Travis County Commissioners Court
March 14, 2006
Item 2
Number 2 is to receive update regarding the asian gypsy moth in Travis County. And we do have mr. George nash of the usda here with us, and yesterday's -- well, I guess the weekend's newspaper article generated a few e-mails that expressed different concerns about this situation. Pete, I sent you a copy of most of the e-mails that I received for which I知 sure you're very grateful. And we passed those on to mr. Nash sometime yesterday.
>> right. John kuhl, tnr environmental officer. Just to kind of bring you up to date, we did pass those along to the usda just pretty much as I got them from you I would forward them and probably the longest one was from dr. Carmen who is in the audience representing sierra club. And there is -- towards the end of the day, about 4:45 or so I got a response back to y'all and hopefully you were able to print that and have it in your packet. But we sort of got a comment response type of a product there for you to look at. Then there was another one towards the end of the day that came back regarding health impacts and so forth. So that -- we may need the usda folks to discuss that and then hear from the constituents or however you would like to do that, judge.
>> I think we we need an update from usda. Now, legally we are posted to receive an update, and at the time that this was posted, it was a follow-up to last week's discussion and last week mr. Nash simply advised us that the powers that be in washington, d.c. For the regional office has not responded to his request basically for authorization to treat. And when I put this on the agenda, it really was a follow-up so that the public would know. If we need another item, especially for action, that would have to be posted next week. By law, the item is supposed to give some idea of what you will do. And today's item gives the idea that we will receive an update unfortunately. But an update means not only have usda, but from residents. So this is an opportunity for us basically to lay out all concerns, try and get responses, and if we need another week to deal with those, do that. And also we need to hear whether I guess the washington powers have responded to the request to treat here.
>> I guess from a legal stand point of view, even though the folks that got in touch with washington haven't heard anything, what position does that put Travis County if alternatives are available and who will actually have the authority to ensure that alternative applications of ridding ourselves of the gypsy moth is adhered to? Who actually has the final authority to do that, washington, d.c. Or Travis County? As far as the kind of application that's applied.
>> I知 sure that the federal government would trump us, but our friends in washington would want to hear our opinion, so I知 sure they would listen to us. Mr. Nash, can you give us an update as to where we are on, one, authorization from washington. And secondly, any responses you might have to some of the e-mails sent yesterday? John, you sent the e-mail to court members yesterday?
>> yes.
>> I知 john nash, supervisor with ppq here in Austin, Texas. This is my new state plan health director stewart keen to my right. Basically we're at the same position we were the previous week. We still have not heard word out of washington whether or not any treatments for asian gypsy moth in Travis County will occur. We are still waiting word from washington at this time. As far as answering all of the questions, I致e responded to john in writing. If you all would prefer to have the public come up first and then we can respond second in case they have any new issues to bring up that weren't in the original e-mails, that's fine with us. I致e got some rather lengthy documents here that I壇 like to pass out to the Commissioners. These are human health impact studies on bt, which was the e-mail received from the sierra club late yesterday afternoon. That response was in writing to you all this morning as well. So I will leave that up to your call whether you want me to have me address the original e-mails they sent you at this time in detail or if we just want the citizens to make their comments and then we can come back and make additional comments if you would like us to.
>> why don't we try to lay out two or three issues that stand out for us, okay? For me there was one that said if there's an endangered species issues, then usda is supposed to communicate I think with fish and wildlife. And so the question is whether that's been done --
>> yes, sir, it has. The biological assessment and the consultation with u.s. Fish and wildlife was cuked back in January. The biological assessment and concurrence would be that there would be no impact on the endangered bird species or the barton springs salamander der was agreed to and signed off by the fish and wildlife service in February. Both of those are referenced in the assessment for this proposed treatment program.
>> for those who would like to receive a copy of that, do they contact your office and just request it?
>> yes, sir. It's a public document, been advertised a minimum of three times a week in the "austin american-statesman" since March third. We can send copies through the mail or electronically to anyone who would like to have one.
>> okay. Anything else from the court? What I would suggest would be as you suggested, we could have the residents maybe come forward with their main issues and then while you're there maybe try to respond because maybe other residents who are not here today would have the same questions. Anything else from court members?
>> no, judge. [ inaudible ].
>> the other thing is that in terms of the product being used to treat, can you tell us a little bit about it?
>> the recommended product is 4548-b, it will be applied at 64 total ounces per acre with 24 biu's, which is the active ingredient. There's been a lot of concern about the inert ingredients in the product. Federal law considers those inert ingredients to be confidential business information, which basically means they are trade secrets. Those inert ingredients are required to be presented to the e.p.a. At the time the product is registered. The e.p.a. Then classifies those products on their -- based on their toxicity. We have forwarded the label and the msds sheet for both the bt product and the amazing product to the Travis County health commissions. They do have the ability to go and get a listing of the inert ingredients in case the public has a reaction to the ingredient, then the health commission can release the list of ingredients to the doctors for treatment if necessary. Since they are covered by the confidential business information statutes, they are not required to be posted in the msds document for public review.
>> I didn't mean to cut you off.
>> that's okay.
>> but could you repeat that again? Because if -- in other words, if a person is affected by what has been applied, only at that time -- I guess after the fact, only at that time they would know exactly what the composition of what they've been exposed to?
>> the confidential business information, and I知 sure ms. York would know that law better than I do. It's my understanding that they release that information to the e.p.a. And to public health agencies. It is not commonly released to the public. You can correct me if I知 wrong, but that's my understanding of the law. The health studies that you've got there to summarize those very briefly in section 3 of that document, in humans, irritations to the eyes, skin, respiratory tract may be associated with exposure to btk and its formula. There's little indication that it will be associated with pathogenic effect in humans and no effect of endocrine effect in humans. The document we have out for public comment addresses the inert ingredients in btk formulations generic terms. None of the inert ingredients fall into class 1 or class 2 toxfication classifications by the e.p.a. And all of the inert ingredients are approved by the fda in either the food processing or food industries.
>> so what this says is it's apparently chemical components that would cause the effects of what you just described on human beings.
