Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources July 8 20031 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee July 8, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Sharon Roy in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Seth Fleetwood Also Present: L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford Barbara Brenner Dan McShane COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Absent: Laurie Caskey- Schreiber 1. DISCUSSION WITH ANDREW CRAIG, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, REGARDING STORMWATER REGULATIONS (AB2003 -257) Richard Grout, Department of Ecology (DOE), stated he would talk about pervious surfaces, implementing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study, eliminating illegal discharges to a stormwater system, and the County's goals in meeting TMDL goals. Steve Hood, Department of Ecology, gave a demonstration of water equivalent to a half inch of rain poured on loose gravel and gravel that is used as a driving and parking surface. Nelson asked why the gravel that is driven on looks like sand. Hood stated that sand and clay eventually works up from below the gravel. People will bring sand and limestone to keep the loose gravel from slipping and rolling where it's not supposed to go. Once gravel is driven on, the water will sit there for quite awhile. Most of the water is still on the top layer of the gravel used as a driving surface. A pervious surface is good because water goes through it and is stored. Even if the gravel is sitting on top of a very slow, pervious surface, the water is stored on site. Over time, it can continue to slowly sink in. That's good for an area like Lake Whatcom because the phosphorus is removed when it goes through unsaturated soil. If the water runs off the driveway surface, it carries a lot of fine sediment with it, including phosphorus. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. There has been discussion about what is and isn't an impervious surfaces. Don't concentrate on details of credits, but look at how surfaces function to store water onsite until it has a chance to soak into the ground. Low - impact development is all about taking the water from the property and doing what is possible to keep it onsite. Focus on the high frequency /low intensity rainfalls. Traditionally, they have focused on flooding, but most rainfall comes from high frequency /low intensity storms. Everyone realizes they have to reduce pollution from existing sources from the TMDL study. Then they are going to have to monitor to make sure efforts are working. Illicit discharges could be from people washing cars and firefighters testing equipment. It's important for local jurisdictions to take a lead in setting up a program. The DOE is willing to enforce a program the County develops. A TMDL study will set the goal for how much pollution needs to be reduced. The DOE doesn't have land use authority to make changes in how the County does business. It just needs to make sure those goals are met. The DOE wants to make sure the County will come up with something that will meet those goals. For the water on the driving surface to soak in, it needs to be kept onsite. It would need something over it to keep it onsite. Fleetwood stated the question is what they would do with existing pollution from existing development. He asked what sorts of things the County might do to implement a stormwater program in an urbanized area. Hood stated he has examples from other areas. The City of Seattle has retrofitted a street that had a conventional storm drain system with a newer system. It reduced the flow from that two -block area by 98 percent. The phosphorus would be consistent with what is in the groundwater. The process of stopping the surface runoff can be very effective. Look at the houses in the Lake Whatcom watershed to see how they can get their roof drains connected into a pipe that goes into the yard for storage. Rain barrels and rain gardens are techniques to maintain that water onsite so it can go into the ground. Crawford stated that in five or ten minutes, the water has soaked in. He asked how fast it takes to rain a half inch. He's surprised it is soaking in that fast. That material is fairly pervious. Hood stated it is fairly pervious if the rainfall can be kept on the surface. He loosened it some when he dug it up with a hammer. Crawford stated they all agree gravel is difficult to regulate because it has varying levels of perviousness. It is tough to distinguish it as one or another. The question is if they can look at it a little bit more flexibly. Hood agreed that perviousness varies. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Crawford asked if DOE could do research on gravel. Hood stated that when it rains hard, a lot of water flows off the parking lot. There are a lot of product industries that research this type of thing. He can help the councilmembers find that information from the industry. Nelson stated that he pumped water for an hour on his compacted driveway as an experiment, and it took that long for anything to show up on the surface. It depends on the type of surface they are on. Gravel on clay could produce something like that eventually. They probably are going to pave it anyway. He asked if DOE would rather see a paved or a gravel driveway. Hood stated it would depend on the situation. A driveway in a location that drains well is preferable. Nelson stated they are looking at the rural areas. Five to ten acres has different runoff than an urban lot. The surrounding area absorbs the water. If they force people to have pavement, the runoff will run onto the roads, into the ditches, and into the lake. He'd much rather