HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket Special COTW Jan 8 2019CLERK OF TH E CO U N CI L
AGO M--cOG
Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C.
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
311 Grand Avenue, Suite #105
Bellingham, WA 98225-4038
(360) 778-5010
t
4`SF11 'Co
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
COMBINED
AGENDA PACKET FOR
JAN UARY 8, 2019
INCLUDES INFORMATION
FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (1:00 P.M.)
PLEASE VISIT THE COUNCIL'S NEW LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER
TO ACCESS ALL COUNCIL MEETING -RELATED INFORMATION
CO U N Cl LM BN BERS
Barbara Brenner
Rud Browne
Barry Buchanan
Tyler Byrd
Todd Donovan
Carol Frazey
Satpal 9 d hu
Whatcom County
Council Special Committee of the Whole
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
311 Grand Avenue, Ste #105
Bellingham, WA 98225-4038
(360) 778-5010
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
1PM
Council Chambers
COUNCILMEMBERS
Barbara Brenner
Rud Browne
Barry Buchanan
Tyler Byrd
Todd Donovan
Carol Frazey
Satpal Sidhu
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C.
Council Special Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda
Call To Order
Roll Call
January 8, 2019
Committee Discussion
AB2019-066 Update on Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 6091 in WRIA 1 (See also
AB2018-290A)
Other Business
Adiournment
Whatcom County Page 2 Printed on 1211112024
• Whatcom County COUNTY COURTHOUSE
311 Grand Avenue, Ste #105
Bellingham, WA 98225-4038
(360)778-5010
• Agenda Bill Master Report
File Number: AB2019-066
File ID: AB2019-066 Version: 1 Status: Discussed
File Created: 01/04/2019 Entered by: KFelbing@co.whatcom.wa.us
Department: Council Office File Type: Discussion
Assigned to: Council Special Committee of the Whole Final Action: 01/08/2019
Agenda Date: 01/08/2019 Enactment #:
TITLE FOR AGENDA ITEM:
Update on Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 6091 in WRIA 1 (See also AB2018-290A)
SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE:
None
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE FILE
Date: Acting Body: Action: Sent To:
01/08/2019 Council Special Committee of the Whole DISCUSSED
Attachments: Special Meeting Notice for January 8 2019
Whatcom County Page 1 Printed on 1211112024
CLERK OFTHECOUNCIL
QM cop
Dana Brown -Davis, C.M.C.
A
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
�dQ
311 Grand Avenue, Suite #105
Bellingham, WA 982254038
(360) 676-6690
WHATCOM COUNTYCOUNCIL
SPECIAL NOTICE
FOR JANUARY 8, 2019
(Distributed at 3:30 p.m. on January 4, 2019)
SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
1:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham
Committee Discussion
COUNCILMBNBERS
Barbara Brenner
Rud Browne
Barry Buchanan
Tyler Byrd
Todd Donovan
Carol Frazey
Satpal Sidhu
1. Update on Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 6091 in WRIA 1 (AB2018-290A)
Other Business
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AB 2018-290A
CLEARANCES
Initial
Date
Date Received in Council Office
Agenda Date
Assigned to:
GSS
114119
Originator:
118119
SCOTW
GSS
114119
Division Head:
Dept. Head:
Prosecutor:
Purchasing/Budget:
Executive:
TITLE OF DOCUMENT.
Briefing of Council on status of ESSB 6091 Process
ATTACHMENTS:
December 12, 2018 Draft Planning Unit meeting summary
December 19 2018 Drat WRIA I Managaement Team meeting summary
SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( X) NO
Should Clerk schedule a hearing? ( ) Yes (X) NO
SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO
Requested Date:
SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public
hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate. Be
clear in explaining the intent of the action.)
Staff will brief council on the status of the ESSB 6091 process in WRIA 1.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
COUNCIL ACTION.
Related County Contract #:
Related File Numbers:
Ordinance or Resolution Number:
Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing andprinting on
the County's website at: www.co.whatcom.wa.us/council.
1
2
3
WRIA 1 Planning Unit Meeting
December 12, 2018
Meeting Summary
4 This summary captures key decisions and next steps from the December 12, 2018 meeting.
5 Digital recordings of the Planning Unit meetings can be found at the Planning Unit website at
6 www.wrialproject.whatcomcounty.org.