>> the eyes, skin and respiratory tract I irritants are generally associated with the commercial formulations. I am not a toxicologist, so I can't sit here and tell you with any degree of certainty whether that is caused by the bt or the inert ingredients, but keep in mind that, like I said, the inert ingredients are food additives are food processing products,, so people that have allergies to foods may have allergic reactions to the formulation as well.
>> let me ask you this: we have -- you have experience of applying this pesticide chemical components and whatever the derivatives of this. In your experience of dealing with the gypsy moths in other parts of the country, what type of application was applied to rid the moths in those parts of the country?
>> the number one product used in the western states, idaho, california, oregon and washington, has been bt. It has been the commercial applications of bt. You'll see in that 152 page document, section 3, that the numerous peer reviewed scientific studies on the human health impacts of commercial bt formulations.
>> have there been any other impact on the environment other than the people within the areas that has been applied? , water, soil, all the other components --
>> there's no restrictions on applying bt to water. There are no restrictions on applying bt as far as non-endangered (indiscernible) species are concerned. In other words, if bt which impacts moths and butterflies in their caterpiller stage, the only time you would have an environmental concern over that product is if you had a threatened moth or butterfly species in the proposed treatment block. That information for Texas has already been reviewed with u.s. Fish and wildlife service in the state. Parks and wildlife service. And there are currently no endangered moths or durt butter butterflies in Travis County.
>> I know we have to move on, but as far as the other applications that are available other than btk, you have several others that seem to be not as innocuous. Have those ever been applied in your experience in other parts of the country ridding yourself -- ridding that area of the gypsy motdzs.
>> let me back up a little bit. It's important for Travis County Commissioners and the public here today to remember that the actual choice of the product being made to use this product is not being made at the state level, it's being made in washington, d.c. Btk is the preferred treatment choice. There are other options available. One is demelin, which is a broad spectrum pesticide, which we will not consider using in Travis County. Another option is btk. Other option is the mating disruption product. The mating disruption product is not routinely used as an eradication tool, it is more used as a suppression tool. We have lobbied very hard at the local level to keep that option in. Another option that is listed in the eis is jyp check. There is a common misperception with the public that people use bt because it's cheaper, when actually it's just the opposite, bt is more expensive. The problem with using jyp check at this time is that it is not commercially available in adequate quantities to conduct the control measures in the united states is what I致e been told. Those are your four primary ones analyzed in the ea.
>> but my question was have there been applications of applied to rid the gypsy moths in other parts of the country other than btk?
>> the most common that are used in the western states in the last five years, btk is number one, demelin is number two.
>> thank you.
>> several of the e-mails contain this sentence, while I do appreciate the danger of gyp pi moth infestation, there is some question about whether a single male moth can constitute an emergency requiring aerial spraying. What's your response to that?
>> if you look at my written responses, the written recommendation for treatment actually came from the gypsy moth science panel which met January 14th and 15th. This panel was comprised of representatives from usda, the usda forest service, university of california riverside, cornell university, Texas a&m university, the oregon department of agriculture, the california department of agriculture and the washington state department of agriculture. This size panel reviewed all of the evidence associated with the single male find in Travis County and their recommendation was to treat. This is consistent with single captures in oregon and idaho in past years in the united states where one square mile treatment has been done around the single moth capture. So this is consistent with past usda policy. It's important again for everyone to realize that the decision to treat was not made here locally, it was made by the science panel based on their recommendations to usda. They felt because of the genetic makeup of this particular moth that it did have genetic characteristics of an asian moth, they felt that being this far inland it was very likely -- unlikely to have been a hitch hiker. It was unlikely to come in in a pupil form, that's the form most people would call a cocoon. They felt it was more likely produced by an egg mass. At the trapping density you will chap tur approximately one to two percent of the population in the area, which means you will catch one to two moths out of 100. That data allowed the scientists evaluated that data and made the recommendation to treat based on the single find. Single find treatments conduct understand idaho over one square mile as recently as 2004 have not resulted in establishment of gypsy moth.
>> so we found one, but we have reason to believe there must be more than one?
>> the science panel's concern was that they were not comfortable enough that this was an isolated introduction because of the location. Again, they don't feel it could have hitch hiked all the way from a port of entry. Also they don't feel it was likely that a single pupae made it on cargo all the this way. Their concern was that we could have an egg mass introduction in thar a.
>> so if spaying is done, what steps are taken to control drift?
>> the drift that you get is dependent on a number of things. It's dependent on the rate per acre. It's dependent on the type of application that you're conducting. In the case of an aerial application it can vary from aircraft to aircraft. It depends on the wind speed, it depends on the height of the application. All those variables come into play. Btk, this particular formulation, calls for 64 64 ounces per acre. The height we're looking at approximately one wing span above the canopy that will vary by the aircraft. The wind speed, the usda will not apply aerial applications when wind speeds exceed 10 miles per hour. So if the wind gets above 10 miles per hour, we'll shut everything down. The drift, there's scientific data out there on gypsy moth, I just saw some this morning, the maximum drift expected would be approximately one kilometer or right at 6 r. .6 of a mile. My experience with other aerial applications applied at roughly 50 feet above the target, whether it was the ground or the canopy in this case. Using a product where we applied only eight ounces per acre, instead of 64, that's a very important issue here. Here. We have to put a 500-foot buffer zone on water for grasshopper and eight ounces per acre. We have documentation from numerous applications, I致e personally done probably five million acres' worth where the 500-foot buffer is effective for keeping the chemical out of the water at eight ounces per acre. We are at eight times that volume in this application. So we've talked to some people at the public meeting that were concerned about drift. All of those individuals indicated to us that they lived a mile or on more outside the treatment area. We told them that based on our past history and the scientific data available that we would not expect to see drift a mile away from the treatment area.
>> let's get some of the residents up and hear their comments and get you to address them to the extent that you have.
>> I just have a couple of them. The areas where the testing was done, how similar are they to Travis County?
>> for the other treatment areas? Gypsy moth is a forest moth, so treated forest areas is the common area to be treated. Travis County is actually -- that area west of town is actually a little bit flatter than a lot of the areas that have been treated. Most of the bt applications often time in wooded areas in oregon, washington, are often in a more mountain us area. The treatment in idaho was more similar to this, a valley area and very flat and it was still effective.
