Province ofBritish Columbia

Ministry ofEnvironment

ENVIRONMENT AL APPEAL BOARDVictoria

British ColumbiaV8V 1X5

Appeal No. 82-10PES

J U D GEM ENT

PERMIT NO: 104-370RES-82/83 (Special Use) and itsAmendment of May 6th, 1982, issued to theMinister of Forests in the name of Mr. D. T.Grant, Regional Manager, for the use ofRoundup in the Bowser area (20.2 hectares)by spot treatment only (manually operatedbackpack spray equipment) .

The permit is for a trial use of Roundup fortreatment of red alder, salmonberry, thimble-berry, etc. for deciduous brush control forconifer release purposes.The reason for the experiment is to see ifRoundup (Glyphosate) can be used successfullyfor this type of forest application. Roundupis a much more acceptable herbicide than someof the others which are currently in use, suchas 2,4,5-T, in that it has a very low tendencyto leach into the soil.

APPEAL:

1) The basis of the appeal was that the herbicideapplication would come within 50 feet of the Bowser Water-works District wells and storage tank. Also, the water forthe wells is collected from the whole area from a shallowfurry.

2) The possible contamination of leachate or run-offinto a bog that is the source of Mr. Anderosov's wells' watersupply.

3) Glyphosate is not a safe herbicide.

- 2 --Permit 104-37 ORES-82/8 3

HEARING INFOID1ATION:

The hearing was held on June 29th, 1982 at the QualicumCollege Inn, Qualicum Beach, B. C.

The Board members in attendance were:

Mr. Frank Hillier, P. Eng., - ChairmanDr. N. Schmitt, M.D. - MemberMr. Andrew Lynch, B.SC., M.P.H. - Member

Miss Shirley Mitchell - Official Recorder.

REGISTERED APPELLANTS:

1) Bowser Waterworks DistrictBowser, B. C.

a) Mr. Glyn Edwards - SpokesmanChairman of the Trustees

b) Mr. Joe Galloway - WitnessWater Commissioner

2) Mr. Steven Anderosov - Bowser, B. C.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:A - Presentation of the Bowser Waterworks District

B - Presentation of Steven Anderosov

C - Presentation of the Ministry of ForestsD - Map of the Area Involved, showing Areas A, B & Cam the

manually brushed experimental plot No. 708.

- 3 -

Permit 104-370RES-82/83

SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANTS' PRESENTATIONS (In Part)

Mr. Edwards Some of his comments were as follows:

1) He said the Bowser Waterworks District had becomeconcerned with the number of permits issued for the area.He said other waterworks districts in the area were alsoconcerned since the whole area from Deep Bay to LittleQualicum River obtained their water supply from groundwaterin the same geological strata - the Quadra Sands.

2) He said that with so many applications of herbicidein the area, some of the herbicide was likely to get intotheir water supply. He wondered what kind of reaction theherbicides might have with the existing chemicals in theirwater. Would it be harmful to drink?

3) He wondered why the application area had not beenburned-off after logging operations were completed andbefore planting of new trees had begun. He said that thiswas a normal practice and anyone acquainted with forestryshould know that if the site was not burned-off, therewould be an invasion of weed species.

4) He said that the water supply to their wells wasvery delicate and could be damaged very easily.

5) He asked for information on the herbicide "Roundup".TheChairman said he would provide this information and itis now contained in Appendix "A" attached to this judgement.

6) The Bowser Water Board is a small water districtthat lies roughly between Jamieson Road and Bovann.ie Roadon the Island Highway. It has two wells (13 feet deepand 15 feet deep) and a 30,000 gallon,concrete reservoir.It serves a population of 372 people. The wells are fedby a 12-acre watershed and the Roundup spray area isimmediately adjacent to the watershed.

7) He said that when he read the label for Rounduphe became very concerned. In discussion with their con-sUlting engineer, Mr. Bruce Tait of Willis, Cunliffe,Tait/DeL Can, Nanaimo, B.C., the consultant had suggested thatthey appeal the spray application because of the delicate natureof their system.

8) He quoted two statements from a report of AssociatedEngineering Services Ltd., one of which said "contaminationof their watershed by petroleum products or chemicals is adistinct hazard".

- 4 -~Permit l04-370RES-82/83

9) In conclusion, he stated that if the permitapplication was sustained, they respectfully requestedthat spraying commence 100 feet back from any point intheir watershed.

Mr. Galloway.

He did not make a presentation, but assisted Mr.Edwards in the description of the Water Board facilities,and in the cross-examination process. It was noted thatthe maximum system demand was 6800 gallons/hour~ Theaquifer is about 15 feet down from the surface of theground and is covered by hardpan, except where the QuadraSands come to the surface.