7
8 Caucus Attendees:
9 Agriculture — Henry Bierlink
10 City of Bellingham —Inactive
11 Diking/Drainage — Loren VanderYacht
12 Environmental — Ander Russell
13 Federal Government — Not Represented
14 Fishers —Alan Chapman
15 Forestry— Dick Whitmore
16 Land Development — Perry Eskridge
17 Non -Government Water Systems —John Mercer/Skip Richards"
18 Port of Bellingham — Kurt Baumgarten
19 Private Well Owners — Paul Isaacson/Molly Crocker"
20 Public Utility District # 1 of Whatcom County— Steve Jilk
21 Small Cities — Mike Martin
22 State Governments — Kasey Cykler
23 Water Districts — Dan Eisses
24 Whatcom County— Gary Stoyka
25 "Alternate caucus representative stands -in for the primary caucus representative during
26 agenda topic discussions when designated by the primary.
27 Others Present (based on sign -in sheets)
28
Max Perry
Richard Banel
Mark Sandal
29
Cliff Langley
Carole Perry
Chet Dow
30
Kathy Sabel
Tyler Schroeder
Oliver Grah
31
Mark Personius
Ellen Baker
Dave Onkels
32
Jay Markarian
Rebecca Schlotterback
Rick Maricle
33
Mike Murphy
Cliff Strong
Heather Good
34
Tom Filion
Dave Olson
Karlee Deatherage
35
Rebecca Cayen
J. Fowler
36
37
38
Kurt Baumgarten called
the meeting to order at 2:00 pm.
December 12, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary 1
Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
39 Planning Unit Motions That Passed
40 Motion (Motion #1) by Skip Richards and seconded by Molly Crocker to approve the Agenda
41 with the following changes: first agenda item is next steps for plan forward whether it is a Plan
42 Update or wrapping up the process, delete the bullet under Agenda Item 4 to consider the
43 outcomes of the straw poll since there was not enough of a response to make it meaningful,
44 move up the review and discussion of Caucus comments and add new agenda items for
45 contract for Geneva Consulting and next Planning Unit Agenda topics.
46 Vote:
47 • 14 in favor (Agriculture, Diking/Drainage, Environmental, Fishers, Forestry, Land
48 Development, Non -Government Water Systems, Port of Bellingham, Private Well
49 Owners, Public Utility District #1, Small Cities, State, Water Districts, Whatcom County)
50 • 0 abstain
51 • 0 opposed
52 Motion passes
53 Motion (Motion #2) by Perry Eskridge and seconded by Alan Chapman to approve the
54 November 28 and December 5 meeting summaries as amended.
55 Vote:
56 • 14 in favor (Agriculture, Diking/Drainage, Environmental, Fishers, Forestry, Land
57 Development, Non -Government Water Systems, Port of Bellingham, Private Well
58 Owners, Public Utility District #1, Small Cities, State, Water Districts, Whatcom County)
59 • 0 abstain
60 • 0 opposed
61 Motion passes
62
63 Motion (Motion #4) by Dan Eisses and seconded by Paul Isaacson to continue working on the
64 effort to come up with a plan, not to worry about the timeline, and do the following: 1. Prepare
65 an index of what has been done, 2. Send a letter to Ecology to inform them the Plan Update is
66 not done but is being worked on, and 3. Send a letter to the legislators expressing the same.
67 Vote:
68 • 11 in favor (Agriculture, Diking/Drainage, Environmental, Fishers, Forestry, Land
69 Development, Non -Government Water Systems, Port of Bellingham, Private Well
70 Owners, Public Utility District #1, Water Districts)
71 • 2 abstain (Small Cities, Whatcom County)
72 • 0 opposed
73 • 1 recusal (State)
74 Motion passes
1 Note that motions (passed and not passed) are numbered in the order they were presented during the
meeting.
December 12, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary 2
Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
75
76 Motion (Motion #5) by John Mercer and seconded by Paul Isaacson to request Whatcom
77 County fund the coordination support for the Planning Unit through January 2020, and
78 encourage Geneva Consulting to consider it.
79 Vote:
80 • 13 in favor (Agriculture, Diking/Drainage, Environmental, Fishers, Forestry, Land
81 Development, Non -Government Water Systems, Port of Bellingham, Private Well
82 Owners, Public Utility District #1, Small Cities, State, Water Districts)
83 • 1 abstain (Whatcom County)
84 • 0 opposed
85 Planning Unit Motions That Did Not Pass
86 Motion (Motion #3) by Mike Martin and seconded by Steve Jilk to direct the WST to capture all
87 work products created by the Planning Unit since the Planning Unit began its work on the Hirst
88 requirements including all comments and dissenting opinions from all caucuses, and send it to
89 the Watershed Management Board.