>> okay. The other thing is what if the spraying is not done. The gypsy moth will travel, what happens then to an area?
>> whether we treat it or not, as I mentioned way back in February, we're going to have to go out approximately 78 square miles and do a delimiting survey. The intent of that survey if we treat is to verify that it worked. To see if the moth has established and spread further out than the one square mile area. That will be done regardless of whether we treat or not and regardless of which treatment we use. That will take place, the traps will go out in mid April and be picked up around the first of September. Based on the fonnology models that we used just last week, which is the second run, they expect we should have gypsy moth eggs hatched right around the first of March, we should have adult light around the first of may. So we plan to get the traps out by the middle of April and leave them out into September.
>> judge and Commissioners, good morning. My name's stewart keen, I知 the usda here in Austin, state plan health director, just arrived about two or three weeks ago here, but have been involved since we decided and it's been the decision to move forward. I just wanted to address the county court and just kind of give some quick insights here. One is that the pests that we're talking about is an economic pest, a forest pest. Establishment of this type of pest here would be of economic consequences in future years. If we don't treat now, basically what occurs is that we may just be looking at higher infestation levels which lead to economics and so on. So in the long run it may pose a bigger problems, if you will. So risk wise it's there. Scientists around the world and in the usda as well as outside the usda agree that one asian gypsy moth would serve as a trigger to enact a program for eradication and that has occurred red in many states as george has mentioned. The second thing I wanted to mention is concern over the inert ingredients. I think that what we're talking about here and the concerns of the public as well as the Commissioners court and other folks in Austin, obviously there's always a concern with inert ingredients, but rest assured to my knowledge in a case study that was done in another state, the health department had access to those inert ingredients. In the case of, for instance, if there was a case that needed to go to a hospital, if somebody was affected by the treatment then the health department could give the inert ingredients to the hospital in order to treat the patient as needed. Case studies indicate, as george says, for the most part a lot of it is irritation and ocular irritations may occur. What we're talking about is the asian gypsy moth that's in the united states. I just wanted to throw in a couple other points and address the court in that manner. Thank you.
>> okay. If we could have the following residents to come forward. Martha blairing, joseph birkle, neal car mon. Mon. We will need one of you usda representatives to remain at the table in case we need you to respond to some comments.
>> mr. Birkle, let's hold on. And then ms. Shore, neal carmen, -- just three have signed in.
>> morning.
>> morning.
>> if you would give us your full name we would be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is martha laren. I am speaking today in opposition to the spraying of the gypsy moth found in oak hill. While I do appreciate the danger of a gypsy moth infestation, there's some question about whether a single male moth can constitute an emergency requiring aerial spraying. The btk we're discussing can be lethal to some butterfly populations. There are other solutions that would be specific to the gypsy moth if it turns out there really is an infes traition. We don't know how long it will take for butterflies to come back or whether they will come back to original population levels. The birthson bats who rely on butterflies for food will have less to eat and also the spray may drift and cause problems for more than just the immediate spray area as we've been discussing. I know many persons in southwest Travis County and northeast hays county who have extreme sensitivity to pesticides and sometimes to inerts. I believe a more responsible public action would be to wait and see if there really is an infestation that would merit a spray program. If there is actually an infestation perhaps there is a more suitable treatment pursuant to the gypsy moth that would not kill other species. So I知 urging you to step back from this spray program, Commissioners, and the feds too, I guess, from the spray program, and see if we truly have an infes traition and look at other possible solutions that would be effective. And also less harmful to the viability. Pesticides don't respect county lines. Drift is really a problem. And I think it's something that in this country we start to look at a little more seriously just recently. And I have to say I personally have no trust in the safety of the inert ingredients. Thank you.
>> what's the danger of the wait and see approach?
>> basically the position -- and I致e mentioned this before, is that the usda is trying to be proactive. We're dealing with an invasive species. The one square mile treatment has been effective in seven applications since about 1995 in preventing establishment. If we don't treat and we go out and find that we do have an infestation and it's over the one square mile area, the treatment area expands. So the concerns of the public with non-threatening endangered butterflies expands. The concerns of people that may be sense sieve or have food allergies expands. All of those concerns that we're going to hear today from this group become magnified as the treatment area gets larger.
>> so early in treatment we think the spray zone is smaller. Later if there is an infestation, the spray area would be much larger.
>> yes, sir. You're dealing with, as I said before, the european gypsy moth, the female is incapable of flight. She has to walk around to spread. The asian gypsy moth is fly. It's been the policy to treat in a one square mile area. If we don't treat or don't take action, which ultimately is the decision of washington, d.c., we go out in a 78 square mile area, if we capture, trap asian gypsy moths, worst case scenario, over the entire 78 square mile area, then that becomes the treatment block instead of one square mile.
>> who else is here to give testimony on this item? Anybody? Okay. Ms. Shore?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> dr. Carmen?
>> thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to lay out a few health issues about this potential spraying with the btk and treatment of the gypsy moth because I think as you're hearing today from mr. Nash that there are certainly public health repercussions if the spraying is done, both within the treatment zone and to some extent beyond the spraying zone as well. I think first of all I want to emphasize there's a lack of studies that have been conducted in terms of btk exposure to humans. There have been some, but we don't know much about the problems of other health effects. But in some of the spraying that's been done in oregon and washington state, canada and other states, there's hundreds of people who have reported health effects. If the usd -- is the usda prepared to pay for medical treatment if people get health effects? Are they considering if they don't do that, evacuating the area? Because it's not just the inert ingredients which could include chemicals like sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium phosphate, fos forerick acid and others? The problem is there's a big difference between eating small amounts of these and having it come down in your environment where it's going to be in the skin, in the eyes. People could be breathing this. What are going to be the impacts of this? Is the usda proposing to do any monitoring of the amounts that are in the air or talking to people about their adverse health effects? I haven't heard anything about actual monitoring of what's in the air or what's going to get on people's skin if they're exposed and people do live in this area. And it's not just with the inert ingredients which we are hearing there are going to be inert ingredients. The btk itself, because of genetic engineering, we live in the 21st century, and what you don't know is that the usda over 10 years ago and other federal agencies have proved large scale planting of genetically engineered crops engineered with basillus (indiscernible). And people are consuming this. About 85% of soy crops today are genetically engineered. People are consuming some of this. The point is this is another exposure path way when you start spraying this in the air and there's been a concern by a number of public health scientists in the last 10 years that when you put this in the food supply, genetically engineered crops crown here in Texas, across the united states, these foods are not labeled. But it increases another pathway for 17 tiesization to, for example, induce immune reactions and then you want to spray people. The usda has not considered the ramifications of consumers who may have become sensitive to btk because they're eating it in their diet. This has not been studied at all, but we know when you increase the exposure, you increase the potential for various kind of health effects and the usda is not considering this at all. And I would also like to point out that the usda needs to I think -- mr. Nash has been more forthright today than what I heard from people who attended the public meeting a few weeks ago because then the issue was denied that there would be any pesticide drift. In some cases, for example, pesticide drift has been shown far beyond the area of spraying because some of these droplets, millions of droplets, will be microscopic. They will be arrow dynamic because they're so small. So they could float in the air and go well beyond the treatment area. And I know that they're going to be doing some monitoring of the wind speeds, but how much monitoring of the meteorological conditions will be done locally? What if the aircraft flies over an area where the wind speed has briefly gusted above 10 to 15 miles per hour because this is a large treatment area. They're only proposing to do a certain amount of meteorological monitoring. And the greater the wind conditions in certain areas, there's more drift that could occur and the impact of the inerts that will be present. At this point we still don't know the chemistry of those inerts, whether they're organic compounds.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> ... It's not necessarily going to be one 100% btk. There could be contaminants, bacterial con tan nants that have been found because of the way the manufacturing process occurs. Whether there's bacteria, people have found a variety of bacterial contaminants outside of the btk that could be present and if there are, what would be the potential public health effects of being exposed to this? Inhalation exposure, getting this in the eyes, the skin, so I wouldn't assume that a 100% of the bacteria present in the spray would be btk, that there could be some minor impurities of these other bacteria, and what are they? I think this is another question, and what is the quality control of the -- the pesticide formulation itself? What is the possible range of the inert ingredients, as well as the bt itself. There''s a lot of scientific questions that need to be ask. I think we need a lot more information before you make a decision to support whether the risks outweigh the benefits here of spraying for what we know is only one moth, and finally, only one -- only one moth was found in that one square mile area, but, you know f. There were more moths they could be beyond that area. They could be outside that one square mile area they want to spray in so far they haven't been found. If there are moths present they're going to be in that area, although they're going to be looking in this 78 square mile and so, you know, I think that is another, I think, interesting point is we don't know whether there really was just one or there are others. Anyway, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> any response?
>> a lot of the comments are outside of my control obviously. We don't control the manufacturing of the product, for example. We do plan to have extensive monitoring on the ground, we have to have -- we plan to have die cards set out around the sensitive sites. We've had one individual come forward to us and identify themselves as having a chemically sensitive child, we've made arrangements to reduce the exposure to that as much as we can. We had planned to go out a minimum of four to five days door to door in advance, notify the public, the public announcement will clearly recommend people may want to stay inside or leave their premises as a precaution to reduce their exposure, the only person I had specific talks about for drift was laurie at the reading, I値l stick by my recommendation I made to her there if properly applied we do not expect to see a one mile drift out of this product based on about 5 million acres and ten years of working grass hopper with a product that supplied ulv at 8 ounces per acre with the same target height with the same wind restrictions. The human health risks issues were addressed. There were two toxicologists at the public meeting, there was one from usda, there was one from td a, that document you have that, the 250 page document is available off the web, I値l be able to give it to you or e-mail it to you, the website, it addresses pretty much all of the peer-reviewed scientific research on ptk human health impacts all the way up to 2004. It's probably the most comprehensive review that I知 aware of that's been done by usda for btk human health impacts. It addresses those peer-reviewed concerns that were in your e-mail and for -- just so that the -- we understand we're talking about, just so the Commissioner's court do and scientific data, the term peer review means you've done your research, put it out for your peers to evaluate prior to publishing, this document focuses on peer reviewed scientific data. It's been published and reviewe by the publicist peers whether they're a toxicologist or doctor or health medicine, whatever they are. That is really all that I have, you know, under my control, we will be monitoring on site, we will be monitoring the wind on site, we will be buffering out the sensitive areas, we will have die cards in the sensitive areas to be sure it's applied correctly. We will require not only gps navigational requirements, we will require nozzle coordinating. We will have people on the ground not only taking the wind but monitoring the application over the sensitive sites as well. We will require the pilot to free fly the block, log in all of the boundaries as well as the sensitive sites into his gps computer so he's aware of where they are.
>> what -- if the aerial spraig is done at 12 noon --
>> not going happen.
>> [inaudible]
>> one condition -- I hate to interrupt you.
>> I haven't gotten a chance to ask my question yet. What time of the day will the spraying be done.
>> our preferred application date and time would be Sunday morning as soon as it's light enough to see.
>> at 6:30 a.m. On Sunday morning if the spraying is done, the spray will have landed on the intended target hopefully by what time?
>> if we can get started at 6:30 a.m. We should be finished before 7:30 a.m. With the entire area.
>> if I were to take my Sunday morning walk at 10 o'clock it wouldn't be in the air but it would be on plants and trees and --
>> yeah, the whole intent, bt is not what we call a contact pesticide, the caterpillar has to each the vegetative material and ingest the product for it to be effective. The whole intent of bt is to treat the vegetation, when the caterpillar goes to feed on the red bud or the other host trees in the area, it has a reaction in the gut of the caterpillar that disrupts their digestive tract, they're no longer able to digest food and they pass away.
>> want to reiterate the fact that there is a contingency of folks that we have on now present at our office and on the temporary duty assignment that will be going door to door and notifying the home owners and everybody in that one square mile block, so as far as public awareness and notification, I think we have on the usda side and more credit to george is that this has been done pretty effectively. I think that the public meetings have been -- have occurred or has occurred, and notification and proper notification has been given and we've been fielding questions from homeowners and addressing concerns and -- in this area, so...
