HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works June 15 19991
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
June 15, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Member L. Ward
Nelson in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Tom Brown
OMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CHEMICALS IN THE
COUNTY ROADSIDE PROGRAM (AB99 -202)
Nelson stated that this was a concern brought forward by a citizen.
Dick Prieve, Public Works Maintenance and Operations (M &O) Manager,
stated that he responded to the citizen, Don Paladin, when he received information
from the Ombudsman in Olympia. At that time, he did everything he could to help
the gentleman. There are people with serious chemical sensitivities. As it turns
out, he lives in the City of Bellingham, where the County doesn't have any control.
In the County, there is an owner - maintained roadside vegetation control program.
The County tries to honor that program. Also, the County only uses State
Department of Ecology (DOE) and federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
approved chemicals, which go through a thorough testing program.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner arrived and assumed the duties of the Chair.)
Brenner questioned whether Prieve has talked to the City of Bellingham
about their roadside programs. Prieve responded that he talked to Gary Almey,
with the City. The final decision has not been made. There was one public meeting
at City Hall. There were about 40 people who testified at that meeting, the
majority of who were against spraying.
Brenner stated that she believed the City had some alternatives in mind.
She questioned who in the City is responsible.
Nelson asked why the County Public Works is dealing with this issue.
Brenner responded that the committee is discussing it because it is a Public
Works issue, and she has received a number of complaints. Paladin drives around
the County. He doesn't just stay in the City. He and other residents have
complained about roadside chemicals. She asked about County alternatives.
Public Works Committee, 6/15/99, 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
47
48
Prieve stated that other alternatives include hot water treatment, which
doesn't kill the vegetation. They have experimented with some alternatives, but
they haven't taken care of the problem.
Brenner suggested an organic approach, which she read about in an article,
by seeding roadside areas with a genetically altered grass that would take over the
weeds.
Brown stated that the 1998 annual report has been specific. The County has
bent over backwards with their no -spray programs, to the point of jeopardizing the
system. The portion of the County that needs to be weed -free maintenance is the
portion alongside the pavement that allows drainage. Water is the cause of serious
degradation of the entire system. Different grasses will grow a root mass and will
break up the pavement, and cause serious degradation. The object of the spray
program was not to control weeds, but to protect the water and the road base. A
lot of these alternatives don't work.
Brenner stated that the grass she read about does not move out beyond its
area.
Brown stated that it grows roots that capture the water and holds it in the
road base, which leads to deterioration and potholes. If it grows above the edge of
the road, then it will soon pond water on the edge of the road, which creates a
hazard when it freezes and promotes vegetation growth through the pavement.
Brenner stated that it is a new type of grass that is a new hybrid. It is thick
and stays in place, but also is not aggressive and intrusive. If it does what it
claims, then it might do what is needed without causing harm.
Nelson questioned whether the two pesticides are the only thing the County
uses. Prieve stated that the County use 10 different chemicals, but 80% of the
chemicals that they use is Roundup. Roundup without the surfactant can be used
in the water.
Nelson stated that salt is more toxic than this chemical. People with
sensitivity could be experiencing farmer's chemicals or chemicals from other
sources. Any individual can be sensitive. However, he questioned whether the
solution to the concern would be cost - effective. He questioned why they would
change a whole program that is not hazardous and has been proven effective in
preventing damage to the roadways to look at a new program implementing
grasses.
Brenner stated that she was concerned that this stuff is not staying where it
is supposed to stay. She assumed the sprays have a short life, but learned that
some of them stay active for a long time.
Prieve showed photos of the application areas.
Public Works Committee, 6/15/99, 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
47
48
Brenner stated that she would like to learn more about Roundup. She asked
how long the chemical ingredients are active and what chemicals are going into the
creeks. She was concerned that continued roadside spraying would build up into
the creeks.
Brown stated that glysophate doesn't last in the soil. 14 days is the life.
There is a microbe that eats it and lives off it. The more it is used, the lower the
life span. It is certified for use in fish - bearing streams. The product Rodeo is the
glysophate without the surfactant, which is the harmful ingredient.
