< BACK

DATE:

October 18, 2001

TO:

Resident Fish Committee (RFC)

FROM:

Joe Maroney, Chair

SUBJECT:

Draft Action Notes from the October 16-17, 2001 RFC Meeting

Attendees:

Dave Ward (ODFW), Keith Underwood (STOI), John Arterburn (CCT), Mike Faler (USFWS), Ron Morinaka (BPA), Jim Uehara (WDFW), Lee Hillwig (USFWS), Dave Statler (NPT), Dan Warren (NWPPC), Bruce Suzumoto (NWPPC) Ron Peters (CDAT), Joe Maroney (KT), Clint Muhlfeld (MFWP), Vinny Pero (SPT), Tom Clune (SPT), Guy Dodson (SPT), Brian Allee (CBFWA), Neil Ward (CBFWA)

By Phone:

Sue Ireland (KTOI), Dan Gonzales (BPT), Dave Mosier (SBT), Pete Hassemer (IDFG)

Time Allocation:

Objective 2. Rolling Province Review and Subbasin Summaries - 25%

Objective 3. FY 2001 Adjustments  -25%

Item 1:

No changes were made to the agenda.

Item 2:

Neil Ward provided an overview of the letter that CBFWA submitted to the NWPPC on September 29, 2001, regarding strategies that could be used to resolve the existing budget uncertainties. Neil indicated that, based on phone conversations with some of the fish and wildlife managers, the managers suggested that the province review teams reconvene in an attempt to identify potential deferrals per the September 29, 2001. Neil indicated that he will be contacting the managers in the Columbia Gorge, Inter-mountain, and Mountain Columbia provinces to identify potential dates and locations that will enable CBFWA to provide the results of the budget review to the NWPPC on November 7, 2001, during their meeting in Idaho Falls, ID.

Item 3:

Action:

The RFC recommended that the request for $180,000 be forwarded to the Members Management Group (MMG) and subsequently to the NWPPC for review during their November 7, 2001, meeting in Idaho Falls, ID. Included in the recommendation to the MMG should be support material that supports the RFC�s belief that the construction of the new rearing ponds does not require a "Three-Step Review." The RFC indicated that if the planning and construction of the ponds exceeds $180,000 the RFC would have to readdress request.

Item 4:

The SPT requests a within-year budget modification (i.e., allocation of $30,000 from the RFC placeholder) for Project 198815600 to allow for the purchase of sterile rainbow trout that will be stocked in Billy Shaw Reservoir. The funds that are presently earmarked for stocking efforts are insufficient since they reflect the cost that would be incurred to stock non-sterile rainbow trout.

Action:

The RFC recommended that the request for $30,000 be forwarded to the MMG and subsequently to the NWPPC for review during their November 7, 2001, meeting in Idaho Falls, ID.

Item 5:

The RFC reviewed and discussed the potential use of the RFC�s screening criteria (criteria used to review proposals for FY2000) during the RFC�s review of proposals submitted for funding through the Rolling Review process. In addition, the RFC further discussed the decision made during the August RFC Meeting, the would result in the formation of review groups, based on expertise and experience, to perform technical reviews of proposals submitted for funding through the Rolling Review Process. The review groups will report their findings to the RFC for approval pending a management review by the full RFC.

Action:

The RFC will review the technical and management merits of each proposal by implementing the criteria (at the end of the notes) used by the subbasin review teams.

Action:

Item 6:

Next RFC Meeting

November 14, 2001
Owyhee Plaza
Boise, ID
9:00 a.m. � 4:00 p.m. (Mountain)

1. Does the proposal demonstrate that the project uses appropriate scientifically valid strategies or techniques and sound principles (best available science)?

Y or N

2. Are the objectives clearly defined with measurable outcomes and tasks that contribute toward accomplishment of the objectives?

Y or N

3. Are the resources proposed (staff, equipment, materials) appropriate to achieve the objectives and time frame milestones?

Y or N

4. Does the proposal include monitoring and evaluation to determine whether objectives are being achieved (including performance measures/methods) at the project level?

Y or N

5. Will the proposed project significantly benefit the target species/ indicator populations?

Y or N

6. Does the proposal demonstrate that project benefits are likely to persist over the long term and will not be compromised by other activities in the basin?

Y or N

7. Does the proposal demonstrate that all reasonable precautions have been taken, to not adversely affect habitat/populations of wildlife, native resident and anadromous fish?

Y or N

8. Are there explicit plans for how the information, technology etc. from this project will be disseminated or used?

Y or N

1. Does the proposed project address fish and wildlife related objectives, strategies, needs and actions as identified in the subbasin summaries?

Y or N

2. Does the project address an urgent requirement or threat to population maintenance and/or habitat protection (i.e., threatened, endangered or sensitive species)?

Y or N

3. Does the project promote/maintain sustainable and /or ecosystem processes or maintain desirable community diversity?

Y or N

4. Is there cost share for the construction/implementation and/or monitoring and evaluation of the project?

Y or N

5. Will the project complement management actions on private, public and tribal lands and does the project have demonstrable support from affected agencies, tribes and public?

Y or N

6. Will the project provide data critical for in season, annual and/or longer term management decisions?

Y or N

7. Will this project provide or protect riparian or other habitat that may benefit both fish and wildlife?

Y or N