90 Vote:
91 • 6 in favor (Agriculture, Environmental, Fishers, Port of Bellingham, Public Utility District
92 #1, Small Cities)
93 • 1 abstain (Whatcom County
94 • 6 opposed (Diking/Drainage, Forestry, Land Development, Non -Government Water
95 Systems, Private Well Owners, Water Districts)
96 • 1 recusal (State)
97 Motion fails
98
99 Other Items Considered (or Announced) By Planning Unit
100 • The agenda was approved (Motion #1) with modifications to the order of and elimination of
101 one of the bulleted topics under Agenda Item #4. The bullet eliminated from discussion was
102 the consideration of the NGWS straw poll outcomes related to the alternate Plan Update
103 framework and structure since there was insufficient response from members to consider
104 it.
105 • Comments from the NGWS Caucus were reviewed: 11/28/18 Draft, lines 86-87, add "No
106 comments or corrections were offered." and 12/5/18 Draft, lines 162-164, leave "Remove
107 the Governance and Administrative section..." and delete "... and provide language about
108 how the IGs and Planning Unit operate independently and that both IGs and Planning Unit
109 are involved in deciding when to undertaken an amendment." The Planning Unit approved
110 the meeting summary with the changes noted (Motion #2).
December 12, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary 3
Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
111 • Planning Unit discussed next steps in terms of Plan Update to move forward. Small Cities
112 Caucus requested clarification on the email that Whatcom County distributed regarding a
113 recommendation from the Watershed Staff Team (WST) to the Planning Unit (PU) and
114 Management Team, and subsequently, the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board. Gary
115 reviewed that the recommendation is to package the information completed to December
116 5t" with a 2-3 page narrative (description of the information) and forward it to Ecology.
117 Other options available to the PU in addition to the recommendation from WST are to try to
118 complete a Plan Update by January 10 or PU could prepare a different package than what is
119 recommended by the WST. The differing perspectives on the policy issues and status of the
120 discussions are a challenge to how the Plan Update would be completed by the deadline.
121 Small Cities Caucus representative supported capturing all of the work that has been
122 completed including incorporating information that captures the different perspectives on
123 the policy issues.
124 The NGWS Caucus suggested that the Plan Update could be completed by addressing what
125 is required for the Plan Update and setting aside other components where agreement has
126 not been reached and addressing those issues in future updates. If there is Planning Unit
127 support for the suggestion, then the next step is to look at the decision -making process for
128 the Planning Unit and whether there are deal -breakers that would prevent passage of a
129 Plan Update. The Plan Update approval by the Planning Unit requires consensus of the
130 government caucuses and a majority of the non -government caucuses. If those two
131 requirements in the decision -making process are met, a Plan Update could be approved by
132 the Planning Unit. The Environmental Caucus added that if consensus is not reached, a
133 second meeting is needed to conduct the vote, and if the suggestion of suspending the rules
134 is pursued, there needs to be a unanimous vote of the Planning Unit to do that.
135 Another factor raised by the Environmental Caucus representative is that a Plan Update also
136 needs to be approved by the Initiating Governments, and the Plan Update as being
137 discussed by the Planning Unit may not have IG approval given differences in positions on
138 the policy issues. The NGWS believes the Planning Unit should complete the Plan Update
139 and the Initiating Governments could decide whether they support it.
140 The Private Well Owners Caucus feels that anything that is advanced should go forward by
141 the Planning Unit and not by the WST. The Planning Unit should prepare any materials that
142 are advanced so it represents their perspectives, positions, and work.
143 The Water District Caucus representative indicated that there are currently two draft Plan
144 Updates and they do not feel that either version would receive approval of both the
145 Planning Unit and the Initiating Governments. Also, the work completed is accessible to
146 Ecology as it is so additional work to bundle the information with a report summarizing it is
147 not necessary. The Water District Caucus comments on the draft Plan Update included an
148 outline focusing on conservation with a voluntary metering component; this was an effort
149 to find a solution that will get support from the IGs and PU. However, if there is not a way
December 12, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary 4
Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
150 to bridge the policy issue gap then Ecology has access to all of the work that's been
151 completed.