Brenner stated that the airport just found out that a carrier chemical in a de-
icer was causing problems in the creeks around the airport. That chemical was not
required to be identified. If there are ways to explore alternatives, then they
should be exploring them. She is sensitive to people who have health problems,
which has been increasing. There is a cumulative effect. She would like to find a
way to do less spraying. If there are any new ideas, then she would like to hear
them.
Hoag questioned the report Brown displayed. He stated that it is the 1998
annual report that is put out every year by the County weed people in the Public
Works road program. It tells what they are doing, what they are using, where they
are using, and many other things. A lot of work is put into it.
Hoag questioned whether they apply Rodeo or Roundup on the ditches.
Prieve state that they apply Roundup.
Hoag stated that Roundup can travel far if it is misapplied. Prieve stated that
applicators are licensed. They don't spray in the rain or wind. They watch the
temperature and the forecast very closely. They put on the minimum amount.
Hoag stated she was concerned about it ending up in the grass and water.
The studies that were done when the chemical was approved many years ago
indicated that it would not travel in the ground water, but it does. It makes sense
to be more cautious. She agreed that hot water is not viable. She questioned inert
ingredients and whether the County has been using the brand or generic version.
Prieve stated that they use the brand name version. He will provide information on
the inert ingredients.
Hoag stated that the Toxic's Coalition presented information on bio-
cumulative effects and questioned whether Roundup has bio- cumulative effects.
Prieve stated that they do not.
Hoag questioned what else the County uses. Prieve listed a number of
chemicals.
Hoag asked about other alternatives. Prieve stated that the Noxious Weed
Program uses imported bugs, which seems to be working. They are always looking
for other alternatives.
Public Works Committee, 6/15/99, 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
Hoag asked about the scraping done along the side of the road. Prieve
stated that if they don't control the sod buildup through a spraying program, then
the sod builds up and traps water. It is hazardous in the winter when it freezes and
also when there is water in the summer, which causes hydroplaning.
Hoag asked why they spray if they also scrape. Prieve stated that the
County is confined to a very small area of spraying. The rest of the shoulder builds
the sod up. Every four years, they plow the material onto the roadway, and then a
machine picks it up.
Hoag asked why they spray if they can scrape it away. Prieve stated that the
shoulder maintenance that they do keeps the water off of the roadway. If they
didn't spray, then the sod would build up to the edge and they would have to do a
lot more shoulder picking, which is more expensive.
Brown stated that they would have to maintain a lot more people and
equipment to grade it every year. It is very expensive, which is why the County
went away from doing it that way. The County is doing an excellent program,
which is maintaining a one -foot strip to get the invasion out of the roadway. Every
four years they pull the build -up off the road.
Hoag questioned whether only scraping would keep the water off the road.
Prieve stated that they could, but they would be working year around.
Hoag asked about other alternatives. Prieve mentioned Brenner's grass,
which is more for erosion control. The County uses a mix of seed currently. It
develops a good root system and it doesn't have to be mowed. There are not any
other alternatives that he is aware of. They look at trade magazines, attend shows,
and gather other information, so they are always on top of the most current
developments.
Brenner stated that she wanted to explore the education of the property
owners along the roads. Most people don't understand what roadside vegetation
means. She suggested an educational packet explaining to people that, if they
maintain the road, they can take care of it themselves without using any chemicals.
Prieve stated that there are 53 people registered in the program, but more are in
the no -spray zone. Prior to spraying, the County would post a notice on the road
two weeks before.
Brenner asked how many roads are sprayed.
Brown stated that they don't spray in the Lake Whatcom Watershed.
Prieve estimated that there are about 500 miles of roads are sprayed, which
is half of the roads in the County.
Public Works Committee, 6/15/99, 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
48
Brenner asked if they could tie this into the recycling program, which could
include the information in their education. Prieve stated that they are developing a
brochure. The County spray program is so successful that people don't have a
problem with the County's spray program.
Brenner stated that she received complaints. She wanted to see if the
County can do a more aggressive outreach to property owners whose property
abuts the roads in the spray areas. She questioned whether keeping it mowed
down would solve the problem. Prieve stated that the sod still builds up.
Brenner asked if there was a way for a person to do their own edging. Prieve
stated that he would put together an informational packet.
