Ecology Home > SEA Program Home > Wetlands Home > Stakeholder Forum Home > Scope of Work

Stakeholder Forum Scope of Work

Click for printer-friendly version (pdf)

Task 1: Mitigation that Works Forum

The goal of the Mitigation that Works Forum is to collectively affirm a vision for mitigation in Washington State and commit to a “path forward” that implements the shared vision. The Forum, composed of the already-determined Stake Holder Committee members, will be asked to affirm a shared vision and determine implementation efforts with the assistance ESA Adolfson’s facilitation. The Forum effort has four sub-tasks:

Subtask 1a: Convening the Forum/Governance

The goals of “Subtask 1a” are to work with Ecology and the Stake Holder Committee to determine Forum governance, create ground rules and operating procedures, and prepare a project “map,” a picture of how the overall Forum effort is tracking.

Specific activities include:

• With the Forum, affirm or modify initial suggestions developed during the “kick off” (see Task 6: Project Management) concerning selection of a chair or co-chairs and formation of an Executive/Steering Committee
  
• Affirm or modify a proposed Forum Charter
• Affirm or modify operating ground rules
• Develop an overall view of the project in the form of a project “map”

Deliverables:

• Draft and final forum Charter
• Draft and final Forum ground rules
• Draft and final project “map”

Assumptions:

• Substantive elements of the Charter have already been established in the Forum invitation letter.
  
• Ecology will meet with the consulting team prior to the first Forum meeting to review draft ground rules, charter, and project “map” and discuss chair/co-chair and Executive/Steering Committee possibilities
  

Subtask 1b: Issue Identification and Forum Work plan

The goals of “Subtask 1b” are to interview Forum members prior to convening the Forum to determine needs, interests/concerns and suggestions; develop a planned sequence of issues for discussion at forum meetings; and satisfy the information gathering element of Task 3. The interviews will be conducted by telephone following Ecology’s review of proposed questions.

Specific activities include:

• Prepare issue identification questions and Task 3 questions for Ecology review one week following contract signing and, if possible, for review by Forum members
• Conduct interviews and prepare written summaries prepared and sent for review by each interviewee
  
• Compile interview results in the form of a draft assessment of needs, interests/concerns, and suggestions (note: information gathered relative to Task 3 will be compiled as part of Task 3)
  
• Prepare a Forum “work plan” that sequences identified issues in lights of the needs, interests/concerns and suggestions
  
• Present the compilation of results and the work plan to the Forum for review and adjustment
  

Deliverables:

• Draft and final interview questions (including those for Task 3)
  
• Compilation of interview results (not including Task 3),
  
• Draft and final Forum work plan
  

Subtask 1c: Forum Meetings

The goal of this essential task is to plan, travel to, facilitate and document 12, 4-hour Forum meetings and achieve a Forum consensus on a shared vision for mitigation in Washington State with a plan and commitments to implement the vision. Up to 60 hours of additional effort by Elizabeth McManus and a limited effort by her support group is available to facilitate and document efforts by sub-committees of the Forum and to facilitate small group or one-on-one sessions to enable consensus.

Specific activities include:

• Plan Forum meetings to assure efficient and thoughtful sequencing of issues and prepare agendas with Ecology and the Forum chair, co-chairs or Executive/Steering Committee
  
• Prepare effective agenda support materials including summaries of preceding meeting(s)
  
• Within the limits of available budget, facilitate telephone meetings of sub-committees if formed and conduct telephonic small-group or one-on-one meetings to facilitate consensus (Note: The budget page accompanying this Scope of Services includes this activity as a fifth subtask, “1e,” but for listing of subtasks it included with Forum Meetings)
  

Deliverables:

• Draft and final agendas for 12 Forum meetings
  
• Facilitation of 12 four-hour Forum meetings
  
• Draft and final summaries of key discussion points, areas of agreement and next step for 12 Forum meetings
  
• Agendas, facilitation and documentation of a limited number of sub-committee sessions within available budget
  

Assumptions:

• All paper-based work product deliverables and working papers will be supplied in electronic form to Ecology and Ecology will be responsible for reproduction, binding and mailing of the documents in paper form.
  
• All room rentals, beverage services, set up, security services, ADA-related services, sound amplification and all other costs associated with meeting space for the Forum will be arranged and paid for by Ecology. ESA Adolfson will service its own needs for projection equipment.
  
• Telephonic communication costs to conduct meetings with Forum members who cannot be physically present are Ecology costs.
  

Subtask 1d: Forum Report and Recommendations

The goal of “Subtask 1d” is to describe the Forum’s process, shared vision and implementation commitments in a final report.

Specific activities include:

• Prepare a draft report for review by Ecology and the Forum
  
• Using information gathered during review, prepare a final report
  

Deliverables:

• Draft and final report
  

Assumptions:

• The major Forum issues are considered and consensus on a shared mitigation vision and implementation are achieved during Forum meetings 1 – 10.
  
• There is a single round of draft report revisions made by all Forum members that are made final at the 11th Forum meeting
  
• ESA Adolfson will produce and distribute to the Forum an electronic (.pdf) version of the final report. Production and distribution of paper copies are not budgeted.

Task 2: Evaluate Previous Mitigation Efforts

The goal of this task is to develop a shared understanding of the extent to which previous and ongoing mitigation efforts are achieving success. This task will consist of documenting “lesson’s learned,” and compiling recommendations developed by various mitigation practitioners.

