Version 1228-16Origin: Snohomish Coordinated Investment Pilot - Contact:

Coordinated Investment Governance

Background

We need clear mechanisms for making improvements to interdependent local-state-federal systems. Locals can identify problems that affect the efficiency of state and federal efforts. Only the managers of diverse state and federal “stovepipes[1]” can organize resources to improve the ecosystem management operating environment. Integrated local solutions supported by diverse programs provide more benefit at lower public cost. An ad hoc Coordinated Investment Steering Committee was organized to identify these solutions. That agreed that Improvements to ecosystem recovery practices need to be part of our standard operations, and will have the greatest value if they are widely understood and shared.

Current Situation and Problem

Existing committees and boards tend to form around a pot of money and therefore reinforce stovepipes organized around authority and appropriations.There are state forums, federal forums, and different local forums, but there are limited mechanisms by which these bodies can evaluate problems and implement solutions that are not under the direct control of forum members. On-the-ground ecosystem management is almost always operates in a complex mix of policies and authorities.

Root Cause Analysis

  1. Improvement in ecosystem management systems requires that the different parts of the system communicate well—there arefew staff resources dedicated to information sharing and problem solving among the different strata and stovepipes of government.
  2. In particular, there are few structured opportunities for field staff directly involved in ecosystem management, to influence the multi-agency complex of policies that control their working environment.
  3. Without information flow and staffing, solutions which focus on one part of a complex system commonly face unanticipated barriers or consequences.
  4. The importance of appearing successful encourages agencies to obscure weakness which undermines problem definition which prevents improvement.

Vision Statement

Locally generated ideas for improving implementation processes have tremendous value, just as factory workers have irreplaceable insight into how to improve factory production. Increasing dialog between agency infrastructure, and on-the-ground recovery efforts will insure that we are making the small and thoughtful adaptations necessary to maximize our use of existing resources. Using existing boards and councils reduces the cost of coordination, and enhances the authority of existing forums.

Target Condition

  • Local consortia work with field staff to identify ways to improve the ecosystem management operating environment[2].
  • Governor’s Results Washington Goal #3 Council – Sustainable Energy and a Clean Environment (RW) is engaged as the forum for coordinating state agency effort.
  • The Puget Sound Federal Task Force (FTF) is engaged as the forum for coordinating federal agency effort.
  • The Snohomish-Stillaguamish LIO is engaged as the local forum for integrating local solutions to improve the operating environment.
  • The Puget Sound Ecosystem Coordination Board (ECB) is used to track progress toward improvement project completion.
  • Key staff, starting with NOAA, PSP, TNC and Snohomish County is used to develop and track improvement projects.
  • Each agency identifies a point of contact who is positioned to vet improvement project issues across agency stovepipes.
  • This system will be tested through the implementation of three improvement projects defined through the Snohomish Pilot Effort.

Action Plan

Deliverable / Objective / Status
Complete CI transmittal memo / Findings of Ad Hoc Committee communicated to boards.
Delivery of CI proposals in FTF workplan / CI proposals are included in Puget Sound Federal Task Force work plan.
Plan for engaging RW, FTF, ECB, and LIO / Chair and staff of each board agree to process for engagement
Web-based tracking system / Web page contains up to date information on project status.
Initial contact with RW, FTF, ECB and LIO / Coordinated investment proposals and processes have been ratified by each board.
Brief SRC, Watershed Leads, Conservation Commission, SRFB. / Forums that support on-the-ground ecosystem restoration efforts are briefed on the coordinated investment governance model.

[1] Stovepipes generally develop around capital resources or regulatory authorities around a particular resource base or interest group. In ecosystem management stovepipes have developed around issue areas like GMA/SMA, salmon, water quality, water quantity, agriculture, infrastructure, or flood management.

[2] The ecosystem management operating environment describes the conditions in which local actors attempt to change complex social-ecological systems. Six elements have been identified that are required for ecosystem management, and that typically require the engagement of multiple actors: funding, labor, land access, social consensus, permitting, and knowledge.