keep it on the land. He asked if the TMDL process would identify the illegal sources that are going into the lake, and the quantities of loads that the lake can support. Through the Clean Water Act, the understanding was that they'd go after the source pollution. He asked what they would find in the watersheds that are easily identifiable and handled non - source pollution. Grout stated the big issue in the Lake Whatcom watershed is urban stormwater runoff from roads and yards. Andrew Craig, Department of Ecology Stormwater Inspector, stated there are many ideas on what they can do. There are a lot of different ideas. A combination of different activities is key. It's better to try something than to wait for more studies. He will try and work with local governments to address all the different sources of pollution out there. The water in the jar that represents the driveway surface will run off if there is any kind of slope. The phosphorus and other nutrients will be carried with the water. A grassy area on either side of the driveway may be able to contain and bio- infiltrate the runoff. That may be what's happening at Councilmember Nelson's driveway. That's appropriate. When that type of surface is used on a slope with a clay base, the most common outcome is that it develops into a hard and packed surface, and it doesn't infiltrate. One of the things the DOE is considering doing is implementing a rain garden and infiltration basin to allow that water to infiltrate into the ground. The City of Bellingham has a demonstration rain garden in its Public Works Department building. It works fantastic. It handles the high frequency /low intensity storms they are talking about. Lot level techniques for stormwater management can include education and outreach or targeted levels. A more direct approach would be consideration of an ordinance. All those suggestions are the help he's looking for. He wants to assist the County in implementing those techniques. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Regarding monitoring, the TMDL for Lake Whatcom will use some of the same techniques as that for the Lower Nooksack River TMDL. That information is on the DOE website for review. Fleetwood asked if there are any examples of cities in the Northwest that have come up with programs to deal with urban stormwater. Craig stated the City of Portland and the City of Bellingham are two examples. Fleetwood asked where the City of Bellingham is in the process of dealing with its existing urban stormwater problems. Craig stated the City is just starting out, as they all are. Roy stated it would be appropriate to have a presentation by County staff on how all this fits together and how some of these ideas could be implemented. Some of these things could be incorporated into the educational work the County is already doing. One of the issues is how they can pull these tasks together. She asked for someone from County staff to talk about how to pull this all together at some time. She asked if the TMDL study does not include fecal coliform. Hood stated it is measured at the tributaries. They would set a maximum daily load amount for those tributaries that exceed the levels. The DOE is revising its bacteria standard. The TMDL study is likely to be done after those new criteria are set. Roy stated there is a feeling among certain people that the TMDL will be the answer. She asked if the TMDL study would address where the pollutants are coming from, the degrees, and provide proof that there is a problem. She asked if the TMDL study would be comprehensive enough in its analysis to provide a broad, yet specific, tool. Hood stated it might be. As part of the Nooksack TMDL study, they focused on the main river and identified how much pollution was coming from tributaries. The water that came out of the mouth of the river characterized the entire Fish Trap watershed. That set a goal specific to the Fish Trap watershed. They are using a similar approach for Lake Whatcom. They are looking at the tributaries coming into the lake, using those that are sufficiently important to be monitored, to characterize the land around the lake. There is a single point at the mouth of the tributaries. That is not enough detail to identify specific areas as a problem, but it is enough to say they can focus on that general area. The County is free to come up with any solution it likes. The Shellfish Protection District plan is an example of a local plan the DOE works with. Roy asked if the County gets to provide input about the data collected for the TMDL. Hood stated the DOE would set a goal by which water quality criteria will be maintained. How they go about meeting that goal is up to the local jurisdiction. Grout stated the TMDL identifies the nature and scope of the problem. Then the question is how they get to the acceptable levels. There are no standards for Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. that. The City and County have land use authority. The State does not. A lot of what can be done at Lake Whatcom is directly related to land use authority. The DOE is willing to work with the City and County, but land use falls within the County and City jurisdictions. When they are talking about development retrofitting or how development occurs, they get back to land use authority. Nelson asked if they are talking about retrofitting or undeveloped land. Grout stated they are talking about both. Retrofitting can be done under the local authority. The development code for new development can contain requirements for how they handle stormwater runoff. Nelson stated problems associated with non - source pollution are more difficult to identify and fix. The cost is horrendous. According