WRIA 1 PROGRAM COORDINATION MANAGEMENT TEAM MEETING SUMMARY

Transcription

1 Date: July 29, 2010 Time: 1:30 p.m. 3:00 p.m. Place: Whatcom County Public Works, Civic Building, Garden Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, WA Review Agenda 2. Public Comment 3. Approval: SRFB/PSAR 2010 Project List Approval 4. Approval: PSAR Capacity Fund Scope of Work Categories 5. Discussion: WRIA 1 Watershed Joint Board Budget Follow-Up Discussion 6. Discussion: Local Integrating Organization Follow-Up discussion 7. Adjourn MEETING ATTENDANCE Management Team Clare Fogelsong City of Bellingham Steve Jilk PUD No. 1 Bill Verwolf City of Lynden/Small Cities Rep. Steve Seymour WDFW for Bob Everitt Jon Hutchings Whatcom Co. Merle Jefferson Lummi Nation Staff Team Members (Watershed or Salmon Recovery) Doug Allen Dept. of Ecology Alan Chapman Lummi Natural Resources Rebecca Schlotterback PUD No. 1 John Thompson Whatcom Co. PW Peter Gill Whatcom Co. PDS Steve Seymour - WDFW Jill Komoto Lummi Natural Resources Ned Currence Nooksack Natural Resources Llyn Doremus Nooksack Natural Resources Other Attendees Becky Peterson Geneva Consulting Rebecca Ponzio Puget Sound Partnership DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED July 29, 2010 Management Team Agenda Agenda Item #3 Supporting Background Document Draft PSAR Capacity Fund General Scope of Work MEETING CONTENTS Note: Management Team members comments and decisions reflect the views of attending members only. 1. Review Agenda There were no additions or changes to the agenda. 1

2 2. Public Comment Period No comments received 3. SRFB/PSAR 2010 Project List Approval Becky Peterson reviewed the purpose of the agenda item, which was approval of a 2010 SRFB/PSAR project list to submit to SRFB for funding. Becky explained the SRFB funding decision timeline, which includes the PSAR funding decisions occurring on a quicker timeline than the SRFB funding decisions. The reason that projects proposed for PSAR funding need to advance more quickly is that the PSAR funds should be under contract by November 30 with the SRFB making their funding decisions in October. The reason for the accelerated pace for the PSAR projects funds is that the state s budget shortfalls may result in unencumbered funds being absorbed back into the state budget. Becky explained that originally, the PSAR funds allocated to the watershed could be disbursed as the watersheds were ready to advance projects. This provided WRIA 1 to follow a more strategic approach for implementing projects through sequencing (i.e., fund design first then obtain funding for construction). The SRFB funding decisions, however, will still follow the SRFB grant schedule with decisions being made by the SRFB in December. Becky explained that all but one of the project proposals in WRIA 1 had some level of PSAR funding associated with it. Becky reviewed the background document distributed with the agenda that described the WRIA 1 Combined Review Team s (CRT) recommendations for the 2010 list, which included recommending amending the existing Fobes Creek grant to provide funding for Saxon Reach final design. Action Item: The WRIA 1 Management Team on behalf of their WRIA 1 Salmon Recovery Board approved the WRIA 1 CRT recommendations including approving an amendment to the existing Fobes Creek grant for final design of Saxon Reach project PSAR Capacity Fund Scope of Work Categories Becky explained that guidance received from the Puget Sound Partnership is to encumber all of the PSAR capacity funds by November 30, similar to the PSAR project funds previously discussed, to reduce the risk of losing the funds due to state budget concerns. Staff Team s recommendation is to approve a scope of work with broad categories under which specific project contracts, tasks, and budget would be developed for the Management Team s approval. This approach serves the purpose of having the funds under contract to the WRIA 1 Board while allowing the Salmon Staff Team to prioritize and recommend specific projects for funding. Jon Hutchings asked if the level of specificity will be enough for purposes of having the funds contracted to the Lead Entity. Becky reviewed that the Staff Team previously identified a number of projects that need to be completed that fall under the broad categories. These projects need further fleshing out and will need to be prioritized before they will be ready for contracting. In response to Jon s question of whether the state is comfortable with the approach of the broad categories, Rebecca Ponzio explained that if the Management Team is comfortable with the categories that the Partnership will work with Staff to provide an additional level of specificity related to work products that would be sufficient for contracting purposes. Action Item: The Management Team is comfortable with the categories for purposes of getting the funds under contract with the understanding that additional specificity will be added for work 2

