Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Ellen, thank you for joining us and sharing with us first look, really, a draft of language addressing the issues that were raised in the Wood Products Manufacturers Report that the Land Use Review Board put together and shared with us has been sharing with us a couple

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: of times over the last

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: few weeks. So I asked Ellen to draft this language. It's based pretty closely on recommendations with maybe some slight tweaking to try and accommodate some concerns that came up during the testimony. So maybe Ellen, if we can have you pull that up and then walk through it.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel. I don't have a laptop. I'm just doing paper.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay, so we have it then on

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I'll find it on the committee page. On our books.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, we're looking at 26Dash0787, which is a committee bill. Yep, I think it's under my name.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Yeah, draft 1.2.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That 1.2.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And it's four pages. Yes. Everybody have that? It's on today's it's under today's date.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Under Ellen.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. One second. I'll check. People are still scrolling.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Oh, no. I'm so off.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't know what town I'm in. So today's date? Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yeah. I gotta get to today's date.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Now go back to where you weren't there. Yes. Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Got Jed.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The eleventh seventeenth. Refresh that. Refresh your screen.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Draft 1.2. Yeah. Good. Yes. Okay. I think we're all set.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So draft 1.2, this is the first draft you're seeing. It is the language as the chair just mentioned based on recommendations nine and ten from the wood products manufacturer report. They are not in that order in this bill because both of them are amending the second, the same statute. So I'll point out which is for which. But on page one, section one is amending 10 VSA 6,001, which is the definition section of Act two fifty. And so first, it's adding new language at the bottom of page one. This is part of recommendation number nine, which is to align the same treatment that farming has under Act two fifty and apply that for logging and forestry as well. And this is what has been somewhat discussed as the Stony Brook analysis. And so in statute already, there is this provision for farming, where if a parcel is primarily devoted to farming or devoted to farming, but something commercial that would normally require the need for an Act two fifty permit will also be on that site. There's a provision here that says only the commercial part will be under Act two fifty jurisdiction. And so that is being added here now for logging and forestry. So at the bottom of page one, when development is proposed to occur on a parcel or tract of land that is devoted to logging and forestry, only those portions of

[Unknown committee member/staff]: the parcel, onto page two, or the tract that support the development shall be subject to regulation under this chapter. Permits issued under this chapter shall not impose conditions on other portions of the tract, the parcel or tract of land that do not support the development

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: and that restrict or conflict with acceptable management practices adopted by the Commissioner of Forest Parks and Recreation. So permits shall not impose conditions on the part that is logging and forestry that is exempt, but if something else is happening on the site that may trigger the need for an active 50 permit, the permit is limited to that portion of the parcel.

[Unknown committee member/staff]: John?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Does the development have to remain within these spheres? Development is agricultural or it's forest economy related, or can it be development completely unrelated to agricultural or forest operations?

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Completely unrelated. One of the examples in Stony Brook was a farm that leased space on the silo to put up a telecommunications. So the limit there was just to the area where the tower was, and that is a similar thought here. It doesn't matter if it's related to the farming or the logging. If it was

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: farming or forest operations related, would it then not even be an issue because those would be exempt? Correct. Okay, so that almost, I guess, begs the question. It runs into Act two fifty permitting because it's not one of those two. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The words devoted to, I had asked So about this is existing language, mean, this is new language, but it's the same language that's used elsewhere?

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, so this is a new subdivision F, The farming language that is nearly identical to this is E. It's in the statute right above. And so, yes, it does use devoted. I have been thinking about it, but whether or not that needs to be clarified, but it does seem that this, the language for farming was adopted in 2007. So it has been around for a long time and the district commissions know how to interpret it. So I think because we're using the same language, it should be clear, but I don't know if the Land Use Review Board has additional thoughts on if it is clear for their purposes, but I do think this came from

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: them. Yeah. So Okay. They're Yeah. Using this language. Okay. Is there a distinction between I guess there must be partial and tract.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So in Act two fifty, we do often, there is often the phrase tract or tracks of land because a development can cross multiple parcel boundaries. I don't I don't know, actually, off the top of my head if there's a specific, but I do think it ref I don't know. I can look into it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: If it I don't wanna have an unintended consequence. If if it includes more than one parcel, are we going beyond what we wanna do? But, again, this is the same it's parallel language to what Yes. Is in section e before this for agriculture. Okay. All right, any questions up to this point? We can go on otherwise.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So on page two, still in the definition section of Act two fifty, definition number 44 is wood products manufacturer. And this is part of recommendation 10. When this was enacted a few years ago, part of the description of what is included in wood product manufacturer is log and pulp concentration yards. I think you heard in the report that this previously had been considered part of a logging operation and therefore exempt. So by striking it here, those yards will go back to being exempt under Act two fifty.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The way it was prior to 2022, whenever Okay. So this is recommendation 10 being addressed here. Yep.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then also part of the recommendation nine, we're adding definitions of forestry and logging. Forestry and logging have been referenced in Act two fifty since it was initially enacted. So there haven't been definitions in statute before, but the Land Industry Review Board is recommending these definitions. So forestry is defined at the bottom of page two as activities relating to the management of forests, including a timber harvest, pruning, planting, reforestation, pests, disease and invasive species control, wildlife habitat management and fertilization that comply with the acceptable management practices adopted by the Commissioner of Forest, Parks and Recreation, and do not conflict with or violate any finding conclusion term onto page three or condition of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter with respect to any criteria established in section sixty eighty six one through 10. So this is the definition they are proposing, Including in the Vermont statutes generally, including always means including but not limited to. So there may be some other things not fully listed on this page that would also count as forestry.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Now, Bartholomew. Fertilization has a number of different meanings, and it's not totally clear to me what it means in this context. What does it mean?

