MOVING FORWARD ON MOUTH OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BENEFICIAL USE PROJECT ASSESSMENT SYNOPSIS AND

1. MOVING FORWARD ON MOUTH OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER BENEFICIAL USE PROJECT ASSESSMENT SYNOPSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS December 7, 2018

2. SYNOPSIS Current support services should be maintained. Additional funding would enable better program promotion, regular briefings, more between meeting coordination. Concerns about an agency assuming coordination/facilitation functions, including perception of inherent bias and potential for being low priority. Continued neutral facilitation seen as critical. Management/Coordination

3. RECOMMENDATIONS Continue to contact with a neutral consultant for general project management, management and technical team coordination and facilitation, workshop organizing and facilitation, and general LCSG assistance. Overall management direction should continue to be provided by the two states’ coastal management agencies, with some additional management functions handled by WDOE, e.g. web site, mailing list. Management/Coordination

4. COST OF SERVICES $25,000 +/-: Coordination with conveners. Facilitation of Management and Technical Teams. Organization of annual Science-Policy Workshop or similar forum. Program information. 2020 work scope. Case statement. General project management/coordination. If additional funding can be secured ($23,000 +/-): Periodic briefings of Congressional and legislative staffs. Outreach to ports and other potential members. Media outreach. Management/Coordination

5. SYNOPSIS All parties interviewed desire to move away from ad-hoc funding, which is perceived to be challenging and unsustainable. Interviewees divided over conference registration/sponsorships versus membership dues as a preferred option. Federal partners strongly prefer a sponsorship approach. Considerations include funding cycles, which can be unpredictable and vary among agencies, and having a specific scope of work to budget for. Interviewees support either continuing to contract through NPCC or through a new entity, such as a 501(c)3 organization. When queried, interviewees support concept of Cooperative Agreements between WDOE and LCSG members. Solicitation/Contracting Mechanism

6. RECOMMENDATIONS Transition from NPCC to WDOE as fiscal agent and contractor. Annual or multi-year Cooperative Agreements between WDOE and LCSG members. Invoicing for conference sponsorships, broadly framed, rather than dues. Solicitation/Contracting Mechanism

7. RECOMMENDATIONS At least $30,000 needs to be solicited to account for inability to contribute, timing limitations, other factors. All LCSG members plus additional parties need to be solicited at varying levels. Who makes the queries needs to be discussed. Contribution Levels

8. Funding has not been secured to extend contracted services past 12/31/18. Ideally, transition can be implemented by end of 1st Quarter 2019; requires executing Cooperative Agreements, securing funding, and contracting for services. If additional time needed, continue to contract with NPCC until future date. If WDOE Cooperative Agreement approach not supported, continue to contract with NPCC until contracting agreement with another entity can be initiated. Implementation Options