Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-10-minutes-public-works-study-sessionKITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Public Works Study Session Regular Meeting Monday August 10, 2020 - 1:30 PM Commissioners' Auditorium 205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg 1. Call to Order 2. South Cie Elum Way Transfer to Town of South Cie Elum 3. Advanced Mitigation Strategy for Kittitas County Environmental Impacts 4. Council of Governments Consideration of Paying Off Shady Brook Bond Debt and COVID 19 Economic Recovery Committee 5. Other business S. Adjourn Created on 8/4/2020 2:23:58 PM KITTITAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION MINUTES COMMISSIONERS' AUDITORIUM, 205 WEST 5TH ROOM 109 - ELLENSBURG Regular Meeting MONDAY 1:30 PM AUGUST 10, 2020 Board members present: Chairman Brett Wachsmith, Vice -Chairman Laura Osiadacz, Commissioner Cory Wright Others: Mark Cook, Public Works; Mandy Buchholz, Commissioner's Office At 1:30 pm Chairman Brett Wachsmith opened the Public Works Study Session. SOUTH CLE ELUM WAY TRANSFER TO TOWN OF SOUTH CLE ELUM Mark Cook gave background on the request he received from the Town of South Cle Elum to take ownership of approximately five hundred and seventy-five (575) feet of South Cle Elum Way. Mark Cook continued that he previously briefed the Board on this request and was given direction to move forward with the request. Mark Cook discussed the path forward on how to complete the transfer and stated he was given information as well from the County Road Administration Board using RCW 39.33.010. Staff was directed to move forward with drafting the resolution and enabling documents for consideration at the next agenda session. ADVANCED MITIGATION STRATEGY FOR KITTITAS COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mark Cook stated that for the past year Public Works has been working on how to position the county for the construction phase of the extension of the runway and parallel taxiway at Bowers Field. Mark Cook continued that mitigation for wetland impact is likely. Mark Cook added that the US Army Corp of Engineers is currently reviewing the assessment that was produced by the Consultant. Mark Cook stated that about four (4) months ago he met with Peter Dykstra and had conversation about water mitigation banking. Mark Cook continued that he met with Craig Broadhead from Jacobs and began discussing options for the creation of an advanced mitigation plan for the county. Mark Cook referenced the Interagency Regulatory Guide attached for review and explained how this guide approves the strategy staff would .like to pursue. Mark Cook added that he along with Century West, Jacobs and ESA had a phone conference on this strategy and everyone agrees that this is the best path forward to stay on the financial timeline for funding improvements at ELN. Discussion was held. Staff was directed to move forward a task order with Jacobs for the proposal for a draft mitigation plan for Kittitas County as presented. 2020-08-10 M IN UTES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CONSIDERATION OF PAYING OFF SHADY BROOK BOND DEBT AND COVID 19 ECONOMIC RECOVERY COMMITTEE Mark Cook gave background on the expiration of the funds for Public Facilities and the remaining Shady Brook bond debt. Mark Cook continued that enabling documentation was approved to extend the tax to 2032 and that changed the need to retire the bond debt for Shady Brook using Fund 108. Mark Cook added that after further discussion with the Conference of Government (COG); the group declined to approve the retirement of the debt with Public Facility funds. Mark Cook continued that a discussion was had about implementing economic recovery activities and using COG as the lead agency. Mark Cook added that he was asked to reach out to the Consultant that COG has been working with and prepare a professional services agreement for consideration and that agreement has been finalized. Mark Cook continued that COG also recommended to extend the grant deadline to February 2021 for review and award with discussion to allow the economic groups apply in advance of the February 2021 deadline. Discussion was held. Chairman Brett Wachsmith made a motion to approve the Professional Services Agreement using CARES Act Funding for the COVID 19 Economic Recovery Committee with Infuse Strategy LLC. Vice -Chairman Laura Osiadacz seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0. Mark Cook stated he will return with a financial forecast for the Public Facilities Fund and show the impacts of funding the economic groups and the Shady Brook bond debt. Meeting adjourned at 2:06 pm. 2020-08-10 MINUTES KITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON Brett Wachsmith, Chairman KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: August 10, 2020 TOPIC: South Cie Elum Way Transfer to South Cie Elum ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff Prepare Enabling Legislation LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff prepare enabling legislation transferring approximately 575 feet of South Cie Elum Way to the Town of South Cle Elum. BRIEFING SUMMARY: • The Town of South Cle Elum is requesting the transfer of 575 feet of South Cie Elum Way inside the city limit. • Staff proposes transferring the roadway via Revised Code of Washington 39.33.010. • Following Board action, the Town of South Cie Elum will accept the roadway via resolution and the transfer will be complete. BACKGROUND: Following a recent attempt to paint a sidewalk on South Cie Elum Way by the City of Cie Elum, Public Works conferred with the Town of South Cie Elum and the sidewalk was removed. On July 10, 2020; Public Works received a formal request from the Town of South Cie Elum to transfer 575 feet of South Cie Elum Way to the Town of South Cle Elum ownership. DISCUSSION: Transfer of county owned roadways to city ownership is authorized in Revised Code of Washington 39.33.010. The Board may by resolution (with legal description of the roadway attached) transfer ownership. Once the Board's action is complete, the Town will accept the roadway by resolution or ordinance and the transfer will be complete. FISCAL UAPACTS: Savings from roadway maintenance are not forecast at this time. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Letter from the Town of South Cie Elum Exhibit 2: Map and Legal Description Page 1 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: LETTER FROM SOUTH CLE ELUM Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT P.Q a= ISO south Cis alum, WA 98943. July 7, 2020 Town of South Cie Elum P.O. Box 160 South Cie Elum, WA 98943 Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners 205 W 5th Ave Suite #108, Ellensburg, WA 98926 Re: Land acquisition of a portion ofSouth Cle Elum Way Dear Board, `)0-a' ok, Ku IES PHONE -..-M4744392 FAX- 609474-5M EMAIL. aceaniendnet:com The Town of South Cie Elum is requesting the transfer of approximately 600' of South Cie Elum Way between the Yakima River Bridge and Grant Avenue in the Town of South Cie Elum. Specifically, that would include all of that portion of South Cie Elum Way north of the northern Grant Avenue right-of-way line, a distance of 598 feet and a width of sixty feet, to the south abutment of the Yakima River Bridge. This is currently the property of Kittitas County. The Town already owns and maintains the rest of South Cie Elum Way so the additional maintenance burden would be negligible. This right of way would enable the Town to better manage future development including through the installation of utilities and ingress/egress to portions of the Town. The County could quit claim the property W the Town to avoid any costs of a vacation process. Sincerely, L-- '4 V Jim DeVere Mayor of the Town of South Cie Elum EXHIBIT 2: MAP and LEGAL DESCRIPTION Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT S1/4 SEC 27 T20N., R15E., 2-1/2" BRASS CAP 575.00 GRANT AVE. KITTITAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS NAME 411 N. RUBY ST., ELLENSBURG WA 98926 (509) 962-7523 www.co.kitftas.wa.us to d S LINE SEC. 27 AREA TO BE VACATED TO CITY OF S. CLE ELUM (0.82 ACRES f) SE COR SEC 27 T20N., R15E., Y IN VERTICAL RR RAIL — — —1-�+ GRANT ST. S. CLE ELUM WAYSHEET RIGHT OF WAY VACATION 1 PT S1/2 SE1 DRAWING TYPE PARCEL NO. MAP I.D. DRAWN BY, J. TURNBULL OF 4 SEC 27, T20N., R15E., W.M. XHIBIT DRAWING SHEETS Ste' 1 "= 1 00, PROJECT DATE:7/27/2020 20019 CHECKED: J. TURNBULL From: In Turnbull To: Mark , Cook Cc: Candie Leader Subject: S Cie Elum Way Vacation Description Date: Monday, July 27, 2020 11:10:12 AM Attachments: 20019 SouthQpElumWaV gWon.odf Mark, The vacation for South Cle Elum Way can read as fo!lows: Vacation description for South Cle Eium Way located South of the bridge All that Portion of the right of way of South Cle Elum Way located in the South 575 feet of Section 27, T20N., R15E., W.M. Exhibit Drawing attached. Justin Turnbull, PLS Kittitas County Surveyor Kittitas County Public Works Main Phone (509)962-7523 411 N. Ruby St., Suite 1 Direct Line (509)933-8251 Ellensburg, WA 98926 