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I do not know.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That would be a question for the Land Use Review Board.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, and I'm also happy to remove it if you would like.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Does it mean applying fertilizer or Or

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: FBR, because it's part of the AMPs, right?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I've never heard of a pig ear. I'm sorry, I'm not seeding in mulch, but I've never heard So I don't

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: know what it means. Okay, let's flag that.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Is there a statutory definition of forest? Mean, thinking of fallow fields that grow up, pasture, etcetera, is there sort of a bright line whether they're forest or not?

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No, not here. The forest is

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: called forest by the Landry's Review Board or Sparks and Rec. At what point? I'm just wondering when the piece of Andy comes up for

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: us, Andy mentions success. With At what point? Blackberries and goldenrods. Right. Little white birds here.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: If somebody has to manage their forest land for current use, at what point in that succession, can you enroll?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Or take it out of ag and put it into forest. Right. Yeah. And vice versa.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: We've temporarily heard that. Yeah. So

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: maybe we should just flag that too. Although, I guess we can get to a point where it we're being too picky that Right. Their their common usages.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And it is all under the caveat of that it complies with the acceptable management practices. And so I'm happy to look and see in there if there's any more specificity, although you could also hear from FPR about, I don't know if you have, but they may be able to talk to you more about their acceptable and management practices.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So the sentence is, this definition forestry means activities, etcetera, etcetera, that comply with AMPs. Yes.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Okay.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So then the other definition added on page three is logging. So here I will flag that I have tweaked it slightly from what the Land Use Review Board is proposing just for clarity, and I'm happy to hear if this doesn't work for them, but logging means harvesting timber. And so I think it is a subset of forestry, but I'm also happy to be corrected and includes log and pulp concentration yards that comply with applicable management practices adopted by the Commissioner of Forest Parks and Recreation. Logging shall not conflict with or violate any finding, conclusion, term, or condition of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter with respect to the criteria. So that last sentence appears in both forestry and in logging. And so their proposal from the board didn't actually define what logging was, and so I have tried to clarify that it is the harvesting of timber. But the phrase throughout the statute is logging and forestry. They're used together throughout. So this is like very deep in the weeds grammar issues, but I think they are to be used together throughout, but I'm also happy to hear if the LER has a different suggestion or if anyone else has a different suggestion. Go

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: ahead, John. Mean, Jed, you might have some insight on this, but yeah, I think logging is accurate as far as harvesting timber, but there's certainly forest management jobs of say thinning or girdling that you might not harvest any timber on that would be some sort of type of A logger might do it anyway.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Well, to be clear, timber to me is something where you can get a variety of forest products out of this main stem of a tree. But to representative O'Brien's point, I can picture a log, job that I'm starting to develop, have a forestry making plant, 85% of the stems are not merchantable. They will go to primarily firewood. So firewood comes from a tree, but it's a low quality and it's all by creating bird habitat or higher quality timber stand improvements. So I don't have a problem, Ellen, with timber, but it may be, as a colloquial, it may not include the broad spectrum of stem to will ultimately be renewable in a specific. So timber in some interpretations might mean a higher quality Well, but that's just my mindset. Yeah. But I don't know from Oxford

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Dictionary, what's just Okay. Well, look, why don't we just flag that too and we'll come back and see if others Yeah. Simple. Thank you.

[Unknown committee member/staff]: Richard.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Thank you. Well, to log in, whether you're pulling pine logs out get to floor and inside, and or you're pulling out firewood, that's log. And and forestry, to me, John, it entails what you were talking about, the girdling of trees or or thinning and leaving for to rot down into the ground to feed the new growth, you know, the growth that's there.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: You know? And that's a And

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: and that's part of forestry, just like animal husbandry. It's not all about making a steak or creating a bucket of milk or five pounds of cheese. It's about rearing your animals and and and and taking care of your animals. And forestry is taking care of your forest. Whether it's yours or somebody else's.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think well, why don't we keep going here, but we wanna get clarity on these. And I think maybe the department can give us some feedback and maybe others too, so that we're just, we don't wanna get too deep into the weeds. Are already, but

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And this has been used for fifty five years already in Act two fifty, so they should have a working definition of how they've applied it before. And so I'm hoping that is what this is. And they're just trying to capture how it has already been used historically.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just thank you, Anne. Can you just explain the reference here to subdivision 10, why is that there?

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Those are the active 5,010 criteria. And so it's saying that they, these definitions are used in an exemption and so logging can't conflict and shall with respect to any of the criteria. So it is broadly exempt, but if there is permit conditions, they. That action cannot conflict with any of the criteria already established in Act two fifty. And so there may and I think that this is part of the discussion you may have already had, that there may be instances where a permit has already been issued, and there may be conditions that say, for screening purposes or for soil stabilization, there needs to be trees left here. And so logging will not be exempt if it conflicts specifically under the criteria with any of those conditions.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: I think if we're gonna get into the definitions of Act two fifty, we should be thoughtful about if we're going to make any changes that they encompass what we want to cover. We're messing with the Act two fifty definitions.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so as part of the Wood Products report, the language review board didn't make this recommendation, and so maybe you should just hear from them how they came to this.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry, is section 53, was that not in their recommendation?