>> as far as the application, you spraying up around us and stuff like that, can you tell me what, for this 78-square-mile area that has been targeted for spraying, can you tell me exactly how many gallons -- however you measure that application, what would that be...
>> at this time we're only targeting one square mile for application.
>> let me see -- I said 78, pardon me. One square mile, for that area how many gallons.
>> 64-ounces is roughly half a gallon.
>> 64 ounces per acre.
>> hold on, 64 ounces per --
>> per acre.
>> per acre.
>> total volume of product, 24 biu's of active ingredient.
>> that is 320-gallons per application.
>> 320-gallons per application total volume.
>> keep in mind total volume and active ingredient are two different terms.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> do we hear --
>> can I ask a quick question in response to what he said? What about notifying people in that one mile or more area that might be affected by drift?
>> we went around on the initial notification and notified people out within a quarter mile of the boundary, we will probably expand that, people who have come to the meetings and brought to our attention, there's a lady that has a butterfly house approximately two miles north of the block, the mother of the chemically sensitive child identified herself to us, we will notify them as well, lori has asked to be notified when the treatments occur. We plan to notify her. Anybody who has come forward and said we request to be notified we will notify.
>> I知 thinking about the general area for drift outside of that one square mile.
>> we went a quarter of a mile.
>> door to door for those people.
>> we went a quarter of a mile out on the initial notification and we will go at least that far out on this notification as well.
>> you said drift may go up as much as another mile out from the mile, right?
>> no, ma'am, the scientific studies that I just received today show that drift may occur over six-tenths of a mile, I haven't been able to verify the type of aircraft used the, volume used.
>> thank you, I am glad to hear you would notify the people who might be affected by drift.
>> yes.
>> ms. York?
>> morning judge and Commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. Good morning, thank you for this opportunity to approach -- to speak to you today. I live about a mile from the spray zone so that is my concern with drift. There are some scientific papers out that show drift up to a thousand meters, a thousand meters is as far as they looked in this particular study. I think it's more comparable than some of the things that mr. Has talked about, the malthy on spraying, it's different in its application, this study is a bt study, bt is sprayed. Sprayed at 7:30 in the morning with little wind conditions, and they did find drift up to a mile, this has been made available to you in some of the e-mails that you had, there's a link to it or I can share it with you if you would like, my concern is weighing the likelihood of infestation with the risk of treatment, I know that gypsey moth is a real concern. I also am concerned whether one moth could be -- might not be an infestation, it might be something else, when I went to the public meeting, mr. Berg ston, who is the usda toxicologist, he spoke to us at the meeting and said that his opinion was that the moth probably came in on a truck. If they've got 1% of the moths found, it's interesting that that moth was found on the highway along 290. It wasn't found out in the woods in those traps. They had 8 months from the time they found the moth to look for any egg masses and I know egg masses are hard to find but I知 assuming that somebody looked for egg masses in 8 months, I looked for other policies where they sprayed for one moth or declared it an emergency to spray and I couldn't find any. I知 sure mr. Nash has better information about that than I do. I talked to somebody who said -- and this is third hand -- that these scientific advisory board whose report I didn't get to see, I don't know if they're a governmental body. I was not able to obtain that document. That they had some concerns about calling this an energy and whether this was not jump a clear-cut case as it might be otherwise be. I do understand that one moth is a whole lot more than no moths. We wouldn't be having this conversation if they hadn't found a moth and there is a concern. So then you look at the risk of the treatment, and there are several treatments that are listed in their environmental impact statement as approved for use in ratification, the ferrimone treatment is approved, I know it's not your decision what to use, I think the ferrimone is less harmful to people, less concerned with inert, bigger pellet, you don't wind up breathing or eating them. But back to the original argument, the plans -- the government plans and documents that -- that talk about how we take care of this problem are all based on the assumption that there is an infestation to be irradicated. First you have to reach the conclusion that there is an infestation. These documents don't say as policy that you should spray because there might be an infestation. So first you have to reach the conclusion that there is an infestation and I just think that is questionable. I don't know that this scientific advisory board report has been made public or how heavily it's being leaned on. I couldn't contact some of those people because it's spring break and they're at universities. I just don't think that it's good public policy to aerially spray based on an abundance of caution for this kind of infestation because there might be an infestation. If we have an infestation I wouldn't be as opposed. I still think that there are more concerns with the application of btk than there are with another ferrimone product. There are still other products that are approved for use in an irrad occasion program, mass trapping is one, sterile insect release is another. The gyp check product which my understanding has never been commercially available. It was produced by the government for the government in the forest service, they do use it up east, it's, as far as I know, never been commercially produced, it is produced by the forest service. One square mile is a large area and it's a small area at the same time, it's a large area for the people who live there. For the forest service or usda, I can't imagine a smaller area, I don't think they treat smaller areas than one mile, if they say that mass trapping is not appropriate, I知 not sure where mass trapping is appropriate if listed in the environmental impact statement. It's something that could be done rather than spray everybody and everything with something that might not be good for them. Okay. And on to the treatment. Btk has been said to be safe in many of these documents. It's -- because it was said to be safe so long ago, there aren't that many human studies on it. Btk is separate from vt, so a lot of these papers talk about bt generally. Btk is a sub species, and it's hard when they do studies to see which is btk and which is bt, because bt is naturally occurring, when they culture it out of peel, they can't prove that it came from the spray because they can't always tell for sure that it's btk. Some of these papers don't distinguish. Some of them talk about that as a problem. The usda's own site-specific environmental assessment, which I was only made aware of this -- this last weekend and received a copy Monday morning says that based -- and I知 quoting -- "based on the risk assessment unlikely there will be effects from human exception of those compounds except for those individuals that are sensitive". Except for the people will be harmed, no one will be harmed. That is a circular kind of bad argument. And this is the only site that they have in this assessment that is a nongovernmental cite. The product my understanding is when you spray it, wherever you spray it, this is 960-gallons over -- over 3 applications that are going to be sprayed. Takes hours to land. It's not like they're going spray it and it's going to land and that's it. It takes hours, it blows around, I致e been told your windshields will be sticky afterward, this is a much higher rate of application, there's a lot more product going around. It's in water, so a lot of the water evaporates so you have different drop let size, the drops do fly around, we were told at the meeting that there was no drift and later mr. Nash did tell me that, you know, there could be some drift. I知 a mile away and I知 concerned about drift. And as far as the inerts go, I don't really want to be poisoned and told my doctor what to do afterwards what to do because of my medical condition. My understanding on the law on inerts they can register a product and next week the inert consist change, they're not bound by what is in the inerts from production to production. I do see some potential -- some contaminants that had been found of staph bacteria, there's another product that can be found in bt that is a natural product called a beta exo toxin, these are dangerous to all kinds of creatures and aren't supposed to be in there at all, and they're supposed to test every lot and make sure it's not in there. That doesn't mean mistakes can't happen, there's more dangers to btk than publicly or readily admitted. Also eating btk on -- on food items is a different immunological exposure than actually breathing it. Having it in the air, being exposed to it over a period of time, the product label says being exposed to proteins will sensitize people, they will be more likely to react allergicly in the future when they are exposed to it. Future applications of bt, future occasions of eating it, they will be more likely to react. I know I致e jump around a lot and thank you for your patience.
