< BACK

Date:

July 26, 2001

TO:

Anadromous Fish Committee (AFC)

FROM:

Gary James, Chair

SUBJECT:

Draft Action Notes for July 25-26, 2001 AFC Meeting

If there are no objections within five days, these actions will be considered final.

Anadromous Fish Committee Meeting
July 25-26, 2001
9:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m.

Draft Action Notes

Attendees:

Gary James (CTUIR, Chair), John Palensky (NMFS), Bob Foster (WDFW), Ron Boyce (ODFW), Tim Roth (USFWS), Patty OToole (CTWSRO), Phil Roger (CRITFC), and Tom Iverson and Neil Ward (CBFWA)

Wednesday only: Mike Delarm and Gary Simms (NMFS), Pete Hassemer and Bert Bowler (IDFG), Deb Marriott and Bruce Southerland (LCREP), and Bruce Schmidt (Streamnet)

By Phone:

Wednesday: Lynn Krasnow (NMFS) and Joe Hymer (WDFW)

Thursday: Pete Hassemer (IDFG)

Time Allocation:

Objective 1. FY 2002 Draft Annual Implementation Work Plan

Objective 2. Rolling Province Review and Subbasin Summaries

Objective 3. FY 2001 Adjustments

0%

80%

20%

ITEM 1:

Review and Approve Agenda

Three items were suggested for addition to todays agenda: 1) The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership has requested funding for their High Priority project number 23074, 2) WDFW has requested additional funding for their ESA project number 23040, and 3) CTWSRO is going to request additional funds for project number 198805307. Also, specific time commitments were made to non-CBFWA members to participate in certain discussion items. A request was made to proceed through the agenda as opportunities allowed depending on who was present.

ACTION:

The AFC approved the agenda with the three additions. The agenda items will be addressed in order of opportunity based on who is present.

ITEM 2:

Update on NWPPC Subbasin Planning Process

The NWPPC discussed their approach to subbasin planning at their meeting last week in Wenatchee. The NWPPC staff has developed a three-tiered guideline document (a brief description of the process to help non-participants understand the process, a more technical description of the process for potential participants and staffers, and finally a very detailed technical description of the process for participants in the process). The NWPPC hopes to kick off subbasin planning in September and approved monies for Idaho Office of Species Conservation to convene a subbasin planning workshop in Idaho in September to help frame the process in that state.

ACTION:

No action was taken on this item.

ITEM 3:

Project Number 198805307 Within Year Budget Request

The CTWSRO is going to request approximately $40-50,000 for Project Number 198805307, Hood River Production Program: Powerdale, Parkdale, and Oak Springs O&M. The funding request is for expanding a residence at the Parkdale Fish Facility that would add two bedrooms to the assistant managers home. This would be a one time O&M adjustment. This request would be less than 10% of the Parkdale Fish Facility O&M budget. The BPA COTR has requested that CBFWA and NWPPC review the request.

The AFC discussed the request and generally supported the funding. The AFC questioned whether a complete within year review was necessary. Tom Iverson will speak with NWPPC staff and BPA staff to determine whether the within year process is necessary. CTWSRO will present a letter to CBFWA for the request and initiate the within year process for this project.

ACTION:

No action was taken on this item.

ITEM 4:

Lower Columbia River Estuary Program

LCREP has requested $150,000 to fund Project Number 23074, Lower Columbia River and Estuary Habitat Assessment and Mapping Project. This project was reviewed under the High Priority project solicitation and was not funded (CBFWA HP "B", ISRP NA). The Lower Columbia River Estuary Program (LCREP) will be drafting the Estuary Subbasin Summary and believe that this project will contribute to the database for subbasin assessments and planning.

This proposal is to be joined with a Corps of Engineers $150,000 cost share to complete mapping the lower Columbia River and estuary. Last year the lower 46 miles of the river were mapped and this funding would allow the completion of the remaining 100 miles up to Bonneville Dam. This would be a one-time expense to complete the mapping. The low water year provides a unique opportunity to complete the mapping with the greatest area of exposed shoreline and will provide important information for the subbasin assessments in this area.

It is unclear where funding for this project would be derived. The AFC believes it would be appropriate to fund this project through the subbasin assessment and planning money that BPA and NWPPC have discussed during the past year. Coordination also needs to be done with other mapping projects in the Basin to insure consistent data sets throughout the Program.

ACTION:

The AFC approved recommending $150,000 for Project Number 23074, Lower Columbia River and Estuary Habitat Assessment and Mapping Project if funding is available. The preferred funding source would be the subbasin planning and assessment fund that has been discussed previously by NWPPC and BPA.

ITEM 5:

NWPPC Request on Fin Clip Mass Marking

On June 26, 2001 a memo was sent out requesting feedback from the AFC on the NWPPCs request for a review of mass marking in the Columbia River Basin. To date no information has been received at CBFWA. The NWPPC would like a response by August 10, 2001.