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I added the first phrase harvesting timber.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Because they just said logging includes pulp yard and concentration yards. And so I do think they have been using sort of the general understanding of logging, but I thought it would be good to have some verb in there. But also if they think that might conflict with how they've been using it, perhaps. But I thought there needed to be a little more description of what logging was if we're going to add a definition. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Good. And as Patricia just want to flag, we should probably ask the language view board and the department to look at this language and then come in soon as they're able. Okay.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: All right. So there's two more things in here. So on page three, section two. So again, section two is part of recommendation number nine. This is amending 10 BSA sixty eighty one, which is the exemption section of Act two fifty. And again, to bring parity with how farming is treated. There's this language is nearly identical to language in 6081S. That is a further clarification about the exemption for farming. So now we're adding language here for logging and forestry. So no permit or permit amendment is required for logging and forestry below the elevation of 2,500 feet that will not conflict with or violate any finding conclusion, term or condition of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter. Permits shall include a statement that logging and forestry is permitted on lands exempt from amendment jurisdiction under this subsection. So this is pretty close to how the law has already been operating, but providing further clarity that just like farming, logging and forestry is allowed on lands that are exempt from Act two fifty jurisdiction, And they are exempt below 2,500 feet as long as they're not violating anyone else's permit.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So what's the current language, say that we got that with precedent now essentially says the same, or we've been acting with the same ideas in that I get away. That forestry is exempt.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right, so I think this just has been implied. The current exemption that has been in Act 50 since 1970 just says development does not include forestry or logging before 2,500 feet, and so it's very short. And I think this language has largely been implied, but it was spelled out specifically for farming, so here you're also spelling it out specifically for logging and forestry. And then the last section, section three is a, is a session law provision. It doesn't have a date. So you'll need to think about a date for this, but on or before a date, the land issue review board shall issue a fact sheet and guidance on the act two fifty process for wood products manufacturers onto page four based on the recommendations from the 2025 wood product manufacturers report. The guidance shall include an explanation of how applicants can use the Stony Brook determination process. And so I do think this was one of the other recommendations from the report that I believe the testimony was that they've already started working on this, but this would put a deadline around when they need to issue that by.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, so this was, I think, the first recommendation. And again, if they were recommending that they do it themselves, it seemed like it might be helpful for us to actually put it into the bill. It won't be in statute, but it would be in session law. It would just draw a little more attention to it. Specifically to the Stoneybrook determination that we want that to be something that everybody is aware of how that works so that they have that option.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: John? Is Stony Brook determination process defined anywhere?

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is in the training. So it's it's comes from case law and the activity training manual. They do call it the Stony Brook determination process. So not in statute or rules specifically, but it is part of the application training materials they have.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other questions. So we would need to come up with a date. I think that our next step will be to have the board look at this. It's mostly language that they, I think it's all based on their recommendations,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: and the language itself is mostly language that they proposed, I believe. Yeah, Jed? So here's some thoughts on s 60 last spring forestry operation has the same meaning as in 10 VSA twenty six zero two. This is what we included in s 60 Vermont laws. Rather than making up definitions, just use what's already statute.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I did look at that one. So that yes. There is is a definition in that chapter, yes. So you could consider to go with that. I did not know if what the board was proposing came from how they've actually been using it for the last fifty years. And so I think that would be relevant to whether or not you do this. I'm not sure you need definitions because it's been fifty five years of using this without a definition. So I do think you should just hear the board's

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: reasoning. I like your clarification. Thank you. Thanks. Ellen, you have added them. They're here to support, They're in section one. Right? Right. But then when we get to section two, the first sentence is no permit is required for logging and forestry. So this the idea of having those definitions is so that when we get to Yeah. Section two, we know what we're talking about.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. And they are used throughout. I'm just I'm just also pointing out that they the phrase logging in forestry has been an act two fifty since 1970 and hadn't been defined. So, yes, I defining terms is usually helpful. So it's not a bad idea, but

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Unless you leave out.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Unless you leave out, yes. Not

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: to muddy the waters, but in Title 24, what's the forest operations use that's exempt from municipals? Now that our world is all about post task three, we should be consistent, I guess, right?

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I actually don't think it is defined either. I will look, but I don't think

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: it Our

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: doubt is exempt, though, right?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You read all those books. Every night.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You've been around as long as

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: John has. I to have some. That's

[Unknown committee member/staff]: the idea.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I should answer from previous testimony. I think I do. But can you remind me what a lot in the whole concentration yard is? Would you like B2 or do not help? I think I know what it is, but I just wanna make sure.

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is my understanding that they are storage locations from recently harvested operation, harvest Oh, please. Off-site. Oh, off-site.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: They create an opportunity to get the that wood to the market. Staging area. Staging area that once roads are become posted or spring breakup as opposed to being stuck at half a mile and a quarter of a mile in the woods where it shouldn't be many months.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So concentration is the real important word there. Because just on your logging site, you might have a log yard of

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Or putting right on the landing or it could be a hash mile.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Questions for Alan. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So would it would this log in pulp concentration yard, would that be the same as where somebody is commercially set up to receive these woods? He's he's like a log buyer, log merchant, you know, like, and and he runs it year round. Is it the same as that? Would that be exempt for active 50 or

[Ellen Czakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: My initial reaction is no, because it does sound like that is a commercial operation, one step removed from forestry. And so generally, that is what I think about for the analysis is farming, logging, forestry is sort of the primary action. And the farther away from that you get by adding more value or using it in a different way just than the primary action is when I start to think that it becomes a commercial enterprise as opposed to the forestry, but I don't know specifically. I

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: tend to agree with Ellen. I don't know what the intent was in that when many loggers have an alternative temporary, but there are numerous brokers or even mill owners that operate concentration yards where they buy from multiple producers of logs that didn't necessarily come they may be from two counties away, and they do operate ten or twelve months a year. So that's why I'm not and they are commercial. The product that they're taking in all came from forest operations or timber harvesting operations, but they're being sorted. Some they may bring to their mill own concentration. They may bring them to their own mill.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So there are people who who are in the business of not necessarily cutting down trees or even in the business of owning a mill who might have a business that is a place where people would drop. Correct. So one thing we know for sure is that up until 2022, this log in pulp concentration yards, that language was explicitly included in the definition of logging in forestry. Think whatever that might mean, there was an understanding and there ought still to be an understanding of what it means, we're just correcting an oversight from a few years ago. However, we can certainly ask others what their interpretations are. Ellen, thank you. Yeah. Thanks. We'll see you again maybe at the end the week.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Know, David, think the theory is that there's no developed infrastructure. That's why they've been exempted. You know, like someone has camp or travel, they pull in, you know, they go on.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: But some of the big mills have something that would be identical to a log and pull concentration yard right next to their mill as opposed to in Royalton, as stand alone. Right? And it'd be like, as soon as you start watering it, then it's commercial. Right? It'd be like,

[Unknown committee member/staff]: it could change just what you do. It could be a bit

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: of a rabbit hole. Mills water their logs. Those logs that are susceptible to staining. Yeah.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: But that would be part of the value added process probably, right? Potentially.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: It's like putting apples in a cold storage, So it's a matter of spoilage. Mean, if you don't do that, it was valued. I don't know that. I don't know if it's an answer.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, don't we check with others?

