Watershed Issues/Recommendations

1)      Habitat/Land Use

i)        The types and extents of land uses appropriate for the watershed should be compatible with the watershed.

Recommendation(s):

(a)    Urban and growth zones shall be prohibited along streams and flood plains.

Planning Unit could support with modifications/will not support - CHANGE

(a)  Shoreline management plan should be changed to restrict commercial, residential, and industrial development along streams and within the 100 year flood plains and associated meander belts.

(b)    Commercial and industrial land uses would be required to mitigate for habitat improvement for zoning within shoreline management areas.

Planning Unit could support with modifications – CHANGE

(b)    New commercial, residential, and industrial development, within the

100 year flood plain, should be required to mitigate for fish and wildlife habitat impact.

1.      mitigating one to one for loss of habitat. DELETE

2.      mitigating one and a half to one for loss and improvement. DELETE 

(c) Agricultural producers shall implement BMPs and establish appropriate buffers to protect water quality.

Planning Unit could support with modifications/can live with it – CHANGE

(c) Agricultural producers should implement BMPs and establish appropriate riparian and vegetation buffers to protect streamside habitat and water quality

(d) Assess current regulations for impervious surface allowance in adjacent areas (adjacent to natural drainage areas) and make recommendations.  . DELETE

ii)       Riparian area and flood plain encroachment continues to occur throughout the basin (rural and urban).

Recommendation(s):

(a)    Reassess setbacks for new construction.  Setback determination for development may be calculated with a standard equation.  Many areas may require different setbacks (more or less).  DELETE 

(b)    Greenbelts or conservancy corridors should be established to reduce damage and threat to private and public property.

Planning Unit could support with modifications – CHANGE

(a) Greenbelts or conservancy corridors should be established to improve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat.  

(c)  Prohibit residential and commercial development within flood plain and associated meander belt.  A complete meander belt mapping project should be funded.

Planning Unit could support with modifications – CHANGE

(b) Prohibit residential and commercial development within flood plain and associated meander belt.  A complete meander belt mapping project should be funded within the watershed and should be considered in future land use regulations. 

(d) Reassess delineation of 100-year FEMA flood plain designations.  New boundaries should be assessed by professional engineer, geomorphologist, and/or land surveyor.

Planning Unit could support with modifications – CHANGE

(c) Reassess delineation of 100-year FEMA flood plain designations.  New boundaries should be assessed by professional engineer.

(a)    Develop and implement a land acquisition/relocation program for homes within the 100-year flood plain.

Planning Unit could support with modifications – CHANGE

There was concern regarding funding to implement by city and county on original recommendation

(d) Feasibility study of a land acquisition/relocation program for structures within the 100-year flood plain.

(f)Current regulations should be used to fullest extent possible.  DELETE

(i)      Placeholder for current regulations  DELETE

(ii)    Identify variance procedures and assess process for input to this process.  DELETE

(g)Develop public awareness and education program (needs to be inclusive of residents, developers, and broader range of stakeholders).

Planning Unit could support with modifications – CHANGE

(e) Develop public awareness and education programs for riparian area function and benefits and flood plain encroachment.  (This needs to be inclusive of residents, developers, and broader range of stakeholders)

(f)     Develop and implement a flood warning system and response plan.

Reanette will ask county contacts what this would entail

(g)    Develop County tax incentive plan to encourage buffer establishment.

Reanette will review this with the commissioners

(j)     Dedicate a portion of the Spokane County Conservation Futures to acquire priority riparian habitat.

Planning Unit could support with modifications – CHANGE

(h) Identify high priority riparian habitat to submit for consideration to the Spokane County Conservation Futures. 

Planning Unit could support with modifications – CHANGE???

(i)  Establish a local improvement district for Riparian and flood

      management. 

(This could be a watershed wide establishment for tasking themselves for the purpose of obtaining funds for Riparian easements, flood insurance or possible financing of implementation for storage options).

Remove—flood insurance…. Bill R will check into legal aspects of this….

(l) Develop Riparian Buffer Cost-Share Program.

Planning Unit could support with modifications – CHANGE

(j) Coordinate and continue Riparian Buffer Cost-Share programs.

(m)A professional fluvial geomorphologist (or person with similar qualifications e.g. civil engineer with hydraulic experience) should review all development, channel stabilization, and planning proposals for Hangman Creek.  This process should entail a detailed assessment of the site’s meander width and potential for erosion or flooding.  DELETE

(n)    A long-term riparian enhancement program should be established.  DELETE

(i)      An economic study of riparian and upland forestry should be funded.  DELETE

(n)    An education/information program should be implemented to raise awareness of riparian function and benefits.  DELETE

Add riparian function and benefits to (e)

Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday,  April 20, 2004 at 10:00am – 12:00pm.  An Instream Flow meeting was set for April 27, 2004 at 9:00am – 12:00pm.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:17 pm.