**[WRP Meeting]{.underline}**

**9/9/05**

Jim Athern will be voting for Stephen Phillips

Tina Proctor presented Sue Ellis with a WRP appreciation gift for her
work as WRP chair

[Introduction round-robin.]{.underline}

[Discussion of membership list]{.underline}

\- The membership list was last compiled in 2001.

\- There are many member changes: Blake Feist (NOAA); Jacob Varghis
(USCG); Linda Drees and alternate John Wullschleger (NPS); Joe
DiVittorio (USBR); Lyman Thorsteinson (USGS); Jason Goeckler (KDWP),
Scott Millar (Alberta). Sarah Newkirk replaces Linda Sheehan for Coastal
Conservation Interests rep; Robert Leavitt replaces Kathy Hamel for
WAPMS rep; Billy Kerans (At-large Inland interests)

**- It was moved, seconded and passed to approve USGS as a new member.**

**\*\* Action item**: **Adelheid will approach Kay Wallace as a possible
AK Natives alternate representative**

\- We are still missing representatives from some states: NB, HA, Guam,
Canada Federal Member; Mexican Federal Member. TNC also needs a
replacement; Allan Holt is trying to find a replacement. We are unsure
whether Fred is the ID rep.

\*\* **Action Item: Fred will check and let Tina know whether he is the
ID rep.**

**\*\* Action Item: Anyone else with personal changes to the list should
let Tina know**

\- Paul commented that we should bring in people who are more than just
placeholders, and Tina indicated it is important that people
representing interests are more involved in representing their interest
group.

[Current Project Updates]{.underline}

\- Projects are paid for out of PSMFC, who takes 15% to manage the
grants

#1- US/Canada cooperation (\$5k): PSAT could not find a Canadian
partner; \$5k is released back to the WRP

#2- ANS detection program (\$10k)- The SF estuary project is just
getting started; may need to push it along

#3- AIS research priorities, PSU (\$5750): planned for this fall

#4- Collaboration with Mexico on prevention of hull transport (\$4750);
the money was spent and a report received

The remaining \$20k was spent for meetings and travel for chair and
members to WRP

**\*\* Action Item: Next year Tina will make a list of travel expenses**

\- \$10k was awarded to KS for state plan development, but they found
other money elsewhere so this is now available for other use. This plus
the \$5k PSAT return and new \$30k makes a total of \$45k now available.

[Guide to Procedures]{.underline}

\- Some proposed revisions were discussed. Those elected in 2000 have
actually served 5 years not 4 (probably should have had an election last
year). Four year terms may be too much.

\- Also, an odd number of people in the Excom would make voting easier;
a change from 8 to 9 members was proposed.

\- To insure the whole committee does not turn over at once, terms will
be 2 years with the option to run again.

**- It was moved, seconded and passed to change the bylaws and elect 4
members in even years, and 5 in odd years to insure continuity.** It was
noted this will require a change of quorum to 5 in section 20, and a
need to change numbers in various sections of the Procedures.

\- It was suggested that removing the numbers from section 2 and
referencing attachment A would eliminate the need to change numbers all
the time.

**- It was moved, seconded and passed to retain the descriptions but
remove the numbers.**

[Executive committee Vote]{.underline}

\- A slate of nine members was proposed for election: 4 old and 5 new
members. No additional people present showed interest in being
nominated.

**- It was moved, seconded and passed to accept 5 new members for two
year terms (Draheim, McDowell, Ryce, Piorkowski, and Anderson) and keep
the remaining four current members until next year (Ellis, Chapman,
Parker and Wullschleger).**

[NOAA RFP]{.underline}

\- NOAA is working on an RFP for 2007. Dorn Carlson has indicated he
needs a paragraph from the WRP on our priorities to help them choose
which projects to fund. A committee will develop the paragraph.
Discussion included the following comments:

\- It will be helpful for the committee to have a copy of Dorn's letter.

\- It was suggested there should be priorities for both coastal and
inland states. But it was also noted that it might not be beneficial to
divide the panel.

\- It is important to have a person not from coastal state on the
committee

\- It is important not be on the committee if you plan to submit a
proposal

**\*\* Action item: Tina? Sue? Will provide copy of Dorn letter to the
paragraph committee**

**\*\* Action item: Committee volunteers: Bob McMahon, Smith, Eileen
Ryce, Lynn Schlueter, Kevin Anderson. Blake Feist agreed to lead the
committee.**

**\*\* Action Item: Blake will ask Dorn if he can change the rules a bit
to allow funding of AK projects**

[Reports on Current Projects]{.underline}

1\. Mexican IS strategy: Sue and others went to Mexico City, and
provided WRP assistance and information etc.

