Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 17
03/10/2015 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB53 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 53-USE OF PESTICIDES AND BROADCAST CHEMICALS
1:07:49 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 53, "An Act relating to the application of
pesticides and broadcast chemicals in certain public places near
fish habitat or water used for human consumption and on state-
owned land, land leased by or to the state, state highways, and
state-owned rights-of- way."
1:08:34 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked to recognize a group of students that will
be participating via teleconference from Hollis School on Prince
of Wales Island, including high school students Clayton Music
and Joshua Smith, and at the intermediate school level students
Benjermin Moots and Myles Starkweather and at the primary school
level, students CJ Vasquez, Cloe Vasquez, Kolton Joseph Tipton,
Jose Vasquez, Isaac Starkweather and Tyler Musser.
1:09:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that HB 53 speaks to the application of
pesticides, specifically the application of pesticides around
bodies of water and the public process and public noticing
associated with the application of pesticides. This bill speaks
to a broad concern from north to south in the panhandle region,
he relayed, noting the Southeast Conference of Mayors has passed
a resolution and all communities have taken a strong stand in
expressing interest and concern on the current regulations
associated with the application of pesticides as well as the
public process associated with pesticides.
1:10:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said this bill speaks to those
aspects of regulation; however, he basically would like the
public to have their say. He offered his belief there are
several years' worth of public sentiment that has not really had
an outlet and it is important for people to have an opportunity
to speak. He viewed this bill as a medium to allow people an
opportunity to testify. He thanked the Co-Chairs for allowing
this to happen.
1:11:26 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked the sponsor to provide more information
about the bill.
1:11:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS highlighted the two main
provisions in the bill. First, if this bill passed it would
require public notice in conspicuous areas to inform the public
when pesticides will be applied in public rights-of-way. It
would also allow the public an opportunity to comment on the
application of pesticides in public rights-of-way. Secondly, a
portion of the bill speaks to protections around water sources,
specifically, requiring the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) to make a finding of no harm if pesticides
will be applied within 150 feet of a salmon stream and 600 feet
of a drinking water source. This primarily relates to
glyphosate, the most commonly used pesticide, which has been
found to be safe on land but is not as safe in an aquatic
context. He stated that this bill is intended to create some
reasonable protections around water sources.
1:13:08 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER acknowledged that this has been an issue that
has continued to build. He asked whether there are any specific
incidents that have occurred.
1:13:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that there was a
regulatory change a few years ago that took away some public
process provisions. The Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) specifically announced its plans to apply
pesticides along public rights-of-way on Prince of Wales Island
in Southeast Alaska, which is an island that he and
Representative Ortiz represent. He said substantial concern
arose after DOT&PF's announcement. Since the regulation changes
related to public process were in effect, a crescendo of public
concern occurred and DOT&PF postponed its plan to apply
pesticides. To his knowledge pesticides have not been applied
in a broad manner since the regulations were changed; however,
many people live off the land by hunting, fishing, and picking
berries. At the very least residents want to know where
pesticides have been applied so they can make informed decisions
on subsistence harvests. In addition, having reasonable
protections seems appropriate, he said.
1:15:05 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES said she reviewed the current statutes adopted
in 2013 and it appears as though notices must be posted
regarding where pesticides will be applied. She asked for
further clarification on whether the current regulations require
advance notice of pesticide application, as well as posting
signs or notices in media outlets during the application period.
1:15:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered yes; that is correct. He
related a scenario in which DOT&PF announced its plans to apply
pesticides on Prince of Wales Island and posted a notice in the
Ketchikan Daily News, which was published a month prior to the
DOT&PF's plan. This caught peoples' attention and the public
strongly reacted so the application never occurred. However,
the absence of a public comment period and a means to formally
and officially express their concern has been upsetting to
people. This bill attempts to hone in on the public
participation aspect.
1:16:55 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether other states allow for that public
comment. She observed one opposition letter charged that
Alaska's process was more onerous.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that the state
historically has had a steady climate of regulations surrounding
pesticides; however, changes in the last few years prompted
concern. He expressed an interest in moving towards what
existed a few years ago. He was unsure of other states'
policies.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES said that would be helpful information to have.
1:17:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for a discussion of the three fiscal
notes, noting one has costs associated with it.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to staff to respond.
1:18:26 PM
REID MAGDANZ, Staff, Representative Kreiss Tomkins, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of one of the joint prime sponsors of HB
53, explained that the fiscal note from DEC [Department
Environmental Conservation], Solid Waste Management, relates to
costs to review the permits and consider public comments. He
said DEC envisions it would require additional staff to do so.
1:19:20 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 2 [to paragraph (2)] that
states that notices must be posted in a conspicuous place or
places on the application site. She asked whether costs to post
signs and notices were considered in the fiscal note.
MR. MAGDANZ answered that he did not believe that aspect was
listed in any of the fiscal notes.
1:19:56 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether posting notices is part of the
current regulation requirements.
MR. MAGDANZ replied that in certain cases it is required;
however, he does not believe the current regulations require
posting notices along the highway. He suggested the department
could correct him, but he believes the DOT&PF is required to
post notices if spraying occurs near a school or in certain
public areas; however, he does not believe there is a
requirement to post notices on highways.
1:20:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ referred to Section 2 of the sectional
analysis of the bill. He recalled the sponsor indicated that if
the bill passed, it would establish a 600-foot buffer zone near
waterways. It would also require a finding that application of
the pesticide will not harm the fish, fish habitat, or water
source. Under the bill, [page 2, lines 19-20] the department
cannot apply a pesticide within 150 feet of an anadromous or
resident fish habitat or within 600 feet of a drinking water
source. He related his understanding that these boundaries do
not currently exist.
MR. MAGDANZ answered that he is correct, in fact, one major
concern expressed by Southeast residents is that spraying on
highway shoulders could easily end up in water bodies adjacent
to the roadways.
