Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session May 16 2006Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session May 16, 2006 Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner L. Ward Nelson Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Carl Weimer SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2006 -025 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated this is an update on the emergency repairs of Lummi Island dock, specifically to the hinge between the transfer span and the fixed bridge. They did an emergency repair that will last a few months. They are into a cost of about $20,000 for the temporary repair. Administration will amend the emergency declaration to retain the civil engineer to deal with the permanent repair. The repair will be to disconnect a support, raise the entire transfer span, block it, and then replace the support and bolts. While the administration will make an attempt to go through a normal bidding process, they may not be able to do the repair this fall during dry dock without the construction element also being done under an emergency. They don't have enough time to put out a bid packet, award, and approve a bid soon enough. Because of other operational issues, they need to engage contractors now to design the construction to be done during dry dock. Also, having that contact with a contractor will give that contractor an unfair advantage in the bid process. He is looking into the procedure for doing an emergency repair. Staff is within a couple of weeks of putting out bid package for electrical improvements and dolphin repair. That is done through a normal bid award process during dry dock in September. They need to talk to a contractor that can do that type of repair, which is a different type of work, who can help the County do both without getting in each other's way. Another issue is that the transfer span needs to be lifted. Pedestrian passengers can't walk onto the dry dock replacement passenger vessel while that is happening. Staff is looking into where the passenger vessel will tie up. The cost of getting around the work area, staging, and dealing with the complications with other work being proposed is close to $200,000. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are considering alternative sites. Monsen stated the challenge is that a passenger vessel must tie up on a float. They have to get people from the beach area, across the shallow underwater shelf, and onto a floating dock. That is a challenge. That's why they want to engage a contractor. Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 1 Brenner stated one association is concerned about the County using land of which they own a share. Ken Richardson, Public Works Department, stated that is on the Gooseberry side. Monsen stated the only real estate they will use is to deal with the temporary foot passenger service. They plan to amend the emergency declaration for design, to contact and negotiate with contractors for a design, and negotiate with that contractor for this one fix. Everything else is happening under the normal bid procedure. Caskey- Schreiber asked the timeframe. Monsen stated an Anacortes project took 10 days. The work itself is relatively easy. The difficult part is working on the island and dealing with the walk -on passengers while the work is going on. Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated it's a complicated contracting and purchasing procedure that is outside of what they normally do. After the Executive's Office issues the emergency, it will bring the matter to the County Council. Monsen stated any contracts associated with the transfer span that the Council will see will be information only or after the fact. 1. LETTER FROM WHATCOM LAND TRUST Bruce Roll, Public Works Department, stated the Lummi Nation developed a project in the South Fork area. The County agreed to assist the community with project support. Today, there are three projects. The first project is the Lummi project, done per the guidance of the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board grant application. The second project is to bring back the levees and create hard points where the river would be stopped before getting into the lower Hutchison Creek area. The third project is to support the community's needs at the upper stream side near the pipeline. A number of people are involved in this project, including the Parks Department, Land Trust, and others, each with various needs. Through the first phase, staff worked with the Lummi project and addressed the Parks Department and Land Trust needs. Staff has worked together with all of these partners over the last year. There was an additional project that was important to the community at the South Fork. It is not on the same timeframe. Staff asked for the Council's approval to move forward with site three a number of months ago. The upstream area is going through the cost -share program of the repair and maintenance program. The Lummi project is moving forward more aggressively at this point because it got a head start. They are also looking at site one. As the County develops site three and site one projects, they need to be consistent with land easements and conditions. Some of the Land Trust pieces are tied to creating opportunity for increasing the benefit to the resource. They are running projects through a number of filters that aren't just about flood concerns. They are also about enhancing the environment so there is a net benefit to the resource. Site one is in that realm now. It's moving forwa rd. Brenner stated she remembers asking Bruce Roll and Paula Cooper about this on several occasions. She didn't understand why there was a wait for the Land Trust. She was told that the County was working