree! Agree! Must develop a "Rapid Response Team" concept to some of the issues involving invasive species. The eighteen months to two years to develop a draft EIS is way to long. The resulting further damage to an ecosystem can go beyond what is "fixable" in that length of time. Nice job getting input particularly from angler groups. Like the computer generated facilitated session. Would like more information on this method of getting public input. Ron Dent MO Dept of Conservation. The low rankings (expectations of success) are partially a result of the current economic situation. The Service will be required to shift priorities, and resources as significant increases in funding are not likely. What can we do to help ASAP? Don't let this drop and keep the players at this session involved or you will lose the momentum and credibility. We sincerely wish to thank Bill and the Service ( and Bruce and BASS) for this opportunity. The Service is on the right track, they are essential leaders and partners in this effort, and we are hungry to work with and continue to improve our relationship as we pursue our joint goals and responsibilities to improve wildlife (Fisheries) resources in our states and our nation. (AZGFD) Meeting participants seem to be blaming the Endangered Species Act for overemphasis on native species at the expense of recreational fishing and economic interests. The extreme examples of ESA implementation reflect societal changes that are also displayed as environmentalism and animal rights activism in other areas. Those societal changes (the "loss of an entire generation") need to be reversed to see renewed widespread respect for sport fishing and recreational activities. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 32 CONGRATULATIONS FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK THANKS TO BRUCE FOR ALL HIS SUPPORT Bass Conservation directors and fish management people help put united back in United States fish and Wildlife Service This should be a role model for other fed agencies to get this type of feedback from the public - this should be a "way of doing business" for fed agencies. (14) Wrap-up Messages 1. We have a widespread interest in aquatic resources that needs to be articulated and utilized. Need to leverage the human capital that supports it. 2. We are users of the environment. We have to use and protect it. 3. We support the direction Steve Williams has set forth and support getting more involved in operationalizing this at a regional and local level 4. We need to be certain our kids have as much, if not more to enjoy than we have 5. Fish is no longer a 4 letter word in the service 6. Managing rec. fisheries has at least a parallel priority within the Service 7. Encourage the Service to always have their employees outnumbered by meeting participants 8. Support for Steve and the Administration's choice of him has unified the group 9. Its important to expand and continue grassroots support to carry out the plan. Success will not come from spectators 10. It’s important to demonstrate tangible results. Now. 11. Reemphasize the importance of communication with state and regional partners with progress on the goals. This communication needs to be 2 way for success 12. Participation of industry groups has gotten us so far. More is needed. BASS/PF can't do it alone. 13. Where will this information be posted? Bruce will put it up on the BASS site 14. We have to recognize the central message: The Service can't be all things to all people. Roles/responsibilities will vary. Mitigation responsibility is the key to addressing the budget crisis. Look past small irritants to the big political support issue. We must emphasize and stay focused on big picture funding issues like mitigation. 15. Conservation managers agree the USFWS has an important role in fishery mgmt to help conserve and protect these resources for the benefit of Americans Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 33 16. What about additional web sites/outdoor publications? How can we get more "reach" on this message? Hatcheries are a priority for Steve. They are much more than about fry. They are about the relationship between anglers and the States. No intention of closing any or transferring any to States. 17. ESPN Outdoors can help via web/TV 18. Proposed bringing in some BASS anglers to meet with Steve as well as traditional resource users. Plans for this are underway now. 19. Each of us has a role to play in pushing this message out. All State Department, International, and Conservation Directors need to get active. Check to be certain our messages are being distributed to all State Fish Chiefs and "right" personnel. Some are being overlooked. 20. A step-down marketing plan should be developed that details a role for every meeting participant and how they can assist. 