to the Clean Water Act, it was up to the local jurisdictions to determine exactly how that would be done. Now they are saying that the DOE will find the problem, and make the County develop and pay for the standards to fix it. Grout stated there are a number of approaches to dealing with it. A big part of it is going to be through land use regulations. The question is how to deal with runoff from subdivisions and individual lots. The goal is to control as much as possible onsite so it doesn't runoff into the lake. Nelson stated future development is not causing problems. Grout stated it does if the development is not done properly. McShane stated they all should read a paper by Booth that recently came out. It talked about different approaches to minimize impacts. It's not just zoning controls, but also includes tree retention. It's a difficult thing to do right. Grout stated part of it is determining from where the costs will be paid. If a drinking water supply is badly polluted and requires increasingly expensive treatment, everyone pays for it. Generally, the cost of treating water after it is polluted is substantially more expensive than preventing the pollution in the first place. Fleetwood asked what the Council could do to get this on the County administration's radar screen. He doesn't think anyone on staff is working on a program. If they are, he'd like to see the state of the research. Craig stated he's informally talked to County staff about urban stormwater pollution sources and developing a cooperative partnership to address those sources. The process is started, but he'd like to see it continue. Roy stated the councilmembers get pieces of the information in different venues. They've had a presentation on the new requirements for stormwater. She asked if the Council could ask someone from administration to make a presentation on putting it all together. Brenner stated that retrofitting has got to be a part of the equation. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Nelson stated they all need to work together to come up with solutions to fit local communities. A lot of information is still missing. He wants accurate data first. Right now, they are in a period of data collection and information gathering. Hood stated the DOE would collect data until this fall. They will see a draft report sometime next summer. Nelson stated that by then, the Water Resources Division will have information to provide better guidance to the Council to formulate a plan to address the critical need they may or may not have. Some people assume that any type of development causes impacts. He agreed. The question is the magnitude and how it affects water quality and water treatment. Roy stated she agreed. She's not ready to write legislation, but she wants more discussion on low- impact development. They need to continue gathering information. County Staff and DOE could come back in a few months to talk about what they've been working on. Hood stated a question came up about getting started before they have all the data. They do know from studies that the highest levels of pollutants come from the streams with development. The lowest amounts of pollution come from streams that have forestry. They have a general idea of areas that need reduction. They don't know how much reduction. People are going to be anxious to know how much they can do just by public education. It's not too early to look at what they can do to change and how much difference it will make. Craig stated that on the Nooksack River TMDL, a lot of monitoring was completed. That was the driver to direct resources and effort. That is a very concrete, easy to do thing the County and City can do to implement the TMDL before it is written. When they have had monitoring out the mouth of the creek and various points upstream, they can monitor where sources of pollution are coming from, and that's where they would direct their resources. It's a great public education and outreach tool. Nelson stated the local government is always asked to provide solutions, but is not given any tools other than property tax revenue generated, which is limited. They should find ways to reward property owners through tax incentives. These are going to be costly fixes. They need tools to encourage property owners to do the right thing. Grout stated the pollution prevention programs they've implemented show that there is a large percentage of people who will do the right thing if they have the information. A lot of the things they are talking about are really not high cost items. The cumulative impact of many people doing those things is great. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Roy stated that when the property taxes go up, the value goes up and the property can sell for a lot more. McShane stated that the tax incentives would not be much different than those for open space. It's just adding another layer. Roy stated she would like to have another committee discussion with staff and Mr. Craig on their progress. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated he published a document last December about what the County has done in terms of stormwater so far. He encouraged councilmembers to look at it. They have come a long way in dealing with these things. There are many things they have done and are doing right now. Fleetwood stated he wants to see an action plan. Roll stated they have a plan that was part of the requirements for the phase II implementation, and a five - year plan regarding those regulations. Fleetwood stated there is citizens comment that this preventative stuff doesn't deal with 97 percent of the problem, which is existing urban runoff. They've got a lot of information, but it seems they are not actively implementing urban stormwater plan to the extent they can. Roll stated the ability to direct resources affects how fast they can move. The Joint Lake Whatcom group has done a fantastic job dealing with the public education piece. There are many programs that demonstrate that the County is a leader. It hasn't been packaged in terms of stormwater, but it clearly hits the major elements that are contributing to pollution in the lake. Regarding retrofitting, the County road maintenance has been very aggressive with best management practices (BMP's) in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Now, they are devoting 20 percent of a road project budget to BMP's. The question is where they get the most benefit for the money. Retrofitting is very expensive. The modeling done through WRIA Watershed Management Projects on land use is more robust than what is being done in the TMDL study. It will be of greater value in some ways to identify areas in the watershed where they want to look at retrofitting. In the absence of having it, they won't be sure if they are focusing on the right place. Chris Brueske has worked on the pavement and gravel information, and will present that information at the Planning and Development Committee meeting this afternoon. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Chris Brueske, Engineering Manager, provided a memo (on file). Under the current standards, they model runoff using the Santa Barbara urban hydrograph method, which relies on curve numbers. The Soil Conservation Service generated curve numbers many years ago. They relate rainfall to runoff for various soil types and surface types. It takes into account certain abstractions and infiltration. They are listed as A, B, and C type soils. The curve numbers don't mean much until they go into a model to see how they respond, which is what he did. He put together a model that looked at 1,000 square foot area, to approximate the area of a driveway during a six -month rainstorm and a two -year rainstorm for all the various soil types. For a six -month storm, a forest generates very little runoff volume. A gravel area generates 50 to 90 percent less runoff than pavement, depending on the soil type. He ran the same model on a one -acre site, and the proportions are very similar. He also checked it on driveway slopes of two percent and eight percent for the 1,000 square foot driveway. The numbers are identical because it is all based on a time of concentration, which is the time it takes for an entire basin to contribute at a single point, relative to the duration of a storm. Because they are dealing with such a small area, the time of concentration doesn't really have an effect. That's why the numbers for the slopes are identical. Crawford stated that contradicts what Steve Hood said. Brueske stated that it does contradict for this small area. Also consider that a driveway is much different than a larger area that has directly connected impervious areas. That's when they will start to see an impact. As the concentration drops, the infiltration potential is less. When they look at a small driveway, the effect does not show up. Nelson asked if they would see more of an effect in a parking lot. Brueske stated they would. Crawford stated parking lots don't tend to be sloped. Roy asked if they are going to discuss this issue in the Planning Committee. Brueske stated he would. This is an issue of quantity, not quality. The definition of impervious surface doesn't affect the engineering analysis of gravel. However, if they require treatment or something based on the definition of impervious, that is when defining gravel as impervious makes a difference. The difference between gravel and pavement is already captured in their analysis, regardless of how the County defines it. Brenner stated her amendment considers gravel as a low -grade pervious surface. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING A MEMORANDUM FROM BRUCE ROLL, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION MANAGER, PROVIDING BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SUDDEN VALLEY TAX TITLE LOTS AND DENSITY EFFORTS (AB2003 -244) Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated they are dealing with these tax title properties and determining the County's role. Brenner stated she understood that the properties have to go out to bid. Roll stated the County has the option to purchase them and sell them back to Sudden Valley with a covenant. These would not come up for auction. The County wants these lots out of the auction. He would like to discuss the issues today, and have more specific direction at the work session next week. Erica Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated they thought there would be an utility local improvement district (ULID) fee for the Water District 10 sewer line. However, Water District 10 didn't apply the ULID fees to these parcels. The County is interested in working with the City of Bellingham, Water District, and the Sudden Valley Community Association to pursue the option to reduce densities using these properties. There are two options for purchasing these tax title properties. (Handout on file.) Currently, there are 85 tax title properties in Sudden Valley. Members of the public have put in applications for ten of the properties to go to public auction. Those properties are in review with the Property Management Committee. She recommends looking at these tax title properties as an entire group. The first option is to put the properties up for sale at a public auction. Sudden Valley Community Association would have to put in an application for these parcels to go to public