3 products and their relationship to the recovery plan s implementation. When specific projects are later identified, the project proposals will be provided to the Management Team. 5. WRIA 1 Watershed Joint Board Budget Follow-Up Discussion Jon Hutchings reviewed that at its July 7, 2010 meeting, the Joint Boards directed the Management Team and Watershed Staff Team to work on a funding framework that leverages Joint Board funds to accomplish a variety of priority tasks related to settling water rights. To start the discussion Jon distributed a one page concept paper that listed a shared goal, objectives, and desired outcomes. The concept is framed around multiple partners sharing the responsibility for achieving the outcomes, including a commitment to support a funding strategy that leverages existing funds. Jon explained that to reach the desired outcomes, work plans will need to be developed that includes timelines and funding needs. His desired outcome for the Management Team meeting was to seek agreement on the concept. If agreement can be reached on the concept, Jon would like the Management Team to provide direction to the Watershed Staff Team to develop a white paper or task outline that will accomplish specific objectives. The Management Team discussed the needs associated with instream flow negotiations including water budgets, participation of stakeholders, monitoring, water supply plans, and integration of water use with land use. It was acknowledged that responding to those needs requires a multi-year funding strategy and commitments from a number of funding sources and agencies. The draft funding framework that Jon distributed was for a five year strategy. The Management Team reviewed and discussed potential funding sources, and how existing funds could be used to help leverage other funds and grants. The Management Team agreed with the concept presented and directed the Watershed Staff Team to develop a white paper that fleshes out tasks and steps for broad categories (instream flow negotiations, coordinated water system plan update, monitoring, and implementation tool). In addition to budget needs, the staff resources will need to be considered as the Management Team advances the concept. Clare expressed that it is critical to start moving forward on the coordinated water system plan update because of its importance in discussing water right settlements. Action Item: The Management Team directed the Watershed Staff Team to develop white papers around the categories outlined in the funding strategy concept paper. 6. Local Integrating Organization Follow-Up Discussion Becky reviewed that at the July 7 consolidated Boards meeting, the Puget Sound Partnership presented the concept of a Local Integrating Organization (LIO) intended to help coordinate locally with the Puget Sound Partnership in implementing the Action Agenda. Proposals for serving as the LIO could be submitted to the Leadership Council for approval. Jon commented that the existing WRIA 1 integrated structure is consistent with the Partnership s concept for a LIO. With the expectation that to the extent that the Partnership s Action Agenda priorities are consistent with the local priorities, the WRIA 1 integrated structure could be proposed as the LIO for Whatcom County. Management Team members discussed the concept of having the WRIA 1 structure serve as the LIO and that the issues that are covered by the LIO incorporates all of 3

4 the Action Agenda priorities and is not limited to salmon. Jon proposed that Becky look at the proposals that other areas submitted to the Leadership Council for LIO and draft a proposal for the Management Team s review at their next meeting. The proposal should be based on the existing integrated structure that has already been reviewed and agreed to locally. Rebecca Ponzio offered assistance to Becky in drafting the proposal. Action Item: Becky will draft a proposal for a LIO for the Management Team s review and discussion at their next meeting. 7. Other Business- Becky requested that the Management Team consider a regular meeting schedule that she could plan around. Management Team members indicated a preference for the last week of the month. 8. Adjourn 4

5 Action Summary Agenda Actions Item 2 Becky will update the combined Policy Boards Meeting Agenda to start at 1:30. She will delete the confidential Instream Flow Negotiations update for the watershed project WRIA 1 Joint Board. 2 If new information regarding the contract with USU is forthcoming it will be circulated to the Management Team before it is presented to the Joint Board. 2 A statement of the current situation and the possible decisions that will be required by the Joint Board will be circulated to the Management Team to enable the members to fully brief the Joint Board members before the meeting. 2 The Management Team will add a ten minute presentation to the combined Watershed Joint Board and Salmon Recovery Board meeting agenda for the Management Team to present the PSP with an overview of the local integration process. 5