Tustin.turnbull2@r_o.kittitas.wa.us Please Note: Due to pandemic, I am working remotely. Messages left on my direct line will be answered by next business day. To contact me directly, please call my Cel: (509) 856-7879. The information transmitted by this email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. This email may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be aware that any use, review, retransmission, distribution, or reproduction is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from all devices. messagoid:38ob45916c6dcbdac24bb8719d004a14 KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: August 10, 2020 TOPIC: Advanced Mitigation Strategy for Kittitas County Environmental Impacts ACTION REQUESTED: Support Staff Efforts LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook RECOMMENDATION: Support staff efforts developing a strategy memorandum to federal and state resource agencies. BRIEFLNG SUMMARY: • The airport capital improvement plan build -out (including parallel taxiway) have a need for wetland mitigation. • We are not within the service area for any current wetland mitigation banks and several wetland mitigation banks are currently stalled at the Seattle Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). • Timelines for bank establishment will not support the current airport capital improvement plan with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Banks can take five years or more to certify. • Staff is proposing development of a Kittitas County Advanced Mitigation Plan offsetting adverse environmental impacts of capital improvement projects. • Public Works (PW) proposes developing a strategy memorandum to share with federal and state resource agencies in the next several weeks (Jacobs Environmental Task Order Contract). • County owned sites at Hansen Ponds and at M Farm appear ideal for the planning effort. BACKGROUND: Currently, four wetland bank mitigation proposals are stalled at United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in Region 10 (Seattle). USACE is also not currently accepting applications for new mitigation banks. Several months ago, staff met with i westside mitigation bank developer discussing current bank approval timelines. During the most recent joint planning conference with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in December 2019, the FAA suggested programming $350,000 in planning funds in 2022 towards "Wetland Mitigation for EA Projects" with another $2,000,000 in 2023 towards implementation (EXHIBIT I — notes from joint planning Page 1 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY CONIlVIISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT conference with the FAA). Knowing that wetland mitigation (or the lack thereof) will impact the construction timelines for parallel taxiway, we are not well served to continue down the wetland mitigation bank track. At best, we have two years to get a proposal in front of the USACE, the FAA and Washington State Department of Ecology (WA DOE) — mitigating adverse construction impacts. The County has two possible mitigation sites in current ownership: Hansen Ponds and M Farm. DISCUSSION: Soliciting USACE for support of developing an "Advanced Mitigation Plan" (AMP) circumvents the necessity for developing a wetland mitigation bank. By retaining ownership of the site, we can conceivably reduce the start-up time tied to wetland mitigation banks (5 years +/-) — aside from the long review time currently taking place at the USACE and WA DOE. Recognizing the need for advanced mitigation planning, representatives of the USACE, WA DOE and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) jointly signed the regulatory guide on advance permittee -responsible mitigation (December 2012). A copy is attached as EXHIBIT 2. The guide states: "This Guide is intended to provide flexibility and emphasizes using a watershed approach in planning and designing sites, while operating within existing regulatory frameworks". This is significant as the FAA desires offsite mitigation of wetlands at Bowers Field. Hansen Ponds and M Farm are located so as not to cause concern for the FAA relative to attracting waterfowl. Numerous advantages appear to exist using the advanced mitigation planning approach. The biggest advantage of developing an AND is that we can conceivably get credit for restoration activities (M Farm Spring Creek), creation and enhancement activities (Hansen Ponds) and riparian preservation (M Farm). This wide-ranging approach to mitigating ELN Airport Improvement Projects (AIP) appears to be the best path towards mitigating an expected wetland total of approximately three acres of impact. Utilizing our existing county owned sites and developing an AMP would create a ledger of additional surplus mitigation credit allowing ongoing development of the Industrial land bank at ELN. FISCAL IMPACTS: Creating the required initial memorandum for resource agency review is estimated at $15,000. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit 1: FAA Joint Planning Conference Notes Exhibit 2: Interagency Regulatory Guide, Advance Permittee -Responsible Mitigation, December 2012 Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY CONGI4ISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: FAA JOINT PLANNING CONFERENCE NOTES Page 3 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY CON IISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT N U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration February 1, 2019 Mr. Mark Cook, Director Kittitas County Public Works Department 411 N Ruby ST, Suite 1 Ellensburg, WA 98926 mark, cook@a,co.kittitas.wa.us Dear Mr. Mark Cook: Northwest Mountain Region Seatife Airports District Office 2200 S. 216" Street, Suite 1 WA20 Des Moines, Washington 98198 Bowers Field Airport (ELN), Ellensburg, Washington FY2020-2024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CII') Over the past few years the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and WSDOT Aviation have partnered together with sponsors in a continued effort towards developing solid Capital Improvement Plans (CIPS). Through the development of the State Capital improvement Program (SCID), WSDOT and the FAA have been able to work together to identify the highest priority work within the anticipated funds that would most effectively improve the statewide airport system from a safety and preservation perspective. Last October through November we met with you during Joint Planning Conferences to review and compile a list of projects. Over the past few months your FAA PM, FAA State Planner and WSDOT have worked together to review, analyze and coordinate your airport's CIP. The summary below represents the plan the FAA will move forward with at this time. Our office believes that this plan is both eligible and justified; however as in any given year, projects are dependent on the availability of funding. Any changes to the agreed upon project list needs to be coordinated on your next SCIP and may affect funding and year. We appreciate your willingness to work through this process with us, and look forward to continuing to do so in the future. Your non primary entitlements balance prior to any FY2019 funding actions are listed below. (FV2016 Expiring) FY 2016 $0 FY 2017 $0 FY 2018 $143,954 FY 2019 $150,000 TOTAL $293,954 Bowers Field Airport (ELN) 5 -YEAR PROJECTS & REQUESTED FUNDING Year , Project Name NPE* ST/D1 Total FnviroutnmFil R,;Nicw- � ,ldvanecd nesim for all 2020 E '"400,000 tit? I 51100.000 20_21 �ln Pmj_--ct �0 2p2? W,:tland Miti tion far EA - -�- — ' Ea50.gU(. I Ss; 5350.000 Pr0 c`CtF -- Dfs1 n -- - .... - VCtlgnd MidUtion for EA 2021 Proiects_- C onstmetion S0 52 OnOAf10 S?,000 00� and I,mid .Xc� uisitinn Construct Parallel 2023 Taxiway for RW 11129, $1000 $250,0009 $400,000 ?839 including MITLs - Phase 1 4A0;699 Fut. Desi I 2821- No Project i 0 Construct Parallel 2024 Taxiway for RW 11129, $2004,99 $4,9996, (?0 000 $4, 00,000 202-22 including MITLs - Phase 2 Construction Rehab RW 11129, includes 1 20 AGIS, reduce RW width, I $•139,909 I $240; -OW $350,000 2024 install MIRLs - Phase 1 (Lull Design) 15() -non 200 Q 2P23- No Project Rehab RW 11/29, includes 2025 AGIS, reduce RW width, $3 099150 ,00( I $3,400,000 $3, t355U 000 2824 install MIRLs - Phase 2 Construction From: Vargas. Mary (FAA) Sent: Friday, December 6. 2019 11:29 AM To: Morgan. Cavia (FAA) <Cavia.MorganWaa.gov> Cc: Kandel. Jennifer (FAA) <Jennifer.KandelL@faa.gov> Subject: _RE. Ellensburg: 12/4/2019 MyJPC meeting notes Cavia Mary's Grant - FY2023 Yes, we can pay for 65% Taxiway oroiect-design in FY2023 Commented [KI(1]• p ,baoly need FY2023 includes 25%-100_% Taxiway Design work. This is not the same design required in your FY2020 grant. The Airport and I will conduct a predesign meeting on September 25, 2022 in order to issue a design Brant NLT April 1.2023— for earlier in 2023 if possible). Please let us know if this is an issue. Cavla's Gants — FY2020 FY2022 FYZA23 ■ Your FY2020 EA Grant includes fully develop concept -design — (i.e. preliminary engineering) for specific data analysis & permitting purpose. For AIP audit purposes we should probably stop calling products in this grant 65% design. • Your FY2022 Grant includes EA Mitigation Phase 1(design). Products produced in your FY2020 will inform your FY2022 grant. • Your FY2023 Grant includes EA Mitigation Phase 2 (construction), and Land Acquisition. I will send my comments on your scope of work for you FY2020 grant first part of next week. Sincerely. Mary Vargas. (SEA -633) Federal Aviation Administration Seattle- Airports District Office. 