[Partners-IMCWMA] Report from Meeting with CDFA

[Ray Harrie]

I would favor Gorse at the transfer station. Limited size project, detatched from the main site and a good learning/proving ground project.
Inland I favor red sesbania but would also back water primrose.
Ray

>>> Tara Athan <coord at imcwma.org> 7/24/2007 4:34 PM >>>

Action Requested: please review the notes from the meeting.  Then give 
me your feedback about what projects should be submitted from the WMA(s) 
that you participate in, and what level of funding request for each 
project is appropriate.  Choices are:
MCWMA (Coast)
1. Gorse at Caspar transfer station
2. Gorse containment along north and south boundaries of main Caspar 
infestation
3. giant knotweed

IMCWMA (Inland)
1. Red sesbania eradication
2. Ludwigia (water-primrose)

Thanks, Tara

Notes From Meeting
Steve Shoenig was unable to attend the Lakeport meeting because his 
father passed away unexpectedly.  Gina Darin attended in his place- she 
was able to answer some of the questions, and will request clarification 
from Steve on the others.

1. Follow-on funding for distaff thistle: Will we be in jeopardy for 
2009 funding?

Response: this would probably be eligible for the baseline funding that 
will be contracted with each WMA in 2008, but it is not clear how 
funding in this round will affect eligibility for the competitive 
supplemental funds- Steve will clarify.

2. Clarify Distinction between Eradication and Containment
> what is the region that eradication would apply to
> what does pioneer mean
> what does outlier mean
In particular, is the gorse at the Caspar transfer station an outlier 
population?

Response: the mental model here is a wildfire, with spot fires appearing 
in advance of the main conflagration. So there is no fixed guidance 
about what constitutes a pioneer, outlier population. Gina thought that 
the Gorse at the dump would qualify as an outlier, but this project 
could also qualify as a regional collaboration, with State Parks gorse 
being the primary project. Then it would only be necessary to argue that 
funding will
a) allow control on lands not being currently addressed;
b) greatly contribute to the overall success of the regional project.

Will projects with eradication goal have higher ranking than other goals?

Response: in the previous round, 14 of 20 funded projects contain the 
word "eradication" in the title. The scoring formula does not explicitly 
award more points for eradication projects, but these projects may be 
considered of higher long-term benefit than other kinds of projects.

3. Matching funds- can be state or federal, or does it have to be local?

Response: no, matching funds can be from any level. In addition to 
matching funds directly applicable to the project, general match to the 
WMA administration and projects is considered.  1:1 match is the minimum 
requirement to be considered and receives a score of 0 points.  At 
presence, the guidance is that 2:1 match receives full points (either 5 
or 10- clarification requested) in the scoring formula.

4. Do matching funds have to be go specifically towards work on 
populations identified in proposal?
Example: eradication of gorse at Caspar transfer station- could matching 
funds for State Parks apply?
Response: yes they apply (see #2)

5. Weed Prevention Area Program- does this fit any of the goals in the RFP?
  Example: Williams Ranch Road, 30,000 stems to 15 in 2007

Response: as framed, this as an education-only project which is not 
eligible for funding in this round, but might qualify for baseline 
funding next year.

Q: How would we apply for funding in Sonoma County (affects the Coast 
WMA which covers the Gualala/Sea Ranch area.)

Response: Gina will check on the lead from Sonoma County (Bruce 
MacArthur is on vacation.)

Further Clarification

C-rated weeds are not eligible unless the goal is eradication or 
containment.

Every County that did not get full funding in the last round will get 
partial funding in this round.  The figure of $10,000 as the minimum was 
given.  However, it was not clear if this was total or per year (Gina 
will request clarification).  Therefore, since Mendocino will receive 
about $10,000 from last years round of funding, the minimum we would get 
would be either $0 or $10,000 for the 2-year period of this RFP.

We are requested to rank the projects that we submit so that partial 
funding will go to the projects WE consider most important.  In the last 
round of funding, we received funding for distaff thistle eradication, 
which is present in both WMAs.

>From Tara: I suggest that we select the highest priority project from 
each WMA and state that we prefer that each WMA receive approximately 
equal funding and prioritize within each WMA, rather than prioritize all 
the projects together.  Projects should be structured so that partial 
funding at the level of $2500/yr could actually accomplish something.

Feedback from the review of our last proposal and the detailed score 
sheet for this round have been requested.
The actual due date is Wednesday (not Monday) August 15

There is no guidance for a reasonable length of proposal. Given the 
relatively small size of the projects, a target we might start with is 
1-2 pages per project (further guidance requested) In general, it should 
be as short as possible while still providing the necessary details.

Suggested wording to support a topic area fit:
"We are working on the only spotted knapweed infestation within 100 miles."
(Gina: add this project address Topic Area #X)

Minimum requirements:
1. Fit in one of the eligible topic areas.
2. meet the 1:1 cost share

-- 
Tara Athan
Coordinator, Inland Mendocino Cooperative Weed Management Area
coord at imcwma.org
707-485-1198
PO Box 415
Redwood Valley, CA 95470


_______________________________________________
Partners mailing list
Partners at imcwma.org
http://imcwma.org/mailman/listinfo/partners_imcwma.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://imcwma.org/pipermail/partners_imcwma.org/attachments/20070724/34f1eefe/attachment.html