1:21:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ related his understanding that some of
these pesticides have been deemed safe to use on land, but some
safety concerns exist in terms of application near water
sources.
MR. MAGDANZ answered that there are different formulations of
pesticides, noting that some have been approved by the EPA
[Environment Protection Agency] for use in or near water whereas
others have not.
1:22:26 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on whether the
ones approved by the EPA for use near waterways have undergone a
rigorous process at the federal level to determine safety.
MR. MAGDANZ answered that all pesticides used in Alaska have
been approved by the EPA. Based on his discussions with
numerous people, disagreement exists on how rigorous the EPA
process is, he said.
1:23:49 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the change was
made by regulation and the issue could be remedied without a
statute change. She asked whether Mr. Coffey had any thoughts
on the bill and if he could inform the committee of any work
being done or consideration of the public concerns.
1:24:03 PM
MIKE COFFEY, Chief, Statewide Maintenance & Operations,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
answered that the department is still in the early stages of
reviewing the bill. He said the department's Integrated
Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) was updated in 2014. Since
then, the department has been working with the University of
Alaska Fairbanks, the University of Alaska Anchorage, the soil
water conservation districts, and the Department of Natural
Resources' plant material center. This has been an ongoing
process and the department is considering its options. He
reported that the DOT&PF has only applied three small
applications of herbicides, although the department has had
collaborators working to combat invasive species in the DOT&PF's
rights-of-way. These groups have been working under the
department's Integrated Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP) and
have applied herbicides to invasive species. He characterized
pesticide use as being a learning process and the department
continues to partner with groups. He stated that the department
appreciates this opportunity to obtain public comments.
1:25:37 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that under the current
regulations the IVMP's management plan must be posted and
available to the public and the department must publish a
notice. She asked whether the public has informally contacted
the department to weigh in with any concerns.
MR. COFFEY answered yes; noting that public comments have come
primarily from Southeast Alaska, in particular, from several
communities on the Prince of Wales Island. He said he has not
received any direct comments from the rest of the state,
including areas in which the three small applications of
herbicides were applied.
1:26:32 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether informal comments are taken under
consideration by the department.
MR. COFFEY answered that the department responds to every
comment. The DOT&PF provides the department's position at the
time in an effort to provide as much information to the public
as possible.
1:26:55 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the
difference between an herbicide and a pesticide.
MR. COFFEY explained that an herbicide is a pesticide. For
example, pesticides would be used for controlling bedbugs, but
herbicides are used on vegetation.
1:27:22 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the types of
invasive species in Alaska.
MR. COFFEY responded that it depends on the area of the state.
For example, he stated that Japanese knotweed [Fallopia
japonica] has been a problem in Southeast Alaska in Juneau and
Petersburg. In fact, the Southeast Soil & Water Conservation
organization has worked on eradicating this species in Juneau.
The Prince of Wales Island has problems with reed canarygrass
[Phalaris arundinacea L.] and Anchorage has experienced numerous
invasions of Canadian thistle [Cirsium arvense]. The lower
portions of the Dalton Highway have been inundated with white
sweetclover [Melilotus officinalis]. He expressed concern that
if the white sweetclover reaches the Yukon River that the
infestation could spread up and down the river.
1:28:24 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether these types of vegetation were
introduced species.
MR. COFFEY answered that invasive species have been in Alaska
for a long time, but warming temperatures can typically increase
the spread of more invasive species, especially in Northern
Alaska.
1:29:31 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES passed the gavel to Co-Chair Foster.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER asked whether there was a difference between
pesticides used for commercial purposes and products that can be
purchased at garden sections of Home Depot for home use that
might be a reduced strength.
MR. COFFEY answered that they are all considered pesticides,
noting the department has 11 herbicides listed in its Integrated
Vegetation Management Plan (IVMP). He offered his belief that
many of the chemicals, if not all, are available at stores such
as Home Depot or Lowe's Home Improvement and are the types of
chemicals that could be applied in home gardens.
1:29:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the DOT&PF's use of
herbicides along roadways is primarily to hold down invasive
species or if it is employed as a cost savings measure instead
of using blade cutters to mow along roadways.
MR. COFFEY replied it is all of the above. The DOT&PF finds
that herbicides are an effective tool for combating invasive
species, particularly around guardrails and signs since
mechanical means just don't work. He reiterated that the
department uses herbicides as a tool in areas to control
vegetation in which mechanical means don't work, but the DOT&PF
continues to work on cost effectiveness methods.
1:30:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked for further clarification on the
types of cost effectiveness measures used.
MR. COFFEY answered that the department is in the infancy of
herbicide use since the department has only applied three small
applications of herbicides in the state. Thus it is hard to
come up with a detailed cost analysis until the department is
farther along. He commented that the department does not have a
lot of licensed contractors yet and it has had limited
experience so far.
1:32:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER opened public testimony on HB 53.
1:32:15 PM
STEPHEN GIESBRECHT, Borough Manager, Petersburg Borough, stated
that Petersburg is a wet and rainy place, which makes the
application of chemicals problematic. When it was announced
that the public would no longer have an opportunity to engage
with the state on specific chemical applications, there was
significant public outcry due to the impact on the community.
Many people in the community use local streams and runoff water
as their only water supply for drinking and household gardens.
Many others pick berries and other foods from alongside roadways
and rely on healthy fish stocks for their way of life and dinner
for their families. He felt certain the committee would
understand that the thought of adding chemicals was not well
received in the community. Further, the Petersburg Borough has
additional concerns with the potential impact chemical use may
have on wild Alaska seafood, which is the primary driver in the
Petersburg economy. The state and community have spent
considerable time advertising the high value of Alaska's natural
seafood and the application of chemicals into Petersburg's rainy
environment makes it very plausible that the fish could be
affected and therefore damage the reputation of the overall
seafood quality. He cautioned that the industry cannot afford
this type of reaction in the marketplace. Finally, many local
citizens have given examples of how poorly chemical spraying
works in this climate since most chemical application rely on
staying in contact with the weeds and plants long enough to be
absorbed. In Alaska's climate, that will rarely be possible, he
said. This means even more of the chemical additives will not
be on the target plants, but in the foods, wildlife, and
environment that the Petersburg community relies on for its
quality of life. He concluded his testimony by stating he hopes
the committee understands the serious concerns regarding this
issue and it will take steps to protect the quality of life in
Petersburg and the rest of Southeast Alaska.