2200 S. 216th Street. Suite 1W-420 Des Moines, WA 98198 Phone No. 206 231-4131 From: Morgan. Cavia (FAA) <Cavla.MorganPfaa.Rov> Sent: Thursday, December 5. 2019 9:35 AM To: Vargas, Ma FAA <Ma .Var as faa. ov>• Kandel Jennifer FAA <Jennifer.Kandel faa. ov> Subiect: RE: Ellensburg: 12/4/2019 My JPC meeting notes Mary thanks for the notes. I lust want to confirm that yes, we can pay for the advanced design in the EA and then we can also pay for the project design in 2023. Cavla From: Vargas, Mary (FAA) <Marv.Vargasfcafaa.Rov> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 8:43 AM To: Morgan, Cavla (FAA) <Cavla.Morgan@faa.gov>: Kandel, Jennifer (FAA_) <Jennifer.Kandel(@faa.Rov> Subiect: Ellensburg: 12/4/2019 My JPC meeting notes Ellensburg My JPC Notes for Ellensburg Row-amField-Aupo:rtXL 5 -YEAR PROJECTS & REQUESTED'FUNDING-1 area Project ltiamea NPEso ST/DYa Totalo Ea%vonmentat•Revie-•--•Adsanced•Desiga•for alt, P,,j,,t,a• •� 4 19 w1a,q Pro*t''�[ .12 may, • i (Ia�i1i�i'�e'� Ytl�i'WO'a{i H1H%- phasc •ctJaStat •of •pt Dgr.anm6ttc •fu1lyode�•lbped • zol COBCljtt�de6s tt'R'vtk.�:e.�saanethm�'mu rtbla s4a0,oao: so_- t4ao,000: tbat the, ieft�atet'cast'aetualh- troroa paya.•r and that woutd4temune a}tathowofihe destgYt for. paint putpuses *pL comp4ete•am#omenta•, effort t BCT�tttltl�7"p7'1•AA.'EtC'�aitC'r8� �►Tt'aliSe'ii'9G cant �iG� do t,e. F.Y,«U�3� 2021 No Projec= SW 201 Wedand MitigationibrEA.Prgjects.--DcsiseC, -12,:4 I'to'hegselft S35o.000_ m $350,0000 :-:sitedFY22 Wetlmd•Miuptian•iorEA-Pmjects-°Coastsuctioa- 2023 andlavd-,AcquisitioO, Sao $2,00a,00a : $2,000.000Z 124,19 -asst 1 Y20?3 gipLen to henelth Construct•PamUel-Taxdtirayfur'RIL''1 IJ29,- 20239 5250.0002 S400,000^ desig�l•sentiees G No•Projcc= 2014 Co struct•Parallel-Taxiivap-for-RW-11;29,• mcWdiag NIITL.s.-Fhase•2 jConatructtW S= 34,600 000= 54,600 0000 121 19• ecr- r ReLab•RV[.'•11/29.-iociudes—A iIS,•reduce-RW- S, V! 2004 uidth,-ins H-..IIRLs•-Phase-loui1-i esigt) 1sanoa 200,000.- 5350,000;. No•Projew RehahRAV-1Ir29,•inclu LmAGIS,7e&=-RW 2025 %%idth.-install MIItLs--,I%ue.2•(+Canstrnction)- $150.0000 $3;400,000« $3,550,0000 124 191 ar •:�T09+�Iti@iL) t�lt!101Gilt•i�iddSYM'9pbGifilitls'ta3Y�iY.Rtl1•itti�Op�116tAit•6A01� t10C�ld•Rtt(ilRfd�GlYtVpYIWt' 9M4ia,*t-fuestpubd:vatiomtPlautof•IartgsWAupoat•s}•uems(MAS). Nft-ydm,ryeinidemtmftWs ate�ealcufatedas-fnAart,'s; Aye Isaservf 5154,001Eord: S'ofsuairport's•5•sYt�r dnetapmtai•oonR4 _:�j txofrtt R°ea C • •' . oa �i4 A Hlr+e.Sbett ;lttetm� lhc, �Q i9 q Sincerely, Mary Vareas. (SEA -633) Federal Aviation Administration Seattle - Airoorts District Office, 2200 S. 216th Street. Suite 1W-420 Des Moines, WA 98198 Phone No. (206) 231-4131 *Non -primary entitlement fiords are specifically for general aviation airports that show needed airfield development listed in the latest published National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NP1AS). Non -primary entitlement funds are calculated as follows; the lesser of $150,000 or 115 of an airport's 5 -year development cost. Please be reminded that you need to coordinate with WSDOT to ensure this plan is updated in the SCIP database, along with the CIP Datasheet detailing your projects. To improve response timing due to Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant schedule constraints we require that you submit your FY21-25 SUP to the WSDOT's Airport Information System database between September 1 st, and October 31 st, 2019. If you have any questions please call your Project Manager, Mary Vargas, at (206) 231-4131, Sincerely, Jason Ritchie, P.E., Acting Manager Seattle Airports District Office cc: Administrative Assistant, Ms. Candie M. Leader, candic.leadcr(a)co.kittitas.wa.us INTERAGENCY REGULATORY GUIDE, ADVANCE PERMITTEE - RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION, DECEMBER 2012 Page 4 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Interagency Regulatory Guide Advance Permittee -Responsible Mitigation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife US Almy corps of Engineers Seattle District DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington December 2012 Ecology Publication no. 12-06-015 Publication and Contact Information This Interagency Regulatory Guide on Advance Permittee -Responsible Mitigation (Guide) was cooperatively developed by an interagency workgroup. The workgroup members include: Sandra Manning, Corps of Engineers Lauren Driscoll and Caroline Corcoran, Ecology Randi Thurston, WDFW and Mark Daily (formerly with WDFW) Doug Swanson, Gretchen Lux and Ken Risenhoover, WSDOT This report is available on the Department of Ecology's website at hiips:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/Su=g yPages/120615.html. This report and other mitigation resources can be found on the Department of Ecology's Mitigation That Works website at: httn://www.ecv.wa.gov/mitigation. If you have questions on the Guide, please contact the following agency representatives: Corps of Engineers: Sandra Manning, Transportation Policy Lead at (360) 407-6912 Gail Terzi, Mitigation Manager at (206) 764-6903 Department of Ecology: Lauren Driscoll, Wetlands Section Manager at (360) 407-7045 Department of Fish and Wildlife: Randi Thurston, (360) 902-2602 Acknowledgements The workgroup would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Gail Terzi, Corps of Engineers and Hans Ehlert, CH2MHill in developing and editing the document. Development of this document was partially funded through a Wetland Program Development Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Making Mitigation Work, #CD -00J00701-0). If you need this document in a format for the visually impaired, call the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360407-6600. Persons with hearing loss can call 717 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTS OF ECOLOGY AND FISH AND WILDLIFE INTERAGENCY REGULATORY GUIDE ON ADVANCE PERMITTEE -RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION DECEMBER 2012 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology and Transportation have developed the Interagency Regulatory Guide on Advance Permittee -Responsible Mitigation (Guide), dated December 2012, prepared to address questions raised by the Mitigation that Works Forum and their report, "Making Mitigation Work" (Ecology pub. #08-06-018). The report includes a recommendation to "expand appropriate use of advance mitigation'. The Guide is intended to help applicants in developing advance mitigation proposals, and explain how advance mitigation sites may be used to mitigate for unavoidable impacts. This Guide works within existing regulatory authorities and is not intended to expand or restrict any existing regulatory authorities. The regulatory agencies, in signing this document show their support for advance mitigation because it provides mitigation in advance of impacts so the temporal loss of functions common with concurrent mitigation is eliminated or reduced. The risk of mitigation sites not achieving the targeted improvement to wetlands, water quality, and/or fish and wildlife habitat are eliminated because advance mitigation sites will not generate credits until the targeted functions are achieved and the site is proposed for use by an applicant. This Guide provides information on how an advance site can be proposed for regulatory approval, and how a site can, be used to provide aquatic resource mitigation. This Guide is intended to provide flexibility and emphasizes using a watershed approach in planning and designing sites, while operating within existing regulatory frameworks. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology will use this Guide to provide applicants with information on what is needed when proposing and using an advance mitigation site. Z/,/Je0,/ WM/z Date_ P% Ofj Michelle- W er, Chief Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gord n White, Program Manager Department of Ecology 84�� Vuv�' Lia Veneroso, Assistant Director Department of Fish and Wildlife Date -/'Z --/L7, O/CL Date �I US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS a S7"r AND WASHINGTON STATES"' US Array corps DEPARTMENTS OF ECOLOGY AND of Engineers FISH AND WILDLIFE Seattle District INTERAGENCY REGULATORY GUIDE ON ADVANCE PERMITTEE -RESPONSIBLE NIITIGATION DECEMBER 2012 Purpose The purpose of this Interagency Regulatory Guide on Advance Permittee -Responsible Mitigation (Guide) is to identify the circumstances under which the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Washington State Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will consider advance permittee -responsible compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. Nothing in this Guide either diminishes or expands the regulatory authorities of these agencies. This Guide is meant to provide assistance to applicants proposing to establish an advance mitigation site and to explain how a site might be used as mitigation. This Guide supersedes the definitions for advance and excess mitigation found in "Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance," (2006 Joint Guidance) March 2006, pages 33 and 34, Chapter 4, section 4.11. This Guide complements WDFW's mitigation policy (POL-M5002). Definition of Permittee -Responsible Advance Mitigation In the context of this Guide, advance mitigation is a form of permittee -responsible compensatory mitigation constructed in advance of a permitted impact. Permittee -responsible mitigation is defined by 33 CFR 332.2 as aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation, undertaken to provide compensatory mitigation, for which the permittee retains full responsibility. Applicants conduct advance mitigation at their own risk. Even if compensatory mitigation activities are themselves authorized by a permit, establishing compensatory mitigation in advance of the impacts does not create any presumption or guarantee that a proposed future impact will be authorized, or that the advance compensatory mitigation will be considered adequate and/or suitable mitigation for any specific future project. Mitigation credits may be generated on an "advance mitigation" basis by establishing an advance mitigation site designed to compensate for future expected impacts. Alternatively, advance mitigation can also be combined with concurrent mitigation required by a Federal, State, or local permit, where the concurrent mitigation site provides additional area beyond the immediate mitigation requirements, and/or the site provides additional functions in excess of what is required for the permitted impact. The excess mitigation generated at a site would be established in advance of, and would generate credits for use against, expected future impacts. In these cases, the area being set aside for advance mitigation must be clearly identified and documented to distinguish from the area being used as concurrent mitigation. 1 The 2006 Joint Guidance can be found online at: hU://www.ecy. wa. gov/programs/sca/wetlands/mitigation/2uidance/index.htmi Advance mitigation can be proposed by any applicant, but the advance compensatory mitigation credits generated by a mitigation effort in advance of impacts can only be used by that same applicant. If it is determined a mitigation effort and the generated advance credits are not needed by the permittee, they should coordinate possible options with the regulatory agencies. Once any credits have been utilized on an approved advance mitigation site, further credits generated by the advance mitigation effort on that site cannot be sold to another applicant. The restriction on sale of credits derives from the lack of regulatory authority, except in a mitigation banking or in -lieu fee program context, to transfer the obligation for mitigation success to any party other than the permittee of the impacting project. The credit value of mitigation efforts at a site will generally increase over time because the temporal loss is eliminated or decreased if a mitigation effort is established and meeting performance standards prior to the use of the generated credits. The longer a site is functioning, the more credits it may generate for use until the site has reached its maximum potential of credits by meeting all of the listed performance standards (typically around year ten). The general policy of the regulatory agencies is that a site would not generate advance mitigation credit beyond the concurrent ratios recommended in the most current Joint Guidance for wetland mitigation, or in the WDFW mitigation policy POL-M5002 for fish habitat, until the site has been functioning and meeting the required performance standards for a minimum of two calendar years after earth work and planting have been completed. In cases where a permit applicant seeks to apply mitigation credits prior to this interval, it will usually be reviewed as concurrent mitigation. There may be circumstances where the site, or a portion of the site, may generate advance credit within the first two years (e.g., breaching dikes, removing fish passage barriers, preserving existing wetland or fish habitat, and in some cases wetland re-establishment or creation actions). These circumstances will be reviewed by the regulatory agencies on a case-by-case basis. When applying for approval to establish an advance mitigation site, applicants will need to provide information similar to that required for a mitigation plan approval. Additional information pertinent to the review of the advance proposal will also be required as defined in the "Proposing Advance Mitigation" section on pages 5-6 of this document. The agencies also recommend submitting a proposed credit generation schedule demonstrating a reduced ratio as the site matures, and proposed credit value(s) the applicant is anticipating the advance site may generate. The geographic area proposed as the potential project use area for future impacts should also be proposed by the applicant based on a watershed approach. The regulatory agencies can review and finalize the credit generation schedule and the geographic use area during the permitting process as part of the approval for the mitigation plan. This will provide the applicant a conditional decision on the potential credits a site may generate if a site is meeting performance standards outlined in the mitigation plan as well as what geographic areas will be acceptable for use. If this information is not available at the time of application for the advance mitigation establishment, it will be required to be approved by the agencies prior to using any credits generated at the site. At the time generated advance credits are proposed for use, the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the impacting proposal will decide if the advance compensatory mitigation project provides the appropriate type and extent of mitigation necessary to compensate for a project's impacts. The agencies will also consider how the mitigation site is functioning prior to determining how much of the advance credit is necessary to offset impacts (see "Use of the Advance Mitigation Site" section, pages 7-8 of this document). Credits can only be used once and upon their use as mitigation the mitigation effort reflected in these credits will not accumulate additional value over time. The 2 agencies with jurisdiction will require in the permit for the aquatic impact, the appropriate number of advance credits necessary for mitigation. If necessary, the agencies will also define specific areas of the advance mitigation site designed to address compensation for specific impacts to critical on-site functions or habitat type that might be required (e.g. a created stream channel may be required to mitigate for filling a stream). In some cases the agencies may require critical functions to be mitigated on-site at the impact location while other functions may be appropriately mitigated at the advance site ("decoupling"). Critical functions are those site specific functions the agencies have determined must be maintained on-site. The agency -approved use as compensatory mitigation of all advance credits must be documented in a ledger managed by the advance mitigation permittee, and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for each ledger transaction. The transaction must document the use of credits and in some cases specific areas on a map that will be deducted or shown as used if necessary to offset critical habitat or function impacts (i.e. a stream creation area to offset stream loss). Any generated credits will not be officially accepted or released by the agencies for compensatory use until the time an applicant proposes the use of credits as mitigation for a specific impacting project, and the regulatory agencies approve use of those credits as mitigation. However if a site has achieved performance standards as outlined in the advance mitigation plan but the advance site has not been approved by the regulatory agencies for use, , the opportunity for the permittee to use the advance mitigation site will not expire. The functional lift achieved by the site will be considered by the agencies when proposed for use by the permittee. Pertinent Regulations Federal The Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (Mitigation Rule) (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, 40 CFR Part 230), dated April 10, 20082. The Mitigation Rule defines requirements of compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the nation's aquatic resources resulting from authorized activities. The Mitigation Rule is intended to enable the agencies to promote greater consistency, predictability and ecological success of mitigation projects under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. The Mitigation Rule defines