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: I just see the idea that there's a definition of forestry in title 26. Okay, good, good. That's the only place

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: where

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: I'm finding a definition

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: of the

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: word forestry, there's forestry operation, Jed said title.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, we're going to stick a definition, any definition in this part of the title, might be good to have it be consistent with other definitions. Because we hear all the time that there's 24 definitions, and they're all a little bit different. Right.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Hopefully, we'll keep track. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Committee, thank you for your focus on that bill, and we'll try and move forward with that tomorrow again or the next day, with some testimony from the L. R. B. And from the department. We're gonna ask now, I think, either Steve or David or both. Okay,

[Unknown committee member/staff]: yeah. You

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: can pull that one right around. There we

[Unknown committee member/staff]: go. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And just be aware, David, that may open the door to You know, when I had hair, it was less of a, more of a buffer,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: but I'll say that.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Yeah, well, good morning. Thank you very much for inviting us. Steve Guinelle, Director for the Division of Plant Industry, Agriculture, Food and Markets.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: I'm Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Division of Plant Industry, I know you were here just the other day and introduced yourself, but that used to

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: be called something else. Well, way back it

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: was Plant Industry. And then it was changed to FARM, Public Health and Agricultural Research Management, which always took a

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: while to explain to people. Oh fuck, P H A R S.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yeah, so we changed

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: it back to plant industry. And actually in the code of Vermont regulations, it's still under plant industry. So, know, made it simple. But thank you very much. And we're here today to talk about your questions about the paraquat, the use of paraquat. And we sent a PowerPoint, did you all get it?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We have that. And if maybe he wants to find it, that's under Steve's name. Today's today's date.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: And we're gonna just cover basically information we have on the product. So we've gotta talk about what products are registered in Vermont, what information we have about use of sales, reports of incidents that have investigated, the risk reduction measures that have been applied to the use of product by EPA. And then some, just giving you some links to regulatory reviews that have been done by EPA recently and by California DPR. But let's not get into them and answer any questions we can on this channel. So in terms of the products registered, we've got like eight products currently registered. There are two products that are in the process of being phased out. So they're under registration status called D2, which means they pay the registration fee, but they don't distribute the product. That's just allowed products in the channel trade to move out. But of those eight, the only two we've actually seen records of use are Roboxone three point zero which is the primary one that's we have records of use. And then there was a record of use of Helmquat back in 2023, think it was. So Gramoxone is the primary product that's being sold and used in Vermont.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you mind if we interrupt it? Yes, please. Representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So, director, if I wanna see where Gramoxone or Helmquad is manufactured, I can go to that EPA, look up that registration number, and they'll tell where it's manufactured?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: The, I don't know about that. On the on the container itself, there'll be a registration ID number. Yeah. Or actually a manufacturer ID number, and you can track it back. So every test site product includes the location or the number of the manufacturer. I'd have to work on that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you remember that about some?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Yeah. So

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: just to clarify, so you're saying registered, like the company that makes that pesticide, that chemical registers it with the state, not that the users are registered.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Right. Exactly. Okay. Yeah. All pesticide products distributed have to be registered with the agency.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Got it.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: And actually, Richard Nelson, Gramoxone looks like it's manufactured in Louisiana.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Louisiana. Yeah.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: So anyways, in terms of the use that's reported to us, so we have a system where commercial applicators, non commercial applicators, and government applicators have to report annually their pesticide use. And there's a form that they do it all they need to do it online or they can give us a paper form. And unfortunately we get a lot of paper forms. So they take a long time to enter and verify, but that uses the only use reporting we get. Okay. And so the slide there shows what was reported for paraquat use in those years. And there were only two years where that category of applicator reported use of that was in 2020, 18 gallons in Windham County. And then 2022, two fifty gallons of Addison County.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So that means a private applicator such as myself, I'm licensed to use a product only on my my

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: You don't have to report.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I don't have to report. Yep.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: You have to keep records. Yes. But you don't have to report.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Right.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: And during an inspection, records will be checked so we would see what

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yes, they are.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes, they are. Are. Representative Basil?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, so I feel like, I'm not sure if it was one of you, but somebody who did earlier testimony here gave us a number of a 100 and something gallons. Excellent. That came from Addison County or something like that. My impression, and that was early on in this process, was that that meant that was the only place that Gramoxone or paraquat were. But we since have heard from multiple people who aren't in Addison County who are using this. So can you just kind of explain how that works? So is that what Representative Nelson was saying? Once you've got your pesticide, once you've got your paraquat, you can use it if you're a registered applicator and you don't have to report it?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Okay, if you're a private applicator, which means you apply to your own property, you don't report. The only reporting required is by applicators who do it on other people's property, either as a commercial applicator, there are a number of custom applicators in the state or a pest control company, golf courses have to report.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: But like if you have your own orchard that you're selling the apples to other people, that's considered your orchard, That that's your

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: you're a private applicator.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So we don't have records of how many people are really using it then?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Well, we do That's the next slide.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Sales. Okay.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So the

