October 15-16, 1998 Ashland, Oregon Windmill Hills Inn
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL Minutes of the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force Meeting October 15-16, 1998 Ashland, Oregon Windmill Hills Inn October 15, 1998 1. Convene and opening remarks (Barry). Barry: Good morning. A quorum is present (Attachment 1). This may be my last meeting; I have enjoyed my tenure. I would like to introduce John Engbring who will be my replacement as Department of the Interior (DOI) representative. He is in the California Nevada Operations Office (CNO). Mike Spear is the manager of this office and is member of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) directorate. John will be the Klamath Supervisor. I have a new assignment and John will be transitioning in. Engbring: I have been with the Service for 20 years mostly with endangered species. I have been in Olympia for the last seven years. I have worked on several of the tribal committees and I am familiar with some of the President=s Forest Plan issues. I am just coming up to speed on the water rights issues. I am excited and glad to be here. Please introduce yourself to me. Orcutt: Will you assume the Chair of the Task Force (TF)? Barry: He will be the DOI representative and Designated Federal Official at the next meeting. You will still have to elect a new chair. I have known John for the past several years. We welcome him. Orcutt: Regarding the Del Norte Triplicate article on the Klamath Restoration Program, I question the slant of the articles. The public is swayed by them. Who speaks for the restoration program? My point: When we speak to the press we need clear, precision comments in speaking for the TF. Hamilton: I was requested by the reporter to provide a perspective on the program. I have to say that some of my comments were taken out of context. Fletcher: The more press we receive the better. Wilkinson: One thing on the Klamath Fisheries Management Council (KC) issues is that there is another Klamath River Task Force. This group is made up of lower river recreational fisherman. There is confusion because of this. I am not sure which one they were quoting in the article. Do we have copyright on our name? Halstead: When I first saw that name, I thought copyright infringement, but they had that name first. I talked with Solicitors and there is nothing we can do about it. 2. Brief review of last meeting actions/general correspondence (Hamilton) Hamilton: Please review Handouts A-D (Attachment 2). 3. Business A. Adoption of agenda Fletcher: I would like to add an item which is brief discussion of KC meeting last week. Barry: We will put it by agendum 41. Fletcher: I want an item on review of the Coordinated Resource Management Planners (CRMPs). Wilkinson: Please add a report from Bruce Halstead on Mainstream Spawning escapement. Page -1- Rode: I would like a slot to correct some of the misperceptions which may have been left by Bill Kier=s remarks on the Shasta River. **Motion**(Wilkinson) Adopt the agenda (Attachment 3) as revised **Second**(Bulfinch) **Motion Carried** B. Adoption of minutes from the June 1998 meeting **Motion**(Wilkinson) Move to approve the minutes once typographic errors are corrected **Second** **Motion Carried** C. Decision on $50k for Humboldt State University (HSU) and Graphic Information Systems (GIS) (Barry) Barry: Next is the carry over item to decide on the fate of $50,000; whether or not it was to go to Humboldt State University (HSU) for GIS support work to the Technical Work Group (TWG). I will remind the TF that there was a motion on the table at last meeting to fund HSU for this particular project. I was the only one who voted against it and the reason is that I wanted all of us to see if there was any way we could provide in-kind services to support the TWG with their GIS. Having heard nothing in the last three months from any of the other agencies, I stand corrected. There was a willingness to help out but its kind of difficult to plan ahead with workload and priorities; we don=t have the capabilities to devote one whole person or 2 a person full-time to the TWG. Since there is this unknown, I would entertain that it was roundly recognized that we all supported the GIS effort at the cost of $50,000. I would like to entertain a motion to go ahead and fund it. **Motion**(Hillman) That the TF fund fully the GIS work at HSU for $50k. **Second**(Fletcher) Orcutt: There is work on the Trinity side as well as the upper basin with GIS efforts. We need to coordinate efforts and see where there are cost savings. Fletcher: The FWS and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) have pushed to get a Klamath basin coordinator as called for in the 1995 or 96 reauthorization of the Trinity Restoration Program. That is an assignment Bernice Sullivan should look into and follow through on. Barry: Good point. We will highlight that in the minutes. **Motion Carried**(Bitts abstains) D. Fate of request for 8 percent overhead reduction (Barry) Barry: The $80k is in our budget set aside. Back in February, Nat signed a letter asking that overhead be reduced. The TF has no written reply yet because we do not have an appropriation to date. Regional Director Ann Badgley has not been able to address this. I ask for your indulgence. I did discuss it at length with Mike Spear. We should get back a letter to you this fall. The $80k is for RO support for this program. Those functions still remain in Portland. Orcutt: Within the FWS budget development process, has there been a request for additional funding? Barry: Region 1 did request a significant increase in year 2000. We do not know its fate. Orcutt: The FWS document would be strengthened with support from constituents. Barry: Absolutely. We will carry this item over to the next meeting. E. Status of gage funding (Barry) Page -2- Barry: Both the FWS and Klamath National Forest (KNF) have picked up gage funding. Through the Ecosystem Restoration Office (ERO) we are paying for two gages, the Shasta and the Scott. The KNF picked up the Salmon River. Fletcher: The Trinity Program is funding the lower Klamath River gauge. Barry: Why not address next years gauge funding in the Request for Proposals (RFP) process? Bulfinch: If an agency has an interest, they should participate in funding. Barry: At the last meeting we agreed that I send a memo to the DOI secretary regarding the gauges. We all concurred. That letter has been drafted I will look at it again. This discussion spurs me on to get this letter out. I will act on that still. Fletcher: We may have done so previously. I recall Patricia Beneke saying that she supports funding for the gages. It would be worth saying that in the letter. Barry: Thanks for the reminder. Reck: There are two questions: which gages are needed and then how do we fund them? You can=t get to the second without answering the first. 4. Election of a vice Chair for the TF (Barry) Barry: Also a carry over item, we do not have a vice Chair. Without a vice Chair we do not have anyone to chair the next meeting or sign some of the correspondence. 5. TF Discussion Fletcher: Lets do both at once. Orcutt: There is no stipulation preventing a non federal member from being Chair. Bulfinch: There were two nominations. If there=s only one, we can do it by nomination. If there=s more than one, we need a secret ballot. **Motion**(Smith) I nominate Keith Wilkinson for vice Chair **Second**(Bulfinch) Bulfinch: In addition to his character, there is an emphasis is on the upper basin for a large part of the program. As the representative of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), it is logical for Keith the to be the vice Chair. Hillman: We have had a discussion about combining the Chair and the vice Chair elections. Can we put more than one nomination on the floor? Barry: Procedures say we have to vote by consensus; if we have more than one nomination on the floor, it would not work well. Let=s discuss it in the context of Joan=s motion. Rode: I suggest we entertain both. There are a number of potential nominations out there. Lets go around the table, solicit nominations of individuals, and put them on the ballot, then count up the votes. Orcutt: There are a number of votes not here. There were strong concerns from the Klamath Tribe at the last meeting. Rode: I sympathize, but is there any way to guarantee full participation next time? We will be leaderless. We have a strong quorum now. Page -3- Barry: It was clear at the last meeting that we would be voting now. I concur with Mike Rode. Bulfinch: We do not have do this by consensus. **Motion withdrawn** **Second accepts** **Motion**(Rode) That we suspend the consensus procedure of this group in order to facilitate an election of the Chair and vice Chair of the TF under a simple majority procedure. **Second**(Bitts) Fletcher: I will not support any motion to suspend the rules. Russell: When we talk about departing from the consensus process, then we could do again in the future. If so, we could pass the Upper Basin Amendment (UBA). We have the rule; we should just vote.