three forms of compensatory mitigation: mitigation banks; in -lieu fee programs; and permittee -responsible mitigation. The Federal hierarchy of preferred forms of mitigation is 1. Mitigation banks 2. In -lieu fee programs 3. Permittee -responsible mitigation that is undertaken using a watershed approach, if appropriate and practicable 4. On-site and in-kind 5. Off-site and/or out -of -kind. When proposing advance mitigation in a service area where a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program has been approved, the applicant must demonstrate why the advance site is ecologically preferable to 2 The Mitigation Rule can be found online at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmiti ag tion_index; efm. 3 other forms of mitigation. Also, in some cases it may be necessary to replace critical functions on- site. Appendix 1 sets forth a comparison of these various mitigation options and the responsibilities associated with each. Although the Mitigation Rule does not specifically define or discuss advance mitigation as a compensatory mitigation strategy, advance mitigation fulfills several of the objectives that are cited in 33 CFR 332.3(a) as bases for concluding that mitigation banks and in -lieu fee programs are preferable forms of compensatory mitigation: reducing temporal losses of functions, and reducing uncertainty over mitigation project success. In addition, under the definition of "temporal loss" at 33 CFR 332.2, the Federal mitigation regulations provide: "Higher compensation ratios may be required to compensate for temporal loss," and 33 CFR 332.3(m) articulates a strong preference for advance compensatory mitigation, by requiring advance or concurrent mitigation "to the maximum extent practicable." By requiring additional mitigation to offset temporal losses, the Federal regulations implicitly authorize comparatively reduced mitigation requirements when mitigation is accomplished in advance. It is thus an acceptable form of permittee -responsible mitigation for the federal regulatory agencies provided it follows the procedures and constraints outlined in this Guide. State Ecology's authority rests with the state Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW) and associated water quality regulations (Chapter 173-201A WAC). Based on the anti -degradation policy (WAC 173-201A-300-330), adequate mitigation is required to effectively offset aquatic impacts. Per Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Ecology must certify that projects comply with state water quality protection laws before the Department of the Army permit can be authorized. WDFW is charged with implementing the state's Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) authority (Chapter 77.55 RCW). Any entity conducting work affecting the bed or flow of state waters is required to obtain an HPA from WDFW. An IPA must contain all avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures necessary to ensure the proper protection of fish and their habitats. The rules implementing the Hydraulic Project Approval authority not only allow the use of advance mitigation, they state that a project proponent may be required to establish functional compensatory mitigation prior to the impact (WAC 220-110-020(66)). For projects located on state owned aquatic lands, applicants must coordinate with the Department of Natural Resources. Local jurisdictions regulate critical areas including wetlands and streams. Projects affecting critical areas may need to obtain local permits for construction. Agency Support Federal and state regulations and guidance encourage implementation of mitigation in advance of the project impacts to reduce or eliminate temporal loss, and reduce the risk of unsuccessful mitigation. With advance mitigation, temporal loss is eliminated or reduced, therefore allowing for a reduced amount or ratio for compensation. In addition, the WDFW mitigation policy (POL-M5002) acknowledges the benefit of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of the impacting project. The risk of failed mitigation is reduced because mitigation credit will not be generated for use to offset aquatic impacts until the advance mitigation site demonstrates performance and functional lift. Applicants also may benefit from completing mitigation in advance. If a mitigation site is constructed and functioning prior to the impacts, the eventual compensatory mitigation decisions are likely to occur more quickly. This may result in a decrease in permit processing time because 4 regulatory agencies will have the certainty that a mitigation site is successfully functioning and will not have to review and approve a new site that has the risks associated with concurrent mitigation. The site's mitigation credit generally will increase over time as the site matures until it reaches the maximum credit potential when the mitigation goals, objectives and performance standards are met. Ratios required to offset impacts generally will be reduced over time due to the decrease in temporal loss and risk, making advance mitigation more cost effective. Proposing Advance Mitigation In order to qualify for the enhanced compensation ratios associated with advance mitigation, agency verification of baseline conditions is necessary, so pre -approval of a Mitigation Plan prior to commencing the mitigation effort is required. When proposing an advance mitigation site, applicants should consider the anticipated location of future projects that will require mitigation so an appropriate location near potential impacts can be selected. The mitigation should be designed to achieve a self-sustaining site where appropriate. The type of mitigation proposed should consider future needs so the mitigation type can offset expected functional losses of future aquatic impacts. In cases where WDFW mitigation is required, the site should benefit the same fish stocks impacted by the project. Fish stocks are defined as "a group of fish that return to spawn in a given area at the same time and are, for the most part, reproductively isolated from other such groups. A stock may include several Iocal spawning populations." The risk of advance mitigation is borne by the permittee planning to use the mitigation site. Establishing a mitigation effort generating advance credits provides no entitlement to, or guarantee of, use of those credits as compensation for any particular project causing impact to aquatic resources. The following information is required for agency review and conditional approval when proposing an advance mitigation site: 1. Applicants shall submit a mitigation plan for agency review and approval. The plan shall be in accordance with 33 CFR 332.4(c) (see Appendix 2), and the current Joint Guidance, "Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans", March 2006 Interagency Guidance, Ecology Publication #06-06-01 lb, and WDFW POL-M5002 for fish habitat as applicable. The advance mitigation plan shall contain the requirements of a concurrent mitigation plan and the following additional information: a. Disclosure that the proposal is to construct a permittee -responsible advance mitigation site. b. The site location must be selected using a watershed approach. The watershed needs should be identified in the plan, and include an explanation of how the mitigation will improve the watershed. c. Detailed and adequate documentation of baseline conditions (e.g., wetland delineation and functional assessments, wetland category based on the Ecology rating form, condition of riparian or wetland buffers, and condition of stream and fish species if present), from which future ecological lift can be determined and adequate credit identified. The baseline must be thoroughly documented as it is the foundation for determining a site's potential for functional lift, and therefore the advance mitigation credits that may be generated. d. The size/acreage and type of mitigation proposed to be established, restored, rehabilitated, enhanced, and/or preserved. e. As stated above, if fish habitat mitigation is being included, the mitigation site should benefit the same fish stocks impacted by the project proposing to use the site for future mitigation needs. This may be required by WDFW prior to using a site for mitigation. For all mitigation sites proposed to be used for any fish or fisheries habitat impacts, provide size/acreage details for mitigation proposals that include fish habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement, fish barrier removals, or other mitigation that is required to offset expected fish habitat or stream impacts. Also include information on the limiting factors of the watershed if available, and an explanation of how the mitigation will improve these limiting factors for the species and habitats that may benefit. It may be necessary to track fish habitat mitigation elements separately from wetland credits in order to document appropriate establishment and use of mitigation for fish habitat impacts. The following information is recommended for agency review and approval when proposing an advance mitigation site. Submitting