1:35:00 PM
JEFF JABUSCH, Borough Manager, City and Borough of Wrangell,
asked to speak in support of HB 53. In November 2013, the
assembly passed a resolution [11-13-1286] with two key points.
First, the assembly requested that the use of herbicides along
Alaska's roadways be amended to provide for public comment so
people can have some input and discussion prior to pesticide
applications. He said a large portion of the population lives
along the state highways and the community has a bike path that
is widely used. Further, people pick berries and dig clams on
the beaches right off the roadway so the community is concerned
about the impacts of the use of herbicides. Secondly, the
resolution asked the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) and Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) to discuss impacts of the use of herbicides along the
region's roadways that the department plans to use. If nothing
else, it may help identify chemicals that were shown not to be
harmful, which would be helpful to the citizens in Wrangell. He
said the community understands and supports the state doing its
job in an economical fashion, but it wants to ensure that
Alaska's citizens are safe.
1:37:50 PM
BENJAMIN MIYASATO, Vice-Deputy Mayor, City and Borough of Sitka;
Council Member & Treasurer, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, asked to
speak in support of HB 53. He stated that the City and Borough
of Sitka passed a resolution, [Resolution 14-13], in September
2014 in requesting that the regulations covering the use of
herbicides along Alaska's roadways be amended to provide for
public comment. He stated that [knowledge of herbicide use and
the ability to comment] will be good for the public, subsistence
berry gatherers, and for drinking and water sources. As
Petersburg and Wrangell testified, Sitka, too, is a very wet
environment and lots of people like to park and pick berries
near the road. He expressed concern that public comment is not
currently available, which he characterized as being highly
important. In terms of posting regulations for notices, he
expressed concern that a lot of people will miss postings. He
said he was curious where the notices will be posted. He
emphasized the importance of having the tribal citizens and all
of Sitka's citizens weigh in and provide public comment.
1:40:18 PM
JIM SYKES asked to speak in support of HB 53 as a citizen, but
not as a Matanuska-Susitna Borough assembly member. He said
that HB 53 takes a reasonable approach, which includes
notification to the public, opportunity for local input, and a
good permit review process. Further, he suggested that the
setbacks from water can help protect water, fish, and wildlife,
noting that he personally engages in personal dipnet fishing.
His experience with pesticides began in the mid-1980s at a time
when people initially became concerned about chemicals being
used by the then federally-owned railroad. At one point he
served as an alternate of the Alaska Railroad Citizen's Advisory
Committee on Vegetation. He reported that during the 1990s, the
railroad tried alternatives, including using infrared and steam,
as well as hand clearing by prisoners and more intensive
maintenance of the track ballast. He emphasized the importance
of keeping an open mind to employing new technologies. He
referred to HB 53, page 3, line 12, and suggested a language
change, after "information," to add "other effective
alternatives." He offered his belief that the public should be
able to consider and comment on new developments. He
highlighted that the permit review process was important when
the DEC denied the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) from
spraying the tracks from Seward to Fairbanks. At the time, the
ARRC had not identified many water crossings or wetlands areas.
Without careful review and action by the DEC, these critical
areas could have been sprayed. He expressed concern about
spraying since Alaska has a lot of high water tables and many
herbicides have not been tested in Arctic or sub-Arctic
conditions, which means chemical effects last longer and travel
farther.
1:43:03 PM
MR. SYKES elaborated on some testing done in Southcentral Alaska
near Fairbanks, noting the characteristics were significantly
different than the Lower 48 testing, which should be considered.
He expressed concern that the majority of the ingredients on
herbicides are listed as inert, but he has found that some inert
ingredients are as poisonous as the weed-killing chemicals.
Since companies do not need to list the ingredients, it isn't
possible to know for sure what is contained in the inert
ingredients, so reasonable caution is necessary. In the past 25
years, Railbelt communities and Native Tribal organizations have
dealt with some of the herbicide issues. In 2006, the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly unanimously passed a
resolution promoting a healthy railroad and asked the ARRC not
to spray alongside the tracks in the borough. In conclusion, he
acknowledged there will be differing opinions about where and
when to apply herbicides. However, most people can agree that
we need safe water and safe communities and HB 53 provides a
straightforward process for notifying the public, hearing from
the community, and evaluating a permit application that keeps
public safety as a priority. He offered his belief that it is a
good idea to pass the bill. He thanked the committee for an
opportunity to comment and for its work on this issue.
1:45:53 PM
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics (ACAT), stated she is also a biologist. She said that
the ACAT organization is a statewide environmental health
organization comprised of scientists, public health
professionals, and community advocates who conduct research and
provide educational programs, technical assistance and training.
She asked to strongly support HB 53 because it will establish
common sense measures to protect salmon streams, subsistence
resources, and drinking water sources by requiring buffer zones.
It would also restore public participation in important decision
making about pesticide uses. The regulations adopted by the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in 2013
effectively removed regulatory and oversight authority for
pesticide use on public lands and rights-of-way. The regulation
changes also removed the public's right to participate in the
decision-making process. The public lost its decision-making
authority and oversight authority concerning particular
pesticide products, application methods, sensitive locations,
and threats to environmental and public health, she said.
