DATE:

May 29, 2003

TO:

Members Management Group (MMG)

FROM:

Jann Eckman

SUBJECT:

Action Notes for the 5/22/03 MMG Meeting

Attendees:

John Palensky (NOAA), Tony Nigro (ODFW) Dave Statler (NPT), Steve Waste (NWPCC), Paul Ward (YN) Brian Brown (NMFS), Ronald Peters (CAT), Laura Gephart (CRITFC), Paul Lumley (CRITFC), Michele DeHart (FPC), Rod Sando, Jann Eckman, Kathie Titzler, Neil Ward, Frank Young, Tom Iverson, Tana Klum, Mary Washkoske (CBFWA)

By Phone:

Bill Tweit (WDFW), Paul Ashley (WDFW), Howard Schaller (USFWS), Amos First-Raised (BPT), Sue Ireland (KTI), Greg Sieglitz (ODFW), Mike Haddock (SBT), Carl Scheeler, (CTUIR), Pete Hassemer (IDFG), Lynn Ducharme (CSKT)

Time Allocation:

Objective 1. Project Recommendations

Objective 2. Regional Issues

Objective 3. Annual Report

33%

67%

%

ITEM 1:

Review and Approval of Agenda

ACTION:

The agenda was approved with the addition of one item �BiOp Update� by Brian Brown, NMFS.

ITEM 2:

Wildlife Crediting

Discussion:

Frank noted that theYN and WDFW had objected to the draft wildlife crediting letter.  The Wildlife Committee (WC) discussed a revised draft of the letter at its May 20-21 meeting, and the YN rescinded their objection after paragraph 2 was removed.   He said the WC felt it was important that the capitalization and crediting issues should be kept as two separate points.  The WC would like to see these issues addressed as soon as possible since they are holding up acquisitions.  The MMG agreed.  Tony questioned the purpose of the letter and noted that the content duplicated the Draft Interim Process Agreement Proposal and transmittal letter.

ACTION:

The MMG decided to consider merging the two letters and deferred this issue to Item 10.

ITEM 3:

CBFWA Collaborative RME Proposal Contract Negotiations

Discussion:

Frank reviewed the progress being made by the RME Policy Group. He noted that the group was working on a statement of work and division of duties.   Tony and Nicole Ricci are working on the draft.   A discussion followed as to which agencies, organizations, etc. might be included when building the policy group that would be overseeing RME.  Rod expressed concern that the Tribes not be left out of this group. 

ITEM 4:

RME and State/Federal Partnership

Discussion:

Steve gave a brief overview of recovery efforts for the last 20 years and noted that RME was the missing piece.  He noted that although the emphasis has been on anadromous fish for the BiOp, resident fish and wildlife must be included. He discussed the lack of coordination among the groups and noted the CBFWA RME Proposal would be a good link.  He said the CBFWA Ad Hoc Group had been concentrating on form and function and the next question is who should make up the policy group.  He noted that there was a State/Federal Planning meeting on May 28^th in Portland to try and grapple with this issue and encouraged everyone to attend.  Rod stated that tribal representation on all of the committees, etc. had been very limited and they must be included in the policy group.  Tony said they were working on a summary on how we should proceed with the regional RME issue and he would try to have it ready for the next MMG meeting. 

ITEM 5:

BiOp Update

Discussion:

Brian gave a brief update on the judge�s decisions for the current court case. The judge gave NMFS one year to fix the BiOp and requested a status report every 90 days, with a hearing seven days after each report.  The judge did not decide to vacate the BiOp in the interim. Five to six weeks out the judge will make a decision on the issue or schedule another hearing.  Brian handed out an Analytical Task List he had created to deal with the issues for the one year period.  He discussed reassessing the need for offsetting mitigation and the expected contributions.  He laid out assignments and who would lead the assignments to reach these goals.  Tony asked, in terms of the states and Tribes, how he was going to collaborate with the organizations that would be carrying out the assignments.  Brian said that one of the reasons he was at this meeting was to get MMG input.  Rod said CBFWA would help in anyway they could, however, since some of the Members were plaintiffs in the court case this could be an issue.  John suggested putting this issue on the next agenda for the MMG.  Brian said he would not be able to attend the meeting but would keep everyone posted.