this additional information will facilitate agency approval earlier in the process on key mitigation decisions such as the anticipated credits that may be generated at a site if performance standards are met, and on the acceptable location (service area) that may apply to the proposed mitigation site. Getting agency approval on these elements prior to establishing the site should provide applicants with more assurance of how a site may be used on future actions. If an applicant decides not to provide this additional information prior to site establishment, they may have an increased risk that their anticipated use area and credit generating schedule may not be approved by the agencies at time of proposed use. f. Propose a credit generating schedule or framework demonstrating how the credits will increase over time as the site matures and successfully reaches performance standards. This schedule should show how the advance credit may be generated as the site matures from construction (when concurrent mitigation ratios will apply) through year 10 and should include the performance standards guiding the credits that may be generated. The agencies can agree on the site's proposed or expected future (e.g., post -construction) environmental value, credit, and ecological lift if all performance standards are accomplished, but they cannot determine the appropriateness for the use of any credits until such time as it is proposed to be used as compensatory mitigation for a specific project. g. Propose the boundary of the geographic area that is appropriate to be used for future impact locations. h. Propose appropriate ratios for credit use based on impact type, and quality of and functions provided by the aquatic resources at the impact site. This will likely be general information based on standard ratios for impacts to wetland category and type outlined in the Joint Guidance. Exact impact areas and functions may not be known and adequacy of ratios proposed must be considered on a case by case basis. In order to use the credits generated by an advance mitigation effort for compensatory mitigation, the permittee of the impacting project shall be responsible for the performance, sustainability, maintenance and monitoring (for both the establishment period of the advance mitigation site and the Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance period) of the advance mitigation site. This permittee can act through a third party agent to construct, maintain, and monitor the mitigation but the permittee is ultimately responsible for site performance. C The agencies strongly recommend applicants contact tribes and local governments involved in decisions for use of the site as mitigation (e.g., critical area or shoreline permits, sites affecting fish habitat, or Tribal 401 Certification) early in the permit review process. In some cases, local jurisdictions may not have regulations in place to allow mitigation in advance of impacts. If a project is located on state owned aquatic lands, applicants will also need to contact the Department of Natural Resources for approval. Use of the Advance Mitigation Site At the time that credits generated by the advance mitigation effort are proposed to be used as compensatory mitigation for a specific project, the permit applicant shall provide an Advance Mitigation Site Use Plan (Use Plan) to the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the action causing aquatic impacts. The Use Plan should include the following information: 1. Reference the mitigation plan defined in the "Proposing Advance Mitigation" section listed above. This should include all of the elements listed in the required section. If the information listed in the recommended section was not included in the application stage, this information should be provided in the Use Plan. 2. All monitoring reports for the site, or a reference to the reports if they have been provided. 3. Demonstrate the advance mitigation's ecological lift beyond the approved baseline conditions, documented by meeting stated performance standards or demonstrated by a functional assessment and monitoring reports. 4. Describe the development project's impacts to aquatic resources requiring mitigation. Include type of aquatic impact, fish and wildlife species affected, acreage impacted, functions lost, and how impacts have been avoided and minimized. 5. Describe how the advance mitigation adequately compensates for the unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. and any impacts to fish life. 6. If the impact area is within the service area of an approved mitigation bank or in -lieu -fee program, demonstrate why the use of the advance mitigation site is ecologically preferable from a watershed perspective. Some critical functions may need to be mitigated on site. 7. Propose the amount of mitigation credit the applicant believes is necessary to offset lost functions from the proposed impacts. This should be based on the credit generating schedule if one was established during the application stage (see 1.f. above). If not established it should be based on the quality of the impacted area and functions lost, and the age and demonstrated success of the advance mitigation. site. The final decision on the type, and amount of compensatory mitigation required for an impacting project is reserved to the exclusive discretion of the regulatory agencies with authority over that project. 8. The site must be protected in perpetuity prior to the use of the site as mitigation. Include information on what site protection mechanism has been established or is being proposed for 7 agency approval (restrictive covenant, deed restriction, conservation easement, etc.). Include financial assurances and/or long-term management and maintenance plan as required by the regulatory agencies. 9. Propose an adequate record-keeping method, ledgers to be used, and methods for tracking of the site's credits and area used. Once credits are approved for use by the regulatory agencies, a ledger will be required and will include the documentation of all projects using credits from the site to date and which agency(s) required the credit for mitigation, how much credit is used for each project (based on a specific geographic area and/or function), and date of use. Prior to authorizing the use of any advance compensatory mitigation, the Corps, Ecology, and WDFW if applicable, will be required to approve the mechanisms for tracking the credit use of the site. For tracking purposes, any time a site's credit is used, the permittee will be required to send a copy of an updated ledger within 30 days of the credit use to the assigned project manager for the Corps, Ecology and WDFW even if these agencies did not require the credit for a federal or state authorization. At the time a credit is used and debited from the ledger, the regulatory agencies will identify if the mitigation requires a specific geographic area or function to be deducted from use on the site plan, or if just a general credit deduction is necessary. This will allow the expenditure of advance credits to be accurately tracked. It will also provide direct linkage between activities causing loss of aquatic resources and the corresponding specific compensatory mitigation, for compliance and enforcement purposes. If only a portion of the advance mitigation site is used as mitigation, adequate buffers will be required to protect the mitigation area from adjacent land uses. As previously stated, once the first credits generated by the mitigation site are approved for use in accordance with a Use Plan, and once those credits are applied to an impacting project as compensatory credits, the released credits and the opportunity to generate any further credits from that site cannot be sold or otherwise transferred to another party. If it is determined the mitigation and the generated advance credits are not needed by the permittee, they should coordinate possible options with the regulatory agencies. There is no guarantee of any opportunity to transfer any released credits, either prior to or after use as compensatory mitigation for an impacting project, nor any guarantee that the right to use any potential credits, that may be generated by the mitigation site following the first use of credits, may be sold or transferred to another party. The permittec bears the risk of possible inability to utilize all the credits that could potentially be generated on a mitigation site. Regardless of any options for disposition of unused and unneeded potential credits, once credits generated by the advance mitigation have been authorized for use, the mitigation site constitutes permittee -responsible mitigation and the permittee of the impacting project retains legal responsibility for the success, sustainability, and monitoring of the advance mitigation site. The permittee is also responsible for funding and implementation of the site protection mechanism and any long-term management and maintenance plan as described in #8 above. Appendices Appendix 1. Comparison of Permittee -Responsible Advance Mitigation to Other Mitigation