152 The Private Well Owners Caucus representative asked if there are other issues aside from
153 the policies that would prevent the Initiating Governments from approving a Plan Update.
154 The County indicated that while there has not been discussion or direction by the County
155 Council on the topic, County staff has concerns with the metrics used for the net ecological
156 benefit (NEB) evaluation and, as written in the draft Plan Update, the conclusions drawn by
157 the authors is that the Plan Update with the suite of projects for offsets does not meet NEB.
158 Some IGs also identified spatial and temporal concerns with the suite of projects, which
159 could be addressed with policy changes or other types of projects and in different
160 geographic locations. This is information that is also contained within the ecological effects
161 evaluation in Section 4 of the draft Plan Update. The Private Well Owners Caucus expressed
162 their perspective that the IGs are bringing up concerns at the end of the process that the
163 Planning Unit was not aware of until now, and the IGs are unwilling to negotiate on those
164 issues. The County clarified that the NEB was just recently completed and the concerns
165 therefore expressed. Further analysis could be done when there are new or different
166 projects for offsets and in different locations. If there are policy issues agreed to, then
167 those could also be incorporated into the analysis. Water District Caucus representative
168 indicated that the temporal/spatial distribution concern was one reason their Caucus is
169 suggesting the enhanced conservation approach as a way to address offsets on a broader
170 geographic scale.
171 The Chair asked for the specific steps from the NGWS of how a Plan Update could be
172 completed by the PU within the timeframe available. NGWS representative indicated:
173 • Rewrite Section 4.2 to remove the references to scenarios that are not identified for
174 the consumptive use calculations agreed to for purposes of the Plan Update and
175 state that actual impacts will be measured when the wells are actually installed.
176 • Make a list of issues that need to be resolved.
177 • Appoint an ad hoc committee to draft the plan to forward by December 17th to
178 present to the Management Team at the December 191h meeting.
179 The Private Well Owners Caucus and Forestry Caucus have spent additional hours working
180 with the NGWS Caucus to develop the alternate proposal. The Caucuses that have not been
181 providing or participating in alternatives could participate in the drafting committee.
182 The Fishers Caucus restated the need to focus on the minimum requirements and remove
183 the contentious issues that are not necessary to address the statutory requirements. The
184 contentious issues can be addressed later in the context of a future update.
185 The State Caucus representative stated that if there is a Plan Update, there does need to be
186 an ecological effects component that addresses the interim guidance for NEB that was
187 released in June.
December 12, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary 5
Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
188 A motion was made and seconded (Motion #3) to direct the WST to capture all of the work
189 products created by the Planning Unit since it began its work on the Plan Update including
190 comments and dissenting opinions of the Caucuses, and forward it to Ecology. As part of
191 the second to the motion, a friendly amendment was made that the work products would
192 be forwarded to the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board rather than Ecology. Points of
193 discussion associated with the motion, which failed, included:
194 • NGWS favored completing a plan update and capturing the Planning Unit vote,
195 which includes two of the IGs. All of the IGs have been invited to participate at the
196 Planning Unit and have elected not to do so.
197 • Land Development does not support a compilation of the information and supports
198 a plan update that will incorporate the available information, identify the
199 information gaps and describe the process for filling those information gaps, and
200 describe how the plan will be updated when the information is obtained.
201 • Private Well Owners support the Land Development position stated. It is also the
202 position of the Caucus that anything going forward is from the Planning Unit
203 because there are many members of their Caucus that has a distrust of government
204 because of past actions that have affected individuals' property investments.
205 • The Chair asked for clarification on whether the WST recommendation to compile
206 the information would move forward if the Planning Unit was able to complete a
207 plan update as proposed by the NGWS Caucus. Gary replied that the WST
208 recommendation is to both the PU and Management Team so would still go to the
209 Management Team for the December 19th meeting and if there was a PU document
210 it could also be forwarded for that meeting.
211 • The Forestry Caucus does not support bundling the information and the Planning
212 Unit should have a plan update to show for its work. There has not been time to
213 discuss all of the work items because of the impossible timeline.
214 • The NGWS and Water District Caucuses support continuing to work on the plan
215 update by working through and incorporating the comments that have been made
216 on the draft with the Water District Caucus suggesting that the work continue past
217 the deadline recognizing it was not unreasonable.
218 • Ag Caucus favors the motion because it is consistent with the WST recommendation
219 and the future should be working with Ecology as the Planning Unit and IGs.