The AFC identified numerous errors in the table that the NWPPC distributed with their request. Also the request was confusing and appeared to confuse mass marking and adipose fin clipping and inferred that adipose fin clipping and mass marking were performed only for the purpose of selective fishing.

An explanation of the role of mass marking in the Basin needs to be provided to the NWPPC and is probably best described in US v OR documents. The AFC needs to correct the tables that were provided by the NWPPC and provide an explanation of the various marking strategies being employed in the Basin. This will take time and will not be completed by August 10.

Tom Iverson will coordinate a response to the NWPPC. Bruce Schmidt will insure that the tables are updated with correct information and provide those tables to Tom by the end of August. Mike Delarm will draft an explanation of the various marking strategies and Tom will distribute it to the AFC and PAC for comment. In early September, a final response will be passed through CBFWAs consent mail process and delivered to the Council.

ACTION:

The AFC requested that Brian Allee send a letter to Bob Lohn indicating that a response to his request is being drafted and will be delivered by early September.

ITEM 6:

WDFW Request for Additional Funding for Duncan Creek

WDFW is requesting additional funding for Project Number 23040, Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek. This project was initiated in the High Priority solicitation and was given a B ranking by the ISRP and a HP A-BiOp ranking by CBFWA. It was not funded through the High Priority funding process. At the last quarterly review meeting, NMFS and BPA agreed to fund the project for $420,795 through the ESA placeholder in the 2001 Fish and Wildlife Program budget. The ISRP and NMFS requested that WDFW refine the proposal to include better M&E and other activities. BPA also requested additional chum salvage work in case of low water years. The project sponsor developed a new proposal for a total of $851,685. The AFC requested that the request be structured in the following manner and WDFW has provided the explanations for each of the budget components:

Original Request: $420,795

This cost will only cover the creation of the spawning channels. Two of the capturing/monitoring weirs will be delayed and are included in the Monitoring and Evaluation budget. Due to increased costs of the construction of the channels, it will also not cover the artificial propagation (i.e. RSIs and rearing troughs plus thermal marking) portion at Duncan Creek. It is still assumed that funding for this portion of the work would come from the ESA placeholder.

Chum Salvage Operation: $167,603

The second budget is the cost for the additional chum salvage operation. It includes one-time purchase of equipment. This would be the for the most intensive chum salvage effort.

Additional M&E: $253,287

The third budget is for the Monitoring and Evaluation portion of the project requested by the ISRP and NMFS. It also includes the artificial propagation (RSI and troughs) for Duncan Creek. It also includes the construction of the two capturing/monitoring weirs and the artificial propagation at Duncan Creek.

ACTION:

The AFC approved the request for an additional $420,890 for Project Number 23040, Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek if funding is available. The AFC prioritized funding the two additional components, if funds are limited, with the chum salvage operation first.

ITEM 7:

Review Columbia Plateau Province Budget Work Group Recommendations for Project Proposals for the Columbia Plateau Province

The AFC discussed the approach that will be taken for reviewing the Province Budget Work Group recommendations. It was agreed that AFC would first acknowledge and accept the hard work that was done by the work groups as a starting point. First the AFC needs to discuss overriding issues that arose during the project review and try to capture those issues in the final CBFWA recommendation. Second the AFC will discuss project specific issues that are raised by members of the AFC.

Overriding Issues:

  1. Budget - The AFC wants to reiterate to the NWPPC that if a specific budget is established for the Columbia Plateau Province that is less than our total recommendation, CBFWA would like an opportunity to prioritize the projects according that budget.
  2. In-lieu - The AFC identified several projects that raised in-lieu concerns. They determined that it is CBFWAs role to identify each projects benefits to fish and wildlife and allow NWPPC and BPA to determine if in-lieu funding issues exist that might affect funding a project. Specific concerns will be raised in the comment section of each project review where those concerns exist.
  3. Monitoring and Evaluation - The monitoring and evaluation proposals created some concern to project reviewers. Each specific project is incorporating monitoring into their proposals to address ISRP and regional concerns. At the same time many umbrella M&E proposals are being submitted that may or may not overlap existing work. These projects are creating duplication and coordination difficulties in some of the subbasins. As an example in the John Day subbasin, there is one ongoing M&E project (199801600) and three new projects (25010, 25069, and 25088b). These four projects provide significant opportunity for overlap and redundancy and coordination between these projects is not clear. Coordination must occur prior to funding and new M&E work in this subbasin to insure that all data is compatible and complimentary to provide the best evaluation in this subbasin.

ACTION:

The AFC reviewed and modified the Columbia Plateau Province Budget Work Group recommendations and forwarded them to MMG with the above concerns.

ITEM 8:

Next Meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for August 15, 2001 in Portland, Oregon. Please call Gary James or Tom Iverson if you will not be able to attend. No specific agenda items have been identified at this time.