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 1. FY 2002 Renewal Process - 0% Objective 2. Rolling Province Review and Subbasin Summaries - 25% Objective 3. FY 2001 Adjustments -25%
Item 1:		Review and Approve Agenda No changes were made to the agenda.
Item 2:		Overview of CBFWA’s Memo to the NWPPC Regarding Strategies to Resolve Budget Uncertainties 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:		Review the Kalispel Tribe of Indians’ (KT) Within-year Budget Modification Request The KT requested a within-year budget modification (i.e., allocation of $180,000 from RFC placeholder) for Project 199500100 to allow for the design and construction of two half-acre lined rearing ponds (see attachment). Presently, the KT uses two sloughs for rearing largemouth bass fry to the fingerling stage. The sloughs are constantly plagued with aquatic macrophyte growth and are subjected to flooding on a regular basis. The combination of fish lost due to flooding and the inability to effectively collect fish from the sloughs due to the presence of macrophytes and the sloughs’ bottom contours has resulted in an inability to meet annual production goals. The KT indicated that the $180,000 is an estimate and that the actual cost may exceed $180,000.
	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:		Review the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley (SPT) Within-year Budget Modification Request 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:		Review the RFC’s Screening Criteria for Proposal Reviews and Develop Review Groups to Review the Technical Merits of Resident Fish Proposals Submitted for Funding Consideration in the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces 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:	Following each proposal title are the RFC members that volunteered to review the proposal. The proposals, ISRP comments, and project sponsor’s responses are available on the CBFWA website. Email review comments to Neil Ward no later November 7, 2001. 28042 –Timing and Location of Spawning by Pure and Introgressed Cutthroat Trout in the North Fork Clearwater River Ron Peters, Joe Maroney, Clint Muhlfeld 28024 – Dworshak Dam Impacts Assessment and Fisheries Investigations Keith Underwood, Vinny Pero, Clint Muhlfeld 28041 – Dworshak Zooplankton Entrainment Mike Faler, Keith Underwood, Dan Gonzales 28022 – Evaluate Bull Trout Life History in Dworshak Reservoir, N.F. Clearwater River Drainage, ID Dan Gonzales, Mike Faler, Joe Maroney, Ron Peters 198740700 – Dworshak Integrated Rule Curves/M&E Keith Underwood and Brian Marotz 28023 – Evaluate and Control Brook Trout Populations – Addressing Competition Threats an Hybridization Threats in the Clearwater Drainage, Idaho John Arterburn, Joe Maroney, Mike Faler, Vinny Pero, Dave Mosier, Dan Gonzales, Jim Uehara 199501300 – Resident Fish Substitution Program John Arterburn, Vinny Pero 28007 – Causes and Effects of Nonnative Trout Invasions in the Salmon and Clearwater River Subbasins Clint Muhlfeld, John Arterburn, Dave Ward, Joe Maroney 28058 – Restore Fish Passage and Habitat in the Upper East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon River Ron Peters, Vinny Pero, Joe Maroney, John Arterburn 28002 – Fluvial Bull Trout Migration and Life History Investigations in the Upper Salmon River Subbasin Ron Peters, Mike Faler, Dan Gonzales, Jim Uehara 28014 – Bull Trout Population Assessment and Life History Investigations in the Upper Salmon River Subbasin Ron Peters, Jim Uehara, Clint Muhlfeld 199700900 – Evaluate Potential Means of Rebuilding Sturgeon Populations in the Snake River between Lower Granite and Hells Canyon Dams Dave Ward, Vinny Pero, Sue Ireland 27015 – Develop Long-term Management Plan for Snake River (Hells Canyon Reach) White Sturgeon Dave Ward, Vinny Pero, Sue Ireland 27017 – Bull trout Population Assessment and Life History Characteristics in Association with Habitat Quality and Land Use: Template for Recovery Planning Dan Gonzales, Dave Mosier, Joe Maroney 199405400 – Characterize the Migratory Patterns, Population Structure, Food Habits, Abundance of Bull trout from Subbasins in the Blue Mountain Province Keith Underwood, Jim Uehara, Vinny Pero 27024 – Life History Strategies in Oncorhynchus mykiss: Interactions between Anadromous and Resident Forms Jim Uehara, Clint Muhlfeld, Mike Faler
Item 6:		Next RFC Meeting November 14, 2001 Owyhee Plaza Boise, ID 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. (Mountain)

Technical Criteria

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

Management Criteria

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