Specific activities include:

• Assembling a list of pertinent mitigation efforts to be evaluated, including efforts from other states or regions if applicable;
  
• Developing a detailed evaluation questionnaire or checklist that will facilitate an “apples to apples” comparison of the various efforts; and
  
• Conducting structured interviews with the program participants to identify what works and what does not work; and synthesizing and presenting the results to the Forum. The interviews would be similar to the interviews that Neil Aaland recently conducted concerning Ecology’s Watershed Characterization Tools.
• The list of programs to be evaluated and the evaluation checklist/questions will be developed with input from the Forum to assure the information obtained from the evaluation enables quality definition of mitigation success. The Consultant Team will also invite program participants to present first-hand accounts of the lessons learned.
  

Deliverables:

• List of project to be evaluated and assessment questionnaire
  
• Presentation to the Forum
  
• Written summary of interviews in the draft and final reports in “Subtask 1d”

Assumptions:

This task is not a detailed audit of mitigation success as was performed by Ecology in 2000 (and summarized in Publication #02=06=009). This task will not include field assessment of mitigation sites or review of monitoring data from individual mitigation sites. This task also does not include a complete literature review of mitigation success.

Task 3: Assess and Compare Organizations With/Without Mitigation Responsibility

This task uses the interviews described in Task 1b to gain feedback from Forum members on the effectiveness of current mitigation practices and solicit ideas on how mitigation practices can be improved. We will also interview up to four potential project proponents—individuals and/or organizations that do not have mitigation responsibilities but have been or are likely to implement mitigation in the near future. Possibilities could include a representative from Sound Transit or a similar regional provider of public services, a private developer, and a private mitigation bank owner/sponsor.

The format and content of the interviews would be developed in consultation with the Forum in recognition of the budget limitations for this task. As with Task 4 below, we envision this as a strategic data gathering effort rather than a full audit of all of the ecological issues associated with mitigation success. Our goal in conducting the interviews will be to understand the broad spectrum of mitigation practices and approaches, identify commonalities and disparities, and begin to develop ideas for a comprehensive mitigation approach.

Specific activities include:

• Assembling a list of pertinent individuals and organizations to be interviewed;
  
• Developing a detailed list of interview questions that will provide information on the following general mitigation topics:

• Policy/Regulatory Basis
• Site Selection/Planning Requirements
• Documentation
• Review/Approval Procedures
• Monitoring/ Maintenance/Adaptive Management
• Enforcement
  

• Conducting structured phone or electronic interviews of the selected participants (in conjunction with “Subtask 1b”) and synthesizing and presenting the results to the Forum.

Deliverables:

• List of interviewees and interview questionnaire
  
• Presentation to the Forum
  
• Written documentation in the draft and final reports in “Subtask 1d”

Task 4: Assess and Compare Effectiveness of Pilot Projects

Since the pilot projects have mostly yielded new mitigation planning strategies as opposed to actual “on-the-ground” mitigation projects, the goal of this task will be to define “effectiveness” and then determine how to measure it.

This task will include engaging the Forum participants in a discussion of the definition of effectiveness and appropriate ways to test the effectiveness of the various pilot projects.

As an initial step, the Consultant team and the Stake Holder Committee will identify and document the goals of the pilot projects so that assessment approaches can be developed to determine progress toward these specific goals.

As part of this task we will consider both “logistical effectiveness” (e.g., amount of time and resources expended, acceptance by practitioners, benefits for permit streamlining, degree of regulatory integration, etc.) as well “ecological effectiveness” (ability to create self-sustaining wetlands/habitats).

We would use the information derived from Tasks 2 and 3 as well as Forum input as a basis for defining logistical effectiveness and determining how to measure it.

We will rely on recent studies of mitigation success to identify potential methods and metrics for measuring ecological effectiveness.

Deliverables:

• Summary of pilot project goals;
  
• Draft list of evaluation techniques and metrics for measuring “logistical effectiveness” for Stake Holder review and discussion;
  
• Draft list of evaluation techniques and metrics for measuring “ecological effectiveness” (from existing mitigation literature) for Stake Holder review and discussion;
  
• Matrix of assessment techniques and metrics for each pilot project goal and written recommendations for assessing and documenting effectiveness over the long-term.

Task 5: Guidance Team

The goal of this task is to have the best available expertise to assist the Forum, Ecology and the consulting team in achieving a shared mitigation vision and commitment to an implementation plan. Guidance team members are to be consulted individually or in groups as the situation requires and as Ecology authorizes up to the limit of the budget for this task. ESA Adolfson will execute individual “on-call” contracts with the various Guidance Team members and will arrange their activities as Ecology authorizes. It is understood that Ecology may, at its option, re-assign monies budgeted for this task to other tasks.

Specific activities will be identified on as needed basis.

Deliverables:

• Written summaries of each guidance team assistance request and response will be provided by the consultant and reviewed by the appropriate Guidance Team member(s)
  
• The ESA Adolfson Project Manager will provide task budget status reports on demand.
  

Task 6: Project Management

The goal of this task is provide coordinated, timely, single-point-contact delivery of services as specified in this Scope of Services consistent with the not-to-exceed budget amount. The ESA Adolfson Project Manager is located in Olympia. He will be responsible and responsive to Ecology for all service delivery issues.

Specific activities include:

• Conduct a “kick off” meeting
• Preparation of project budget status reports and cost-to-complete estimates for each monthly Forum meeting
• Providing monthly project status and budget reports with each invoice
• Coordination of consulting team activities and deliverables with Ecology
• Management of the Guidance Team activities to assure Ecology’s prior authorization of their services and maintaining Task 5 budget status information “on demand”
• Serve as single-point contact for Ecology
  

Deliverables:

• Schedule and conduct project “kick off” meeting with Ecology
• Provide summary status and estimated cost-to-complete reports for each Forum meeting
  
• Provide project status reports with each monthly invoice
  
• Provide Task 5 budget status reports “on demand”
  
• Respond to Ecology requests and initiate consultant team requests of Ecology