with the Land Trust. She asked why they have to wait and negotiate instead of work together along the way. The letter from the Land Trust said the Land Trust wasn't notified of the project until April 18. Roll stated the County has engaged in the Land Trust all along, especially with site three. The work on site three Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 2 hasn't been the same as the level of work on site one, because it is just coming into design. As they craft that project, they will engage the Land Trust just as the County did with site three. He knows that whatever comes out of site one has to meet the needs of the Parks Department, Land Trust, and community. Caskey- Schreiber asked whose priority is site one. Roll stated this site is very important to the community. Robert Strachila, Mosquito Lake Road, stated the community, not so much the Acme /VanZandt Flood Subzone Advisory Committee, is very concerned about this section of the river. One area identified as a potential problem is site one, which is above the City of Bellingham water pipeline. There is a post on the revetment that is weak and shows holes in the finer strata. If the river goes through that area, there is potential for a major loss of property downstream and possibly establishing new channels through old creek and river channels. At the worst, the river could end up at Van Zandt on the east side of the highway. For that to happen, it would be a major event. They would lose Mosquito Lake Road, other property, and houses. The Subzone Advisory Committee came up with this process and have been dealing with this for two and a half years. The community worked with the Tribe on its project, worked with the County on its portion of the project, and the community said it must have site one. When the Subzone Advisory Committee formalized a motion, site one was tied to the subzone and the community's approval of everything else. Today, they are moving a little farther along with site one. Rand Jack, Whatcom Land Trust, stated the letter said what they want to say. He is available to respond to questions. They have no objection to the site three project. It makes sense to see it as part of a larger project. The site three project alone does not enhance the habitat. The overall project does. Treat it all as one project. Regarding site one, the Land Trust hasn't been shown any plans. The idea of replacing the dike built in the 1960's alone will not meet the conservation easement of enhancing habitat. The Subzone Advisory Committee has expressed a concern about it. However, they need a professional assessment about the function of site one. Then, go to the next step of saying how those functions can be served, and also move to enhance habitat. To enhance habitat, they have to compare to the alternative of doing nothing. The dike was built primarily to protect the City pipeline. The City says it doesn't care about the dike any more. They need to determine the function it serves and how that function can be accomplished in a way that the net result is an improvement in habitat. If done, it must meet certain criteria. The Land Trust got involved when the Overby property was purchased by the County. The Land Trust got a private donation for the purchase of that property. The donor's primary interest was habitat protection. The easement was written for habitat protection. The interest in that habitat protection is shared by the SRF Board legally. The Land Trust looks forward to working with the County. The intent of the letter was to explain the situation clearly and the criteria that has to be met for the Land Trust to approve. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Land Trust was brought in on site three, but not site one. Jack stated they have been very involved in the Lummi project. He attended a number of meetings in the Acme community, when engineers came up with the idea of the channel plug. He was not actively involved in any discussion with the County about the extension of the plug. He didn't know until April 18 that the decision on the plug had come before the Council. The letter wasn't intended to blame anyone. It was meant to explain why the Land Trust didn't explain its position earlier. Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 3 1 2 McShane stated the Subzone Advisory Committee members were asked their number 3 one priority project. This wasn't it. The question is whether the County should spend any 4 time on this project. Whatever action takes place will require County staff time and money. 5 They are not going to pay for this. The question is should the County spend time on a 6 complicated project that has issues. It's not a high priority for the subzone. It takes away 7 staff time and money that should go to other flood projects. They have to prioritize, like 8 they do the road projects. They are getting distracted from areas where they should put 9 efforts into flood protection. The Subzone Advisory Committee said it is most concerned 10 about Acme itself. Put the effort somewhere else. This is a terrible project. He's not 11 interested in doing studies. It's not a high priority. He was on the countywide Flood Control 12 Zone District Advisory Committee for several years and still attends some meetings. Other 13 projects are a higher priority. Staff gets pushed and pulled into projects that shouldn't take 14 this much effort. He will vote against and argue about anything that comes of any 15 expenditure on this project. There needs to be broad community benefit for these projects. 16 If there isn't, the community is going to start paying this fee every year when it is spent on 17 projects that don't benefit the community as a whole. 