>> I guess I知 having a hard time --
>> I think I covered everything.
>> I知 having a hard time visualizing btk getting on food products for Travis County residents.
>> it is approved for use on inorganic farming.
>> and we think there's these farms in southwest Travis County in the area that --
>> there are. It's a naturally occurring bacteria in the soil, there's a very low level of it. If you go out and dig in the yard you could be exposed to it. It's naturally occurring at very low levels as is the gyp check, the virus product, a lot of things they use to control these things, they're moving away from the chem calms so much and finding, you know, natural solutions to them, which are better, but they still have to be applied with chemicals which are the inert ingredients, and --
>> okay.
>> yeah.
>> a couple of quick questions.
>> uh-huh.
>> so who is on this panel of experts?
>> I don't have the list of names with me, I can --
>> where are they from?
>> the fda, usda forest service, university of california riverside,er cornell university, Texas a&m university, the russian academy of science, oregon department of ag, the washington state department of agriculture. There are several other members that I did not recognize what the abbreviation meant as where they were from so I left them off the document so I can send you that list today if you would like to see it of the names.
>> state, federal and universities.
>> employees and universities.
>> yes.
>> did the panel look at treatment options other than treatment of -- treatment with btk.
>> the panel recommended that it be treated with the -- an appropriate product. The eis, as you just mentioned, it has gyp check in it, it has bt in it, it whatth has mating disruption in its, and also demolin in it.
>> did the panel look at other treatment options?
>> the panel, again, as I said, an appropriate substance.
>> what's the answer? Yes, no, or we don't know?
>> they recommended treatment with an appropriate substance. The appropriate stawnses are the four listed in the 1995 eis.
>> let me ask you that as well, judge, during the time when we were looking at the operation -- doing this irrad occasion is we looked at the options that were viable, we looked at the success rate of bt in other states.
>> that was provenning to the proper tool at the time based on that information, based on your discussions with not only -- not only here in Austin, but also with our regional folks in fort colin, colorado, as well as head folks in riverdale, so a lot of discussion went into determining the proper treatment, we did not just pick something that was available. We picked, given the situation, mass trapping was not a -- an option at this point in time because of the situation of the landscape that it presents itself. Very difficult to do mass trapping in this area that we're looking at in that one square mile. I think that if you look at -- and a lot of folks may question why, well, if it's just one gypsey moth that it's trapped, well, it's been proven in many cases and through a lot of scientific research that the trigger of one male gypsey moth and the trapping only traps males, won't trap females, we know that, so in the case of Travis County and oak hill in that one square mile aidus or one square mile area, there was three traps per square mile, really, and that only will determine if there's only -- it will only show one to 2% of the total population being trapped, so that -- that is one thing to consider as well. So all these considerations were taken and they weren't taken lightly, a lot of research went into it, a lot of discussion with the final implementation plan as using bt as the proper tool to use on this particular exotic pest so...
>> so your interpretation of finding one is this is bad news because if you find one there's a strong likelihood that there are others.
>> that's -- yes.
>> likelihood, judge, that there's a female?
>> could be more males or females because of the trapping density that is there.
>> that cannot fly therefore can't get caught in the trap.
>> the asian gyp by moth female is flight capable, the traps are baited with the perfume of the female, they don't attract the females. Back, real briefly, some of your statements, in most of the other states where one moth was found an emergency was not declared by usda. The reason for that is the state departments of agriculture took the lead in the control program, the state of Texas, td a decided they do not have the statutory authority to conduct the program so usda has taken the lead, two options being considered, one of them requires declaring an emergency and one does not.
>> two more quick questions and I promise to speed on. I知 the average resident, you come to me and say, sam, we'll be treating in your area thissal cog Sunday morning.
>> uh-huh.
>> I will ask, well, what should I do to protect myself? And your answer would be...
>> our answer as mentioned earlier, you can -- you may want to choose to stay inside, you may want to choose to vacate the area depending on your sensitivities, your allergy condition, are you allergic to food item, do you have food allergy, that sort of thing, that will be your choice.
>> and how long -- I would ask how long should I stay inside.
>> if we can do the treatment between -- between 6:30 and 7:30 you should be able to come outside by 9 o'clock at the latest. The product -- the product should -- you should, again, the drying time on the production is dependent on temperature and humidity, if the temperatures and humidity stay where they have been the last couple of weeks the product being a water base is going to dry very quickly a.
>> can the wind pick it up if the wind picks up the mile per hour minimum that you declare.
>> we won't.
>> cause drift later.
>> we won't treat above ten miles an hour, we will shut the program down immediately, talking to dick mastro, I asked him specifically yesterday rain is always a concern. What is going happen if we treat at 6:30 and it rains at 2 in the afternoon, for example,.
>> or the wind pick ups.
>> once the product is dried.
>> doesn't matter.
>> does not matter.
>> okay.
>> the wind and water are not going to remove it from the leaf material is what he told us.