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: other thing that we can do, we do require a report of sales of restricted use pesticides by restricted use pesticide dealers. So company or businesses that sell pesticides in Vermont have to register with us also have to be licensed. And there's a category of licensure for restricted use pesticides, category A. And so they report to us how much they sell on an annual basis. So that's the next slide, which is the reported sales in 2023 and the reported sales in 2024. Now, sales doesn't necessarily mean use. People may buy it and keep it in their store. And David and his inspectors find pesticides in store rooms that may stay there for years at a time. So anyway, so they don't necessarily correlate sales with use.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: So use is not all use because it wouldn't include somebody doing it on their own. Exactly. Would sales be all sales of any type? Sales for restricted use pesticides, the dealer who has to take an exam in order to sell that type. A couple weeks ago, we had a conversation about the classifications and dealers. So the dealer of this type of product would have to sit for a class A dealer exam. And then they, as a requirement, they have to keep all records of sales of that RUP, restricted use pesticide. And they have to keep that for a number of years per the pesticide rule. And those records are checked by our field agents when they go out and do what the EPA determines to be a restricted use dealer inspection.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: But I think your question was, does the, like the end of the company that sold, used the two fifty gallons, they didn't report that as sales, they were because they applied it. So the sales would be different than Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That would be Thank you. That was my question, and I I hadn't caught the fact that the two fifty was more than either of these two numbers. So the the commercial company, they're they're they're obtaining it from somebody, but it's

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: not recorded as a sale the way that Unless it was sold by a Vermont licensed dealer.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. To the end user.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: To the end user.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I I mean, I don't know whether we're interested in getting to this level of detail, but if if we wanted to get a better understanding of how much Paraproc was being applied across the state for course of a year, it looks like we're not able to get it from either the sales number or the use number. Well, we should be able

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: to get it from the the sales records.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Well, except we don't know if that's actually used. They just So bought there there are things we can maybe a little further down the conversation, we can talk about the other things we could do. And we could get more information. It would require effort from our inspectors to go to individual applicators and collect records, which-

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The bill we're here talking about, we're having you in because we're considering a bill and the bill would be on the youth. So I think it's important for us to understand what the impact of that would be.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: John? This reported sales are for two paraquat compounds you mentioned, is that what this

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: I think pretty much all of these were bromoxone. These were all, yes, paraquat.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Sales within state? Yes. So if

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: we

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: live in the Connecticut River Valley, people buying in New Hampshire wouldn't show up here.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Restricted use dealer has to keep, in Vermont, but had to keep records of all sales that they have for

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: restricted use. Potentially someone could go to New Hampshire.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Get a better price in New York or New Hampshire with

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Prices tend to be uniform across states.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: But these numbers don't include sales Do not include sales. Which could

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: That's true.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So I guess what I'm really hearing is we have no idea. Most of Vermont is close to a border, so really we have no idea how much has been sold or applied in Vermont is what I'm hearing.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Well, we have a sense that it's a small amount relative to other pesticides. I mean, I'm not sure how many people go into border states to buy the pesticide. I don't

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: know if that works economically. Commercial, but if you're a consumer, I guess you're a consumer, you can't buy this. You cannot buy this. Right? Just as an example, almost all of it's bought out of state where I live because there's no sales tax.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Representative, someone were to go to another state to buy it, Paraquad is a pesticide that requires you to be a certified applicator. So if someone were to go from Vermont to New Hampshire, they would have to have a New Hampshire certificate, a New Hampshire license as a certified applicator to purchase that in New Hampshire.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: They don't have to pay sales tax. So they're probably buying it out of state is my point.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: But they would have to maintain licensure to Hampshire to buy the New Hampshire. They'd have to be a New Hampshire certified applicator to buy That's a burden. Right,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: it seems plausible that people might cross state lines for one reason or another, their incentives might be, they might feel that they're saving enough on tax to overcome the cost of having a license. Any Which is closer. Or closer, yeah. Representative Bob?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, so I understand that the private applicators might be might be distributing their product on a. Like apple orchards that they're going to be selling then to the public. What would be examples of the commercial applicators or the government applicators? Because so far, I think 100% of the testimony we've received about examples has been from apple orchard growers. So tell me about the commercial and the government applicators.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Well, they would be applying as a service to somebody else. So we haven't checked the records, but we believe that the two fifty gallons in Addison County was on soybean, was for soybean desiccation for harvesting. Yeah. And it was a service that they provided to a soybean grower in Addison County in 2022.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay. So we don't know about any of those, like in terms of the 2024 year, we don't know about any real government use like the-

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Well, they would have to report.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yeah.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: So there was no reported use in 2019, 2021, 2023, and 2024. So assuming people reported as they were required to, they didn't make any applications of Paraqua.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: On commercial?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Yeah, on other people's property.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Or government then.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: All government. Yeah. And I don't think we've got any government. No. No use of Paraquat. They really don't have any reason to.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Government would be the agency or who would be?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: It It would would be the university, would be government applicators, the city of control districts or government applicators, agency of transportation, applications, conservation districts. If they're applications, yes, they would have to be certified as a government applicator.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Addiction? Yeah. Thank you. So 2024 reported sales. You list six counties. But that's not necessarily the county where it was used. Yeah. That's the county of point of point of sale?

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Yes. Yeah. For the sales.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So so they are selling it in Windsor

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: County. Rep that's all

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I meant. They sold 12.5 gallons. And I don't know who was selling it in Orange County unless that was Nutrien selling to somebody in Orange County. It could be. Orleans County, we don't have a dealer. So if I were if I were to use Paraquad, I would go probably to Caledonia County and buy it. Would that show up as Caledonia on here,

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: or would it show up as Orleans County? It should show up as Caledonia for where the sales made.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Okay. And these are reported sales. They're not reported usages.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Exactly.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And so because if there's a private applicator, a lot of times you you don't use a 100% of what you purchase. You store it in a prescribed way, and and their inspections are robust. And and and I know that

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: since I'm I'm an applicator, and,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: you know, we have to store it correctly and whatnot.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: John? Once you're a representative of Nelson, you're a certified applicator and you buy 10 gallons, At what point does your division check-in with that applicator if ever from then on?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Well, that leads us to the next slide actually, which is, yeah.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: For as far as complaints and investigations go, we we have not received any complaints as far as I'm aware of going