MS. MILLER stated that the aforementioned regulations weakened
the democratic participation in decisions that affect water
quality, fish habitat, and public health. She emphasized that
Alaskans have the right to know and participate in decisions
about pesticide spraying on its public lands since these
pesticide applications will affect lands, water, and fish that
are public trust assets and these decisions can affect their
health. She pointed out that Alaska has a long history of
citizen participation, dating back to the days of Governor
Hammond with constructive citizen participation in decisions
about pesticide use. Alaskans have long been concerned about
protecting water quality and human health and have been actively
engaged in decisions about herbicide and pesticide uses in
public places. Further, she said that these issues have enjoyed
bipartisan support as evidenced by a 2005 bill sponsored by then
Representative Meyer, which successfully passed and improved
notification of pesticide use in public places.
1:48:58 PM
MS. MILLER agreed the state needs to address problems of
invasive and noxious weeds; however, herbicides in most cases
are not needed to accomplish the solutions to these problems.
In fact, pesticides are toxic chemicals designed to kill, repel,
or otherwise harm living organisms, but are one of the few toxic
substances intentionally applied to the environment. Given the
inherent toxicity and tendency to disperse from the area of
application, the state should ensure regulatory oversight and
full public participation in decisions about herbicide use and
it should do everything it can to minimize harmed drinking water
sources, salmon streams, and public health. This bill includes
buffer zones that will limit runoff of pesticides and thus
provide protection to drinking water sources and salmon streams.
MS. MILLER stated that a lot of scientific literature shows that
pesticides can damage salmonids and reduce their chance of
survival or kill them directly. Many pesticides cause
reproductive harm and reduced survival of young salmon as they
transition to seawater. These chemicals can impair their
migration, or cause behavioral changes that limit their
survival, she said. Some pesticides and herbicides also affect
salmon indirectly by changing the abundance of food, cover, or
other conditions in the aquatic environment. And as noted by
previous speakers, these chemicals are more persistent in
northern environments. In addition, there are also risks to
public health from the application of herbicides on public lands
and rights-of-way and peer reviewed scientific literature
supports this assessment. Exposure to the chemicals currently
proposed by the DOT&PF can result in detrimental health
outcomes, such as neurological damage, hormone disruption,
developmental, reproductive disorders, and cancers - sometimes
from a single exposure.
1:50:59 PM
MS. MILLER concluded by saying that public participation
improves agency decisions and provides locally-based information
that serves to identify and protect Alaska's drinking water
sources and sensitive habitat, as well as promoting safer and
more economical alternatives. She urged members to support HB
53 because it ensures the right of all Alaskans to participate
in decisions that affect their health, subsistence, livelihoods,
and it establishes protective buffer zones. She thanked members
for the opportunity to testify.
1:52:09 PM
GRACE SINGH, Special Assistant to the President, Central Council
Tlingit-Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, said she was speaking on
behalf of Rick Peterson, President, from Kasaan on Prince of
Wales Island today. In addition, she also spends summers in
Hollis for subsistence harvesting so the issues surrounding
herbicide spraying are important to her. She said that Prince
of Wales Island is the fourth largest island consisting of 10
communities, with four federally-recognized tribes. Although
6,000 people live on the island, they currently do not have any
say on what the DOT&PF does with the land and water. While
living in rural Alaska can be very challenging, the citizens of
Prince of Wales Island are very fortunate to have such a
resource abundant island with fish, deer and berries to depend
upon, she said. Subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering
helps rural residents offset the high price of gas, food, and
transportation. She said that annual herbicide spraying will
affect all residents on the island who depend on the important
natural resources that Tlingit and Haida people have relied on
since time immemorial.
1:53:37 PM
MS. SINGH suggested that Alaska should a better process than
other states since Alaska depends on its rural resources for
subsistence much more than any other state. Further, she
cautioned that tourism and fishing industries will be adversely
affected by spraying and it would be irresponsible for the state
to do so since most residents rely on these industries. While
she understands the budget crisis, it is unfortunate that local
knowledge isn't being utilized to bring viable solutions to best
combat invasive species. One major concern about clear cutting
by mechanical means is that it may spread the invasive species,
which may be true; however, herbicides also have limited effects
and require annual applications that distribute these harmful
chemicals into the ecosystem. She noted that invasive species
are not regulated, but come in on heavy equipment, hay bales,
and other transported goods. At this point, the population of
invasive species is so out of control that herbicide application
will not deter them, but it will contaminate water and
vegetation, she said.
MS. SINGH expressed further concern about contamination of well
water with limited filtration systems in place. In addition,
many people collect surface water from creeks to fill their
cisterns. She emphasized that herbicidal spraying will
inevitably contaminate water quality due to the underground
caves. She recalled a study done on Prince of Wales Island,
such that dyes distributed on one side of the island were later
found everywhere on the island.
1:56:48 PM
MS. SINGH reported that the proposed herbicide spraying near
Thorne Bay will affect eight bodies of water, including rivers,
creeks, lakes, and flood zones. This issue will undeniably
affect residents of Prince of Wales Island, plus eliminating the
public comment also poses a direct threat against the values of
a functioning democracy. She cautioned that restricting people
from commenting on the use of herbicides was a clear indication
of government overreach and a deterioration of local control.
In fact, the truth is that herbicidal spraying doesn't work well
and requires annual application, she said. When more
stakeholders are allowed to participate in the planning process,
they can contribute to an effective solution to problems. In
conclusion, she thanked the committee for hearing her, since the
DOT&PF's public comment process was removed, in terms of making
comments on the proposed use of herbicides.
1:58:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER recalled her comments on traditional knowledge
and asked Ms. Singh to provide her thoughts on how that could be
coupled together.
1:58:55 PM
LESLIE ISAACS, Chair, Prince of Wales Community Advisory Council
(POWCAC), stated that the POWCAC membership consists of nine
member communities and four tribal members who try to look at
issues that address Prince of Wales Island as a whole. This
organization represents a number of communities with city
administrators, mayors, and council members from around the
island who work to promote the island as a whole with an
understanding of the interdependence they have.
MR. ISAACA said that Prince of Wales Island consists of over
2,000 miles of road, and is the third largest inhabited island
in the U.S., with approximately 6,000 residents. He said that
on any given night about 30 deer can be seen in the road right-
of-way when driving from Thorne Bay to Klawock. He echoed the
concern other testifiers have voiced that pesticide use will
have on subsistence use since the animals traverse the roadways.