21. Participation in a broader communication mechanism to let people know what the region needs and how to get it. 22. Nonnative species have been recognized. Emphasis on habitat protection and improvement. Partnerships are 2 way streets Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 34 America’s Fishery Conservation Plan: The Stakeholders Respond Support/consensus of 80%, or higher support is indicated in green 1 What group do you belong to? State Fishery Agency BASS Conservation Director Industry Representative Press/Media Federal Agency Other Guest 2 Which Criteria is More Important? Strength of Federal authority and responsibility Extent to which our efforts will compliment others in the fisheries and aquatic resource conservation community 3 Which Criteria is More Important? Strength of Federal authority and responsibility Likelihood that our efforts will produce measurable results 4 Which Criteria is More Important? Strength of Federal authority and responsibility Likelihood our efforts will produce significant economic or social benefits. 5 Which Criteria is More Important? Strength of Federal authority and responsibility Extent of partner and stakeholder support 6 Which Criteria is More Important? Extent to which our efforts will compliment others in the fisheries and aquatic resource conservation community Likelihood that our efforts will produce measurable resource results Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 23 33 4 0 4 6 70 33% 47% 6% 0% 6% 9% 100% 6 63 9% 91% 69 100% 2 62 64 3% 97% 100% 6 59 9% 91% 65 100% 5 66 71 7% 93% 100% 24 35% 44 68 65% 100% 35 7 Which Criteria is More Important? Extent to which our efforts will compliment others in the fisheries and aquatic resource conservation community Likelihood that our efforts will produce significant economic or social benefits 8 Which Criteria is More Important? Extent to which our efforts will compliment other... Extent of partner and stakeholder support 9 Which Criteria is More Important? Likelihood our efforts will produce measurable resource results Likelihood our efforts will produce significant economic or social benefits 10 Which Criteria is More Important? Likelihood our efforts will produce measurable resource results Extent of partner and stakeholder support 11 Which Criteria is More Important? Likelihood our efforts will produce significant economic or social benefits Extent of partner and stakeholder support 12 Partnership Goal: Open interactive communication between the Fisheries Program and its partners Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 32 54% 27 46% 59 100% 33 39 72 46% 54% 100% 57 14 71 80% 20% 100% 53 20 73 73% 27% 100% 37 34 71 52% 48% 100% 60 11 0 0 71 85% 15% 0% 0% 100% 36 13 Importance: Develop and improve long-term partnerships with States, Tribes, other federal agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs, and other Service Programs to develop collaborative conservation strategies for fish and other aquatic resources Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 14 Likelihood: Develop and improve long-term partnerships with States, Tribes, other federal agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs, and other Service Programs to develop collaborative conservation strategies for fish and other aquatic resources 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 15 Accountability Goal: Effective measuring and reporting of the Fisheries Program’s progress toward meeting short-term and longterm fish and other aquatic resource conservation goals and objectives Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 16 Importance: Develop and implement performance measures to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of Fisheries Program resource activities and financial accountability Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 27 40 7 0 0 0 74 36% 54% 9% 0% 0% 0% 100% 4 10 44 11 3 2 74 5% 14% 59% 15% 4% 3% 100% 25 46 0 0 71 35% 65% 0% 0% 100% 12 43 15 0 0 1 71 17% 61% 21% 0% 0% 1% 100% 37 17 Likelihood: Develop and implement performance measures to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of Fisheries Program resource activities and financial accountability 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 18 Native Species Goal: Self-sustaining populations of native fish and other aquatic resources that provide recreational opportunities for the American public and species diversity in the Nation’s waters Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 19 Importance: Recover fish and other aquatic resource populations under the Endangered Species Act Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 20 Likelihood: Recover fish and other aquatic resource populations under the Endangered Species Act 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 0 14 33 21 2 0 70 0% 20% 47% 30% 3% 0% 100% 28 36 7 2 73 38% 49% 10% 3% 100% 11 22 32 4 1 2 72 15% 31% 44% 6% 1% 3% 100% 1 1 17 23 26 5 73 1% 1% 23% 32% 36% 7% 100% 38 21 Importance: Restore declining fish and other aquatic resource populations before they require listing under the Endangered Species Act Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 22 Likelihood: Restore declining fish and other aquatic resource populations before they require listing under the Endangered Species Act 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 23 Importance: Maintain healthy, diverse fish and other aquatic resource populations Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 24 Likelihood: Maintain healthy, diverse fish and other aquatic resource populations 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 13 44 17 0 1 0 75 17% 59% 23% 0% 1% 0% 100% 0 8 21 30 13 1 73 0% 11% 29% 41% 18% 1% 100% 31 38 5 0 0 0 74 42% 51% 7% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1 11 36 19 5 0 72 1% 15% 50% 26% 7% 0% 100% 39 25 Aquatic Nuisance Species Goal: Aquatic nuisance species no longer threaten the diversity or abundance of fish and other aquatic resources or interfere with subsistence, recreational and commercial activities Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 26 Importance: Prevent new introductions of aquatic nuisance species Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 27 Likelihood: Prevent new introductions of aquatic nuisance species 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 28 Importance: Minimize range expansion and population growth of established aquatic nuisance species Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 24 31 8 12 75 32% 41% 11% 16% 100% 31 29 10 1 0 1 72 43% 40% 14% 1% 0% 1% 100% 1 4 20 26 13 13 77 1% 5% 26% 34% 17% 17% 100% 16 48 8 2 0 2 76 21% 63% 11% 3% 0% 3% 100% 40 29 Likelihood: Minimize range expansion and population growth of established aquatic nuisance species 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 30 Importance: Eradicate existing aquatic nuisance species Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 31 Likelihood: Eradicate existing aquatic nuisance species 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 32 Interjurisdictional Fisheries Goal: Interjurisdictional fish populations are managed at self-sustaining levels Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 33 Importance: Co-manage interjurisdictional fisheries. Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 2 6 22 26 17 5 78 3% 8% 28% 33% 22% 6% 100% 6 35 24 4 4 6 79 8% 44% 30% 5% 5% 8% 100% 0 0 8 15 22 26 71 0% 0% 11% 21% 31% 37% 100% 12 48 11 3 74 16% 65% 15% 4% 100% 12 42 18 3 0 1 76 16% 55% 24% 4% 0% 1% 100% 41 34 Likelihood: Co-manage interjurisdictional fisheries. 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 35 Importance: Support, facilitate, and/or lead collaborative approaches to manage interjurisdictional fisheries Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 36 Likelihood: Support, facilitate, and/or lead collaborative approaches to manage interjurisdictional fisheries 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 37 Recreational Fishing Goal: The Service will advocate for recreational fishing and will provide quality opportunities for responsible recreational fishing and other recreational enjoyment of aquatic resources on Service, Tribal and military lands, and on other waters where the Service has a role Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 1 11 25 8 2 0 47 2% 23% 53% 17% 4% 0% 100% 5 30 30 1 0 0 66 8% 45% 45% 2% 0% 0% 100% 0 21 36 20 2 0 79 0% 27% 46% 25% 3% 0% 100% 36 32 1 1 70 51% 46% 1% 1% 100% 42 38 Importance: Enhance recreational fishing opportunities on Service and Department of Defense lands Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 39 Likelihood: Enhance recreational fishing opportunities on Service and Department of Defense lands 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 40 Importance: Provide fish and other support for recreational fishing and aquatic education and outreach programs Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 41 Likelihood: Provide fish and other support for recreational fishing and aquatic education and outreach programs 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 10 44 16 6 1 0 77 13% 57% 21% 8% 1% 0% 100% 2 26 21 16 10 3 78 3% 33% 27% 21% 13% 4% 100% 23 43 13 0 1 1 81 28% 53% 16% 0% 1% 1% 100% 3 28 34 15 1 1 82 4% 34% 41% 18% 1% 1% 100% 43 42 Importance: Recognize and promote the value and importance of recreational fishery objectives in implementation of other Service responsibilities Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 43 Likelihood: Recognize and promote the value and importance of recreational fishery objectives in implementation of other Service responsibilities 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 44 Mitigation Fisheries Goal: The Federal government meets its responsibilities to mitigate for the impacts of Federal water projects, including restoring habitat and/or providing fish and associated technical support to compensate for lost fishing opportunities Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 45 Importance: Identify the mitigation responsibilities of Federal agencies for Federal water projects Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 