Mr. Anderosov - Some of his comments were as follows:

1) He said that he was initially reluctant to filean appeal on this permit since he thought it was for asmall test application on three, well-defined, compactareas within the wood lot. He now understands that thespray area is of a larger nature and he is fearful thathis water supply could become contaminated. The land atthe back of the wood lot slopes down to a bog, which hasunderground seepage, to his property (and well) which isabout 3/4 of a mile away.

2) He is more concerned about the surfactant (wettingagent) than the active ingredient, glyphosate, because theliterature suggests that it is the primary toxic agent.

3) The scope of the permit is too vast, because itinvolves 75 percent of the wood lot. He said the term"spot treatment" is ludicrous in respect to the site becauseof the extensive coverage of alder, salmonberry and thirnble-berry. He said it is amtal area treatment.

4) He complained about the two-year,open time frameon the permit. He said the application should take place,if at all, at a specific time of the year, so that peoplepicking wild blackberries on the site would know when thespraying was to take place in advance of the treatment.

5) He is concerned about what the chemical may do todeer that browse in the area, and also to people who huntthe deer and eat the deer meat. He said that deer like

- 5 -

Permit 104-370RES-82/83

the treated leaves. The ,chemical can concentrate inthe deer liver up to 15 ppm for as much as 60 daysafter consuming the treated foliage.

6) He wonders whether glyphosate is a saferherbicide because glyphosate has been reclassified byHealth & Welfare, Canada, to a category next to"cancel registration". He says there is evidence thatglyphosate had a tendency to form carcinogenic N-nitros-amines when used in conjunction with sodium nitrite, afertilizer used in the area last December.

SUMMARY OF THE PERMIT HOLDER'S PRESENTAT10N (IN PART)

The following people appeared as representativesof the permit holder:

Mr. Mel E. Scott, R.P.F. - Stand Tending Co-ordinatorVancouver Forest RegionMinistry of Forests

Mr. Gary Gallinger - Field Co-ordinator -SilvicultureAlberni Forest DistrictMinistry of Forests

Mr. G.H. (Gerry) Reichenbach,R.P.F. -Resource Officer - SilvicultureAlberni Forest Distr ictMinistry of Forests

Mr. Scott

Some of his comments were as follows:

1) The purpose of this trial is to assist theMinistry of Forests to assess the efficacy of various appli-cation rates of Roundup.

2) Trials are necessary to build up a data base which canprovide accurate information on timing, rates and techniqueof application.

3) This project will not proceed until the necessaryauthorization is obtained from Agriculture Canada, and theAdministrator of the Pesticide Control Act has beenadvised.

- 6 -

Permit l04-370RES-82/83

4) A report will be completed following the secondpost-treatment survey, with a copy each to the manufacturerand the Pesticide Control Branch of the ProvincialMinistry of Environment.

5) Roundup is currently registered in Canada for useby agriculture and on rights-of-way. Rights-of-wayare frequently over land which is adjacent to forestland.

6) The areas will be sprayed with Ministry ofForests' equipment, following directions as written bySilviculture Branch, 1980.

Mr. Gallinger:

He presented a series of slides to the Board, whichwere actually aerial photographs of the site in question.He also posted two maps of the site on the wall of thehearing room and with the aid of the slides and maps,described the application site and the method of applyingthis herbicide. For further information, he showed theBoard a back-pack applicator and demonstrated its use.

Among his comments, the Board noted the following:

1) The site in question was a research orexperimental plantation, which had beendivided into four areas. One area hadbeen manually cut or brushed two years insuccession. The other three areas were tobe treated with Roundup in the following manner:

Area A - 4.64 ha - treated with a 1% solutionof Roundup to a maximum of one kilogram (a.i.)per hectare.

Area B - 5.60 ha - treated with a 2% solutionof Roundup to a maximum of 3 kilograms (a.i.)per hectare. This area was adjacent to theBowser Waterworks Watershed.

Area C - 9.92 ha - treated with a l~% solutionof Roundup to a maximum of 2 kilograms (a.i.)per hectare.

- 7 -

Permit 104-370RES-82/83

2) The site has been planted with a strain ofsuperior Douglas Fir conifers.

3) At the back of the site, it sloped 1 to 2 per-cent towards the boq., He said the Forest Service plannedto remove the back area and the area behind the watershedfrom the herbicide tests. Mr. Anderosov said this wouldcertainly reduce the possibility of contaminating hiswater supply.

4) In answer to Mr. Edwards' question, he saidthe area had not been burned-off at the specific requestof the Research Branch of the Ministry.

