Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Vince Fedoroff

MAKING THEIR VIEWS CLEAR – About 30 people attended a protest last Sunday in Carcross. They were expressing their concern about the herbicides White Pass was proposing to use on its tracks in Canada. On the far right is Keith Seaboyer, who spoke at the protest. Inset Jennifer Dagg

White Pass assesses spraying plan rejection

The White Pass and Yukon Route will take the time to review Environment Yukon’s decision rejecting its application to use herbicides before deciding how to proceed, says a company spokesman.

By Chuck Tobin on July 28, 2016

The White Pass and Yukon Route will take the time to review Environment Yukon’s decision rejecting its application to use herbicides before deciding how to proceed, says a company spokesman.

“We look forward to reviewing the information to see where we go from here,” Tyler Rose told the Star Wednesday afternoon from Skagway.

Rose said company officials have read the reasons for the decision posted online, but now need to look at the specific details being sent to them by Environment Yukon.

In the meantime, the company is relying on the traditional methods of controlling weeds and other unwanted growth along the railway tracks as it has in the past, he explained.

Tyler explained the desire to use herbicides was not driven by financial reasons, but rather the greater effectiveness of herbicides.

Traditional methods such as using weed whackers do the job, but they leave behind roots and such that regenerate, he pointed out.

Herbicide, Tyler explained, kills the plant.

In its application to use herbicides along 25 kilometres from the B.C. border to Carcross, the company notes unwanted growth on the railway tracks can affect the integrity of the rail bed and pose safety concerns for staff and passengers.

A Portland, Ore. company with decades of experience applying herbicides, and staff certified to handle and apply the products in question, was retained to do the work.

The proposal sparked opposition among Carcross residents, including members of the Carcross/Tagish First Nation.

A couple of public rallies were held recently to express their concerns.

Residents were not only concerned about its application along the right-of-way but also about the mixing and storage of the herbicide at the White Pass yard near the centre of town.

Environment Yukon released its decision rejecting the application Wednesday afternoon.

The decision notes the community concern over the possible contamination of Lake Bennett, the source of drinking water for Carcross.

It also noted concern regarding the potential impact on harvestable plant life and animals that may forage in the area.

Jennifer Dagg of Environment Yukon said White Pass can choose to address the issues identified in the decision and resubmit the application before Aug. 10.

There’s also an appeal mechanism built into the act, said the manager of standards and approvals.

She said the primary concern revolved around being able to maintain a 15-metre buffer from water courses and parcels of aboriginal settlement land owned by the First Nation which fall within the 15-metre buffer.

It also was determined there were discrepancies with the maps submitted by White Pass, she pointed out.

“Due to the nature of the railway’s path, and intermittent proximity to water, only 40 per cent of the right-of-way could be treated based on the proposed buffer distance of 15 metres,” reads the decision posted Wednesday.

“The proposed method for identifying and protecting the 15-metre buffer is unsatisfactory, as it would depend on the applicators’ line of sight, individual judgment and inadequate maps.”

The proposed application did not trigger a review by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board because the products proposed are not restricted.

Dagg said Health Canada determines how herbicides are classified.

If they are not restricted, the federal agency still determines whether they should be limited to commercial use and only by a licensed applicator.

The product Vantage XRT, one of three being proposed for use, is classified for commercial use along with the requirement that there must be a 15-metre buffer from water and areas of non-targeted plant life, she pointed out.

Comments (11)

Up 17 Down 1

plywood on Jul 29, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Why don't they hire hippies, like tree planters, to walk the rails and pull all the weeds.
Summer job in Yukon, camping alongside the rails...

Up 9 Down 5

Simple Man on Jul 29, 2016 at 6:30 pm

I'm glad WP&YR has been prevented from using this substance along the Bennett stretch....too bad they can't be taken to task for the miles of what effectively amount to wooden daggers they left after "brushing" along the right of way north of Carcross. An unsightly mess of downed foliage interspersed with wooden spikes for miles. Hopefully the Moose, Deer, Caribou and such do not suffer many injuries navigating this mess left by WP&YR.

Up 4 Down 2

NeilAlexGeddy on Jul 29, 2016 at 6:11 pm

Pretty cut and dry decision here.
"The product Vantage XRT, one of three being proposed for use, is classified for commercial use along with the requirement that there must be a 15-metre buffer from water and areas of non-targeted plant life"

Up 8 Down 7

Keith Seaboyer on Jul 29, 2016 at 2:34 pm

A wise decision by Jennifer Dagg to NOT allow the toxic chemicals that WPYR wants to use. ..see the full decision posted on Yukon Environment website.

Unfortunately there were over 6,000 pesticide poisonings in Canada in 2015. Over half were children under 6 years of age.

There are already over 125 communities in Canada, including the entire province of Quebec and the lower third of B.C. that are recognized as Pesticide FREE. Feel free to check www.DavidSuzuki Foundation.com for more details.

The reason for those pesticide FREE zones is that the chemicals (similar to what WPYR wants to use) are TOXIC and KILL the vegetation they come in contact with.......