25 41 9 1 0 0 76 33% 54% 12% 1% 0% 0% 100% 3 14 29 22 6 2 76 4% 18% 38% 29% 8% 3% 100% 41 30 5 3 79 52% 38% 6% 4% 100% 25 51 7 1 0 0 84 30% 61% 8% 1% 0% 0% 100% 44 46 Likelihood: Identify the mitigation responsibilities of Federal agencies for Federal water projects 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 47 Importance: Meet the Service's responsibilities for mitigating fisheries at federally-funded water projects Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 48 Likelihood: Meet the Service's responsibilities for mitigating fisheries at federally-funded water projects 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 49 Importance: Recover 100 percent of costs for mitigation activities associated with hatchery production and stocking from the water project sponsor Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 0 8 29 21 11 5 74 0% 11% 39% 28% 15% 7% 100% 15 51 16 0 0 0 82 18% 62% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0 6 26 23 11 4 70 0% 9% 37% 33% 16% 6% 100% 22 43 7 4 2 3 81 45 27% 53% 9% 5% 2% 4% 100% 50 Likelihood: Recover 100 percent of costs for mitigation activities associated with hatchery production and stocking from the water project sponsor A 3 ( 3.0%) 90-100 % B 0 ( 0.0%) 75-90% 3 16 ( 16.0%) 50-75% 4 20 ( 20.0%) 25-50% 5 25 ( 25.0%) 10-15% 6 9 ( 9.0%) No way, Jose 51 Native American Assistance Goal: Assistance is provided to Tribes that results in the management, protection, and conservation of their treaty-reserved or statutorily defined trust natural resource which helps Tribes develop their own capabilities Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 52 Importance: Provide technical assistance to Tribes Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 53 Likelihood: Provide technical assistance to Tribes 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 3 0 16 20 25 9 73 4% 0% 22% 27% 34% 12% 100% 10 46 15 6 77 13% 60% 19% 8% 100% 3 29 29 13 5 1 80 4% 36% 36% 16% 6% 1% 100% 12 17 29 8 8 1 75 16% 23% 39% 11% 11% 1% 100% 46 54 Importance: Identify sources of funds to enhance Tribal resource management Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 55 Likelihood: Identify sources of funds to enhance Tribal resource management 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 56 Importance: Provide fish for Tribal resource management Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 57 Likelihood: Provide fish for Tribal resource management 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 0 28 24 14 5 4 75 0% 37% 32% 19% 7% 5% 100% 5 8 20 21 11 5 70 7% 11% 29% 30% 16% 7% 100% 0 10 30 18 13 6 77 0% 13% 39% 23% 17% 8% 100% 10 12 26 14 8 4 74 14% 16% 35% 19% 11% 5% 100% 47 58 Science & Technology Goal: Science developed & used by Service employees for aquatic resource restoration and management is stateof-the-art, scientifically sound and legally defensible, and technological advances in fisheries science developed by Service employees are available to partners Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 59 Importance: Utilize appropriate scientific and technologic tools in formulating and executing fishery management plans and policies. Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 60 Likelihood: Utilize appropriate scientific and technologic tools in formulating and executing fishery management plans and policies 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 61 Importance: Develop and share applied aquatic scientific and technologic tools with partners Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 34 33 2 0 69 49% 48% 3% 0% 100% 26 46 4 0 0 0 76 34% 61% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% 1 34 31 11 5 0 82 1% 41% 38% 13% 6% 0% 100% 22 47 7 0 0 0 76 29% 62% 9% 0% 0% 0% 100% 48 62 Likelihood: Develop and share applied aquatic scientific and technologic tools with partners 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 63 Aquatic Habitat Goal: America's streams, lakes, estuaries, and wetlands are functional ecosystems that support self-sustaining communities of fish and other aquatic resources Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 64 Importance: Facilitate management of aquatic habitats on national and regional scales Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 65 Likelihood: Facilitate management of aquatic habitats on national and regional scales 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 3 24 34 9 3 1 74 4% 32% 46% 12% 4% 1% 100% 52 25 2 0 79 66% 32% 3% 0% 100% 24 40 9 0 1 0 74 32% 54% 12% 0% 1% 0% 100% 1 14 35 25 3 2 80 1% 18% 44% 31% 4% 3% 100% 49 66 Importance: Expand the use of Fisheries Program expertise to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts of habitat alteration on fish and other aquatic species Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 67 Likelihood: Expand the use of Fisheries Program expertise to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts of habitat alteration on fish and other aquatic species 