He has a 26-year-old son who hunts and fishes to support his
family and his son is concerned that his family will eat the
deer that eat the pesticide-laden foliage, which could
contribute to cancer.
2:01:12 PM
MR. ISAACS said that he also serves as the city administrator
for the City of Klawock. He said he received numerous calls
when the regulations were changed with respect to keeping
vehicle headlights on, because no one asked them if this was a
good idea. It illustrates that it is the most telling aspect
since residents hunt, fish, and gather berries and people of all
ages may eat contaminated food that have absorbed the
pesticides.
MR. ISAACS said a seven-mile lake called Klawock Lake has the
best sockeye run in Alaska, but seven miles of state highway run
adjacent to the lake and he was concerned that the tributaries
will absorb these pesticides. He would like to be able to tell
his grandchildren that he was subsistence gathering 30 years ago
in the lake that they would use for the same purpose. He
emphasized that is what culture means - the handing down of
subsistence gathering to the next generation. However, he
expressed concern that the resources won't be there. He wants
to ensure that he can teach his great-grandchildren how to fish,
recalling the pride he felt when he remembers his father
teaching him how to be the skiff man in the subsistence fishing
operation. Now he feels emotional because his son is now ready
to take on that job. He stressed the importance of ensuring
that the resources are available to the people. He would like
assurances that these resources will be available seven
generations from now.
2:04:37 PM
AMY MARSHALL, Director, Craig Public Library, asked to testify
in support of HB [53] and return public comment to the projects
that have impacts on communities and the environment. She
stated that the application of pesticides on Prince of Wales
Island is an area of concern for island residents and the
absence of public comment has led to a great deal of frustration
in the community. She stated that an online petition collected
3,800 signatures, with an additional 300 signatures collected on
physical petitions. She stated that she has copies of 37
letters that were sent to Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, but she did not believe that any of the people have
received a reply. She has watched this grassroots effort evolve
and has observed people who have not been political in the past
taking an interest in this issue. She said that considering
public comment in any undertaking is a matter of good public
policy.
2:06:43 PM
MS. MARSHALL commented that she previously served as the
Integrated Past Manager for Wrangell Saint Elias National Park
and Preserve. She suggested that some people are concerned
because there does not seem to be any offered alternatives, but
it the decision would be to spray herbicides or not to spray
them. She was aware that some people have offered to
mechanically remove species, but they do not feel they are being
taken seriously. The roads on Prince of Wales Island cross over
several bodies of water, for example, near Thorne Bay, plus the
Thorne River has runoff water. She expressed concern that
pesticide use will adversely affect tourism and subsistence due
to the perception of contamination. She emphasized that public
comment is vital to this process. She indicated that
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins mentioned a notice was published
regarding proposed spraying; however, it was published in the
Juneau Empire and not in the Ketchikan Daily News, but the
Juneau Empire is not available on Prince of Wales Island. She
urged members to support HB 53.
2:09:14 PM
JOSHUA SMITH, Student, Hollis School, Prince of Wales Island,
read from prepared testimony, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Good afternoon Madam Chair and honorable members of
the House Department of Transportation Committee. My
name is Joshua Smith and I am a High School Student at
Hollis School on Prince of Wales Island. I am here
representing myself.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present
my testimony about [HB] 53.
I support [HB] 53 because people should have input.
People who live on Prince of Wales Island know more
about the environment on the island than decision
makers working in an office in Juneau. I think all of
you, and I can agree that we do not want uninformed
people to make decisions that adversely impact the
people and the environment. We cannot just think about
ourselves; there are also the animals. Those decisions
could make it more challenging for the people that
live on our island and for others that do not but,
like tourists and restaurants, rely on our fish.
My mom makes money helping to unload, pack and ship
seafood to other places all around the world. That is
how we are able to make a living. Working there is her
favorite job. If the spraying ruins the fishing
industry, innocent workers like my mom will lose their
jobs. My mom's goal is to be able to keep a roof over
my head, food on the table and clothes on my back.
During summers, when we get a chance, my mom and I
find a way to pick berries along the road to give to
elders for them to make jam for people. If they spray,
the berries will be gone. My mom also grows organic
fruit and vegetables in our garden for elders and
local children. We do not want to give them
contaminated produce.
Our island is a karst system. Anything (any chemical)
that enters our water system in any place will
contaminate our entire island.
I believe it would be best to ask locals like the
Forest Service, Fish and Game and people who have
lived here for a long time to find the best way to
have a more controlled spray so that it would do
little to no damage to our Prince of Wales Island
environment.
Thank you for your kind attention to my remarks. Do
you have any questions?
2:13:11 PM
CLAYTON MUSIC, Student, Hollis School, Prince of Wales Island,
read from prepared testimony, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Good afternoon Madam Chair and honorable members of
the House Department of Transportation Committee. My
name is Clayton Music and I am a High School Student
at Hollis School on Prince of Wales Island. I am here
representing myself. Thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to present my testimony about [HB] 53.
I support this bill because the government should
operate with citizens' opinions instead of without.
Without people's opinions, it makes it not fair. With
input you can make better decisions, without it, you
could destroy someone's way of life. In my case, my
dad owns the only cab company on the island. He brings
tourists to and from the ferry. If there are chemicals
sprayed, tourists that typically come to see the flora
and fauna of our island will go elsewhere. If the
tourists stop coming, there will be no way for my dad
to pay the bills. If his cab company had to close, my
dad's workers would be out of a job. With more people
out of work, the stores would have to reduce hours or
reduce workers. Also, it would make it harder for
people on the island who rely upon the cab company for
transportation. Without input, people who decide
whether to spray or not would not know this. Even if
spraying is cheaper in the short run, with all the
jobs lost, it could be more expensive in the long run.
Thank you for your kind attention to my remarks. Do
you have any questions?