Options Type Who is When Can the Site Is the Sale Who Can use Responsible be Used of Credits the Site as for Site Allowed. Mitigation Development, Management, Performance & Protection. Mitigation Bank Sponsor — Credits must be generated and Yes As approved by Banking any private, released prior to impacts; one major the permitting tribal, or public advantage of banking is that a agencies, an entity limited number of credits become applicant with available when the banking impacts in bank - instrument is approved, the site is service area protected, and financial assurances are posted. In -Lieu Fee Program The fee must be applied to mitigation Yes, in -lieu As approved by Sponsor — must effort within 3 growing seasons from fee payment the permitting be a the first in -lieu fee payment within a is applied agencies, any governmental designated service area. toward the applicant with (including costs of impacts in an tribal) or establishing approved non-profit mitigation service area that natural pays the in- lieu resource entity fee to an approved Permittee- Permittee of the The site can be used as concurrent No, advance _program The advance Responsible Advance Site mitigation within one year of credits credits can only Advance impacts through the first two years cannot be be used by the after construction. If used two or sold permittee that more years after mitigation developed the construction, the ratio for use will advance site. decrease as additional credits generated will be valued as advance credits which generally increase in value as the effort matures and the performance standards are met. Permittee- Permittee Mitigation effort must be No The permittee Responsible implemented concurrently or within for the impact Concurrent one year of impacts. proiect Appendix 2. Minimum requirements for a compensatory mitigation plan (33 CFR 332.4(c)) 1. Objectives: A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation, and the manner in which the resource functions of the project will address the needs of the watershed. 2. Site Selection: A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. 3. Site Protection Instrument: A description of the legal arrangements and instrument that will ensure the long-term protection of the project site. 4. Baseline Site Information: A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed site. 5. Determination of Credits: A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief explanation of the rationale for this determination. 6. Mitigation Work Plan: Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the project, including geographic boundaries; construction methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species; the proposed grading plan; soil management; and erosion control measures. 7. Maintenance Plan: A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued viability of the resource once initial construction is completed. 8. Performance Standards: Ecologically based standards that will be used to determine whether the compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives. 9. Monitoring Requirements*: A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results must also be included. 10. Long-term Management Plan*: A description of how the project will be managed after achievement of performance standards to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource, including long-term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long-term management. 11. Adaptive Management Plan*: A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of the project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for revising mitigation plans and implementing measures to address both foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect the project's success. 12. Financial Assurances*: A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards. 13. Other information as deemed necessary. *These requirements may be deferred until submittal of the first Use Plan for the advance mitigation site. If technical advice is needed to address these requirements, please contact the Regulatory Agency(s). 10 KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: August 10, 2020 TOPIC: Council of Governments Consideration of Paying Off Shady Brook Bond Debt and COVID 19 Economic Recovery Committee ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff immediately solicit the Chamber of Commerce and Centerfase for desired 2021 Public Facilities funding effective January 01, 2021. BRIEFING SUMMARY: • Recently the Council of Governments recommended that no early bond debt payment be done using 2021 distressed county sales and use tax funding, • The COG also recommended delaying the call for public facility projects until February 2021. • Following COG's recommendation on late project call is expected to adversely impact economic development activities conducted by the Chamber and by Centerfuse. • Hire Infuse Strategy, LLC supporting COG's economic recovery committee. BACKGROUND: Early retirement of Shady Brook bond debt is estimated at saving the Public Facilities (PF) Fund $259,000. At the time of staff s desire engaging the COG o early debt retirement, the enabling legislation was thought to expire in 2023. It appears the legislation will now run to 2032. At a special meeting held on July 29, 7.020 the COG met discussing the hiring of a consultant supporting desired economic recovery planning resulting from the pandemic. DISCUSSION: Early Shady Brook bond debt retirement is not supported by COG. PW intends on continued debt service annually using the PF Fund until the debt is retired in 2032. Following COG's recommendation for delaying project call until 02/2021 will adversely impact the Chamber and Centerfuse. PW understands that their operating budgets begin January 1 of each year. PW suggests funding an appropriate level for these two Page 1 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COAMSSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT economic development agencies thus defining the remaining amount of 2021 distressed county sales and use tax for offering in the 2021 grant cycle. The bond exercise calls to light the poor performance of some COG members spending previous years' awards. Last year staff attempted to have the discussion with COG members and one member brought their City Attorney. It may be time for the Board of County Commissioners to impose performance standards on grant awardees. Staff proposes preparing a professional services agreement with Infuse Strategy, LLC (EXHIBIT 2) supporting the request of COG and bringing the contract back to the Board for authorization at the earliest available business meeting of the Board. FISCAL VvIPACTS: We anticipate having approximately $1,000,000 in 2021 Distressed County Sales and Use Tax to offer in Public Facility grants by 0212021. 2020 award to the Chamber was $92,000 with Centerfuse receiving $50,000. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Fund 108 current financial information Exhibit 2: Infuse Strategy LLC proposal to COG Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: FUND 108 CURRENT FINANCIAL INFORMATION Page 3 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT H z CW C H a 06 W cl V'f Y 0 V a z D 0 V tA a t m o c op Q o o n o p ren O N� 1f1 00 N O 4 a N m s Q c0 C` n O1 00 O 00 h v -n- m h v •"^r1 arni N (n N 16— wl N co w c0 LNn M M co c M ui a !YI n rl 7+ eenLn n1 N .-i r4cm0 M X' r s V, a r+i of Iri N N N M r+11' M M w -A Ln a Ln �D v1 It Ln c w Q -0 Ln O In % N c0 cn o to �. ~ cnrw s e ro c Ln cc 6n +n u LR iri ir' L' c�0 c0 C� N .NN., q N N on NLa O pp ym . 1 Q 001 ot aq O ca0 a �s ' 1 Nfl rr 4 M CA Ln M n 14 It fes '! � l� 00 N N ry M O� .1 00 -1 M Ki M N � pp V4 NM N INA a% G (n O NLn m � n � .0 t � Ln rMi —eft LL. Ch' N M M rn" [rT q m N M 0 0 c iD In e! 0 Q et a o .� o •� a+ In n e o as uial•Qno " N m ^ p� hotel o0 o m Ir 'opC wt C 00 4 Q O rq N 1D O 1• O Cej ui -4 •!M -n1 ry O' N N ti a -i t -I m .. m M aN�. Ncm mar � a v c � m MM L3. CC CL c to V! 'y L C C p A C C jc BVI CC C � c7 'C � E 6+ 0 m c7 07 m E E w c0 E E �• _C w m c7 N vi vl C C w .n _t QI 67 C G 'C U7 muc > c c��m r _A Q r C = n �. m d a+ 3 LL a V u C � r� - N 00 rn . m � O m IA m !m M ...yl O tp O ri '. N O N N �I I Ln 00 � 00 Q N N ! i pp IOry� i00 fL rn r I I O 0 i aNi ! i I I IF I N 00 pp N Ln Ln O N! co ' N m Ill ' 05 N NN 4 M Ln n .-•1 mo 0 Ln M t : N Ln 4E N N M .i N Im ei I • Ch ca r g O In en In N a M1 rt 0 0 k !!! A III I I$ �In m m o n rn o k0 0 o w o rl 0% r0 1 N N W M N t0 1p , N trl rl w O v I mg n O g rl I N I IIn In O N o0 01 00Im rl O Q 00 Mm lA C Q rl w O Q v Q I l0 m ri irl m n n m O O Na Nl O Ol m O O m a --I O a N O M I� a 4O rel N W! N "O : N m N W W 00 Ill N N m w I [D 00 ei N M m .l1 .- I .l1 N ill , N O] I ; r -I m, I j • N �ry CD m I � y I a m N N j Q N G 0 N I O C3 I m !SI L v m d d ! d O N 'o IO v m v7 ai I ° L 1 Z a wcr0_ ~ `$ I I,a a° E IL Ip W m i LL 0] W W W C Y O v u v 0'o u u a m B chi i chi I C* 'O •� ' ee�� .g a7 ! N N qqLl ! F F o o a ola 'o 0 0 0 to LL IL LL U_ LL LL LLILL'LL a a ILL LL LLL U- LL a a a a a d d n. a ._ a a Y O m 10 r H t C 0 CL N m 7 u Ot. 7 � O N � C, a O r Y CUSL E 7 a'E a 011 N O N N ONO .