220 Ecology, the IGs, and the Planning Unit should continue working together on
221 resolving the issues over the next several months.
222 • Environmental Caucus supports many of the statements that have been made by the
223 other Caucuses but does not feel that packaging the information precludes the
224 Planning Unit from continuing to work on the plan update.
225 • The PUD position is that if the motion carries a very simple cover letter to the WMB
226 and Ecology should state that accomplished a lot of work and that believe if had
December 12, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary 6
Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
227 more time the Planning Unit and IGs would be able to find agreeable solutions to the
228 contentious issues that had been identified.
229 A follow-up motion (Motion #4) was made to continue working on the plan update, prepare
230 an index of work completed, and send letters to Ecology and the local Legislators indicating
231 that the Planning Unit is continuing to work on the Plan Update. Planning Unit Caucuses
232 expressed the need to continue working on the Plan Update recognizing that the timelines
233 imposed were unrealistic.
234 • Planning Unit discussed the contract for Geneva Consulting, and requested the County fund
235 the coordination position to support the Planning Unit through 2020 (Motion #5). A friendly
236 amendment to the motion was to encourage Geneva Consulting to consider continued
237 support. Current support contract runs through January 31, 2019.
238 • Agenda items for the January 10th meeting includes using the index and compilation of
239 comments to see where there is agreement and what needs to happen where there is not
240 agreement, start discussion of updating the 2005 Watershed Management Plan, and revisit
241 the PPA.
242 Actions and Follow Up
243 • There were four motions passed by the Planning Unit, and one motion that did not pass.
244 • Agenda items for the January 10th meeting includes use the index and compilation to see
245 where there is agreement and what needs to happen where there is not agreement, start
246 discussion of updating the 2005 Watershed Management Plan, and revisit the PPA.
247 Public Comment
248 • Kathy Sabel requested clarification on whether the Watershed Staff Team recommendation
249 to the Management Team. The County's response is yes.
250 • Jay Markarian commented on the ability to complete the Plan Update and that adaptive
251 management is a flexible component of the plan and can be where issues that cannot be
252 immediately resolved are addressed as information is gained.
253 • Ellen Baker commented that a completed plan should be task specific, and deferring
254 everything to adaptive management results in a plan to plan.
255 • Cliff Langley expressed a lack of trust in government and for the Planning Unit to consider
256 the preservation of individual rights as they move forward.
257 • Carole Perry expressed appreciation to the Planning Unit Chair for allowing each of the
258 Planning Unit members to express and discuss their opinions.
259 Meeting adjourned 4:05 pm.
December 12, 2018 Planning Unit Meeting Summary 7
Prepared by: Geneva Consulting
WRIA 1 PROGRAM COORDINATION
MANAGEMENT TEAM
MEETING SUMMARY
December 19, 2018
Date: December 19, 2018
Time: 10:00am—12:00pm
Place: Garden Room, Civic Center Building, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham
1.
Call to Order
2.
Approve Meeting Summary
3.
Public Comment
4.
Recommended Priority 2018 Near Term Actions for Funding
5.
WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board Work Plan
6.
ESSB 6091 Watershed Plan Update Discussion
7.
Other Business
Adjourn
MEETING ATTENDANCE (BASED ON SIGN -IN SHEETS)
Management Team
Mark Personius— Whatcom County
Merle Jefferson — Lummi Nation
Greg Young — Small Cities
Joel Ingram (designated) — WDFW
Staff Team Members
Rebecca Schlotterback —PUD No. 1
Andy Ross — Lummi Nation Natural Resources
Other Attendees
Leroy Deardorff— Lummi Nation
Tyler Schroeder — Whatcom County
Leah Kintner— Puget Sound Partnership
Karlee Deatherage — Resources
Alan Chapman —Citizen
Loren VanderYacht — Diking & Drainage Districts
Carole Perry — Citizen
Dave Bock — Citizen
Dave Onkels — Land Development Caucus
DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED WITH AGENDA
Steve Jilk — PUD No. 1
Renee La Croix — City of Bellingham
Clare Fogelsong —City of Bellingham
Gary MacWilliams — Nooksack Tribe
John Thompson — WCPW Natural Resources
Oliver Grah — Nooksack Tribe Natural Resources
Frank Lawrence — Lummi Nation Natural Resources
Mike Martin — Small Cities Representative/Lynden
Henry Bierlink —Ag Water Board
Shannon Moore —Fishers Caucus
Kathy Sabel — Citizen
Max Perry — Citizen
Terry Unger — Citizen
Jason Hatch — WA Water Trust
Terry Montonye - Citizen
• December 19, 2018 Meeting Agenda
• October 24, 2018 Meeting Summary Draft
• Brief Sheet #6 2018 Restoration Act Watershed Plan Update w-attachments
Note: Management Team members' comments and decisions reflect the views of attending members only.