2:15:25 PM
BENJERMIN MOOTS, Student, Hollis School, Prince of Wales Island,
read from prepared testimony, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Good afternoon Madam Chair and Honorable Members of
the House of Representatives Transportation Committee.
My name is Benjermin Moots and I am an Intermediate
School Student at Hollis School on Prince of Wales
Island. I am here representing myself. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to present my testimony
about [HB] 53. People should have a voice so they can
know more about an issue, and what it can do to the
environment. State departments should talk to the
community so they can get more information before they
decide to spray or not to spray.
They need to know about my brother Titus. He came to
speak to Hollis School about commercial fishing and
why it is important to the State of Alaska's economy.
Fishing is how he makes his money. People will not
want to work on his boat because the fish may be
contaminated. Fisherman will lose their jobs, they
will not have money and then the stores will not make
money, more people will lose their jobs and more
businesses would close. Fishing is a huge part of our
state and we need to make sure that people who make
decisions like spraying that could harm our fish have
information from everyone who could be involved. Thank
you for your kind attention to my remarks. Do you have
any questions?
2:17:16 PM
MYLES STARKWEATHER, Student, Hollis School, Prince of Wales
Island, read from prepared testimony, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Good afternoon Madam Chair and honorable members of
the House Department of Transportation Committee. My
name is Myles Starkweather and I am an Intermediate
School Student at Hollis School on Prince of Wales
Island. I am here representing myself. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to present my testimony
about [HB] 53.
Why is it important for people to be able to speak
out, to be heard? You do not know if the person that
has not been heard has something that would help the
State Department of Transportation to make a better
decision. They need to know about families like mine
who rely on subsistence to live. We harvest just about
everything in the wild that people can eat. This
includes food from the ocean and streams to include
salmon, halibut, shrimp and crab. We also eat wild
plants found along the water's edge like sea
asparagus. We pick berries to include salmon berries
and, my favorite, thimble berries all summer long. My
family is worried that spraying the herbicides could
kill all of our food supply.
Thank you for your kind attention to my remarks. Do
you have any questions?
2:19:03 PM
KEN PERRY, Owner; General Manager, Pied Piper Pest Control,
related his understanding that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) was not allowed to explain what happened in
2013, but he will do his best to provide background information.
He said he attended many of the meetings due to his interest in
pesticides even though the prior bill did not affect him.
MR. PERRY said the hearings produced the same testimony over and
over again, but6 the results were be the same, which was
approval. He noticed that this committee chose to limit public
testimony to three minutes and there is a reason for that, he
said. Testimony has value only if the points made are different
and if it has merit on a particular aspect that has not yet been
expressed.
MR. PERRY said he was deeply impressed by the young people
testifying, but much of the information being shared by those in
support of the bill is off target. In 2013, even though the
DEC's pesticide division was bogged down, staff put together a
realistic package, requested public comment, and considered it,
prior to submitting the final document for approval. At that
time, the requirements for guidance for the use of pesticides
were increased and clear and concise IPM programs were added.
He pointed out that current law requires that alternative
methods must be considered as part of the regulations. Thus
many of the comments [provided today] are off target. One
common thread testifiers have made seems to be the lack of
public comment, which he argued was not taken away since people
can always make comments to the department. He offered his
belief that the DEC makes decisions on permits, applications,
and pesticides based on science because the legislature and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require it.
2:22:41 PM
MR. PERRY predicted that if HB 53 moves forward the state will
hear the same testimony over and over again. He further
predicted if the bill passes, it will cost an additional
$250,000 per year to implement and the DOT&PF's budget will need
to be increased due to the fiscal impact. In 2013, the only
change made was with respect to public comment, he said.
MR. PERRY suggested that the issues being raised today have been
addressed at the federal level, in terms of pesticides near
water, fish, and endangered species. Again, he said, these
restrictions have already been enacted by the federal government
and the EPA must give consideration to product labeling. He
concluded that all of the concerns that have been raised have
already been addressed. He suggested that if the legislature
was going to spend more money, it should be spent on addressing
the major bed bug epidemic instead of on this bill.
2:25:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER referred to page 1, line 7-8, which read, " ...
[A] person may not apply a pesticide or broadcast chemical in a
common area of a building that contains more than four single
family dwellings or apartment building, to portions of a
government office or facility to which access is not normally
restricted to employees, or to plazas, parks, or public sports
facilities .... He specifically directed attention to the
language "four single family dwellings" and asked for his
comments since this provision would not apply to five or six-
plex buildings or anything larger.
Mr. PERRY replied that he was involved in 2005 changes; however
he was not sure of the purpose of this subsection since the
definition was simply moved [within subsection (c) - a technical
change]. However, he works in accordance with the
aforementioned language. He said the municipal code was even
stronger in the Municipality of Anchorage in terms of pesticide
application in public places.
2:27:24 PM
CHARLES "ED" WOOD, read from prepared testimony, as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
1. My name is Charles Wood and I'm representing myself
through these comments. I have been a resident of
Alaska since before statehood beginning in December
1954, and Petersburg since 1961. I have been a self-
employed commercial fisherman in Alaska for over 35
years.
2. I am writing in support of [HB] 53 in order to
restore many of the public protections that were
removed by the 2013 regulatory changes.
3. HB 53's intended purpose is to return to the public
an opportunity to comment on their concerns to the
potential impacts of roadside spraying of
pesticides/herbicides in areas of importance to them,
such as the stream which my family has held State of
Alaska water rights on since 9 July 1970 while our
beneficial usage began in 1961, and which will be
impacted by any roadside spraying.
4. The primary issue of concern over our permitted
water supply is that it flows through a culvert
beneath Mitkof Highway (State Highway 7) and will be
contaminated beyond any doubt by roadside chemical
applications on both sides of the highway and by the
ditches that drain into our stream.
5. HB 53 also provides the opportunity for ADOT&PF to
provide information to the public concerning the
application of chemical agents, or alternatives, to
control plant growth along State owned roadways in a
public forum.