>> did y'all discuss all of these fascinating aspects of this issue in your public hearings and your meeting.
>> we had representatives at the public hearing from the u.s. Parks and wildlife service, we had toxicologists from usda and td a, we had public information officers from td a and usda and myself and dr. Noloki from td a at the meeting.
>> okay. Yes, sir? Thank you.
>> earlier I kind of polled some of the questions that I was trying to hammer out to get some type of avenue train of thought to maybe come up with conclusion in my mind as far as decisions even though we know we're not to do an action item here today, just basically going to listen to everybody as far as an update is concerned, but -- but again, the judge polled some questions just recently and I had polled some questions earlier basically similar as far as trying to come to some kind of conclusion to determine who actually has the authority and who has the final say on what type of remedy would be applied as far as alternatives to irradicate the egyptian moth in this area, of course you basically had laid out that I really didn't get a firm answer on that except the fact that the bkt stuff had been utilized in different parts of the country, blah, blah, blah, blah, washington makes the decision. We haven't heard anything from washington, my question to you at this time is what will you take back to washington as far as the comments and from this Commissioner's court and also from the citizens that have came here today and those that are not present today that have provided input to you to look at maybe other alternatives other than the spraying application, what type of impact will it have any impact on the final decision of what application will be used in irradicating the gypsey moth out of this area.
>> yeah.
>> if any.
>> I just like to reiterate and, again, thanks for, you know, for bringing a lot of these concerns, we understand that there's quite a few of them, and believe me, as we get these concerns, these concerns are addressed, not only in this office, we get -- we get advice from all the -- all the way from regional to headquarters, so at this point in time as we lay out an operational plan to address it within the means of our plan protection act and the laws that we have within the federal government to enact such a program, we get condition occurrence from our folks in headquarters as well as the secretaries at the departmental level at this point in time, so right now although we're moving forward to continue with the program, we're awaiting for concurrence, and we do appreciate the concerns and we listen to them and we hope that at this meeting we've been forthcoming as best as possible to address them in all -- in all sincerity because of the concerns. So I think it goes without saying that we will continue to do so, and right now we're -- we're in a period, and I値l answer your question directly, Commissioners, that, yes, we are in a holding pattern. We are -- but we continue to prepare and that's where we are at right now, so we hope to hear something pretty soon and we're expecting to do so here I would say in, what, the next day or so is what we're predicting.
>> I think also to further answer your question, all of the e-mails that we've received from mr. Cool expressing the concerns that you all have sent forward, all of those have gone to the regional level and the national level as well, as soon as I get those documents, I知 sending them to my regional office, I知 sending them to the national coordinator for gypsey mouth in washington, d.c., one of the reasons y'all didn't get a response until 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon the response I make here at the local level has to go back up the chain for approval before it comes back down that I can release it. All of those concerns, yes, they are passed up the line.
>> why not consider the ferrimone alternative treatment option and what would be the economic difference. Difference?
>> the ferrimone is actually cheaper. Quite a bit cheaper. As I said earlier in the statements today, it's something that is not -- even though it's in the eis, it's something traditionally used and I think the state office here, I don't want to pat myself on the back, but we have actually lobbied fairly rigorously to keep that occupation in our environmental assessment with washington, d.c.
>> and it continues to be there.
>> it's a one time application. The one draw back to that, I know lori was at the meeting. We had the flakes out on the white piece of paper, they are a small plastic flake. They do have a sticker on them so they will stick to vegetation, according to the msds sheet, the data on the sticker is about equivalent to that of elmer's glue, but if we do end up going that route and you have a white car parked in the treatment area, you're going to have three to four of these little green spots for every square foot of your car. That is the major draw back to that product, people are going have to go out and wash their cars and wash their equipment to remove the product.
>> wouldn't they have to wash their cars after the btk spraying.
>> the btk spraig is a water base compound, it won't show up on our dye cards unless we use water sensitive. You actually have to apply a dye to the product so you can get your drop let deposition. So we're -- we're going to be monitoring with water sensitive dye cards, we will have people in the block probably setting those cards immediately prior to treatment because if there is a due, if we set them the night before, and you gate dew, you're going to get a false reading on the card.
>> thank goodness there are some people that understand this a lot more than probably the court. What I would recommend --
>> some members of the court. [laughter]
>> okay, I知 ready to sit in y'all's office. I do think what we ought to do and even if this has to come from the Commissioner's court, where we would send something up the chain, let's find out what the concern people think would be a good substitute for the btk and then all of a sudden we've got to do 78 square miles. I mean, we've got three people here with one square mile, I can't imagine what will happen with 78 square miles, so none of us want to question, you know, the importance to go forward with this thing, let's find a way that if -- if the neighbors say, hey, you know, I can get comfortable with that, then isn't that really what y'all want, as opposed to btk, that needs to be the direction from, hey one Commissioner, let's sign off on let's go forward with this thing, my recommendation would be hopefully that if, george, if you all need some of our help they are accepting of this, especially it sounds like there are alternatives that may not be as expensive and yadiyadi, that's what you which.
>> is there like a deadline pretty soon.
>> well, we expect and we've been expecting to get concurrence from washington, d.c. For about two weeks for the btk application which is what was recommended to us at the national level. We still don't have it. If y'all want to send me an e-mail saying that, you know, we've heard both sides of the story and we would prefer to have ferrimone disruption done in Travis County, get it to me today and I値l forward it up, no final decision on whether we're going to do any program at all has been reached yet.
>> something said earlier, though, I want to make sure that everyone understands where I知 coming from, and that is the person that was asked earlier about the authority.
>> the authority...
>> just let me finish. The authority meaning this: that even though we, the citizens of this Travis County Commissioner's court may recommend whatever solution that needs to be applied to irrad irradicate the egyptian moth in that area, whatever it is, how much clout, how much merit does that have if the u.s. Government, federal government what the other alternative recommended to them and if so, were they overwritten by the u.s. Government decision makers? Those kind of things still need to -- I think need to still be hashed out, I really don't know the answer to those questions. Mr. Nash, maybe you can help me.
>> well, I would have to do some research to answer the second part of your question.
>> okey doke.