-1 N Q Ul M 01 N � } tel r H � U Ln eT N ` m V4 m Rr N Rt Q �I cn a r'1 V o � IIII C o } 41 IV 4.0 1 en c a y Mm � to ` } W D LU 1.h � N Ln n' X el"to 2' eo LL LA f6 L C C } m 1� o Y C m O IW w } L t� m � 1 D I I r d �� •bb rLi 3 i G Y t t eo 'S 1 V10 `_ L- im d 1 I 1 1 � 1 1 Y N a1. e0 } 1 CO e 1 L. 1 LL ! pp1OiOiO OIOi0IO lViOirViLr1 N1rN-11en,L060 NlrirrnI a1CFININ 9M 1 1�% 1 tD l OD cd ui1Hlr�Z to1N1Lnlrn Z1 Ln .1'. dt iVgoo J.n Hi i i 1 , , 1 1 1 1 1 V=. O oI O1O 19t 01lM r�1Ln r i 47' O E NiN ^, 1000 M H 0 N H M r4 Ln N t4 H N Ln LO N N M 00ir%l N � N i 1 i 1 1 (%4, %D mIH Lri 11 tri (n 1-4 SIM I 1 1 o)1rn Ln Ln 1 co to I Ln O,00 !" M i 1 if4! 1.h ZAI i8181O inip8piLn 1001 1� 1 en Ln O 1Ln, M, LO i i r -I i �tD�011r% 1 !%IMI ri 1H ILn ILn ico11r% Ln 1411001- i e+r1 I � i r•i 1Q;.M-i1� 1 i i r.;oo1,Ln LnitolO� Lpldntl. LO o,LrLrt,N M; M; Ln `O i M 1 I N Ln i ri N I 18118 t cn Lf) LRt I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I , IIH1r-! U31 q HILn ��� LO 1 -tr m rl I i 1 1 1 1 q� o;o o1n OO�N MIS 1 11/}1141.{1}i1/)•1.tniihiAmVi •i'Vl•i{h,.-V�1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � r*.1� 1 M I o l Ln l tD l 0I H 100 100 1 lD 1 o1H1LO1olN1r-:1t01tD1001a01H1 N I M I N t H 1 N 100 1 Kr 1� I co I q' I r- l i'� i r•1 i eY11 00 i' l, r, i tlt 1 fY1 I ^I1 1 6n i eY1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 r�I r w rq I , r-1 tlllol01LD1 H I N I tD I N I H 141 1- 1 41 1 0 1 N t o l O11�,1O1O1O1Lni[�-iOif-.lOiLni Ln. qt'M1N,ri H r H lH' H I H OIoIO1O10 N 1 N I N I N i N I [ 1 1 ! E 1 1 Hi 001NI0) W LnlNlril -crlH 0l i vi 01d 4: cr7 1-IH1in1OIH c0ll 1� 1 IRI, -!" 00 cr, r, i r1. i rYj r.ItDIeq H I rii M l ~I� 001(n W 1q*L1cn tOIr-iO1O1 otNt�14m1,9 XI00iLnIcoIch ell O1OicViM Ln1001Ln1N101 41 1 f� 1 C1 I.R tD ril 1 ri lri 1lri 1 r 1 1 i 11 1.R! 1.h! VIH q^! 1.!1 i Qlmiooi^I0iLni -1 0 0 0 0 0 OiOiOiOiOiOi N' Ni Ni Ni N N 1 i i 1 1 i i i i i I I 1 1 1 1 1 tD 41 MI0 N 01 1 �tiE 1 1 1 001MIHIr4 mtIO 1411 O 1 Litt 4I N r N1 NO N 01 oo co tOitDiQiLn.Ln fii i-1N00irn11IM 00 cOniA11LLnni�13 f 1 1 1 1 1 I -iOiH'I001 101 r"1i o l to i Tr INiO OOiMiM1111 -111 In It 1co1 * adImILn1411 r- i!ell INRFII &INi �Q I Ht Lnt 61Ln, r-1 N C'flCl lLniii In.,00, NiNir-liri 1 i i i i O LO O 0 N 00 Ln cn N 000 NvH m Ln M M 00 n W iolo'o ,o,olo ' r•i' 1: 1 � Ir.I41tH Ml N 00 m Go iQiMirni 106 P.N1LC iOGo rl 00i00i0) 1 di 'N Ln i 100 i I I I I I 1 00 1 00 , i , i M ,O 1N 1.O i OOD i M en i CN oto NIN I rq 1 1 1 t "1 r! Ln ' dt Hir, r-1 i r1. rmi i N A4, V-� 1 to 100 Ln i LD 001 zr oi _N eM UD i CO i i 1 iJU!iJ? I i i i i i i I I I i I i .I I I I i i I I I I I of of of Kt d 011 I I I I 1 1 41' cn Ln l r` I iQlf�iN IN1r•11Ln1 1,4 tD ^iHiLn lD N I n M, cn en tr4l e I 1 I I 1 r i Olb NIN i 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 00 O1O O1M n I01 1 1 rri 1 N 1 -tn�v-,- 1 r. ILD tViN r4 l,a-! 1Ln N LOi i i I � I 1 Ln o 001 NI , 1 1 1 1 i Ln 00, Ln t n� H 1 Ln 6 CD ]+ i E E 0 u 3 a r° _ O m .o c +�+ 0k0 U M N -0 u E in u X O O C�4 C .0 :3 C O W E L m Q1 � C N L t6 Qy t � H m � t � d f0 L Q) a 3 L C � N L 7 to O m C N V LL.L V 3 a co m cn a, 0, 0 L i -o, } C 0 N O 7 N o O a Doo o H N N Cc) p N N O N O N O CL M O N V ti N _ Lo Q fA — u 00 N LL � � 0 a LLA Z NO ,N S Q O C) 6 O O N pS O O S b O C S C O C S C S S C C O o S �n S C S rn Q o O Lri S S Ln d to M in M tin N t4 N V1. .l 4 rl 'L6 6 CD ]+ i E E 0 u 3 a r° _ O m .o c +�+ 0k0 U M N -0 u E in u X O O C�4 C .0 :3 C O W E L m Q1 � C N L t6 Qy t � H m � t � d f0 L Q) a 3 L C � N L 7 to O m C N V LL.L V 3 a 00 O 7 U- E O Ln tD � a A Cbe ay CL ao ry a oo E m 3 Z 'a C t Q LA 7 t O N o w O aN ' L N C W o �Ei •N O _N c a W 0 a (v r< rt ra c m c c c 4=1 E E E O 4- "0 M r -I NO C \ \ \ Q m Ot -* Ln O N N N n t0 n M O r1 m o0 O Ln r1 rl N rl N N N ri rE ri ri 888800000000000 O S S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o O O O O Q O 0 0 0 0 cl N c+} N m et tD V) ei M Q V Lr1 rr o0 q- M LO N N H g m co h QD LLn -i m N r1 rl Iz rl r! H ci Z.41000000000000000-* -* Lar} N m LOr1 M M M n0 o t00 LK On N M N N N n n OD m rl m uj d 4 O Q M Q to m DMo 0 ono * 0 n ate+ m�° i � ani n mr m Lr 1i ri N rl Iz H 4 Iz 4 N rV N r -I r c-? ri r1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NR:r r. QNO0MM GOMCN . . . LLLi Ln 01 n. LLq . m . . N N N n [� 00 Ol ri m Ln O O O M O tO rii M 0000 S W -t Wr,� r 4 m r4 rii rr4 Gni n m d' m M M M N N r4 r4 a6 k6 M-1 M M L�Dp� to S M w w rl LAW r 4 N o0 W W W W W r1 N N N N M M 4 4 4 N N N N N rV S 0 co SSSS oo S o Co 5 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 o o o o o 0 0 o C O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S S S S S S S o Q 0 N' n m H M N w rl 4 w M w m" Ln w rl r+ r� n oa co 0o 0o m m m o 0 0��� L l ri rn-1 r1 T -q N N N N N N N N N N M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ s1 r[ rl r -I ri ri rl rl r-1 r -I ri rl ri rl e-1 rl \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N e -i ri ri rl rl rl rl e -I ri rl rl r -I i -I H r• N cD i• 00 O O m O m P• O O r4 n oo m oo N 00 r%t O m Ln O Ln ri 0 0 0 N Il 1, m 4 00 tC O N cO O f -z 06 O O r4 tD w m I- m w N O e -q q;j- O e -q w O O V, N Ln w I- m 00 O N O O 1� N O O K f, m N Ln N O in 00 O o0 O eft% 01 �-+ f- lD N O (3) I� N O W N Ln 00 M UD Ln M %t 00 � N r -I r -i r, -.Ln m m N r-1 M N r -I r -I e-! r -i r -i r -I %.r O' s-� W V Z W V Z D cu c O N Q W CL '= a �♦ O ` A, Vi V r_ i p V�1 N Z= m- cCU 0 ro Y= a Z O �' += N C aJ w +.+ CL U p L u � D: Y � m [G 7 V t�if ,vf L o(� o aj o o > s a:aQp._ G> L 7• 3? A V O coLA cr O Y O p Q1 +L !:� 0 +_+ +_ V CL Q6 V ii V m U U Y S Ln Ln >- Imsl Lu LL. Q Ln ri N H 0o ri N mr N m Lf] w N O lD b N O M Mq:r N N O m N m N N N O ni 6 m 00 Ln Ln N n O O !� O N S 00 � N N m Q N 00 N r,% 00 00 N Ol O m N 01 LD Ln M Kf 6 c4 n ov Ln Ln LD N N N w N w we -I 00 N R:r 00 oo N 01 m N Ln 00 Lf] Ln r -I O V) mr M M LO LO Lf) 0o :n 00 r -I tD LD N w ri 00 LD LI) ri tD 00 01 01 O iD r4 H N N N ri H 00 O q* Ln N m Ri LD N O Ln Ln Ln mt Ln v N .i N W 00 Lo & Ln 6 41 M-q:F Cf N O N C Lf) Ln tD LO N co 01 01 m N m N N Ol N Cl) N 00 O N 00 LD A N O N O N M 0) 0) N r-1 tO Ln r,4 -4- 00 N Rt N i O Lf1 N Lri O ri N fV Ln ofN �y 00 M M Ln to N MT 00 N N N O Lo m Q et M w N Do m Ln N LD m N N 00 fV M N t8 a -I 01 N N' v ff 00 n F LD LD N N 0o O 0o 01 O 00 N C rRfi a ri �o ii N 00 ri 0) 01 ri N N M H M m G) 01 Lf] O N0 tO Q ri Ql 00 N V ri 01 N O 3 i N cn W rj O O co N = m 07 of V tO M 00 0W0 N 00 N LD N M Lr! ri M V 0 00' cf of ri r` rri M N N Ln o tD N N LD N N 00 O (n 0 0 01 00 co U r�4i ri M Q 'O epi M LO H ri co 00 M N Ln O 01 v i N C Ln 'e N t-1 N M N v -M LD O N 01 C1 '� N N L1 r,: 6 M O 4 N N Ln 6 6 01 u W N ri N Ch O O O 00 LD H LD O N Q O ri co et H 00 N N Ln LO N mr CG ce O M LO 01 W Cf 01 r- 01 N rn m -O 00 N M 00 0o ri O O ri Ol 0) H N r_ H H ri ri ri ri ,4 t N Nto Ln q q* O Tr w +�+ N 4.6 N O LD V Q O E N V N N LD 000 0000 1m. N o 3 rn +1 N O L L L d L E w L (6 L C �" bo Q O `J u C� f0 c� L Q c� C Q V) Q Z 0 4 LL a~ C 7 O � N � O to N � C +1 Ln N N ,N, ._ L 'O io OJ N CU h 3 L to C � 0o v G o d E Ln rq gri v Ln -q M N m ri m Ln m OLO O Lnvawwv-imwmmc N LD o0 LD ri Lo N 00 I - O 1- H mt N N r0i H r ii r ii rmi -irmi N r 4 N M-* N tD I� n v m 00 ri et Ln m P� m N N O 07 Ln M Ln -t M Ln O Ln �i M M cn N M ri v O Lr1 00 O LD H m co N N O ri 00 v Ln 00 O m N 00 Ln N I, Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln to Ln LD Ln Ln LD 0o LC Ln H O N o0 Ln N to M ri N LD O � rn O ri r -4i O r eq LD I M Ln N ^ rZ 1�: I�: M Ln O I-� Lr3 ,4 CG f, ri Lp m tD Ln g Ln v m r- v i co O N } 00 r-! ri ri N ri v ri v r•1' c -I Ln ri ri LD a -I o0 Cf r -i U. (R rj ri I- I� ri O LD M m N M v v O co O n Ln W M LD Ln Cn Ln N Ln Ln LD m N r� od O o6 ri LD o0 v Ln m ri Lri N m cn M m m 00 m H v N m m 01 ` m n ri 00 LD m v kD n v Ln m Ln ri N N M M q .0:, Lrl Lry Lly .6 a+ C 0) M O m M ri O v m M LD O M d O O0 M LD Ln 00 m 00 M ri ri m ri ri `4 N M v LD 1- Ln Ll1 o0 Lr1 oG O Hi r� I.: 00 Ln co N O tl m N 00 v� 00 mLD n M M 00 1, N M O m N Ln Ln Ln r, Ln' Lr Lry LK L6 L6LA L6 � .a C as s m N N 0 Ln Ln O m O Ln 00 r, O t N f- O 00 f,: O Ln c N N O Rt M rq M Lri Lr? LfI I M cry N O N fD L L L L O W 10 L Jou E C U 7 +i m 2 a R 2 a o W M c Lid ¢ � •, ¢ Ln 0 z 0 - C 7 O � N � O to N � C +1 Ln N N ,N, ._ L 'O io OJ N CU h 3 L to C � 0o v G o d E EXHIBIT 2: INFUSE STRATEGY PROPOSAL TO COG Page 4 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT J1tj/: ��t�t33Q 'To ace�impl�sti ttiis,.l:pr�p�se ttip.�all�wi,ng tl,ree;;phase p; recess. Propyl for XChRC Plahmimg fttess:(5hort :: aril tong -terry: p arming se�91nnQ: c . Facil,Ration°ofthe Strategic Planning Sessionn Inclading goals,. strategies, timcllrwsj.netric5 :and resoumw needediio accomplish thevraw let d. .666 Oeintaii6mof thdlghg termplan Alda .. 1:411H... ..c.n.t muo prnvidipg the:KJI etas o rix r 1100 swppdrtwit�r the KC RC civ s $Ftt wF�iclt wild bye separate,�m thl3 contras' ThIts still include attending;the KGEEiC iffeatings acid com un�Cating.upt9a#es frorn:the:graup to the E©C., I will afsa continue to supper tl?e development of:the CafF3 19;Report until. tfie task ca�i't�e tran,�it�+�rledi.