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 68 Importance: Increase the quantity and improve the quality of aquatic and riparian habitat on Service lands Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 69 Likelihood: Increase the quantity and improve the quality of aquatic and riparian habitat on Service lands 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 13 48 14 2 1 0 78 17% 62% 18% 3% 1% 0% 100% 1 14 38 19 7 0 79 1% 18% 48% 24% 9% 0% 100% 15 46 20 2 0 0 83 18% 55% 24% 2% 0% 0% 100% 1 10 36 22 5 1 75 1% 13% 48% 29% 7% 1% 100% 50 70 Workforce Management Goal: An adequately-sized and strategically positioned workforce with state-of-the-art training, equipment, and technologies in their career fields is maintained and supported Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 71 Importance: Staff Fisheries Program field stations at levels adequate to effectively meet the expectations of managers and partners in fish and other aquatic resource conservation Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 72 Likelihood: Staff Fisheries Program field stations at levels adequate to effectively meet the expectations of managers and partners in fish and other aquatic resource conservation 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 73 Importance: Provide employees with opportunities to maintain competencies in the expanding knowledge and technologies needed to improve opportunities for professional achievement, advancement and recognition Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 40 36 5 1 82 49% 44% 6% 1% 100% 12 49 15 2 0 1 79 15% 62% 19% 3% 0% 1% 100% 0 8 26 31 13 0 78 0% 10% 33% 40% 17% 0% 100% 10 51 14 1 1 0 77 13% 66% 18% 1% 1% 0% 100% 74 Likelihood: Provide employees with opportunities to maintain competencies in the expanding knowledge and technologies needed Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 51 to improve opportunities for professional achievement, advancement and recognition 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose 75 Importance: Provide employees with access to facilities and equipment needed to effectively, efficiently and safely perform their jobs Mission Critical Very Important OK Not Important to me, but.. Unimportant A Waste of Time 76 Likelihood: Provide employees with access to facilities and equipment needed to effectively, efficiently and safely perform their jobs 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% 10-15% No Way, Jose Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 2 13 31 19 5 1 71 3% 18% 44% 27% 7% 1% 100% 19 56 3 1 0 0 79 24% 71% 4% 1% 0% 0% 100% 1 15 38 16 4 1 75 1% 20% 51% 21% 5% 1% 100% 52 America’s Fishery Strategy: Discussion Notes Criteria Questions & Comments None Q14. Calibration issue. On the long-term relationships we stated about a 50% probability of success. This would be somewhat lower than the mean indicated on the scale. Let’s us 3 to indicate a 50/50 probability for polling consistency On Aquatic Nuisance species: Does this goal indicate there will be funding to accompany it? A: It would be wrong to not recognize that we may need to redirect funding toward goals that have the highest probability of funding. This is why regional step-down prioritizations will become important. The overall goal is an indicator, but they will be fine-tuned in the regional meetings. A change that needs to be made here is the answers to previous questions about protecting species from becoming imperiled is directly linked to section 6 of the ESA. Stronger front end support enables us to KEEP species off the list. Do nuisance species = exotics in Q26? This distinction needs to be clarified in the next rev of the plan Is eradicate the key variable on exotics/nuisance here? Would controlling these species move the scale up? Yes…manage (or control) would improve believability on this objective. There is little conviction among the team that we will be able to eradicate much of anything that’s already established. Do we want to distinguish between these goals? IL: prevention is the key to the exotic species issue. Once established there is little chance we’ll be able to manage or eradicate. We get the most bang for the buck on prevention. Isn’t’ there a way to prioritize the established species, then allocate funds to eradicate those that are either easy or low cost to eradicate? We don’t know of any that are established in IL that are either low cost or high probability we can eradicate. Concerns were raised about terms. We have to be careful of wording. No fisheries mgrs. should be MANAGING nuisance species. Clarification on IJ fisheries: this requires 2 or more agencies to manage. State/Federal, Federal/Tribal, Federal/Other Country Q32 self-sustaining levels are one thing for native species, this term is relative to this fishes ability to sustain itself. Could this vote out of context? It appears to state we are preferring native fish over rec. species. The goal is OK, but the potential rub is having it underneath IJ fish goal. Confine this vote to IJ fish, NOT about native species. Some nonnative rec. species are now (and will remain) “natives”, especially in the west Q36: To what degree will this drive less field work and the Service becoming more field leaders? A: The service’s greatest value lies in acting as a facilitator/coordinator. This will not change the distribution of our efforts. We’ve never have had any intention of using this goal to change our focus. Again, regional input will determine where priorities are driven. Q37: Responsible? What does it mean? Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 53 Not universal agreement on what this means. Care must be taken not to have overharvest, it’s to use best mgmt practices that are widely accepted. Remove “responsible management” from the goal to increase clarity. The Service should not promote overharvesting. The word “responsible” is a hang-up for some. Elaborate instead on what “responsible” means in the text of the goals. Refuge goals state compatible. Definition of other recreational enjoyment (jetskis/waterskiers/canoes). May be too broad A: Tighten the wording up here to reduce some of the ambiguity. Oregon: A similar process was observed in native fish conservation policy. A glossary of terms could be helpful here. State what we means. Forward the Oregon list to Bill. Q42 Clarification This extends to management of refuge system and actions in other Federal Agencies. Spread horizontally in all Federal Agencies the need for rec. fishing Gordon: Native fish definition---revisit? Q45 Martin: Steering committee spent a lot of time figuring out that by getting Federal agencies to pinpoint the linkage between the mitigation goal and dealing with endangered species. The funds that could be freed up by this strategy could enable us to accomplish much more. Q47 Clarification on responsibilities now? Will do Q49: How long have we been working on recovering the mitigation from water project sponsors? A: About 20-25 years. Some successes with BLR and Bonneville Power. Is the risk entailed with this strategy one that Federal gov’t makes and keeps a promise. If we see cost recovery what is the downside that Congress may cut our budget instead of retain it? A: The key is grassroots support Recovery without compensatory losses should be added to the verbiage here. Were invitations extended to tribal agencies? No Providing technical assistance to Tribes. This is mandated by law. Statement says continue. Perhaps we should say increase/decrease/stay the same (ask later) Q60 Do these tools extend to business and administrative activities? For the purpose of these goals, no. But performance measures are covered in other Service goals Q64: The Service’s intent is to rely on regional planning much more than in the past. Does facilitate mean they will do it or leave it up to someone else? A: The answer will vary from situation to situation. The intent is not for the Service to play a top down role; it’s to bring the partners and stakeholders together. Convene/partner/set the stage/encourage could all be alternative wording to express the same thought. Q66 didn’t specify native…just said fish (happy). A greater emphasis on fish that aren’t native could be a positive rec. change. A: Any time the term mitigation is used, it’s implicit that nonnative is included. This is intended to extend rec. responsibilities horizontally across other Federal agencies. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 54 There is an issue of when does a species become either indigenous or established? Brownies, smallmouth bass are just a few examples. How long until they’re considered “normal” within a specific ecosystem? Martin: This should be examined throughout the management planning process in each watershed. Species of concern accommodate situations where the habitat has become so altered that nothing close to the original species can persist. This should be covered in the management planning processes regionally. Priorities and answers will vary from region to region as this issue is examined. Workforce management goal: does this extend to capacity building in the States? Could some of this be addressed through better partnering? A: Federally targeted for the purposes of internal Service focus Q71 is it just the numbers, or the types of people the Service hires? It’s both quality and quantity ? What % of the field force hunts/ and/or fishes? Many are coming to the Service who have no appreciation for rural values. Those who don’t frequently fail to understand the user side of issues and often take an antagonistic stance with consumptive users. “Lock it up” is their watchword. A: A high percentage in fisheries. The relative % of anglers and hunters is probably less than it was 10 years ago. 50% in a SE group cited. End of keypad comments +++++++ Past experience with FWS in the past can’t be tracked to the field level. Comparing results from DC to what’s being done on the ground. Contract dollars from Congress with actual results achieved on the ground. Is there buy-in at the OMB level to make changes based on these recommendations? A: still some resistance at OMB, yet we have support from the Director for this. We have the highest level of support we’ve had in many years. Commitment is there to champion our recommendations Rapid response to emerging questions is a big challenge. We need broad stakeholder support to deal with issues like the snakehead and others Final thoughts from Bill: Great stuff---Has exceeded my expectations today. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 55 Steve Williams Presentation Discussion Notes Q:MD Who’s taking the lead on ANS species, specifically the Chinese Snakehead? A: Coordinated response to all ANS (AG/Interior/) Good news: it’s front and center with land mgmt branches of the Federal Govt.’ We don’t have adequate budgets yet, but cross budgeting is improving. Best use of funding More $$ are being devoted to this issue Q: Dave Cruell: KY F&W What are the plans to address hatchery closures that are imminent while we’re waiting for the big plan to be effective? What is the Service’s vision of land? Hatcheries/mitigation are all bleeding heavily. We can’t wait 2-3 years to address this issue. A: Last years budget contained a $5MM Decrease in hatchery. 1 on 1’s with Carol Norton explained with Chiefs outlined the importance of these programs. OMB review restored some of the reductions. (cuts were reduced to $1MM). Congress still debating the budget. Some optimism that there may still be some increases in the hatchery budgets. Interior/BLR asked to participate in funding for mitigation that are connected to mitigation. First step is to lock this in within Interior. Discussions ongoing here. Budget briefing with the Secretary yesterday on how best to achieve. We can be successful if we speak with one voice. 40 MM anglers will be heard if members of Congress are all hearing from there. There is no way Steve can deliver this on his own. What carries the day is broad, grassroots support for these proposals. Q: Russ/Iowa Bass President What’s being done to accelerate the process of addressing a proven problem with cormorants that doesn’t appear to be moving? A: Migratory birds shared FWS problems over the past 8 years. A more balanced use of time on the fisheries side is needed. This is not being addressed in isolation. Fisheries is involving itself differently than in the past Interface between fish/waterfowl is key to this very complex issue. Depends on what appropriations come through for 2003 budget. MB have suffered big budget cuts. The speed of getting reactions for any aquatic NNS is the concern. The Service is not moving fast enough. Should be a proposed rule on cormorants in the next month/few weeks. Comment will be invited on this. Beltway speed even slower than KS. Martin: Bird predation is a significant issue. Caspian terns in the lower Columbia river on dredge spoils were eating 25% of juvenile salmon. FWS/MNS/ODFW developed a relocation plan where the terns would have a variety of foodsources. The entire colony has been relocated and the predation has been reduced by over 50%. There was similar criticism that it took longer to plan it than to take action, but this is a function of partnerships. They take time. A number of success stories are taking place out there Jim Howard Bass Conservation Direction, AL Q: What about durability for the plan? Can this plan survive changes in Administration? A: We are optimistic and hopeful that it will. Waterfowl/wetlands plans have survived and funding for these programs have increased. We need sufficient political support to maintain funding for plan components and develop an expectation on the part of the public it becomes institutionalized. Waterfowl mgmt plans are one example of how to achieve sustainability. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 56 Gene: OK What can be done at the local/regional level to bring stakeholders into the process? Budget review is ongoing with OMB/Norton. Expect the plan to be blessed by end of 9/02. Planing regional partnership meetings for 1/2003 will be about on track. Don’t wait. Get started now on planning who should be participating and how best to coordinate. Corky Pugh/AL Region 4 (Sam Hamilton) has been a terrific example of how to do partnering. Southeast fish chiefs have been working closely with the R4 team for a number of years. His team can offer a number of good ideas on how to do this right Steve: The return of the American Sportsman is a terrific addition to increasing the visibility of rec. fishing Dave/Conservation Director VT What do you plan to do about education? Section 3.2 on Education what’s sorely needed on the Nat’l level is family education that fishing is a great thing. Very disturbed in the drop in license sales statewide. Textbook negativity. A: Agree entirely. We need to change attitudes and values to increase the pool of new recruits. Tom Bedell: FWS is contributing a lot. RBFF is up for renewal next