2\. Joint session with Desert Fisheries Council: Nov 19-20 will be a
meeting in Cuatro Cienegas. There is a request for papers. We are
helping Mexican scientists to attend, and will pay the translator.

3\. Research priorities workshop to assign priorities to aquatic
invasives: The workshop will be held Dec 13-14 in La Jolla; there are
about 35 confirmed attendees

4\. Border materials to develop protocol for cross-border trailers: A
student was hired to survey border crossings and determine what invasive
species messages are being given out. The NE and GL panels were also
interviewed. About 5million cars cross WA, ID, MT borders annually. If
2% bring trailers, 300 cars pass each way every day. Lots of messages
are being given, but they are not consistent. It is recommended that
borders become involved in the Stop Hitchhikers campaign and that the
Canada rep on ANSTF get involved. There is also an obvious lack of
decontamination facilities at borders. Border patrol needs to give
training to customs. It is unknown what species actually cross borders.
Bob P mentioned AK borders refuse to look at boats. APHIS has the
authority...there just needs someone to push the issue.

5\. Early detection prototype for watershed groups. Karen was
absent...so no report.

6\. Database for educational materials: \> 200 materials have been
catalogued but the interactive interface is having problems, and funding
was underestimated; They have a proposal to take it further. The
database can't go on-line currently as it is now.

7\. Economic Impact of zebra mussels on Columbia and CO Rivers. (See
report).

8\. Zebra mussel rapid response: An internet blog was held; now a 2 day
meeting is scheduled. A draft report is available, and comments were
provided. A product is expected from the meeting.

9\. Hull fouling collaboration: A written report was provided, and
meetings held. They will develop a brochure for boat owners and marina
managers

10\. Rapid response for two plant species...???

11\. PCEIS: A written report was provided. Henry has applied for an EPA
AMI grant of \$250k that would allow him to add more data layers to the
database on wetland plants and other factors.

**\*\* Action Item: Tina will follow up with Henry...she needs a final
CD.**

[New proposals]{.underline}

\- This year we received 16 grant proposals, the most ever received. We
aim for three projects max, to keep PMSFC admin low.

\- Karen Mc Dowell (committee chair) is sick and so the projects did not
go out to members prior to the meeting for review. Since it is hard now
to get consensus on short notice and so many projects, we decided we
need a new way to deal with them this year. - - Eight priorities for
eligibility were established last year. We decided the developed a new
list of criteria for review:

\- eligibility (meets priorities 2-8 from last year, plus the need to
have support from their state rep or WRP member)

\- cost

\- technical merits/feasibility

\- meets WRP objectives

\- project scale (geographic)

\- urgency

\- balance of coastal and inland interests

\- continues a project that has merit

\- past performance

**- It was moved, seconded and passed that the Excom will review the
proposals this year using the new criteria to screen the projects.**

**\*\* Action Item: Excom will use these new criteria to do a
preliminary screen and ask 3-5 page proposal; the excom will then review
these and make final selections, then send list of awardees to whole
committee.**

**\*\* Action Item: We will use these criteria for next year's RFP
also.**

Discussion comments:

\- Next year we should start sooner and ask for something more from the
proposals.

\- Since there were no states in the meeting that felt they could use
the KS money for plan development, it was also agreed that the Excom
could use its discretion in funding, and use the whole \$45k to fund
projects if necessary.

[Next year's Meeting]{.underline}

\- HA, ID, OR and ND were all suggested as possibilities.

\- The importance of easy access (no need for rental car) to keep costs
low was stressed. - - Back to back with other meetings was not
recommended as it makes for a long week.

**\*\* Action Item: Portland was selected as next years location; Robyn
and Paul volunteered to begin coordination for a meeting in the second
week in September.**

[Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Managers
Resolution]{.underline}

\- There was discussion of SB770 (NAISA) and S363; both bills are
important, and we need to discuss how panels can get involved in the
process, and whether there are some statements of principle or
recommendations we can make.

\- There is question about which would supersede if both passed, since
ballast water provisions conflict.

\- Susan said any recommendation from the panel needs to go through
ANSTF.

\- It was felt there is probably not enough time for us to do anything
more than see that information on these bills gets to all the members.

\- States need to make their voices heard, and suggest compromise with
both bills if possible. Feds probably need to recuse themselves.

**\*\* Action item?? WRP should send info on both bills to the general
membership**

[Committee establishment]{.underline}

\- Susan asked whether we should we restructure WRP committees to
increase member involvement.

\- There seemed to be agreement that it would make more efficient use of
committee talents, and would parallel structure in other panels.

**- It was moved, seconded and approved: the excom will restructure the
committee using other panels as a model of committee structure, and send
the proposal to the members. A coastal and inland member will be on each
committee.**

**Meeting adjourned around 4:10.**