Brown stated that the more mowing that the County requires people to do,
the more the County is going to require other activities, such as blading. If the
blading doesn't get done, the road base deteriorates, more gravel has to be hauled
in, and more petroleum products are used to rebuild and maintain the roads. He
had a program that the owners had to maintain the first foot as grass -free. Even
mowing activity doesn't prevent the build up of water, which creates a liability.
Brenner asked if the property owners could do the blading.
Brown stated that having the owners work right along the roadway is an
issue of liability.
Nelson asked who is responsible is if the water builds up and someone has an
accident. The County is still liable.
Prieve stated that they have never encouraged a property owner to do
edging on their own.
Brenner stated that her concern was about what else, besides the dirt, is
going in the creeks.
Nelson stated that he received calls of complaints that there is not a spray
program in the Lake Whatcom watershed. There is vegetation encroaching in the
roadway. He questioned whether there is a mechanism to get rid of those. Prieve
stated that they do mow down the blackberries. They still do edging. They mow
the shoulders four or five times in summer. Regarding the long -arm program, they
were trying for once every 24 months, but it has been more like once every 30
months. They are even hiring an outside contractor to help, because they don't
have enough staff.
Brenner questioned whether RESources has ever been approached on
keeping the roadside vegetation down. Prieve stated that he didn't think so.
Brenner questioned whether the long -arm is adjustable. Prieve stated that
she is talking about a shoulder mower, which can mow steep slopes.
Public Works Committee, 6/15/99, 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
47
Brenner stated that she would like to see the County testing more and
different alternatives. There are toxic ingredients in the carrier ingredients. The
breakdown period is a lot longer than he had assumed.
Hoag stated that the break down time is between 1 and 174 days.
Brown stated that it depends on the micro - organisms in the soil.
Hoag asked whether the notices list the herbicides. Prieve stated that they
.•
Hoag also asked about the other chemicals. Prieve stated that they only use
chemicals approved by DOE or EPA, which go through an 8 - 10 year testing
program. He would provide information on each chemical from the manufacturer.
Brenner asked for more specific information on the Roundup. Also, Mr.
Palladin is prevented from going to places in the County because of his chemical
sensitivities.
Prieve stated that if they stopped spraying, the sensitive people would not
notice a difference because it is an approved chemical that people apply.
Brown stated that he also has sensitivity to certain chemicals. They should
always look at what is used and the alternatives. He spent many years studying
this issue. He felt the County is doing a good program, and knew the
administration is always looking for alternatives. He was critical that the County
would spend money beyond what is necessary to do things. He commended Prieve
for the work that they do.
Brenner stated that Brown does have some understanding of the issue, but
she has been getting complaints regularly about this issue.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 1, side A.)
Brenner continued to state that, without a presentation and feed back, she
would not have any of this information. Anytime the County can explore
alternatives that appear to be less toxic, then she would like to see that done.
Hoag stated that the half -life was 1 - 174 days. She read other statistics of
the chemical into the record. She commented that Public Works is doing a good
job. Having Prieve answer questions is to help the committee find out answers
about what the County is doing.
Prieve stated that, with the Endangered Species Act, they are always looking
at alternatives.
Public Works Committee, 6/15/99, 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
46
Brenner questioned whether there may be a change in the spray program
due to ESA. Prieve stated that they are very cognizant of going into the salmon
streams. They sand the bridges in the winter, which has some salt in it. Therefore,
they sweep it up and clean it up when they are done. Their methods of operation
will be changed to keep silts and salts out of the streams.
Brenner questioned whether there are any changes to spraying patterns.
Prieve stated that there is not. Neither Washington nor Oregon 4(d) rules have
such regulations.
Nelson stated that they have had these discussions with Public Works before.
They can't make everyone happy all the time. Nelson stated that it is either a
chemical society or a disease society.
Brenner stated that there should be a way to balance the two. Also, it has
been a number of years since they have had this discussion.
Brown asked Prieve to explain the weed conferences. Prieve stated that they
used to do one locally. There is also one in Skagit County, and the annual
conference in Yakima. Someone from the County Public Works Division attends
every year.
Brown stated that they qualify for certification credits. They are usually
sponsored by Washington State University and are in a classroom setting. Any
technique that is used or developed will be presented there first. As long as the
people are active at those functions, they will be aware of that information.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:33 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works Committee, 6/15/99, Page 7