Puget Sound Partnership

Ecosystem Coordination Board

Meeting Summary

June 20, 2013

Page 1

Puget Sound Partnership Ecosystem Coordination Board

Meeting Summary

June 20, 2013

Brackett Room, Edmonds

Strait of Juan de Fuca / Steve / Tharinger / Cities / Will / Hall
San Juan Islands - Designee / Jamie / Stephens / Counties / Dave / Somers
Whidbey Basin / Ron / Wesen / Ports / Bill / Bryant
Hood Canal / Teri / King / Tribal Government - Alternate / Terry / Williams
South Central Puget Sound – Designee / Fred / Jarrett / Federal Government – Designee / Elizabeth / Babcock
North Central Puget Sound / Linda / Berry-Mariast / Federal Government – Alternate / Evan / Lewis
South Puget Sound / Dan / Wrye / Federal Government / Tom / Eaton
Business Interest – Alternate / Allison / Butcher / Federal Government – New Rep / Rick / Parkin
Small Business / Bill / Dewey / Washington State Agencies – Designee / Josh / Baldi
Environmental Interest / Joan / Crooks / Washington State Agencies – Designee / Naki / Stevens
Environmental Interest - Alternate / Chris / Wilke / Northwest Straits Commission – Alternate / Carolyn / Gibson

It is intended that this summary be used along with notebook materials provided for the meeting.

A recording of this meeting is also retained by the Partnership as part of the formal record.

Action Items:

  • Approval of March 21, 2013, Meeting Summary
  • Approval of election of officer process

Meeting Summary:

  • Open Meeting
  • Board Basics
  • Public Comment Period
  • ECB Subcommittees
  • Funding Subcommittee
  • Regulatory Subcommittee
  • 2013 State of the Sound
  • On-going Programs
  • 2013 Legislative Session Review by Strategic Initiative
  • Priority Science
  • Habitat Report Card Preview for Leadership Council Meeting – postponed due to time constraints
  • Stormwater Report Card Outcomes from Leadership Council Meeting
  • Partner Updates
  • Adjourn Meeting

CALL TO ORDER

Ecosystem Coordination Board (ECB) Chair Dave Somers called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.

Introductions were made around the room. Tom Eaton introduced Rick Parkin as the new EPA representative on the ECB.

The agenda was reviewed and changes made. David Troutt was unable to attend this meeting so the culvert case update was postponed. Terry Williams asked for time on the agenda to discuss legislative issues.

APPROVAL OF MARCH 21, 2013 MEETING SUMMARY

Dan Wrye had minor changes to the March 21 meeting summary including the spelling of Minter Bay both changes were on page 8. Dan will e-mail the corrections to Tammy for incorporation into the final version of the meeting summary.

Dan Wrye MOVED to approve the March 21, 2013, meeting summary. Will HallSECONDED. Board APPROVED the meeting summary as corrected.

UPDATES

PSP Interim Director Marc Daily reported that the governor’s office just released a summary of government shutdown results if the budget isn’t passed by July 1. He reported that there is optimism that this won’t come to pass but agencies still need to plan as if it will.

Leadership Council Chair Martha Kongsgaard noted how much is happening. She just came from a breakfast wherepeople expressed their desire to do something to help the Sound. She also acknowledged the gathering of ecosystem scientists in Seattle and how, in comparison, we are doing better overall than other areas. Her take away message was “Be thankful we are not in the Chesapeake.”

BOARD BASICS

Member and Officer Terms

Dave Somers presented this agenda item. Dave reviewed the meeting materials. (See meeting materials for details.)

He reported that per the ECB Charter and Guidelines, election of officers needs to take place at the November 21, 2013, meeting. The Board members approved an election of officers’ process and timeline as follows:

  • Interest in serving as the chair or vice chair will be provided to staff in written form one-month prior to the election meeting (October 21, 2013)
  • Two weeks prior to the meeting staff will provide Board members with a memorandum listing interested candidates for each position (November 7, 2013)
  • The election of officers will be conducted via ballot at an open meeting of the Ecosystem Coordination Board (November 21, 2013)
  • New officers will be announced by the end of the November meeting
  • New officers will take their seat on January 1, 2014

The Board also decided that theMay 6, 2010, version of the ECB Charter and Guidelines does not need tobe revised at this time.

Chair Somers explained that several ECB terms are up and the Leadership Council will be making appointments at its July meeting. Jamie Stephens asked about the Action Area representative position for San Juan and Whatcom County. He suggested having two seats on the ECB:one to represent San Juan and one Whatcom.

Staff explained that the statute is clear regarding ECB representation, so any change would necessitate a change in legislation. Terry Williams suggested there may be some options that would not take legislative change, and staff will look into them.