1. Call to Order
Mark called the meeting to order at 10:05. There were no additions to the agenda.
1 DRAFT 12/19/2018
WRIA 1 PROGRAM COORDINATION
MANAGEMENT TEAM
MEETING SUMMARY
December 19, 2018
2. Approval of Meeting Summaries
The October 24, 2018 meeting summary was approved as presented.
3. Public Comment Period
Kathy Sabel commented on moving forward with the Plan Update and need for negotiating with the Planning Unit on
the different issues for purposes of having a local Plan Update that can be approved by both Planning Unit and
Initiating Governments.
Carole Perry commented on the Land Development Caucus comments that had been submitted relative to the draft
Plan Update, and the role of the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board.
Dave Onkels commented on the Planning Unit authority for the Plan Update and structure that provides a seat for
each of the Initiating Governments to participate.
4. Puget Sound Partnership Update on Regional Topics
Leah Kintner provided a report on the following regional topics:
• The Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council approved the 2018-2022 Action Agenda, which will now go to
the Environmental Protection Agency for approval and consideration as the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan for Puget Sound.
• A Puget Sound Partnership workshop for the Puget Sound Lead Entities (LE) and Local Integrating Organizations
(LIO) is scheduled for January 10th. The purpose of the workshop is to consider opportunities for LEs and LIOs to
improve integration. Whatcom County currently has one of the most integrated structures for the LE and LIO
programs.
• Review of the Governor's budget. Areas of note included the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration program,
Floodplains by Design, and the Puget Sound Partnership budget with placeholders for plan updates and
integration support for LEs and LIOs. Under the Governor's budget as drafted, the City of Bellingham's Large
Capital PSAR project application for the Middle Fork and Whatcom County's Floodplain by Design application for
the integrated floodplain planning would both be funded. The next step is the legislative budget process.
Steve Jilk commented on the budget process and asked whether there is someone responsible for coordinating
budget requests among and between the various state departments in order to increase efficiencies and leveraging of
funds between programs. Leah will follow-up with information, if available.
5. Salmon Recovery
Becky Peterson reported that the 2018 Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) grants submitted by the WRIA 1
Watershed Management Board on August 15t for funding consideration were approved by the SRFB at the December
SRFB meeting. In addition to the top three ranked projects, the first alternate on the submitted list was also funded.
The reason the first alternate project was able to receive funding is because there were Puget Sound Acquisition and
Restoration (PSAR) funds remaining from two WRIA 1 restoration projects completed under budget and a third
project that had received funds from a different source. This enabled those remaining PSAR funds to be allocated to
the current 2018 grant applications. This means the top four ranked 2018 SRFB applications will all receive funding.
6. Streamflow Restoration Act (ESSB 6091) Watershed Plan Update
Becky reviewed that she will provide the status of the Plan Update in Gary Stoyka's absence including Staff Team's
recommendation for next steps and the outcomes of the December 12 Planning Unit meeting. Becky noted that an
outcome she is requesting is direction from Management Team for purposes of preparing the January 3 and January
Mr. Onkels noted that he was speaking as a citizen and not as the Land Development Caucus representative on the
Planning Unit.
2 DRAFT 12/19/2018
WRIA 1 PROGRAM COORDINATION
MANAGEMENT TEAM
MEETING SUMMARY
December 19, 2018
10 Management Team and WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board meetings, respectively. As part of the status
update, Becky reviewed:
• The schedule and timeline including dates for Watershed Staff Team to recommend approval and Planning Unit
approval of a Plan Update, which was December 6 and December 12 respectively. Also on December 12, based
on the schedule and timeline, SEPA review was to begin. The next steps in the schedule for the January 3 and
January 10 Management Team and WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board meetings were related to Plan Update
approvals. The current status, however, is different than anticipated when the schedule was prepared.