6. It is in the public's interest to be fully
informed, and included in any decision by State
agencies that could have potential long-term and
accumulative ramifications on public health and public
safety, two areas of which the Alaska Legislature is
constitutionally (Article VII, Sections 4 and 5) bound
to safeguard.
7. I urge you to support HB 53.
MR. WOOD added that neither DEC or DOT&PF has responded to the
Borough of Petersburg's request for a public hearing. He
offered his belief that there was not any provision for public
comment at this point so it would be up to the individuals whose
streams will be affected to "meet the truck at the top of the
road." He said he appreciated the opportunity to comment.
2:30:45 PM
SUZANNE WOOD, read from prepared testimony, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
1. My name is Suzanne Wood and I'm representing
myself. A resident of Petersburg, Alaska since October
1993, I have been a self-employed commercial fisherman
in Southeast Alaska for over 22 years.
2. I am writing in support of House Bill 53.
3. While HB 53 may not, by itself, prevent the usage
of chemical agents on humans, fish, wildlife, and
other living organisms, it should bring to light the
potential harmful and long-term ramifications of their
usage by requiring public participation in an open
meeting before any chemical spraying is authorized by
State of Alaska agency officials.
4. Residue from roadside spraying may, through
airborne drift, end up far afield from its intended
point of ground contact and is likely to contaminate
all roadside streams through runoff due to the moist
maritime climate, particularly in Southeast Alaska.
This has the potential to unintentionally introduce
harmful toxins, and have detrimental long-term impact
on humans, fish and wildlife, beneficial subsistence
vegetation like blueberry bushes, and other organisms.
5. Living out of town in a more rural location with no
access to the Petersburg Borough's residential water
resource, the stream that I use extensively for
personal use has been granted water rights since 1970,
and back permitted to 1961. This stream flows under
the Mitkof Highway, which could be subjected to
chemical applications on the uphill, and downhill
sides of the right-of-way, effectively doubling the
amount of chemical agent that my family is subjected
to by using my family's state authorized water usage.
This creek runs out into the Wrangell Narrows amidst
anadromous salmon, Dungeness and Tanner crab, and
other resident marine mammals including killer whale,
sea lion, and harbor seal.
6. My family's organic garden is watered using
hillside runoff authorized by the State through our
long held water rights. Roadside chemical spraying
destroys any semblance of organic gardening by
introducing chemical agents and toxins directly into
our food chain by usage of what is otherwise a
pristine, uncontaminated water source. In many cases,
herbicides are toxic to beneficial soil organisms,
such as bacteria that help break down the soil, and
help bring in the nutrients plants need. Herbicides
have been shown to kill helpful soil organisms, which
result in too many harmful bacteria and fungi growing.
7. I urge you to support HB 53, which will restore
many of the public protections that were removed by
the 2013 regulatory changes. HB 53 will enable the
ADOT/PF the opportunity to present to the public in an
open forum, its proposed chemical application-the
wheres, whys, and hows of the need for the Alaska
Department of Transportation to introduce toxins into
our lives and property on Mitkof Island.
2:34:38 PM
DOUGLAS FLEMING stated he has been an Alaska resident for 28
years and after graduate studies in fisheries he worked for 23
years as a fisheries biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game (ADF&G) in research and management in Interior and
Southeast Alaska. At the present time he said he was involved
in commercial fishing.
MR. FLEMING asked to testify in support of HB 53 because it
offers a step in the right direction. He questioned whether
spraying could be done without herbicides moving into the
aquatic habitats that provide the machinery for Alaska's salmon
production. He emphasized salmon was very important to the
local and statewide economy. In fact, these substances can also
affect animals, but he asked to limit his comments only to fish.
MR. FLEMING reported that peer-reviewed research has documented
transport of herbicides into streams from roadside projects,
which is what is being discussed today. He expressed concern
that spraying could leave Alaska with big "unknowns" in terms of
the harm chemicals might cause when introduced into wetlands
crisscrossed by many small streams used by a variety of species
and life stages. He worried that this could bruise Alaska's
earned reputation and taint Alaska's marketing of its pure
waters and wild salmon.
MR. FLEMING offered to share a particularly troubling result
from his son's controlled experiment on the exposure of Roundup
on the survival of Coho salmon eggs for his AP [advanced
placement] biology class. When he and his son tried to explain
the heavy mortality of herbicide-treated eggs, they could not
find reported research available to determine the toxicity for
early egg and sac fry life stages for Coho and other salmon
exposed to commonly-used Roundup with glyphosate-type
herbicides. Given this lack of important information, he asked
what assurances or proof of no harm can DOT&PF & DEC possibly
give without first conducting significant biological and
hydrological studies. He further asked members to closely
examine DOT&PF and DEC's roles and functions other than
permitting, announcing, and dispensing herbicides. He
questioned how a comprehensive and responsible program to
protect clean water, pristine habitats and sustained high levels
of fish production could be offered in light of the current
fiscal problems in Alaska. He offered his belief that HB 53 may
lead to a better informed public and better outcome. He urged
members to support scientific studies in Alaska to better
understand the risks to Alaska's valuable resources that might
be traded off for a perceived efficiency that herbicide spraying
might bring. He thanked members for their time and the
opportunity to testify.
2:38:22 PM
HEATHER LEBA stated that she is a fisheries biologist. She
urged members to support HB 53 and make the overdue changes to
the public process that will allow citizens an opportunity to
comment and voice their concern about herbicide spraying near
and in their communities. The current permitting process
doesn't identify critical waterways, salmon streams, or
residential areas that might be affected by spraying. An
abundance of scientific literature documents the many negative
effects of pesticides on fish, amphibians, and fresh water
invertebrates, she said. She thanked the previous speaker for
providing information on the biology study. She said the
herbicides used by the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
contain glyphosate and surfactants that increase the toxicity
and impacts fish and other organisms. She informed members that
toxicity to humans was much more severe when the glyphosate is
mixed with a surfactant, which can be as mild as skin irritation
or as severe as liver and kidney impairment, respiratory
distress, and heart arrhythmia.