18 19 Strachila stated this issue came to a head at a previous work session. All five 20 Subzone Advisory Committee members were present. Each was asked their own priorities. 21 That was months ago. Councilmember McShane is correct about that time. Five members 22 indicated the priority was the old recreational vehicle (RV) park area. He understands the 23 County is monitoring that area presently. Subsequent to that question when the 24 councilmembers pinned them to the wall, the community said site one is more important. 25 Distinguish between the community and the Subzone Advisory Committee. They are two 26 different entities. The consensus of the community at that time was that they were being 27 forced to choose certain projects because of goodwill. The community felt 'a little bit 28 pressured because, if they did not approve, then there was a loss of goodwill throughout the 29 County on a number of other projects unrelated to river and flood, such as education and 30 law enforcement.. Enough pressure was put on the Subzone Advisory Committee members 31 and the community. The Subzone Advisory Committee has tried to represent the 32 community. At times, he has taken his feelings and opinions and put them aside and went 33 with what the community felt. Sometimes he went with what the County felt. When he was 34 put on the spot here about his priority, his top priority was Acme. Personally, his top 35 priority was site one. The Subzone Advisory Committee went with the community's 36 consensus, which is why site one is tied to site three and the Tribal project. 37 38 Weimer asked if site one is protecting land or houses and barns. Strachila stated it 39 depends on which channel the water would go in. There are channels all over that area. 40 One possibility is the channel coming into the current flow pattern of Hutchison Creek. 41 Fisheries is highly concerned about that. It has prime steelhead spawning. If the river goes 42 into that channel, they will lose spawning ground. In terms of property, there is a lot of 43 land including County parks, homes, big farms, and a County road. There are many 44 possibilities about what could happen. The community is basing their opinions on 45 experience on the river. They have been there for years and know what the river can do. 46 47 Caskey- Schreiber asked about the legality of the Council doing something on land it 48 may not own. Roll stated it has to be worked out. At this point, surveyors feel it is a part 49 of County lands. That will need to get ironed out before they do the project. At this point, 50 they haven't invested resources or the financial capacity to do the survey that needs to 51 happen. 52 Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 4 Caskey- Schreiber asked if staff will bring expenditures forward for site three and site one separately. Roll stated site one is part of the repair and maintenance program. Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated the next supplemental budget before the Council includes all of the 2006 plan for the repair and maintenance program, which includes sites one and three and other areas. Caskey- Schreiber asked if legality questions will be answered by then. Roll stated they will not. Cooper stated it may take a judge to decide who owns it. Jack stated his concern is that the project does not get too far down the road that it becomes contentious. It is difficult to do much budgeting when they don't know what the project looks like. There is a question that has to be answered, which is what this project is to accomplish and protect. If the Council makes a decision to spend the money to protect whatever it protects, then they will have to look at alternative ways to protect habitat, because building the dike doesn't enhance the resource. They are a long way away from the decision of the cost. Get these things resolved early. Weimer asked how sites one and three are tied together. Roll stated it depends on who they ask that question of. There are different opinions. The County staff always looked at the Lummi project in terms of mitigating the concerns of the community and enhancing the project to go forward. Site one is supported by a number of people, and they feel the two sites are connected. The two sites are not tied financially to grant money. Brenner asked if the Land Trust would not support the site one project if the Council decides to move ahead with working out what the County needs to do with site one. Jack stated that if the County can design something to satisfy concerns and also enhance habitat over and above doing nothing, which is the slow deterioration of the dike, then it's fine. Don't get too far ahead with a project that does not enhance habitat. Sites one and three are not tied together by geography or hydrology. They can be, done separately. People may want to tie them together because they can piggy back politically. Brenner asked if site one has spawning ground that can be destroyed if they don't do something. Jack stated design the project so it enhances that spawning ground. This dike didn't exist prior to the 1960's. Fish were doing a lot better then. There may be advantages in doing that project, but someone must come up with persuasive assessment. Brenner asked about it taking out the County road. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated it is possible that Mosquito Lake Road is in the flow path along the toe of the hill. There are many possibilities, and the damage and risk depend on the event or series of events. No one can say whether it is a high or a low risk. For many projects, there is a reason there is rock in those projects today. Many projects are repair and maintenance because there is a reason to put in the structures at one point in time. With a lot of work along the right bank, there is a historic risk to Mosquito Lake Road. He's nervous about abandoning all the rock work in the canyon for many reasons. That doesn't mean they shouldn't look at alternatives for salmon enhancement at the same time. A fair amount of the early debate dealt with how big of a salmon recovery project they can get the SRF Board to assist with as they move farther upstream and into this area Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 5 The scale of salmon enhancement through this entire reach is too big. Site one deals with issues and interests, of the community. It is not meant to be an enhancement project at this point. The project is meant to be mitigation, repair, and maintenance. If it needs to move toward an enhancement project, then it will be a very different timeline and scale. Brenner stated the subzone deals with both enhancement and flood issues. Monsen stated the primary purpose of the subzone is repair and maintenance, with salmon and shoreline mitigation being considered because it is the right thing to do. However, the subzone purpose is not salmon recovery in the South Fork. McShane stated all the South Fork Valley is in risk in perpetuity. The river could move anywhere in that valley. If it were to take out Mosquito Lake Road, it would be the least of their worries. There would be more to worry about because it would be a major event. It will be a big event that is bad. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) McShane continued to state that certain groups in the community come forward with worries. It's easy to say they will look into it. However, the County forgets its priorities. At some point, the County has to say no or it will have to say yes to everyone and do a slower job on issues of greater importance. The County does that with the road fund, too. He's comfortable now saying they won't spend any time on this. They don't need to study everything. Look at the priorities and decide if this is a priority issue. In his opinion, it isn't. This is a complicated land use issue. If there must be mitigation, they have to ask if this is an appropriate use of mitigation money. It's a dike. In the end, the bill will be gargantuan. They have to say no at a certain point. lack stated that if they decide to go ahead with it, the County will ultimately have to form a partnership with the Land Trust and Lummi Tribe, apply for SRF Board money, and make a joint flood control and enhancement project. That project will be very expensive. The County will have to spend flood control money on salmon enhancement. If the Council can get past Councilmember McShane's concerns, the project will have to include both funds and interests of salmon habitat. Strachila stated that if this project is postponed, the County will lose the support of the community for other projects in the area. He is not sure the Council wants to do that. They need to compromise on this situation. The Subzone Advisory Committee may withdraw its support and the community may withdraw its support for the Tribe's project. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can see the results of the Tribe's project before deciding whether this is the County's jurisdiction. Roll stated the County has no control over the Tribe's project. It is moving forward on its own timeframe. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can wait on site one until they know its truly needed. Roll stated the Tribe's project is downstream of site one. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the reason for site one is to mitigate effects of the Tribe's project. Monsen stated that is one perspective. McShane stated the Council authorized the expenditure of $265,000 for site three. That was to alleviate the concerns of the community. Now, the community is not happy with that level of alleviation. The Council is told the community wants more. The Council can give them more, or say no and move to the next project. Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 6 Brenner stated she's not hearing that from Mr. Strachila. She hears there is an actual concern for safety and property. Get this before the Subzone Advisory Committee and community, and listen to what the people have to say. The Lummi project that is going forward won't necessarily harm site one. They are both important projects. She's not ready to say no. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a ten - minute break.) 2. STORMWATER Geneva Area Improvements and Watershed - Friendly Gardenina Update Bruce Roll, Public Works Department, stated there are a number of drainages around the Lake Whatcom watershed. They will look at the issue of improvements in terms of the comprehensive management actions, how to measure the success of the management actions, and the kinds of pollution that the actions control. As this project goes forward, they will go through the suite of actions, look for gaps in the suite, and determine the priority pollutants and how to deal with those priority pollutants. They will continue to refine the prescriptions as the projects moves forward. Two elements are moving forward. One is the retrofit project in Geneva. This is not a total solution, but will contribute a portion to the accomplishments the County wants to achieve in Geneva. The second element is measuring the success of the educational programs. Brenner asked if there is any push in the direction of having individual property owners do individual retrofits. Roll stated they will get there. That's not in today's focus of discussion. Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated staff is working on four aspects of the Geneva area: the Cable Street reconstruction, the Geneva retrofits, the traffic study, and Lake Friendly Gardening. He would talk about the Geneva retrofits. CH2M Hill did study a year ago to look at options for stormwater treatment. They looked at four methods of low impact development, which are swales, rain gardens, treatment vaults, and catch basin inserts. They came up with swales as the best option for treatment in terms of cost and maintenance. Caskey- Schreiber stated Robin Matthews also says that swales are the best treatment option for stormwater. Brenner asked the kind of swales. Christensen stated there are rain gardens and bio- infiltration swales. It depends on the amount of attenuation time. They are grass swales with certain plants in them. Roll stated the water would go through the biologically active portions of the soil. That's where they will get the reduction and sediment issues. A pipe collects water as it goes through. Fleetwood asked the difference between a rain garden and a swale. Christensen stated the water flows over the swale. Water infiltrates a rain garden. Both have overflow. They are very similar, but different based on the amount of time the water is in the system. Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 7 The watershed was modeled using the CH2M Hill Low Impact Feasibility Evaluation (LIFE) model. It sorts out the various alternatives. The result was to use swales and filter vaults. Wilson Engineering helped him fine -tune the design. They designed the swales to have 18 to 24 inches of amended soil over rock, with a pipe. The water infiltrates the ground and goes into the pipe. When the water gets to the pipe, it will be cleaned. Caskey- Schreiber stated Robin Matthews says there is not a system to remove phosphorus from stormwater. Christensen stated he has data that says otherwise. They've talked to Gary Minton and looked at extensive data from CH2M Hill and Wilson Engineering. They don't necessarily agree with Dr. Matthews conclusions on phosphorus. Roll stated there are two forms of phosphorus. One form is total phosphorus. It is organic. It does not represent immediately available orthophosphate, which is there for incorporation into the biological growth. This design does two functions. It traps the total phosphorus with associated particulates. Upon entrapment in this system, there is some level of cycling of phosphorus in the biologically active portion of the soils. They are most concerned about ortho, which is the reactive form of phosphorus, getting into the lake. The most biologically smart system is to bring the ortho in proximity to the biota that can break it or tie it up in a form that doesn't allow it to be sent into the lake. Dr. Matthews is right in that even these state -of- the -art systems can only remove a percentage, not all. Also, it depends on the type of event and how much water is going through the system. It's very complicated. There is some disparity of how Dr. Matthews might view it versus how others view it. The County is viewing it as the likelihood of capturing water falling down throughout an entire a water year. Depending on how its measured and the type of event, there can be many different answers. A very high flow event that exceeds the system capacity may not show as much of a reduction as lower flow events that are allowed to infiltrate more. Depending on how efficiency is measured over time, interpretations of effectiveness are very different. Christensen stated they developed a system of swales and vaults. Most areas are treated by swales. Stuff not entering in swales will go into the vault. Swale overflow will go through the vaults. Also, there are diversions at certain intersections to use the natural systems instead of going straight down Cable Street. Roll stated redundancy is built into the system. McShane stated the design is to slow the water down and try to infiltrate as much as possible by pulling out whatever phosphorus and other debris they can from the road. Christensen stated that is correct. The design will only treat the smaller storms, which is documented to have the bad stuff. The higher flows will bypass the system and go directly into the lake. Generally, the bad stuff is washed into the lake by the smaller events. Roll stated they are measuring over a period of time. Throughout the course of the year, they look at the events that are most likely to have the most impact. Christensen stated the events with the most impact are the smaller events after dry periods. Those are the events they want to treat. Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 8 Caskey- Schreiber stated the City of Bellingham vaults are not working. Christensen stated he doesn't agree with Dr. Matthews' data and the way it is collected. There is other documented information from Gary Minton and other folks from around the country who have looked into this extensively. He is recommending the same type of vaults for several reasons. One reason is that they can change the filtering material as technology develops. Caskey- Schreiber stated Dr. Matthews says her data shows there is absolutely no difference in the results from the vaults. Christensen stated he will have to spend more time looking at her data. Their data says that's not the case. Dr. Gary Minton knows the issues better and has dealt with this more in his career. Sue Blake, Public Works Department, stated it is not easy to set up a monitoring program for the system. That's why there is a number of questions about the data. A component of the Herrera contract is to develop a monitoring program for this system, which is critical for saying whether the system works. Staff is getting additional people to help them do just that. Fleetwood asked how to do adaptive management once this system is built. Roll stated the vault system can be modified by changing the materials that the water passes through. Many people are developing cartridge systems as filters. An advantage of the vault system is that