Martha Kongsgaard agreed that both Whatcom and San Juan need representation on the ECB and the Leadership Council will address this issue during its July 10-11, 2013, meeting.

OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT

Jeanette McKay, Business Caucus and Washington Association of Realtors, commentedonthe recent Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)meeting where Marc Daily spoke. She described some concerns with growth management planning, particularlythe breakpoints for local markets. Communities have different market factors affecting sales, leases, and rents. She expressed the need to examine those market factors in communities around Puget Sound, and suggested this topic be incorporated inthe regulatory and the stormwater subcommittees’ discussions with the Local Integrating Organizations (LIO’s).

Dave Somers also thanked Marc for hispresentation at the PSRC meeting. He explained that the Council is a metropolitan planning group that coordinates land use and transportation planning in Puget Sound.

Linda Berry Mariast agreed with the need to examine the market and the ability of the people to pay. The markets impact all decisions and good will.

Martha asked Linda how she would incorporate this work. Linda believesin bringing different groups together to discuss case studies and situationswith the business community.

Allison Butcher agreedwith the comments and concerns. She explained the Regulatory Subcommittee initially looked at the market issue but shifted focus. She suggested possibly returning it to the Subcommittee. (Allison will discuss their current focus during the update.) No matter how we do it, we need to keep this issue on the table and find a way to address the concerns.

Terry Williams described the work being done in Tulalip to address planning issues around land use and stormwater.

Jeanette suggested writing this work into the EPA plan and to make sure business is included.

Dave Somers agreed with the need to have this discussion and incorporate it with the PSRC work.

Chris Wilke commentedthat we fight really hard to raise the bar and come up with new regulations to add protection and then we back down to make things work for communities. He suggested we set the bar and consider that the baselineand then add market incentives to increase the protections.

Josh Baldi also commented that we’ve worked hard to get the current level of protections withstormwater pollution. As we are getting close, people start backing down. We need to discuss what this really means to the progress we’ve made.

Dave committed to incorporating this issue into the ECB workplan for continued discussion.

ECB SUBCOMMITTEES

Funding Subcommittee

Fred Jarrett reviewed the funding survey and explained how this work is being used. This survey was completed at the beginning of the year. The subcommittee is embarking on the second of three phases to complete this report. The subcommittee has also discussed taxes. (See meeting materials for details.)

Fred reported that Phase 2 of this projectis difficult and can’t be completed quickly. He noted that Phase 1 of the report will not be distributed widely. Phase 2 includes public engagement and is anticipated to complete this work by end of year.

Josh Baldi suggested asking OFM to helpencourage agency fiscal departments to become more engaged. Marc reported that Jim Cahill has been on vacation but staff will be sitting down with him and his staff to see how to work together. We have $90K for completing phase 2.

Naki Stevens would like to be involved with Phase 2 and include economic value of Puget Soundinformation for use in making the case to increase Puget Sound funding.

Regulatory Subcommittee

Allison Butcher provided the Regulatory Subcommittee report. (See meeting materials for details.)

She provided an overview of the subcommittee’s work and explained how the subcommittee changed direction once the NTA was transferred to the Salmon Recovery Council. The subcommittee decided to focus on legislation around the existing shoreline program. The first step was to inventory the current legislation. The subcommittee now plans to look at incentive options. To learn about options they have had presentations on work being done by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Futurewise, Conservation Commission, and Kitsap County. The subcommittee isready to move into the next phase and form an ad hoc group to bring options to the full ECB. Now that Sam’s term is over,a new chairperson needs to be selected so the work will keep moving forward.

ECB members discussed the following:

  • Will the current focus on incentive programs get us farther in the current climate?
  • Do we need to look at other changes to implement the Action Agenda?
  • We need to be sure programs are synergistic and not working against each other.

Josh volunteered Ecology’shelp with the Phase 2discussions.

Terry explained the tribal thoughts on conflicting policies and how they have discussed this with the President and Congress. The NWIFC is looking at the need to examineexisting laws but there are hundreds. He suggested using the Action Agenda and indicatorsto identify what needs to be done in order to set a baseline. A complete inventory will take years, and change will take even longer.

Steve Tharinger reported the state Legislature passed a pilot process for Thurston County to examine some regulations.

Josh expressed his concern about different groups looking at the same issues. We need to link these efforts together and avoid duplication of effort.

Dan Wrye talked about the how different groups share similar problems. In his opinion watershed scale is appropriate level.

