Making sense of small-scale soil sampling

“I can’t interpret them,” Mr. Waddington said Tuesday of results from soil samples taken around a 4-poster on Cliff Clark’s property.
Is the presence of permethrin in soils near one 4-poster station a significant finding?
The Town Board wasn’t ready to answer that question during Tuesday’s work session, held shortly after the results of a private sampling effort were released to the public. But state scientists are expected to attend next week’s Town Hall meeting to interpret the results.
On Tuesday, Town Councilman Glenn Waddington read the numerical results to the audience, but added, “Quite honestly, I can’t interpret them.”
Permethrin was detected in all four soil samples collected near a 4-poster station on Clark family property off of South Ferry Road, according to a report from Long Island Analytical Laboratories of Holbrook. The lab report begins with notes on the analysis stating that samples “were not taken by a qualified technician, therefore verifiability of the report is limited to results only. Report cannot be used for regulatory purposes.”
Surface soil dug by Bill Smith, who organized and funded the sampling immediately adjacent to the 4-poster’s pesticide imbued rollers, measured 743 milligrams of permethrin per kilogram of soil, a concentration represented as 743 parts per million (ppm). In other words, 0.074 percent of the mass of the soil sample was permethrin.
A sample collected in the same location 18 inches beneath the surface showed a much smaller amount — 11.9 micrograms per kilogram of soil or 11.9 parts per billion. That’s equivalent to 0.0000012 percent permethrin. The result is less than the lowest detectable level used for the prior sample, which was 5 ppm.
Permethrin also was detected in the “control” sample, collected over 200 feet from the 4-poster. The lab report indicated 322 parts per billion or 0.000032 percent permethrin. A fourth “blind” sample was intentionally contaminated with a 45 percent permethrin formula for dogs and registered 2,783 ppb.
After presenting the results, Mr. Waddington read a letter from property owner Cliff Clark, who could not attend. Mr. Clark asked the town to obtain an independent analysis of the results and requested that soil near other 4-posters be tested.
“I was assured by the Cornell folks that no chemicals would be found on the ground,” he stated in the letter. “I am also puzzled” by the positive test 200 feet from the deer feeding station, he wrote, but added that he did not think it was derived from the 4-poster. Pesticides had not been used on the control sample site, according to Mr. Clark, but broadcast spraying of permethrin has occurred in the neighborhood.
Mr. Waddington emphasized that Mr. Clark “very strongly represented to me that he has no political position” on the 4-poster issue. “I’ve always wanted to do some extra sampling on these sites,” Mr. Waddington added.
The audience consisted of Deer and Tick Committee members and both 4-poster supporters and opponents. Mr. Smith, who is running for town supervisor, said, “ I’m not an expert, nor is anybody in this room an expert. I was told by a lab technician in Georgia” that the 743 ppm result “is an alarming number.” Mr. Smith, who told an audience at a meet-the-candidates luncheon last week that he supported the 4-poster program, on Tuesday called on Mr. Dougherty to resign over the sample results.
Supporter Abigail Field spoke repeatedly about putting the focus of any permethrin testing on human health risk, not the presence of the chemical in soil. “I would love the broadcast spraying to stop. That’s why I’m in favor of the 4-poster… If you’re going to seriously test” the environment, “don’t do it to validate or invalidate the 4-poster. Let’s design a study to examine human exposure,” she said. She also commented that the state’s prohibition against 4-posters statewide is not based on introduction of permethrin to the environment but on transmission of chronic wasting disease to deer.
Some audience comments echoed positions stated at prior public discussions on the potential benefits and perceived threats from the 4-poster program. The program began in late 2007 when the state Department of Environmental Conservation issued a special permit to test the 4-posters’ impacts on deer, which are treated with permethrin as they feed on corn at the stations, and its effectiveness in killing ticks.
Councilwoman Chris Lewis commented, “In the earliest science presented to us, we were told that one of the reasons that permethrin was safe was that it bound to soil and therefore did not percolate into groundwater.”
Rae Lapides, Deer and Tick Committee chairperson, said that the presence of permethrin in surface soils is not a concern of the DEC and that the marked decrease of permethrin in the deeper sample validates the notion that permethrin in soil is not a threat to groundwater.
But Mr. Waddington commented, “I don’t know that it’s not mobile. I was honestly surprised that any showed up at 18 inches.” He also said that more thorough testing by the town would have yielded a fuller analysis of soils but that the town chose not to do it.
“I can’t for the life of me understand why people are so concerned about doing these extra tests,” Mr. Waddington said.
Deer and Tick Committee member Bill Zitek responded, “It’s like putting a third coat of paint on a house that already has two coats.”
“I’m the guy who puts on that third coat of paint,” Mr. Waddington stated.
Councilman Peter Reich put it this way: when you sample under a car, you expect to find motor oil. “To me, it’s not a surprise” to find permethrin in soils below 4-poster rollers, he said.
Mr. Smith argued that despite a 35-day half-life, permethrin was moving through the environment. “It’s up to you to find out and assure us we’re not going to find it in other locations or in our estuaries,” he told the board.
Councilman Ed Brown repeated the results: 743 ppm at the surface, 11.9 ppb at 18 inches. “Taking a real green look at it,” he said, “it’s dissipating pretty fast there.”
Frank Vecchio, a 4-poster opponent and manager of Mr. Smith’s campaign, said, “We were told we wouldn’t find it in deer; we found it in deer. We were told it wouldn’t come off the roller; we found it in soil.” He said that the town should have performed the soil tests.
“We wouldn’t be sitting here today if you had been responsible in March, Jim,” said Mr. Smith.
That and other comments directed at Supervisor Dougherty prompted Heather Reylek, Democratic committee chairperson, to say that while there are legitimate human health and pesticide issues to discuss, “You made it political, Bill, when you go and point saying that ‘Jim you did this, Jim you did that.” What about Chris, Peter and Ed, she asked, referring to board members serving when the 4-poster program began during the Alfred Kilb administration.
“It was very out of line for you to say ‘Jim, you should resign.’” Ms. Reylek also said an e-mail Mr. Smith sent after the results came in was threatening. Mr. Smith’s e-mail to Mr. Dougherty, which was forwarded to the Reporter, stated: “I’d resign if I were you before it gets worse, and it will. The truth always prevails… always. There is also a lot more to come.”
“You have a political agenda,” Ms. Reylek told Mr. Smith.
Speakers included Richard Kelly, who urged more soil testing; Chuck Olton, who saw good news in a “microscopically small” amount of permethrin at depth; and Hank Amann, who challenged 4-poster opponents to come up with a better way to address tick-borne disease.
“It’s to all our benefits to find out the true answers here,” Mr. Dougherty concluded. “And in the meantime, the 4-poster program goes forward.”