MS. LEBA observed that many residents pick flowers and
subsistence food near the railroad tracks and should be aware
these areas may not be safe for harvest, but residents have
limited opportunity to view the notices. In addition, residents
often fish in the Talkeetna and Susitna rivers and nearby
sloughs for salmon and trout. She has personally observed ARRC
signs near bridge trestles crossing sloughs and the Talkeetna
River and has observed evidence of herbicides on vegetation
directly adjacent to these water bodies.
MS. LEBA obtained confirmation that the ARRC sprayed from the
downtown second street crossing to the community of Chase
upstream of the Talkeetna River and that herbicides were sprayed
8 feet on either side of the track, stopping 50-feet before the
trestle bridge and resuming 50-feet past the end of the bridge,
not the 100 feet stipulated by the DEC. She offered her belief
that runoff finds its way into local waterways, which can impact
subsistence, recreational, and commercial fishing in and
downstream of Talkeetna. Her community hosts thousands of
visitors who come to fish, hike, and see Denali, so she was
concerned that continued spraying will affect tourism and the
local economy. She urged members to support HB 53.
2:42:24 PM
BECKY LONG asked to testify in support of HB 53. She said she
has made her living from the commercial fishing and tourism
industry. She expressed her concern about herbicide
contamination. She argued that repetitive comments by citizens
were okay since it emphasizes whether a majority of people were
either supporting or opposing a bill or policy. She offered her
belief that decisions about pesticide use were political
decisions made by the administration. Prior administrations
have turned down pesticide permits due to overwhelming
opposition by the public. Although she was unsure of 2014 use,
she reported that in 2013 the ARRC sprayed 50,000 gallons of
herbicide and surfactants. She emphasized that uncontaminated
resources are necessary for the state's economy since commercial
fishing, sport fishing, hunting, tourism, and recreational users
provide more money to the state than oil does.
MS. LONG offered her belief that in 2013 the administration took
a large step backward in terms of pesticide management since it
gutted the public process, which allowed the worst herbicides to
be used in the state. She offered support for HB 53 because it
returned the right to participate in the decision-making process
in terms of proposed pesticide application. She emphasized that
Alaska subsists on the natural resources that clean water,
healthy salmon, and wildlife provide; however, it isn't possible
to control toxic exposure to these resources. She specifically
supported a policy to ban application of broadcast chemicals or
pesticides within 150 feet of streams or 600 feet of public and
private water sources. She concluded her testimony by
supporting HB 53 to restore the public process since Alaskans
have a right to weigh in and be informed about proposed toxic
herbicide and pesticide use.
2:45:55 PM
STEPHANIE JURRIES urged members to support HB 53 in order to
reinstate the public comment period for proposed spraying of
herbicides along state roadways. She highlighted her belief
that an epidemic of cancer in the US has been caused by
widespread systemic use of government-approved chemicals. The
state needs a fundamental change in the way Alaskans can
interact with their environment.
MR. JURRIES stated that passing HB 53 will not take away
DOT&PF's ability to use herbicides, but it will reinstate the
requirement for public comment.
MS. JURRIES suggested there may be other solutions to the
vegetation management issues that DOT&PF is attempting to fix by
using herbicides. By opening public comment periods, it would
allow for more conversation about the issue and possibly provide
solutions other than using herbicide applications along
roadways. She offered her belief that Alaskans need to change
the ways in which they interact with their environment. She
worried that without public comment, the DOT&PF will simply
ignore the legitimate concerns Alaskans have about herbicide use
on lands where wild animals forage and people subsistence
harvest. She has repeatedly asked DOT&PF to answer valid
questions about their plans to spray along the roadways on
Prince of Wales Island; however, the DOT&PF has never adequately
answered them. She attested to residents having a right to know
about long-term plans for herbicide use on Prince of Wales
Island roadways and what a successful application would look
like. She said that Alaska is the most beautiful place on the
planet and Alaskans deserve to participate in when, how, and
where to potentially dump toxic chemicals on the land. The
department may be a need to find ways to handle substantial
public comment, but having so many people upset about this
spraying herbicides illustrated it really is a problem that
needs to be addressed. She urged members to pass HB 53 and
thanked members for their time.
2:48:40 PM
MARGO REVEIL, Co-Owner, Jakolof Bay Oyster Company, stated that
she and her husband have an oyster farm in Kachemak Bay.
Although she also serves as president of the Alaska Shellfish
Growers Association, she is speaking on behalf of herself today
since the board has not reviewed or developed a position on HB
53, although individual members have expressed concerns to her
about pesticide use in Alaska. Decisions about whether to spray
herbicides should include public comments from potentially
impacted industries, including shellfish growers. The effects
of pesticides on shellfish has been extensively studied and has
been linked to increased diseases in shellfish in other
populated areas of the world. In addition, pesticides are known
to have a negative impact on phytoplankton, the food source for
shellfish. She expressed concern about the active and inert
ingredients, specifically since surfactants can be lethal to
amphibians, fish, and mollusks. Broad general permits may not
take into consideration sensitive or localized systems. A
single pesticide application in the wrong spot with the wrong
weather conditions could have a significant impact on individual
shellfish growers in downstream areas. She suggested that an
open permitting process could give shellfish growers the
opportunity to bring their concerns to any spraying authority
and it would also provide information on potential harmful
impacts that may not have been considered in local areas.
Alaska's bays have a reputation for clean, pristine water and
her industry is 100 percent reliant on clean water. Shellfish
growers market clean water extensively when selling their
products, but it is not just a marketing tool because shellfish
are very sensitive creatures and subtle changes in the chemistry
of runoff, especially during a rain event, can significantly
harm them. She urged members to support HB 53 and thanked
members for their time and attention.
2:50:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER, after first determining no one wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 53.
[HB 53 was held over].