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: back to 2016.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: I don't know that we've ever received a paratholic complaint. When it comes to inspections, though, we do have quotas that we have from the EPA. We usually exceed those by a bit. But we would not go out and say, Hey, you bought 10 gallons of this. We should check you out. It would be if your number was pulled at random, it was your year to do an inspection, then we'll show up and do that. But just the number itself wouldn't be an impetus for us to go out and do an inspection. Now, if we had something that was quite the anomaly, we see from sales or from usage, you're using an exorbitant amount above and beyond any of the numbers here that seem to be keeping in line, then at that point, I'd probably direct somebody to go out, take a look, just to make sure, double check that it wasn't some sort of scrivener's error or a typo on the report. But if we do find something like that, that is one of our, probably our most prevalent violations, our usage reports.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Can a 10.1 certified applicator say, give it, Greg's like, it's Sunday, Richard, I could use an extra gallon.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: No, in fact, in order to use Paraquat, not only do you, it requires you to be a licensed applicator, but you also have to sit through a Syngenta training, which used to be offered by EPA as well. Now Syngenta, because Gramoxone is really the main product we're talking about here. So you have to take this thirty five minute training and you have to pass an exam at the end of it in order to use any of these Gramoxone or PeriQuad products.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Right, but representative, if somebody gave a restricted use pesticide product to another person, that's a violation. Even

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: if that same certified

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: it would be distributed. You have to be a licensed distributor to distribute restricted use.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: You have to sit for that class A deal or exam.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: John? Right. Being

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: a certified applicator, does that mean that you

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: have to be the one applying it or it's overseas? For this product and for materials that are federally restricted use products, you have to make the application yourself. You can't have it. It's called direct supervision. You can't use it. Now, state restricted use products, ones that are not federally restricted, you can directly supervise an applicator as a certified applicator. Federal. This

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Just for a point of education and I didn't realize this until my inspector who reads the book every month. I can't go to your house with wasp killer, with an EPA license and spray wasp at your house. And I'm licensed, and I I I can spray. I don't need a license. I still can't go to your house and apply that product. Right? That's good if commercial happened. Well, that's you can't apply pesticides on another person's property. If it's this year.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Yeah, that's test control.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: All right.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: So next slide, if we could. So the other thing I wanted to talk about, this is germane to the whole discussion is what risk reduction measures EPA has applied for this material. And this is an ongoing process that's been going on for a long time. But right now the ones that are the most significant that are in place are the certified applicators only. So you can't directly certify the applicator themselves have to make the application. There's the required additional training that Dave mentioned, which is a label requirement, it's actually on the label. So it's a label violation to not take the training. It has to be renewed every three years and it's an online course and it's essentially we've all done it now to see what's involved and it's safety and it's personal protective equipment, how to use it, how to maintain it, and what to do if you're exposed and how to avoid exposure. So it's all about safety.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: And a lot of these are also translated on the label into Spanish as well, which is not how a lot of the other pesticides are labeled, but this one specifically is. Right.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Then there's no labeled use in any residential area, recreation area like golf course or sport field. It can only be used in agricultural areas. And for the specific crops on the label. Personal producers What are the specific crops on the label? There's a lot of them.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Happen to bring

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: the labels.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I mean, because I've heard only apples and asparagus in terms of usage in Vermont, but would be curious to hear.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: There's a lot. A lot of agricultural crops.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Corn, you don't lose it on your stove. Right? Do you know anybody that does? Oh my god.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Maybe we'll have, when you're done with the testimony, Michelle, you can read that aloud or something, or we can maybe get it to the committee. Yes, yes, Yeah,

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: it's a lot of crops.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Yeah, including apples. And soy. Is there a

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: list of what kind of weeds you can use it on? Yeah, I mean it's

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: a 67 page label. So, there's a lot of information on It is a non selective herbicide. So it, you know, non selective post emergent herbicide, which means you can use it on pretty much any plant and it will kill the plant, you know. That's why it's not on the label. That's violation. Well, you're not allowed to use it anywhere for any site that's not on the label. So any of these crops, you can only use it on these crops.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Keep passing that around. That's really Sure.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Better than Nelson. So what

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: what would people use if Seroquat was if Vermoxil was removed, you know, other Peroquat containing herbicides were removed. What would people use? How would it Zepixa seed be? And what do organic primers use?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: There's a lot of questions.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Couple parter. Yeah. So,

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: well, as the agency, we

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: don't make pesticide recommendations. Pesticide recommendations are made by University of Vermont extension. That's one of their roles and appropriately that's what they do. Other extension services in other states may, you know, like a lot of folks in Vermont use Cornell or Massachusetts or New Hampshire recommendations. The licensed dealers also make recommendations based on their knowledge and using the university recommendations. But yeah, so to answer that question representative, it could be a lot of different materials. I mean, there's lots of herbicides. There aren't that many non selective post emergent herbicides. Roundup is a non selective. There are some of materials that are used in like utility right away, is pretty good. There's are pretty effective. There's a number of them, but Paraquat seems to have based on everything we've learned about it and is got some unique characteristics like you've heard testicle so far. Any product will have a different efficacy spectrum, you know, so, and that's, and as an advocate, you know this when you're trying to decide what your weed control program is, you have a lot of things you have to take into account, The weed species and the efficacy of the product, the cost of the product, know. So there's a lot of things that have to go to it. So anyway, as far as organic agriculture goes, there are pesticides that are So the National Organic Program, which is run by the USDA establishes a list of materials that are acceptable. And there are a number of materials that are allowed to be used as pesticides in organic production. We can get you that list if you want. It's actually in the federal register, it's actual federal rule that says, here's the products you can use and be considered or be eligible for a designation as USDA REN. That's a whole process they have. But as far as herbicides go, I couldn't off the top of my head tell you which ones organic growers use as herbicides. What I'm most familiar with is they use copper, number of copper compounds as fungicides. And they're also used by conventional growers too. Same materials are used for conventional. That answer your question, sir?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: So the increased personal protective equipment is on the label, so it's a requirement. And then the last part of it is they have a system for closed system transfer. The paraquat containers cannot be opened. You cannot take a cap off of paraquat containers. It's a sealed system that is a particular fitting that you need to use to be able to use the product. For the applicators, the personal protective equipment that's required in addition to the standard, which is long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, closed toe shoes, socks. You have some glove specifications. You have to wear a chemical resistant apron, a face shield, and a respirator. So to prevent any exposure, that's for handlers. And handlers are the folks who load the application equipment. So applicators have to do most of that. They don't need the chemical resistant apron and they don't need the face shield, but they do need a respirator for applicators. The gloves have to be greater than or equal to 14