>> whether or not btk was conducted under protest of a city or county government.
>> exactly.
>> like I said in most cases the applications have been done by the state government with federal funding. I do know that basically the decision in Travis County right now is being decided by the federal government of what will be done. It never in my opinion hurts or is out of order for the county Commissioner's court to make a recommendation on what you would like to see done, when I put a program together I like everyone to be on board from the very start, we've been talking about this now since early February. I would have no hesitation if you want to make a recommendation to my office or to my boss that we should surely send it up the line so we're aware of it. I cannot sit here in good conscience and tell you what decision washington, d.c. Is going to make, but does not hurt, if you want to make that recommendation we will send it forward.
>> thank you.
>> it would be gathering additional information and covered by a status report if we were to ask you to find out from the powers that be, panel or otherwise, what other options were considered and answer specifically whether the options suggested today were considered, if they've been looked at already I don't know that it make sense to look at them again, but -- but it seems to me to be a fair question to ask were these options considered?
>> and -- and I値l be honest with you, in a case in california right now, they're using mass trapping because of the environment the landscape permits it. They're able to do it because it's near an area that does not have heavy vegetation, they're able to get in there and do a lot of -- and place traps. That was one option, mating disruption was another, again we're back to of course btk as being the optimal tool to make sure that the -- with the pests we're dealing with, the exotic pests that it would be taken care of based on prior programs, emergency, as well as through scientific study. We looked assistant those, we've had -- believe me, we've had several and many conference calls and we're still engaged in conference calls regarding some of the concerns and issues that are being brought up to us and we continue to do that, but, yes, we've looked at the two or three options and weighed them, and -- and with the -- their track record that btk has over the long run and in the states that it has been applied, such as oregon, washington, et cetera, and idaho, that really it has been successful at this point in time, again, it's a different scenario here, we're actually taking a lead role in this situation. Texas department of agriculture is supportive of btk as well as the other options that we have discussed but they're supportive in our lead role using btk at this point in time, but we have not ruled out mating disruption as well, as george has mentioned, we should surely welcome any comments from the Commissioner's court regarding other options and we can surely get those to the powers that be. My bosses and on up so...
>> I want to think it's important to mention that the mass trapping is being used in california because there is an endangered moth species with inside the treatment itself, and that is the the primary drivings for for the mass trapping in that area, I think we should mention that we considered ground application of bt in the oak hill area. And because of the vegetation in the area, we would have actually had to have gone in and actually cut roads in some areas to gain access, and usda did not feel that it made sense to kill trees in order to try to protect trees, so that is how we ended one the aerial application of either btk has always been our first choice, mating disruption has always been an option, you were talking about the time line, mating disruption needs to go on no later than the last week of April if we're going to do it. So if you want to make a recommendation that mating disruption be used, by all means send it forward to us and we'll be happy to send it forward.
>> but have you considered that as an option?
>> yes, sir.
>> it's covered in the ea. It's mentioned in the eis, it's in our environmental assessment as an option for the area.
>> judge, why don't we -- why don't we as a Commissioner's court today, before they leave, send a message to the powers that be that we would like to go to plan b as opposed to btk, that would be our support, because we have got people that want to have that looked at. Y'all need that immediately, and I would think that y'all would need it collectively from us if you would ask john pool if you put something together --
>> what is plan b.
>> are y'all happy with plan b.
>> I prefer not to be sprayed at all, if I知 going to be sprayed then I prefer the ferrimone.
>> I知 happy if y'all are happy.
>> I don't think we're legally posted to take an action today.
>> there's nothing preventing from mr. Cool to get a [inaudible] if you chose to post it for next week or later in the week within the 7 hours you could do that.
>> yeah.
>> with you all knowing that you're going to get it. Technically may not have it in hand, but you certainly can get word that, hey, here is something that is coming in writing about how they feel about it, so everybody knows that we're working toward that.
>> we can communicate that.
>> that generates two questions. The first is how many days after receipt of notice to proceed from washington, d.c. Do you typically actually spray?
>> if we were to receive or scheduled to receive notice today by noon, we would have probably tried to go ahead with the bt treatment on this Sunday. On the macing disruption you have a full 30 days out before that has to go on, we have more than adequate time the get that product applied.
>> and basically as I said earlier the reason we're treating on Sunday mornings, the businesses are closed. Schools are closed, none of the children are out waiting for the school bus. Sunday mornings is the preferred time for either product.
>> so Commissioner Daugherty represents today that based on his evaluation of the court members' position, we'll have a specific formal request coming on Tuesday that is not to spray -- I mean would you spray on Sunday or would you just anticipate formal action and wait?
>> what I -- well, what we can do at this level is take your recommendation to washington, d.c. That is what we can do at the state level. We can take it to the regional office, we can take it to the national office, that this is the recommendation from the Commissioner's court of Travis County, is to use mating disruption pheremone.
>> will be on Tuesday.
>> yes, we will notify them of that before we get back to the office.
>> are you saying Tuesday of next week.
>> the court cannot legally post anything until today.
>> we can communicate that today in a conference call.
>> how do we communicate with the residents who have communicated with you over the last I guess 30 days or so and been told that we're headed in a different direction?
>> basically I have the staff on hand to go door to door again if we have to. I think that we will probably being quite frank with you have a lot of residents in the one square mile that are not happy with the mating disruption. We have had the -- the majority of people have given us the authority to treat on their property using either bt or mating disruption. Those individuals that have chosen one or the other it's running about two to one in favor of bt in the area.
>> can I speak to why that is, Commissioners?
>> if you can do it in 60 seconds or less.
>> I can.
>> and then we'll have to -- we'll have to end this item and take up another one.
>> there's another pest that comes out of the trees called the leaf roller, many people want to be sprayed because of that, it's not anything to do with their feelings about the gypsey moth or what have you, they're looking for the government to do something they could take care of themselves, so they don't necessarily prepare bt over ferrimone for gypsey moth treatment, their concerns are elsewhere. Thank you.
>> the e-mails we receive between now and next Tuesday will indicate whether that is the case. Thank y'all for coming down, we'll have an appropriately worded agenda item next Tuesday.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, March 15, 2006 10:38 AM