it can change the medium that is being used to treat water. If the perlite system isn't effective, then they can measure the filter in one vault against another. McShane stated one issue is whether the lake system can remain oxygenated. Christensen stated the design is to replace the filter medium in the vaults every year. Roll stated the design is to keep the water flowing and infiltrating at a rate so there is not standing water in the system. Therefore, there shouldn't be a lot of anaerobic activity. There water only infiltrates 18 inches. Christensen stated the vaults are pumped out and drained every year. There may be a small amount of water, but it would dry up. McShane stated that has been one of the problems with these concrete drains. Roll stated that is a good point. It is something to consider with the vault system. McShane stated another question may be the consideration of oxygen release compounds (inaudible). Fleetwood asked the cost and where the money comes from. Christensen stated the cost estimate is $700,000. Roll stated that estimate is this year's work. It is not the Cable Street work. Christensen stated that is the estimate for three vaults and all the swales. They have money for that and the Cable Street construction. The Cable Street project will include rebuilding the street with sidewalks and bike lands, and putting in one more vault. They are also doing the traffic study of Lake Whatcom Boulevard. Kurt Baumgarten, Planning and Development Services, stated the Public Works Department had expressed concerns about long term maintenance of the facilities for a low- Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 9 1 impact development. This is a low- impact technique. The department had concerns about 2 retraining maintenance crews. 3 4 Christensen stated Joe Rutan knows this is coming up and is the way they must do 5 business. 6 7 Roll stated that as these places develop, the annual maintenance program of the 8 Maintenance and Operations (M &O) Division must consider its capacity for doing both chip 9 seal and stormwater facilities. In terms of funding, this can be considered a road fund 10 expenditure because of the proximity to road right -of -way. However, it doesn't deal with 11 long -term maintenance. They will have to figure out how to pay for monitoring and 12 maintenance. 13 14 Brenner asked if they can change the filter medium more often than annually if there 15 are problems. Christensen stated they would test the media for problems. 16 17 Fleetwood asked if they can predict the percentage this area is of entire urbanized 18 area of the lake. Christensen stated he hasn't calculated that percentage. They are 19 treating about 120 acres of urban area with this part of the project. He can figure that out. 20 21 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is skeptical of the vault system until she gets more 22 information. 23 24 McShane stated the design seems to try and capture as much with bioswales as 25 possible in an already -built environment. Christensen stated that is correct, without buying 26 property. They are working in the right -of -way. 27 28 McShane stated that even if they buy property, there has to be some sort of vault 29 system. Something needs to be at the end of each line, no matter how well it works. 30 Ideally, as technology advances, they can change how the vaults are operated so they work 31 better. 32 33 Roll stated they are only going to get so much reduction. The Council may want to 34 beef up other areas of land regulation if they don't feel this is enough. There is always 35 room to increase regulation. 36 37 Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't know if she is comfortable approving something 38 that they've heard doesn't work. Maybe they should spend more so they don't have to go 39 back and do it right. Roll stated allow the merits of science to be gauged against peers in 40 the field to come up with the one scientific response that is applicable to the situation. 41 Ideally, they would get Dr. Minton, Dr. Matthews, and others together with the conditions to 42 come up with the best solution. That is a different task and different answer than 43 evaluating the ideal world, with nothing built and lots of land and space. Keep the 44 discussion in the realm of the built world, which limits their ability to do everything they'd 45 like to do. They can't increase the amount of removal without ultimately condemning a 46 number of properties. 47 48 Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't want to give people the illusion that this is 49 solving the problem. 50 51 Brenner stated no one is under the delusion that the County will make it perfect. 52 Each little thing the County can do will make the situation better than it was. 53 Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 10 Weimer asked if there are four main outflows. Christensen stated there are. He indicated the location of the vaults on the map. Weimer asked if those outflow areas are in the same areas where they've done sampling. Christensen stated they are doing some re- routing. It's hard to compare before and after. They will be able to do some comparable sampling in and out of the swale and in and out of the vault. That is the monitoring program. Roll stated a key point is that the monitoring strategy is tailored to determine effectiveness. The monitoring strategy done the last many years hasn't been tailored to measure this. It has been tailored to measure what is happening in the lake and how the lake is responding. Another monitoring program is being prepared to look intensively at loads coming in the entire drainage system. That is another data gap. The monitoring systems have looked more at the loads coming in from a particular drainage at a particular point of time. Christensen stated they will go out for bid late next week. There is a public meeting next week to explain this to everyone. They hope to start construction in July. He met with several citizens who are impacted. Some are fine with the project, and some don't like it. Weimer asked if there is a way to work with neighbors to install plants that might help infiltration. It turns out, hostas work well in bog filters. Find a way to get the homeowners to maintain. Brenner stated rain gardens are efficient, if they can get people to maintain their own rain gardens. Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is coming forward for budget approval. Christensen stated it will when there is a construction contract, around the, end of next month. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to have the Joint Lake Management Committee meeting before the Council approves this contract. Christensen stated the purpose of the public meeting is to get input on Cable Street, the traffic study, and to educate people on the Lake Friendly Gardening education. Scarlet Tang, Public Works Department, stated the purpose of this update is to talk about last fall's survey. They surveyed residents' knowledge, attitudes, and practices on gardening and water quality. She reviewed the results of the survey in the Council packet. People in the community value the lakes. They know it's something they need to protect. There is basic knowledge about the pollutants affecting the lake. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Tang continued to state that they also found that the actual practices of the residents don't always reflect their beliefs. It's trickier to find out why they don't do what they say is important. If they explain to people what to do and why, it would be easier to put those practices into place. Brenner stated they needed a stronger word than "could" harm the lake. Tang stated there is a disparity between the beliefs and practices regarding phosphorus -free fertilizer results. She continued to review the survey results. Surface Water Work Session, S/16/2006, Page 11 Caskey- Schreiber asked if part of the problem is that people don't realize they are in the watershed. Tang stated that is one problem. Brenner asked if more people would have admitted they were using phosphorus fertilizer if they were assured of their anonymity in the survey. Tang stated studies have shown that people will respond differently depending on who is doing the survey. Caskey- Schreiber stated the survey results show that a high percentage of people are inclined to read a brochure to get their education. Tang stated staff will include written materials in any workshops or public meetings. Brenner stated existing homes and businesses are left out of the list of pollution sources. Weimer asked if there is a differences between Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish responses. Tang stated there is not enough of a difference to be statistically valid as a group. The consultant didn't find a huge variation. Weimer asked if they looked at previous surveys. Tang stated they didn't, but she has the surveys and can look for differences. Brenner asked if there are brochures and pamphlets at nurseries. Tang stated there are. McShane stated the weed management statistic may be a result of a broad national education they should be worried about applying pesticides and herbicides. He was impressed at how few people are using weed killer. The bigger concern on the lake is phosphorus and more fertilizer use. The concept that phosphorus is the bigger threat to the lake is not as well -known in society as weed education. Tang stated pesticides are designed to kill things, and fertilizers are designed to help things grow, so there is an attitude difference between the two that must be overcome. Also, weed management answers may be skewed because of the way the question was formed. They will want to alter that question to make the answer more responsive. Brenner stated some respondents are probably trying to please when answering the survey. It's obvious how they want people to answer. She doesn't know how to solve that issue. She suggested a mass mailing survey, with anonymous drop off locations for the results. People will be more honest because it's more anonymous. Also, most survey's are not asking if the people are doing something wrong. They normally just ask opinions. Tang stated there is money to reprint the Lake Friendly Gardening kits and mail them to everyone in the watersheds. They could include a questionnaire and see how different the answers are. Caskey- Schreiber asked if nurseries in the watershed areas carry the phosphorus - free fertilizers. Tang stated staff approached retailers to carry the fertilizer when it first came out. Local retailers carry it, but the big box stores, such as Lowe's, declined. Sue Blake, Public Works Department, stated there was a lot of public outreach after the lawn fertilizer ban. The City of Bellingham did a lot of work with the stores to make sure alternatives were available. The situation is better than it was when they first came out with the phosphorus -free Lake Whatcom fertilizer. Many stores agreed to put out information about it. Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 12 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 Brenner stated Scarlet Tang made a presentation to the Master Gardener's class. She does a great presentation. Tang stated they are working on a demonstration landscape at Bloedel Donovan park. There is a workshop on May 24tH ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on June 6 2006. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON J i Laurie Caskey -S reiber, Council Chair Surface Water Work Session, 5/16/2006, Page 13