Download D2-17_PRC meeting notes_12_3_12

Deliverable 2.17
Upper Pit River Watershed
Project Development Meeting Minutes
December 3, 2012 (10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.)
Bieber Memorial Hall
Attendees: John Van den Bergh, Mike Millington, Marissa Fierro, Stephen Jackson, Edie Asrow, Todd
Sloat,
Project Team: Elizabeth Betancourt, Lisa Bay, Katie Burdick, Stacey Hafen
Katie introduced the past work on the scoring criteria, comments received on the draft sent out, and the
need to finalize the criteria and send a recommendation to the RWMG.
Scoring criteria:
- It was reiterated and agreed again that: No scoring would be undertaken for current projects, but for
future applications scoring would occur as appropriate to the funding source.
- The Project Team suggested moving the following topics -- DACs, climate, cost/benefit, (plus their
scoring) – to a DWR-centric list the bottom of the general list of criteria (appropriate to all funding
sources). The PRC agreed to this change.
- It was agreed that the scoring criteria will be used at the discretion of the PRC.
- Substantial discussion followed about whether community acceptance needed to be called out as a
criterion. Criterion 12 (Significant Barriers to Implementation) was identified as an option for addressing
this. Two types of ‘controversy’ were identified: 1) disagreements among project sponsors, and 2)
public opposition to inclusion of a project in a funding package. For committee-member disagreement
it was confirmed that, as a last resort, the 75% super majority voting already identified for conflict
resolution, should be able to address unresolvable differences among PRC members. It is presumed that
the discussion and group problem solving already modeled in the PRC will continue to be used to resolve
conflicts within the committee. For public controversy the opportunity exists for the project sponsor or
other group to hold a local meeting to resolve issues before bringing the project to the group. The PRC
reached consensus about the issue of controversy , by affirming that projects would not be considered
for Tier 1 status until those projects had been deemed ‘conflict free’. In other words, to become a Tier 1
project, any public or committee disagreement or controversy must have been resolved.
Does the PRC want to convene subcommittees to evaluate like projects?
- After discussion, the PRC decided not to break into subcommittees to score like groups of projects. A
primary motivation for breaking into technical or subcommittees would be to ensure that each
individual project was both technically achievable and would result in the claimed benefits or outcomes
Rather than break into subcommittees, the committee members wanted to make sure that due
diligence to confirm technical feasibility and project benefits had been done by individual project
Deliverable 2.17
sponsors. The group felt that project sponsors needed to demonstrate that they had conducted
technical peer review for their project and then make a presentation to the PRC to that effect. The
decision was to add a pass/fail criterion to the scoring criteria that technical feasibility has been
vetted adequately per the PRC, and to remove the technical justification (#7) and project feasibility
(#14) criteria.
- Marissa Fierro suggested that the state be invited to give a presentation on sovereignty issues and
state consultation to the PRC and RWMG once those issues have been resolved at the Natural Resources
Agency.
Conflict resolution process (applicable to all PRC processes)
- Lisa offered clarification amendments to the draft conflict resolution process, which the PRC accepted.
-- During discussion, it was emphasized that members need to understand that to vote on PRC projects
and matters, they must participate 2 out of 3 previous meetings to vote. Todd asked if a sponsor can
have a proxy, and the decision was “yes”, but that the process for designating a proxy will need to be
spelled out specifically in the project development process.
- Marissa asked that issues of consultation with the Tribe go through the conflict resolution process.
During the subsequent discussion the group confirmed that, until DWR presents their official policy on
consultation as it relates to the Tribes and IRWM consultation, there is no framework available upon
which to design such a process. Further, it was suggested that Marissa and the Tribe pursue resolution
of consultation issues on a parallel track because IRWMP cannot resolve larger perspectives on
“adequate consultation as it relates to the federal definition and practices.
- The PRC discussed whether it wanted to take difficult issues to the RWMG, or to resolve them
internally. It determined to resolve issues internally and delete verbiage after step 3 in the draft,
substitute the following:
- Project sponsors will invite members of the RWMG and relevant outside experts on field trips
to resolve conflicts. Outside experts are at the discretion of the project sponsors.
- The above conflict resolution process will be the recommended to the RWMG and included in the
Plan.
Round 2 Implementation grant
- Marissa suggested that a glossary of terms be added over time into Plan and that this be suggested in
the implementation guide for the Plan.
- This group recommends that the North Cal-Neva RC & D be the applicant, but the RC&D needs to
have a vote on this in January. The RC &D has been involved with the current IRWMP planning grant and
has done grant management for area groups in the past, so is well qualified to act as the applicant.
Deliverable 2.17
- Applicant manages grant: Signs the contract with the state, and in turn, enacts sub-contracts with each
applicant, manages overall invoicing process.
- Everyone undertakes the work reports and manages their own money under the overall review of
North Cal-Neva.
Cost-Benefit Analysis Workshop
Katie explained that Econ Northwest has been retained by the Project Team to give a cost-benefit
workshop for project sponsors, and will offer limited subsequent consultations over the phone/internet.
Costs will be shared with other IRWMPs. Econ Northwest’s Sarah Rich has participated in the highest
scoring IRWMPs application submittals so she knows how to do this. PRC members are eligible to
attend. Sarah will be available for additional consulting if needed. Potential dates need to be set and
circulated to the group.
Confirm Tier 1 projects list to be included in the Plan
- Katie went over the Tier 1 list for the Plan, as ready-to-proceed.
- Mike Millington explained that the Fall River RCD has an MOU with the Pit River Tribe over
management of McArthur Swamp Project.
- Concerns were expressed that if a project is included in the Plan it looks to funders and others as if it
has approval by the RWMG, when in fact it has not gone through the PRC scoring or controversy
reviews.
- It was decided that Tier 2 and 3 projects would all have an asterisk or some distinctive marking in the
table which makes it clear that said the project cannot claim IRWMP support, and still needs to go
through the PRC approval process. A letter template could be developed that showed the status of
the project from the PRC/RWMG.
- The PRC reaffirmed that Tier 1 projects on the current list will be recommended to be included in the
Plan, since the RWMG already approved a project package that included all projects on the list..
- Edie wants to clarify who can be members of the committee to vote. Edie is voting as a provisional
member today, as a member of the RWMG and PRWA. Stacey will look into who can be a member to
determine if something else needs to be done to accommodate Edie (PRWA) and Dennis Sacramento
River Watershed Program as members of PRC, as they are not project sponsors.
Round 2 Grant Application
The PRC recommended the following projects be included in the Round 2 implementation grant
application, with an increase in the budget for the Pit River Tribe’s project because it is dropping its
second project:
Joint Leak Detection
Deliverable 2.17
McArthur Water Tank
Bieber Water tank
Pit River Tribe Water Supply and Well Improvement Project (with $500,000 amended budget)
Ash Valley Irrigation Efficiency
Administration
- It was agreed that everybody must meet forthcoming grant deadlines for: submission of workplan,
schedule, budget, performance measures and data necessary to complete cost/benefit analysis as
well as mandatory trainings in SWIM and cost/benefit analysis. If sponsors don’t meet these
deadlines, the project will be dropped from the inclusion in the grant.
- Request will go back to Marissa about asking Tribal Council for a decision on whether they will adopt
the Plan, or support the Plan by whatever means, because it affects the overall grant
package/application.
Meeting ended at 2:00.