• At the December 6 Watershed Staff Team (WST) meeting, the WST prepared a recommendation for the Planning
Unit and Management Team regarding next steps. The WST members agreed that there are major differences of
opinions regarding policy issues, and that an agreeable solution is unlikely to be achieved in time for approval of a
Plan Update and submittal to Ecology by January 16. The WST recommendation included compiling the following
information and submitting to Ecology:
0 2-3 page narrative (e.g., index, catalog)
o October 2018 Schedule
o Table with the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board policy positions
o Table with the Planning Unit Caucus positions
o Table of additional work items
o Attachments of work completed including technical memos, preliminary and 11/20 Draft Plan Updates, WST
and Planning Unit comments, and alternative draft plan update.
The factors lacking agreement included policy issues related to offsets, fees, metering, and water use limitations,
net ecological benefit, and substantive comments and how to reconcile the Draft Plan Update and the Alternate
Plan Update prepared by three caucuses.
• At the December 12 Planning Unit meeting, the Planning Unit did not support the WST recommendation but had
motioned to continue working on the Plan Update and notify Ecology and local legislators that they are still
working on it. Additionally, the Planning Unit will prepare an index of work completed.
In terms of addressing the WST recommendation to the Management Team and need for direction in preparing the
January meeting agendas, three options were identified:
1. Accept WST recommendation to compile package previously outlined and submit the package to Ecology.
2. Compile the package recommended by WST, and continue to develop a Plan Update under the process in place
since February 2018.
3. Compile the package recommended by WST, update the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board Work Plan to
reflect the work that needs to be completed (i.e., flesh -out Strategy 6, WRIA 1 Watershed Management Plan
Update).
Points of discussion included:
• With regard to the table of policy issues, it was noted that some of the Watershed Management Board entities
staff indicated at the December 5th meeting that their entity may be interested in further refining their positions
on the policies. A Management Team member noted that they had felt that there was interest among the
Initiating Governments (IG) to continue the policy discussion in order for the IGs to reach agreement among the
IGs on a position that may be closer to something the Planning Unit might support if the Planning Unit is also
reconsidering their positions on the policy issues. It was noted that after the December 5th WRIA 1 Watershed
Management Board meeting the Planning Unit had discussed whether there was interest in opening up the
discussion of the policy issues. According to their process and procedural agreement, once a vote is taken the
Planning Unit as a whole needs to unanimously agree to revisit the vote. Since there was not agreement to do so
at that time, the Planning Unit position is that the policy package they approved November 28th will stand. The
3 DRAFT 12/19/2018
WRIA 1 PROGRAM COORDINATION
MANAGEMENT TEAM
MEETING SUMMARY
December 19, 2018
Management Team agreed that given the timing the table of policy positions as of December 5, 2018 will be
included as an attachment in the package compiled for the January 3 Management Team meeting with the
appropriate qualifying statement. Additionally, with regard to the Planning Unit Caucus positions, the Planning
Unit's approved policy package and the original communication from Caucuses on their positions will also be
included in the attachments. Further discussion of the IG policy positions included recognition that the
compilation of information is for the January 3 Management Team meeting and subsequently the January 10
WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board at which an IG may wish to further refine or provide supplemental
information related to their policy positions.
• The submittal of information to Ecology after January 10th, assuming there is a concurrence by the WRIA 1
Watershed Management Board that the task identified in the legislation could not able to be accomplished in the
timeframe provided for by the Legislators, would be limited to a transmittal of the compilation. The WRIA 1
Watershed Management Board could also agree to a statement with the transmittal that the WRIA 1 Watershed
Management Board will be continuing work on the issues, which could be incorporated into their work plan
(previously referenced option 3).
• Since there is not a completed Plan Update for approval, there was discussion whether the County Council needs
to hand off the compilation of information to Ecology or whether it is sufficient for the IGs at the WRIA 1
Watershed Management Board meeting on January 10th to recognize the work completed and transmit it since
the County Council will likely have provided the County Executive with the County's position prior to the January
10th meeting.
Steve Jilk stated that the PUD needs to see a strong commitment by the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board to
incorporate the outstanding work into the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board's work plan as outlined in Option 3
and as being discussed by the Management Team. The Planning Unit's motion for next steps include continuing work
and the approach of integrating it into the work plan may be an option if the Planning Unit's continued involvement is
reflected in the work plan. It was further noted that the work plan provides an opportunity to look at more
comprehensive solutions.