ITEM 5:

Summer Members Meeting

Discussion:

Jann asked the MMG when and where they would like to schedule the summer Members meeting.

ACTION:

The Members meeting will be August 19 and 20 at a place to be determined.

ITEM 6:

Next MMG Meeting

Discussion:

Jann stated that the next MMG meeting is scheduled for July 1, 2003 at the CBFWA Office in Portland.

ITEM 7:

Rewards and Recognition

Discussion:

Rod noted that currently we had only received four nominations for the six awards.  He encouraged everyone to send in nominations since there was little recognition for outstanding fish and wildlife managers.

ACTION:

Rod will send out a request for nominations and the awards will be presented at the next Members meeting in August.

ITEM 8:

May 19-22, 2003 ATNI Mid-Year Conference

Discussion:

Paul Lumley gave an overview of the Tribes meeting with Steve Wright.  He said the main thing that came out of the meeting was Steve reaffirming that he wanted to come up with a policy for meeting with the tribes.  The MMG noted that the Clinton Tribal Executive Order, which requires federal agencies to consult the Tribes, was still in effect.  Rod added that Steve had requested CBFWA�s help in setting up a meeting with the Tribes sometime in July.

ITEM 9:

Future of Fish Passage Advisory Committee (FPAC)

Discussion:

Bill Tweit said that an Ad Hoc Group composed of WDFW, USFWS, NOAA, IDFG, ODFW, CRITFC, FPC and CBFWA had met three times to re-evaluate the value and mission of the FPAC.  He presented a handout which contained a draft FPAC mission statement and proposed work plan elements.  Dave brought up the issue that FPAC deals with water management issues not just fish passage and the dangers of mixing the FPC and FPAC.  After further discussion, the MMG decided that they would rather have the �mission statement� changed to �purpose� and incorporated into the FPAC charter.

ACTION:

The Ad Hoc group will draft a new charter and send it out to the MMG for review.  This item will be placed on the next MMG meeting agenda.

ITEM 10:

FY2004-06 Start of Year Budget Process

Discussion:

Tom provided a brief update on the current NWPCC budget process noting that there was no clarity in how the NWPCC was going to manage the budgets.  He explained that the 03 process was not working and there was no cohesive management of the program.   He said that he had put together the Draft Interim Process Agreement Proposal as a short-term fix so the focus could shift to re-building the program.  This Draft Proposal was sent out for consent mail but there were objections from ODFW.  An emergency MMG call was held and the proposal and transmittal letter were re-drafted.  He said that the NWPCC and BPA were both working on Interim Process Proposals which were very similar to the CBFWA Proposal.  Dave noted that the term �provincial allocation� was still in the letter and should be changed to �Council�s allocation�.  Tony had several edits to the letter and proposal which he provided by written copy.  John requested that a bullet be added to letter which would incorporate the wildlife crediting issue.  He added that wildlife crediting was already included in the proposal.  Greg said that the Wildlife Committee had spent a lot of time on the letter but agreed with the consolidation.

Action:

Tony moved that the letter with corrections be sent out for 5 day consent mail.  Tom will incorporate the edits and changes into the letter and proposal.  Dave seconded the motion and it was approved.

Item 11:

FY2003 Within-year Process and Accrual Tracking

Discussion:

Tom provided an update on the BPA/CBFWA/Council Program Status Meeting he attended Thursday morning.  He discussed his concern with the Table of Recommendations for Project Adjustments and urged all Project Sponsors to look at it carefully.  He gave an overview of the original $139 million and how it was to be allocated.  His current estimate is that all the requested adjustments could be accommodated within the $139 million cap.  He also expressed concern that it is unlikely that the full $139 million will be expended in FY03, yet there continues to be no carry-over policy in place.  The Council will be considering all of the adjustment requests at their June meeting, which could finally resolve the FY2003 budget.

Item 12 :

Mainstem and Systemwide Province Project Selection

Discussion:

Tom reminded everyone that there was a meeting with Council staff and Mainstem/Systemwide Project Sponsors on May 27^th.  He noted the Council was releasing its initial recommendations for FY2004-2006 on Friday.  He urged all project sponsors to review them carefully since significant cuts were being proposed and some parts of existing programs had been eliminated.

The meeting adjourned at 4:35PM.