year. Education is one of the prime parts of this budget ($10). ASA, via the Future fisherman foundation (34 states with active programs) aquatic resource education working with Fish America is building a unique education, unified in ways that have never been done before. Mike/ASA. The distinction is in how FWS funds direct outreach programs. FWS and the appropriators have to catch up with where Federal Aid is. Have to convince the electorate that there is value here. Q: Wayne Bass Fed President NY Is the voice of local residents being heard in major decisions that are being made? Big gov’t has many obstacles, specifically concerning EPA dredging of the Hudson River. Locals don’t support dredging 14 miles of the Hudson. Politics comes into play, but we need support of local DECs. A: So far there has been very little involvement as director on this issue. The local expertise is valued on complex issues. Consistently seek the input of the States on difficult issues when these are being explored. May have to agree to disagree in certain cases Larry Reilly AZ Game & Fish How will FWS interpret and address invasive species/nonnative species mgmt as a component of this plan? Balance, conservation on native biodiversity, Nuisance species. This creates some complex situations in AZ. Fishing opportunities in the southwest mean most of the rec. fish are nonnative. A: Tough question. Gila Chubb example balancing critical habitat needs with local rec. species. Dale Hall Regional Director Albuquerque might be able to handle better. The root of this question is involvement in local plans. Many habitats have been modified to the extent that they will never be “restored”. Nonnative species ARE the native species now. Species separation may be the answer in some cases. This requires a sit-down conversation between environmental community and the rec. interests. This can be done. Martin: big recommendation to address this is we have a better understanding of the conflict’s roots if fisheries program people are working on these programs rather than ESA specialists. They have a much broader perspective. One size fits all won’t work everywhere, but there are certain people in the agencies that understand the conflicts and where compromises might exist. Do Fishery mgmt plans prevail or do ESA recovery plans have more weight. Good fishery mgmt planning should compliment ESA recovery. Recovery planning and fishery mgmt should work together Gordon/ASA Opportunity with the new director to do some great things. We have to support him and know he has the support of BASS/TU/ASA and other organizations. He has to be able to rely on these groups speaking with one voice. We need Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 57 doers, not watchers. Letters to congressmen anymore (90 days), but don’t hesitate to be active. Go with FAX/Email. Our only alternative for restoring budgets for FWS and hatcheries. State/Fed/organizational knowledge the best since the ‘70s with Steve. How will Bruce continue to keep Federation members involved? In Dec we were blindsided by an 18% budget reduction. Knew a lot of hatchery and access would have to be cut back. Federation did a great job of highlighted during Bassarama. Next to tax issues, this became the “most called upon” message. A: As necessary. Will rely exclusively on email---timing is everything to support Washington or local issues. Robert Montgomery/BASS I’m heartened by the messages that have been sent. Concern is that there are some in FWS who don’t know about us. What about a role reversal? We should have a dialog with FWS to help them understand what BASS and member organizations stand for and are trying to accomplish. A: Same support we need at the federal level is needed at the State level. Don’t stop with supporting federal issues/action. Keep your state guys Ron/MO Dept of Conservation Is it enough? Should we be stepping the plan up (America’s plan for fisheries) in increasing involvement with a National effort? A: The plan contemplates doing exactly that. Rec. opportunities on DoD lands and increasing it on refuges is a priority. Let’s digest the big bite first. Plan expects to pull in all 50 states eventually. Martin: There is lots of confusion about what the aquatic crisis is. Much less confusion on wetlands and ducks. The truth is there is terrific fishing in many parts of the country. It’s unclear to politicians and the public what and where the crises lie. Marine/Lakes are some examples. There is a perceptions that some of these problems have been solved. Communicating root causes in the watershed systems is a priority. We need to create a sense of urgency with aquatics . Until these messages are connected and coordinated it will be tough to generate a clear, compelling at a national level. Don’t just state the problem. Include solutions, lessons learned and examples of what can be done with additional resources. Stakeholder Reaction to America’s Fishery Conservation Strategy Session Transcripts, July 26, 2002 58