According to Health Canada website, "mist drift" can travel up to SIX MILES from point of application.
The location WPYR has selected to store and process the toxic chemicals is about half a block from the local daycare center. We do NOT want to risk childrens' health.

Wind directions often change in Carcross. The location where they want to store and mix the chemicals is a few feet from the Carcross Commons, where there are on average 600 visitors per day during the summer months.

WPYR rail has not yet publicly addressed the fourteen specific items of concern addressed to them a week ago (see Whitehorse Star July 22nd page 4 ). They did NOT attend a public meeting specifically for them to address safety issues July 26th.

The WPYR officials clearly do NOT want these toxic chemicals within a few feet of THEIR water source. They do NOT want these toxic chemicals within a few feet of THEIR backyard, or UPWIND of THEIR daycare.

Is it reasonable for WPYR to expect the people of Carcross and surrounding area to have these chemicals a few feet from their drinking water source ? OR in their backyard.....?

Hopefully cooler heads and common sense will prevail and WPYR will use similar LESS TOXIC methods of vegetation control similar to they have used in previous years.

Please take a minute to relay your comments to Ms. Jennifer Dagg via e-mail Jennifer.Dagg@gov.yk.ca or FAX 867-393-6213

Thank you
Keith Seaboyer
Chair
Keep Yukon Pesticide Free 2016 Committee
e-mail
kYpf2016@gmail.com

Up 4 Down 0

Max Mack on Jul 29, 2016 at 2:31 pm

@BNR
My comment related to Dagg's history of decisions, not this one decision. I thought that was clear from a contextual reading.

Up 7 Down 5

BnR on Jul 29, 2016 at 11:34 am

Max
Please explain your comment re her "religious like fervour".
Where did you get that impression? Environment Yukon reviewed the application and rejected it. I don't know how you interprets that as "religious like fervour". Furthermore, how will this affect the cost of living and "put the brakes" on economic activity? Do you just make this stuff up? If anything, using mechanical means to clear the brush will create more work and economic opportunities.

Up 10 Down 8

Arn Anderson on Jul 29, 2016 at 8:55 am

Take a stroll through Carcross and see how much invasive plants there is. I guarantee lots and do nothing about it, yet if a business required by the invasive species act to control weeds on the land it operates subjugated by this silly ruling, I expect Yukon Environment to be out there in full force pulling weeds like idiots.

Up 9 Down 0

Railway Historian's Perspective on Jul 28, 2016 at 7:30 pm

Historically one common method over the last century was some variation of a weed burner car, using a range of fixed or movable burner heads, optionally with flame hoods or an inverted flame pan to limit spread of burning debris. ...
Some just cover the space between the tie ends, and some could reach as much as 20' from the track centerline. The fire hazards are obvious, but can be minimized by burning during low fire danger as the weeds emerge, and making multiple quick passes as different classes of weeds emerge.

A preferred option would be a combination of multiple light pass burning to a width of about 10', with mechanical trimming further out. White Pass's widening of the RoW platform over the last 20 years has greatly facilitated access for suitable road/rail vehicles, while at the same time encouraged growth of dense vegetation right along the tracks. The latter is the driving problem, since White Pass's passengers are not interested in riding between two high dense hedges.

But this has always been a problem for the White Pass. Opening a clear passage through what amounts to a sub-alpine rain forest encourages denser growth in the margins. Any treatment that clears existing brush along the RoW will increase the sunlight available on the margins, and the wider one treats the more sunlight is available to power marginal growth. So I do not see any end to the need for sending crews out to trim back the obstructing young trees, same as they were doing 40 years ago.

J S - railway historian

Up 8 Down 13

Mark Sanders on Jul 28, 2016 at 7:17 pm

It's nice that GY wants to play it safe and they also are listening to local concerns. A system with integrity which is working!

I do not agree that this rejection is a major blow for economic development in Yukon. There is such a long an infamous history of health issues and environmental concerns from development which essentially says trust us it's safe for people, livestock and wildlife.

White Pass has the ball in their corner now and they can respond to the balanced concerns from government staff. Thanks to Jennifer Dagg for protecting our water and listening to grassroots concerns. It was not long ago that dams flooded First Nations traplines in Yukon without consultation. We have come a long way, let's keep progressing.

Up 17 Down 5

still wondering on Jul 28, 2016 at 4:21 pm

Still no mention that White Pass volunteered to not use herbicide in Skagway, though the railway route is federal and they were allowed to. All on their own they decided to respect the protection of the Skagway River, and use other means. I am still wondering if they are using herbicides anywhere on the US side of the border.

Up 18 Down 20

Max Mack on Jul 28, 2016 at 2:44 pm

Jennifer Dagg's religious-like fervour regarding the environment will raise the cost of living everywhere in the Yukon while putting the brakes on economic activity.

Government has a mandate to protect the environment, but it also has other, arguably more important, mandates. It looks to me like the cart is in front of the horse. As I have said before, "zero environmental impact" and "absolute proof" are impossible standards to meet.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.