Motion made by Mark Personius for Becky to compile the packet of information as recommended by the WST for
the Management Team's review at the January 3rd Management Team meeting. Becky recommended that based on
the Management Team discussion, the policy table of positions should be an attachment noting it is current as of
December 51h and recognizing additional discussion may occur. Additionally, the Planning Unit policy table
referenced in the WST recommendation should take the form of the Planning Unit's policy package as voted on
November 281h and include the caucus communications of policy positions. This information will also be noted as
being current as of December 51h. The table of additional work to be completed should not be in the compilation
package. There was consensus agreement by the Management Team on the recommendation for the package as
outlined to be reviewed by the Management Team on January 3. The outcome of the January 3 Management Team
meeting will be a recommendation for the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board meeting on January 10 as a
package of information that has been completed to date with the intent that it would be transmitted to Ecology.
The Management Team further discussed whether to recommend to the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board for
January 10th meeting one of the three options discussed relative to moving forward. Mark moved recommending
Option 3 to compile the package, transmit to Ecology, and commit to updating and integrating the work remaining
into the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board's five year work plan. There was consensus agreement by the
Management Team to recommend Option 3 as described by the motion. As part of the January 3 Management
Team meeting, this recommendation will be folded into the previous recommendation for the information packet for
the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board meeting.
Additional Public Comment: With time remaining, the Management Team provided a second opportunity for public
comment.
4 DRAFT 12/19/2018
WRIA 1 PROGRAM COORDINATION
MANAGEMENT TEAM
MEETING SUMMARY
December 19, 2018
Alan Chapman suggested that the Management Team consider a joint meeting with the Planning Unit to discuss issues
as a way to improve communication.
Carole Perry commented that her recollection of statements at the County Council Water Work Session when 6091
was initiated was that there would be joint meetings.
Kathy Sabel commented on the Planning Unit's next steps and that they indicated a letter immediately be sent to
Ecology and the Legislators stating they are continuing to work on the plan update, and asked if the County is working
on the letter. She also commented that something should be written up explaining the two options.
Alan Chapman suggested that the two letters be blended. Becky Peterson provided clarification that the WST
recommendation and the consensus agreements by the Management Team does not include drafting of any letters.
The narrative that is referenced in the WST recommendation and that is part of the compilation of information for the
Management Team's review on January 3 d is only an index or catalog of the information completed; it is not a letter.
Henry Bierlink suggested Management Team consider on January 3 that if a letter is to be sent, that it communicates
a similar message that is being sent from the Planning Unit.
Steve Jilk indicated that at the January 10th WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board meeting he will be recommending
that if the information compiled is being transmitted to Ecology, the WRIA 1 Board should request a representative
from Ecology attend their next meeting to discuss how they perceive moving forward after February 15t
7. Other Business
Becky announced the January 8th Southern Resident Orca Forum to be held at the Bellingham Cruise Terminal from
5:30-8:00pm, and that the 2019 Whatcom Water Week Calendars are available and she had placed some on the table
if anyone is interested. Rebecca Schlotterback recognized the work of Kate Kimber, WCPW, and the outstanding job
she did on the calendar.
Steve Jilk suggested a future Management Team meeting include an agenda item related to funding needs for the
WRIA 1 administration similar to the Planning Unit's request. Additionally, understanding what grants are available to
support the work planned and who is applying for the funds would be beneficial.
Meeting was adjourned at 11:55 am.
DRAFT 12/19/2018
WRIA 1 PROGRAM COORDINATION
MANAGEMENT TEAM
MEETING SUMMARY
December 19, 2018
Action Summary
Agenda
Item
Actions/Outcomes
2
:• The October 24, 2018 meeting summary was approved as presented.
6
:• Management Team agreed that given the timing the table of policy positions as of December 5,
2018 will be included as an attachment in the package compiled for the January 3 Management
Team meeting with the appropriate qualifying statement. Additionally, with regard to the
Planning Unit Caucus positions, the Planning Unit's approved policy package and the original
communication from Caucuses on their positions will also be included in the attachments.
:• Motion made by Mark Personius for Becky to compile the packet of information as recommended
by the WST for the Management Team's review at the January 3 d Management Team meeting.
There was consensus agreement by the Management Team on the recommendation for the
package as outlined to be reviewed by the Management Team on January 3.
:• Mark moved recommending Option 3 to compile the package, transmit to Ecology, and commit to
updating and integrating the work remaining into the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Board's
five year work plan. There was consensus agreement by the Management Team to recommend
Option 3 as described by the motion.
DRAFT 12/19/2018