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: And then watched after. Yeah.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: And then there's a whole, whenever you're done loading the equipment, have to wash your PPE. Of that Syngenta training is all about how to maintain the PPE properly.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And what happens if the weapon known as Jessica was out inspecting maybe representative Burtt's orchard and they were using Gramoxone on his nursery stock trees and they weren't brought wearing their required PPE.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: That would be a violation records. Hate to break that to you. That would result in an immediate cease and desist order on-site, probably verbally at that point, just not to cross contaminate anybody. That is her territory as well. So it's not that far off. I mean, I don't think that you're using that, but maybe you are. What would happen is she would stop the application and make you probably doff the PPE appropriately for the label. Make sure if you had a PPE at all, make sure that you were safe and then conduct the inspection. But one of the first questions she's gonna ask is, are you a licensed applicator? And have you sat through the training to be able to use this product? And if you're not using the correct PPE, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that you haven't sat through the video that explicitly tells you exactly what will happen if you're not one of

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: the people. Representative O'Brien, how long is the area toxic say mammals and birds and insects after spraying? Re entry interval

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: will vary by the crop, but it can be as short as twelve hours. And I think in some way it'd be more of that. Yeah, so this particular material binds very quickly to any organic matter. And so it's not out there working, things could be exposed to it. When EPA and California DPR evaluate the risks of it, they did not identify any ecological environment because the fact this material binds so quickly to soil or any organic matter. It's a very strong cation and positive ion. So it binds almost immediately to do whatever. So it's not like some other products that are water soluble, where it can move in water or will volatilize and you can be exposed that way. The exposures that we're trying to minimize are direct exposure to the material while handling it or breathing it in while you're fine. And that's why all the PPD is established. Does it bioaccumulate? Like say

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: it kills a bunch of rodents and then

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: binds the soil. So bioaccumulation, if you want to talk about that, that has to do with how it behaves in an organism. The materials that bioaccumulate in mammals are ones that are what are called lipophilic and they accumulate in fat basically. EPA has pretty much eliminated registrations for all of those products. The organochlorines back in the day, those were the ones that did that. And so the registration standards are such now that they don't allow those materials. They go to the materials that are more water soluble. So they defurate, they leave the body. But on the other hand, they're water soluble. Another whole set of risks you have to do. So anyway, that's how that works. But yeah, paraquat is not considered an environmental ecological risk material.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Reply to pass something then.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah. So just to be extra crystal clear, I've had a couple of people ask me then, so there's no impact, no possible way that it could impact water quality in terms of like if somebody sprays and then there's an unexpected rain and it goes into the ground, like where

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: it

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: doesn't move in that way.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: It has a very high, what's called a partition coefficient. It very quickly binds to the soil and even the soil that gets into the water, it's still in the soil or whatever suspended matter. So it's not a water quality issue.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: But what about into the apple tree itself or into the apples?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: The way I understand its mode of action, and I'm not an expert, is it pretty much just kills itself directly. Then it's bound to whatever the organic matter is in the plant. So, it's a very quick material. So, it's unlike other herbicides or a lot of herbicides that actually will enter the plant and be translocated to some sensitive part of the plant. That's how glyphosate works. And it takes a while for glyphosate because it actually has to be translocated to the growing tip of the roots and kill those before you get any effect on the plant. Paraquat, it's almost immediate, you know, or within a few hours, it's very fast just because of the way the physical chemical properties of the material. So not, like I said, it's not identified as an ecological environmental risk. The risk for this product is exposure to people. That's the risk. And it's significant. It's a very toxic product.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Represent Bartholomew? So if it's bound to organic material, what happens to What are the breakdown products? Must be something Bacterial

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: It gets broken down by bacteria. And what? I will have to look up. I don't know

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: what the breakdown products are.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: But again, evaluations are done as part of the registration of the product. And you do look at the breakdown products. And I can get that information to you if you'd like.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The concern that we've heard about Paraswat is that it causes where there's a correlation with incidence of Parkinson's. How would that happen?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: By exposure during application. So by breathing it in? Right. Yeah, or handling. Prior to these risk reduction measures being implemented, you could open a jug of Paraquat. Paraquat actually used to be brand and the would happen. The worst exposure would happen because people would pour the Paraquat into a container like a Coke bottle as a way to measure it. And then somebody would drink it. That's where things started to go up south pretty quick. And if you're not careful how you handle it, you can get exposed to a different can or application. So those, plus they used to have labeled uses for turf grass and for recreational areas. So the, you know, the possibility of exposure existed for people on a golf course or in a recreational area. That's all been eliminated because they don't allow that usage.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think 2016

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: or 2017 is when they started now, 2021 registration decision is where they really ratcheted down on everything. So that's probably the most significant reductions in risk happening between 2017 and 2021.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: There's also dye that's mixed into the