auction. There would be a $75 fee for each parcel. Anyone could bid on these parcels. The County might not be able to buy each parcel. In the past, Sudden Valley has not been willing to bid against anyone. This will reduce the County's ability to reach full density reduction. The second option is to do a negotiated sale with a public entity for a public benefit. They've talked a lot about the public benefit of reducing density in the Lake Whatcom watershed. In Sudden Valley, many of the lots are a high priority using the land preservation criteria. She's worked with Sudden Valley to identify the highest priority lots for water quality benefits. Sudden Valley has a pool of lots. If the tax title lots are not of the highest priority, there are other lots that can be substitute lots. She recommended going ahead with the negotiated sale. Whatcom County would purchase the properties using Conservation Futures funds. Now, the properties are held in trust by Whatcom County. Whatcom County would have to Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. purchase the properties, set up a joint agreement with Sudden Valley, Water District 10, and the City of Bellingham to reimburse the County for a portion of that cost and place restrictive covenants on an equal number of high priority parcels. Nelson asked if Sudden Valley Community Association agrees with either one of the proposals. Stroebel stated the Sudden Valley Community Association is interested in looking at the options. They haven't fully discussed which one. Nelson stated there is a concern that taking these lots off the tax role will reduce taxes collected for the County and will also reduce association dues for Sudden Valley. Stroebel stated there has been initial discussion. Staff wanted to bring this before the Council before proceeding with the Sudden Valley Board. At this point, they are interested in pursuing a portion of the parcels. Brenner stated she supports this project. One idea was to allow the properties to be sold to neighboring properties. They would be put back on the tax roles that way. She asked about the ten parcels that have pending applications. Barbara Cory, Treasurer, stated the public can come in at any time and look at the County's inventory list of properties, and can submit an application for the County to consider whether or not it wants to sell. Part of that consideration includes a $75 fee if the County does decide to sell. The County is not obligated to sell the property. Brenner stated the negotiated sale option is less expensive. She asked the initial cost of $75,000. Stroebel stated that to do a negotiated sale, the County would initially have to purchase all the lots. The other interested parties would reimburse the County for a portion of the costs. Crawford stated he would like to go with option two. It's a good use of the Conservation Futures fund. Nelson asked who would be responsible for the properties in option two. Stroebel stated the Sudden Valley Community Association would be, as a part of the joint agreement. They still need to work through this part of the process. Nelson stated they should solve that process first. Make sure the lots are maintained. Stroebel stated these lots would work into the larger plan for community development for the Sudden Valley Community Association. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Department Director, stated they hoped that this would be discussed further in the Water Resources work session next week. The Property Management Committee is discussing how to deal with the shift toward the acquisition of land for preservation purposes. It's not just a matter that relates to lots in Sudden Valley. It opens up issues of making change in the County in how they prioritize financial expenditures pertaining to land preservation, and how they intend to manage those lands in the future. Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Crawford stated he's never been clear on the original purpose of the Conservation Futures funds, other than to take lands out of developable status in perpetuity. Monsen stated that the Conservation Futures funds are not the only financial source being used in land acquisitions for these kinds of purposes. Roy asked if the Planning Department would be included in the discussion, specifically the new open space employee. There are many different groups in the community doing this kind of thing. Monsen stated they would be included. This is another land management tool. They need to prioritize the financial resources to make sure they are clearly dealing with priorities and also not ignoring opportunities. Fleetwood asked if the sum total of all various elements from all various joint Lake Whatcom plans constitute a full comprehensive approach. He asked if the County is already doing the things he thought the County wasn't doing. Roll stated the water resource activities have a number of purposes. They haven't packaged things together regarding stormwater or other issues. They can't look at one issue and not look at the other. They have to look at both future and current development. They have to deal with both. Both will require resources, time, and energy. It's not a simplistic answer. He's always open to discussion on how to take the programs to the next level and make them better. Roy stated the full Council will talk about this at the Water Resources work session next week. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 11:03 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 11 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 1 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Sharon Roy, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 7/8/2003, Page 12