Mr. Reichenbach. He gave no testimony.

COMMENTS MADE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION1) Roundup had been used in other than forest

applications for some 10 years.

2) Mr. Scott offered to remove the wedge-shapedarea next to the watershed from the permit application(part of Area B) as a gesture of good will towards the

Water Board.3) Roundup was much more effective in the fall

of the year than in the spring. The Forest Serviceintended to carry out their herbicide application in lateAugust. They expected the area to brown up two weekslater.

4) At the application concentration, the onlyspecies of fir trees which could be affected were WesternHemlock.

5) Roundup binds tightly to the soil and isimmobile. Its half-life is less than 60 days. If itshould rain within 6 hours of an application, it willwash off the target species.

6) Roundup is effective against bracken ferns.

7) Warning signs will be posted when the treatmentis started.

- 8 -

Permit 104-370RES-82/83

8) Because of the density of the weed species,the application of the herbicide will be somewhereclose to a broadcast treatment rather than a spottreatment.

9) The amount of herbicide to be used is somewhatless than 41 •.3 kgs. (about 90 Ibs., or 2 Ibs. per acre)

10) The purpose of the experiment is to find a sub-stitute for the more dangerous chemical 2,4,5T.

DECISION!

The Environmental Appeal Board has considered allof the evidence submitted to it in the Appeal Hearingon Pesticide Control Permit No. 104-370RES-82/83and its Amendment of May 6th, 1982, issued by theAdministrator of the Pesticide Control Act to the Ministerof Forests, and has decided, with the following two con-ditions added, that the implementation of the program willnot cause an unreasonable adverse effect to man and/or theenvironment.

1) Warning signs shall be posted in prominant placeswhen the pesticide application commenceS.

2) A lOO-ft. pesticide-free zone shall be maintainedalong the eastern boundary of the Bowser Waterworks DistrictWatershed, as requested by Mr. J.G. Edwards, Chairman ofthe Trustees.

The Board visited the site of the application of theherbicide after the hearing, and noted the following:-

1) The Waterworks's well closest to the applicationsite, at its ground level, appeared to be 5 to 8 feethigher than the application site in the same area.

2) The Waterworks's well closest to the applicationsite was 85 paces from the boundary of the applicationsite (i.e. - at least 200 feet).

3) The wedge-shaped area ,which the Forest Servicehad offered to remove from the application areal appearedto be between 40 to 50 paces at its widest point (i.e.about 135 feet).

Since the closest well to the application site is

- 9 -

Permit 104-370RES-82/83

over 100 meters from the revised border of the appli-cation site, and clearly upstream from the site(i.e. 5 to 8 feet), any significant pollution of thewell water would be virtually impossible, particularlywhen considering the very low mobility of the herbicidein the soil. Further, the toxicity of glyphosate isvery low (see Appendix A) and in the Board's opinion,constitutes absolutely no danger to the citizens inthe Bowser area, including Mr. Anderosov.

The concern by the appellants that Roundup canform nitrosamines is based on speculation. At thistime, there is no scientific evidence that this herbi-cide is carcinogenic.

Roundup is of very low animal toxicity. Itsmobility in soil by leaching is known to be minimal.It is also relatively non-persistent in soil. Neverthe-less, the Board agrees that this herbicide, as otherenvironmental chemicals, should be used with discrimina-tion.

On the day before this hearing, the Chairman ofthe Board visited the site of an application of 2,4-Dlast year, also in the Bowser area, known as Block 187.This application was made by the Hack & Squirt process.The permit for this application had been appealed lastyear by Mr. Anderosov, and after the hearing, theBoard had sustained the permit (No. 104-234-81).Early in June, 1982, it came to the Chairman's attentionthat last year's application of 2,4-D on Block 187 hadbeen poorly done and was only parti~lly effective.The site visit confirmed this fact.

The Board would like the Ministry of Forests to knowthat in the Board's opinion, the ineffective use of pest-icides constitutes an unreasonable adverse effect to theenvironment. When the Board sustains a permit, itplaces a great deal of trust in the permit holder tocarry out the application properly,and when that trustis broken, the Board does not take it lightly. The

- 10 -Permit l04-370RES-82/83

Board, therefore, now warns the Ministry of Foreststo be more careful in the future, because if the Boardfinds that it cannot trust the Permit Holder, it mayalso find it difficult to sustain future Forestry permitswhich come under appeal, even though it finds there isnothing wrong with the conditions of the permit.

F. A. Hillier, P. Eng.,ChairmanEnvironmental Appeal Board

July 19th, 1982