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: product as well. Right.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Yeah, I should have mentioned that. They changed the color to blue so that it doesn't look appetizing. And they added a material in it that is very repellent. It's odorant in a medic. And I actually had experience years ago when they first introduced us, they brought the material into our conference room. The material that they're going be put into the Paraguay. They didn't even open the container and we could taste it and smell. It's super potent and it's to prevent people from trying to drink it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: There's something that's sneaking out just at the closed container that you could smell?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Well, the molecules are potent enough that they sneak out and you smell it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Unfortunately, not the pear claw. Not the pear claw.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So in the history of this, did it used to be available to the public in terms of being a pesticide you would use personally or it's always been?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Always been restricted. It's always been restricted, but it had a much wider use pattern. I mean, there were more uses and didn't have these protective measures in place. It didn't have the post system, didn't have the extra PPE to the magnifier tree. He

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: answered the question. Okay. It's no longer a use on turf.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: No, in fact on the label, there's a little statement right at the top. It basically says not for use in residential areas or recreational areas.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Go ahead Gregory. You. How long is Berroquot been labeled?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: I don't know. Been a while. Probably the 70s maybe. Yeah, okay. Thank you.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So it's still legal to say use it on soybeans, you mentioned, to kill the soybean crop and then you can harvest the beans. Right. A lot

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: of the uses, the primary use for paracao in The United States is cotton and peanuts. And they use it as a desiccant or an foliate so that they can harvest the crop.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: There you go, planners and potatoes.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: My understanding about potatoes is it used to be used as a vine desiccant, but they've switched to another material that's less hard, dicloid or some other material, but which has a lot fewer restrictions on use. That's my opinion.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yields potentially, I mean, vegetables or crops that humans eat.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: If you put it on a crop, it kills the growing part of it. Right, like potatoes for instance, nuts. But again, doesn't, and I'll look into some more, but it doesn't translocate to other parts of the plant like glyphosate soil and some of it. Yeah, those work contacts.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Number of commercial applicators?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: How many commercial applicants? Yeah, how many do we have in the state?

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: I can get that number for you.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: But what just rough?

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: I want to give you a misleading answer. I can get that to you as soon as I get back to the office.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Certified applicators, I guess, is actually that can get you know I everybody.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: I get a couple of years. Those were licensed. Yeah,

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: so the last thing I just wanted to talk about is the closed system. So the closed system, we have pictures over there. Essentially you have a cap, a dust cap with the warning on it, take the dust cap off and there's a fitting so that the cap can't be removed from the container, but there's basically a valve in there that you have to use a special fitting that you put on your that's what the the picture of the black fitting with the key essentially. So you put the container on the key and then you can turn it and you can control how much goes into the application equipment. And that's how they prevent. The other thing is for a lot of materials there are instructions on the label on how to test for compatibility with other tank mix components. You would take a representative, you may have done this where you take a material, you're gonna tank mix and you try it out to make sure it's not gonna cause problems, sell out or anything. But you can't do that with paraproducts prohibited. You're not allowed to do compatibility testing with Paraply. I use basically three pesticides and I asked my provider of pesticides, how do I mix these?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: He schooled me pretty good. And I try not to vary from I have a very limited program that works well

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: and that's how I operate. Keep it simple, because there In your last slide, you mentioned this at the start, it has some links to references, including a California study. Can you summarize what we'll find there if we

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Yeah, I've taken a look at it. I'm not a toxicologist, so a lot of it was, know, took us a while to understand that. But essentially what they did is they took, they looked through the literature and reports of exposure, try to determine if there were, what the health outcomes were. And my takeaway from it was that it has, you know, exposure is a bad thing. So you don't want to be exposed to it, but there wasn't. And that the risk reduction measures that are in place now would do so. It's easily accessible and there's an executive summary with it. Be pretty easy to take a look at. So

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: just to summarize, as you understand Goosenda law, where it's being applied? So just be passed around the list, and if you could send that to us, that would be helpful to have. But we've heard testimony from apple growers and from the extension that it's being used in apples. You've shared that your understanding is, or maybe more than understanding, is used on soybeans, as we just discussed. Do you know or would you have to know other places where it's being applied as part of your reporting?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Other crops rather? No, we wouldn't have to know. I do think with the fact that this is such a There's so much interest in this and we are gonna take a deeper look at where use is right now try to glean some lessons from it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Go ahead, Professor. Burke.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: I actually answered at least part of this question earlier, but from your understanding, as of right now, you

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: haven't heard of any

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: reports of false issues or any violations?

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Well, Yeah, we have not had any complaints that we, so whenever we get a complaint, we investigate it right away and they opt right on it. It's only within twenty four hours we'll get out there and figure out. So we haven't had any complaints about paraquat use. And as far as we haven't had as a result of pesticide use inspections, which were routine, we haven't had any violations associated with parapoi. Do you

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: get violations from other chemicals?

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: As far as We get as far as complaints about pesticides, we have plenty of complaints. So we go in and investigate those complaints and we're legally obligated to do that. But when it comes to anything that's an adverse interaction between a pesticide and a human, the buck doesn't really stop with the agency of agriculture. Anything that we would hear about has been reported to EPA. And so we report that to our region. Luckily, we don't have adverse interactions. I think it's because we have quite a robust licensure program for those applicators who are going to be using products such like this, that there is a lot of hammering this information into their minds, wear PPE, who to contact if there's a spill, who to contact if there's a problem, where to appropriately purchase this product so that they can ask those questions to the dealer. But if somebody were to be adversely impacted, you would hear that on the news

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: for sure.

[Dave Hubert, Deputy Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: And how many inspections you do? We do roughly on average about 200 inspections every single year or pesticides specifically. Our inspectors also go out for feed fertilizer, seed complaints, apiary complaints.

[Steve Guinelle, Director, Division of Plant Industry (VAAFM)]: Yeah, but like I said, think we'll take a little deeper look at this to make sure that so we can answer your questions. Great, next time.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: All right, we will break for

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: lunch. We're actually gonna, after lunch at one, take some more testimony on this

[Unknown committee member/staff]: bill.