Regulatory Subcommittee Chair Position

Dave Somers reminded the group that Sam Anderson had been the chair of the Regulatory Subcommittee and now that his time on the ECB is coming to an end, a new chair is needed to head up this subcommittee. The chair of the subcommittee needs to be an ECB member or an alternate. Will Hall agreed to chair this subcommittee.

Allison is delighted to have Will step up to this position.Will replied that Allison has been the real hero on moving the work of this subcommittee forward.

Dave noted that since Sam was unable to attend today’s meeting;heplans to attend the September meeting to give last thoughts and comments.

STATE OF THE SOUND

Alana Knaster provided the State of the Sound presentation. (See meeting materials for details.)

Board members discussed the need to highlight incentives and to include the need forboth incentive and regulatory programs to work together to meet objectives. Highlighting incentives may provide a nice list but it won’t get us to recovery.

Bill Bryant voiced concern aboutoutreach we’ve done to date is not working. He travels around the Sound talking to groups and there is a limited awareness of the problems. He stressed the need to identify some real key changes in behavior.

Linda Berry Mariast agreed with the need to educate and talked about how a movie from the aspect of a diver showing the problem with stormwater was a real eye-opener for her council and changed their thinking about the problem. (Link to example Stormwater video )

Alana explained that since a full report was completed last year, this year the report will be just a refresher of some information and update of the cost information.However, if the ECB would like to focus on a particulartopic, we can include that also.

Joan Crooks suggested including information on public education. Teri King mentioned Dave Ward’s presentation that showed where we are having an impact around the Sound at the local levels.

Will Hall stated it is fantastic we are moving the needle and making change with the general public;we also need to educate legislators and leaders. As the population increases, we continue to use more land and add more impervious surfaces. We need to change that.

ECB Discussion Points:

  • Don’t spend time getting cost on education and outreach plans but instead focus on the progress being made
  • Tell both the good and not-so-good stories
  • Don’t send list of costs for everything but focus on incentive programs as they relate to regulatory programs barriers and successes happening
  • Provide the costs in a way that shows successes and gets people’s attention about the problem

Alana presented aproposed draft letter to be sent from ECB Chair Dave Somers to Partners in an effort to encourage them to provide report information.

ECB members supported sending the letter with some edits.They wanted more plain talk and clarification about what the State of the Sound will include. Alana replied that stories are due by the end of August and that the report:

  • Will provide updatedNTA costs
  • Won’t try to gather costs on education, incentives, etc. but will include information on how costs relate to these issues
  • Should includecontributions from local partners not just state partners

Terry would also like to find a way to capture the differences between watersheds.

Marc Daily suggested Alana sendECB members an outline of the State of Sound with clear information on what will be changed or different in this version.

The State of the Sound will go before the Board at the September ECB meeting.

ONGOING PROGRAMS

Alanaintroduced subcommittee members and reviewed the proposal before the Board. (See meeting materials for details.)

She explained the need for a framework that utilizes ongoing monitoring data and information to identify the key ongoing programs necessary to achieve recovery. She further explained how the framework development process will also enable us to translate Soundwide targets to the Action Area level and track local contributions to targets.

Based on information about lack of progress to achieve 2020 targets, the framework will identify:

a)Which programs are top priorities for adaptive management to ensure the most significant results in reaching our targets

b)Which priority programs either are not meeting their statutory goals, are not ambitious enough to achieve Puget Sound targets, or are otherwise limited by implementation barriers (insufficient funding, weak enforcement, community opposition)

c)How barriers to these critical programs can be addressed in the form of recommendations to decision-makers

This approach is responsive to Chapter 90.71.350 RCW.

After discussion, the Board agreed to go forward with the process to:

  • Begin with one Strategic Initiative, e.g., habitat strategic initiative; add others based on the initial pilot
  • Select the subset of 2020 targets that the strategic initiative is meant to achieve
  • Evaluate monitoring data and information to determine progress toward meeting 2020 targets and to identify programs not contributing to the attainment of targets
  • Gather what Partners identify as the most critical ongoing programs, accounting for different perspectives among Partners (federal, state, local area implementers). It is important to consider contributions from the watersheds in achievement of targets
  • Consider a limited set of ongoing programs initially, but retain the list generated for future review
  • Identify what programs have been most effective; which have had barriers to implementation
  • Identify key barriers to implementation of selected critical programs (i.e., enforcement, mitigation, funding, effectiveness, public acceptance)
  • Make recommendations to decision-makers for filling the gaps or overcoming the barriers
  • Start consideration of cost data feasibility

Chair Somers summarized the plan going forward. The subgroup will continue to confer andrefine the proposal. The proposal should include specifics on identification of existing information, process for convening a task group, definition of terms, timeframe for first effort, and identification of critical ongoing programs.