Lloyd: Background on Lead Entity 2009 Governor Salmon Office to RCO. 29% state funds and 71% Pac. SRF federal split of LE funding across the program

Transcription

1 WRIA 14 Lead Entity Structure and Function Meeting Notes Monday, November 4 th, 9:30-12:30 Shelton Civic Center, 525 W Cota, Shelton, WA Present: Amy Hatch-Winecka, WRIA 14; Jen Thurman-Williams, MCD; Lloyd Moody, GSRO; Kay Caromile, RCO; Jim Irving, CAC; Bill Burrows, MCD; John Bolender, MCD; Rich Carlson, USFWS; Laurence Reeves, CLT; Caitlin Guthrie, CLT; Jeanne Kinney, TCPW; Jamie Glasgow, WFC; Evan Bauder, MCD; Brian Combs, SPSSEG; Jeremy Graham, MCPW; Doris Small, WDFW; Margie Bigelow, WDFW Overview of Agreements: Lloyd: Background on Lead Entity 2009 Governor Salmon Office to RCO. 29% state funds and 71% Pac. SRF federal split of LE funding across the program $70m from PSAR Voices from the bottom up approach Current Economic times & salmon recovery $ looking better LE Citizen Committee = Long term salmon recovery tool LE Process/Structure is used as a model for other recovery efforts 1998 ESHB 2496 Lead Entity and ESHB 5595 Watershed Planning Established County, City and Tribe = Resolution of support, this group decides who will hold the contract. Citizen Committee (CC) identifies project proposals In Puget Sound there are 16 LE each working on a Recovery Plan for Chinook and soon Steelhead in Nisqually & Hood Canal Pilot Recovery Council = Allocation formula = project dollars + capacity (process proposals) **Brian - Who is responsible for who should be on Lead Entity? Lloyd Varies by LE and CC. State wants LE and CC to decide. LE Advisory Group = Advises Fish and Wildlife and is a sounding board to LE and CC **Laurence Is the CC only responsible for the list? Lloyd No

2 **Jeanne How are Technical Advisory Committees selected? Lloyd Varies by WRIA. They review proposals, check soundness, does it fit with the Recovery Plan. Lloyd suggested looking at Statues handout. South Sound Lead Entity Proposal: NOAA is responsible for listings to the Endangered Species Act and writing a recovery plan. Washington State didn t like the idea of Feds writing plan so it developed its own. Washington is the only one in the country approved by NOAA. Chairman Trout s SS LE proposes to line up better with Recovery Plan chapters. LIO = Local Implementing Organization. EPA funded Doris Implementation of Action Areas. John Carry out charter Amy LE work together to promote larger projects including Nisqually and Devils Head John Decide on a regional scale important recovery projects and rank them Amy No strategy yet, South Sound Technical Group includes Scott Steltzner, Chris Ellings, Tom Kantz, Doris Small, etc?. Not weighing in on SRF Projects but covering land use issues. **Brian Will LIO take over LE process? Lloyd Realignment would create a new LE including cities, counties and tribes. This process can take a while. **Doris Are there other LE within an LE? Lloyd Hood Canal is Chinook recovery chapter and Region for Summer Chum Doris Nearshore focused John Multi species approach Lloyd You may want to ask for dollars for steelhead Creating a Path Forward: PSAR $ is state capital fund dollars = project specific, not general staff funding **Brain What is a reasonable way to use capacity $? In this group sponsors have received $ for project development

3 Lloyd RCO has a good reputation for project management and wants to keep it that way. Scope of work how clearly does it need to be tied? Example culvert assessment is OK LE Task Table It has been agreed on with GSRO, MCD and Amy the number one priority is Task 9 Project Development and hold spending on Tasks 8 & 10 no funds will be billed to those tasks. Lloyd wants $ to be spent on project brought forward with solid reporting that will build support for new SSLE process. Evan Hard to develop projects when parameters are unknown with new process. John Consolidation to new LE includes community support. Brian Agrees 8 & 10 should be on hold. Lloyd Suggests looking at Hood Canal LE which has similar wording as Task 8 **Brian Is there funding for sponsors? Lloyd Can t use PSAR, must be linked to projects Kay A project includes meeting with several landowners that leads to landowner agreement that leads to project implementation. John Raise the Floor Dollars are eligible to start July 2013, Table can be adjusted Lloyd Suggests to reach out requesting projects on website $43,000 needs to be spent by December 31 and is retroactive to July 1, 2013 We need to show legislature that we can use $ effectively & efficiently Laurence CLT has been tracking WRIA 14 unbilled billable project development hours Lloyd Reach out if you can t spend the $ John Develop proposals, find interested partners Amy Procure procedures to get $ to sponsors and RFP will be sent out for review and then adoption **Evan Who gets work if there are more than one category i.e., Conservation, restoration? John Process is transparent so that there is a logical outcome Lloyd Defensible and expeditious. May want to seek support from LIO and RITT. Bill Project dollar limits could be set if the CC chose **Brian Can we use Task 9 to seek outside funds?

4 Amy Partners are able to look for funding for proposals outside of the SRFB process to implement more expeditiously. WRAP UP: Amy Sees need for a Chair of the CC to be a part of discussions between MCD, CC and TC, and the SSLE discussion. Also suggested either a MOU or revision of the by-laws that outlines the roles and expectations of the Mason Conservation District and the LE Committees. Evan Likes Chair idea, wants more robust group, more citizens. CC is heavy on agencies. Also scoring sheets need to reflect separate viewpoints. Amy Ranking documents are being reviewed on currant task. CC Chair would be voice of current LE at new SSLE. Brian The separation between CC and TC clear but not clear John Let s get Task 9 done first, get contracts for projects. Laurence Likes the MOU idea Amy Will send draft procurement procedure, draft RFP. Needs responses by end of next week. **Laurence Can we use the procedure we have used in the past to save time with every group getting equal amount to develop projects? **Evan Money was divided equally? Amy Yes, except for Tool then other Sponsors could release their share. Lloyd Make sure to address: Conflict of Interest, Contract, Monitor Scope of Work Bill MCD would not like to equally dispersed dollars, they must be specific on deliverables. Lloyd Peanut butter approach can cause problems **Brian Who is on Sub Committee to review projects? Amy Will re-send Sub Committee document. Brian RFP middle ground, procurement maybe to lengthy/time consuming. Bill Sponsors use scope of work for scalable projects. The CC will prioritize projects submitted within 2 weeks. **Evan- Letter of Intent instead of procurement? John/Amy - An easy combined procurement/letter of intent can be produced

5 John This will meet RCO objectives **Jamie There is a list of projects already developed could a RFQ be used? John RFPs are more flexible and more limitations to RFQ Jamie The more organizations who get to contribute is better for the CC. Likes the Peanut Butter method in that it encourages more participation. John - We want Sponsors who carry out tasks, are qualified and capable of timely work Laurence Not all groups will be able to be a part of the CC and it may lose the diversity of perspectives Bill - The CC will decide on the projects not MCD Jeanne Not aware of Peanut butter approach **Rich What kind of guidance will the subcommittee have to rank projects? If there are more projects than funds to cover does MCD decide? John The CC recommendation is what the MCD wants Bill The MCD board wants a prioritized list and sound process **Jeanne What are the WRIAs that would be reorganized? Amy 12,13,14, and a portion of 15 would be combined. A Chair would be important to carry the concerns of WRIA 14 forward.