1

FISH PASSAGE CENTER 

OVERSIGHT BOARD NOTES

July 23, 2003, 1:00 p.m.-4 p.m. 

Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority 

PORTLAND, OREGON

 

DRAFT

I. Greetings, Introductions and Review of the Agenda.

 The July 23, 2003 Fish Passage Center Oversight Board meeting, held at the Columbia Basin Fish & 

Wildlife Authority offices in Portland, Oregon, was chaired by Frank L. “Larry” Cassidy of the Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council. 

 The following is a distillation (not a verbatim transcript) of items discussed during the call, together with 

actions taken on those items. Please note that some enclosures referenced in the body of the text may be too lengthy 

to attach; all enclosures referenced are available upon request from the Council by calling 503/222-5161. 

 Cassidy welcomed everyone to today’s meeting, led a round of introductions, then reviewed today’s 

agenda. 

2. Review Final Language of Mainstem Amendments. 

 Cassidy distributed copies of the section of the Council’s 2003 Mainstem Amendments to the Columbia 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program that addresses the role of the Fish Passage Center. He invited the other FPCOB 

members to spend a few minutes reviewing this document, then led a discussion of its contents, touching on its 

meaning, impacts, implied changes, the technical committee, the Fish Passage Center executive director review and 

FPCOB’s role in data and analytical requests relevant to current regional issues. 

 Cassidy said his perception of the amendment is that the FPCOB now has significantly more meaning. 

Clearly this committee now has clearly-defined responsibilities, he said, and we need to step up to that. At some 

point, we’ll need to get a sense of the FPC’s year; perhaps, given the fact that the FPC operates on an October 1-

September 30 fiscal year, it would make sense to ask the FPC to submit its annual report around the beginning of the 

fiscal year, he said. Rod Sando replied that the FPC already prepares an annual report; the group briefly discussed 

the typical contents of this report. It is generally issued in the spring -- April or May -- of the following year, noted 

Filardo; we can’t really start working on it until the results are in from the previous year’s monitoring and evaluation 

season. 

 Cassidy noted that, during the mainstem amendment process, he had asked anyone who had concerns about 

the role and function of the Fish Passage Center to put those concerns in writing; no one chose to do so, however. In 

response to a question, Cassidy said he and Sando will conduct the review of the FPC executive director; Sando said 

the most recent review of the director showed an excellent job performance. 
2

 Cassidy asked Sando to develop a list of prospective members of the FPC technical advisory committee; 

Sando said he intends to bring that topic up at tomorrow’s MMG meeting, and will have the list ready for discussion 

at the next meeting of the FPCOB. The new technical advisory committee will be separate from the existing Fish 

Passage Advisory Committee, in that its role will be to provide technical guidance to the activities of the Fish 

Passage Center itself. 

 Tony Nigro observed that, in Oregon’s view, the membership of the technical advisory committee needs to 

represent the full array of technical interests and viewpoints in the region. The group also discussed the creation of 

the liaison between the FPC and the public; it was observed that the intent of this language was to remove the FPC 

director from being the primary point of contact for the public. Sando noted that the FY’04 FPC budget is currently 

before the Council; it represents a 16% reduction from the previous year’s budget. We’re stretched pretty thin as it 

is, he said; we may need to modify the budget if you want us to create a new position to handle liaison 

responsibilities. Sando suggested that he draft an addendum to the budget submitted by the FPC and asked Cassidy 

to speak for that addendum at the August or September Council meeting; Cassidy agreed to do so. 

 Liz Hamilton observed that this facet of the amendments deserves careful thought because it is intended to 

address one of the key concerns that led to the establishment of the FPCOB. 

 In a general sense, then, this document lays out the responsibilities we’re now faced with, said Cassidy. The 

next question is, how will this group function? 

3. FPCOB By-Laws. 

 Cassidy noted that, when the FPCOB began to meet, there was no formal election of a chair; the group also 

needs to develop specific bylaws guiding its operation. He noted that there are still some membership positions that 

need to be filled, including the lower river tribes and science. The group devoted several minutes of discussion to the 

question of the relative role and authority of the FPCOB and CBFWA in the operation of the Fish Passage Center, 

including the question of conflict resolution. Cassidy reiterated that the intent of the Council was to confer broad -- 

not narrow or limited -- oversight powers to the FPCOB. Ultimately, Nigro suggested that FPCOB simply be 

allowed to function for a time to see how some of these questions might play out; Sando agreed that this suggestion 

makes sense. 

 Cassidy said he would like a subcommittee of the FPCOB to work up a set of draft bylaws. Liz Hamilton 

distributed copies of the draft FPCOB bylaws she and Rob Walton developed in July 2002; Cassidy asked the other 

FPCOB members to review this document and come to the next FPCOB meeting prepared to discuss it in detail. 

Cassidy said he will ask John Shurts, John Ogan and Bill Hannaford of the Council staff to review it as well. 

 How often shall we meet? Cassidy asked. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that, at least initially, the 

FPCOB should meet at least quarterly. John Ferguson observed that one of the FPCOB’s major tasks will be to 

review the FPC’s 2004 work statement, which will be submitted this September. It was agreed that Ferguson and 

Hamilton will continue to refine the bylaws and will distribute a revised version of this document prior to the 

FPCOB’s August 28 meeting. 

4. Current Membership. 

 It was noted that the lower river tribes have been invited to participate in the FPCOB, but have not yet 

agreed to do so or appointed a representative. 

5. FPCOB Leadership. 

 John Ferguson observed that there are really three entities now overseeing the Fish Passage Center: the 

Council, CBFWA and the non-government organizations/private sector groups. He suggested that it may make sense 

for these three groups to share a rotating chairmanship of the FPCOB. Cassidy said that he has no objections to this 

suggestion, adding that he is willing to serve as chairman, at least for the time being. Shana McReynolds observed 

that each chairman will need staff support; that staff support is available to a chair, such as Cassidy, drawn from the 
3

Council, but it might be more difficult for other entities, such as the private-sector groups, to provide staff support. 

6. Next FPCOB Meeting Date. 

 The next meeting of the Fish Passage Center Oversight Board was set for 9 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Thursday, 

August 28. 

Meeting summary prepared by Jeff Kuechle, NPPC contractor.