Site # Site_NameAtrazine Detected

Atrazine Metabolite Detected

Hexazinone Detected

1 Fish Creek near mouth X X X

2 Lake Creek above Fish Creek X X X

3 Congdon Creek near mouth X   X

4 Private spring to Congdon Creek      

5 Nelson Creek below Almaisie     X

Comparison of Aerial Spraying Pesticides Regulations

Washington State Forest Practices Act

Oregon State Forest Practices Act

Fish Bearing Stream Buffer

100-150’ for Forests similar to the Coast Range

60‘

Domestic Water Supply 200’ triggers the Special SEPA Review

60‘

Perennial Non Fish Stream Buffer

50-100’ 0‘

Intermittent Non Fish Stream Buffer, with surface water present

50-100’ 0‘

Buffer next to Residences 200’ None

Buffer next to Agriculture Lands

100’ None

Comparison of Aerial Spraying Pesticides Regulations, con’t

Washington State Forest Practices Act Oregon State ForestPractices Act

Posting Site Must post 5 days in advance and 15 days after spraying

No posting required

Public Comments Allowed

Yes No

Agency Review Period 3 Weeks No Review

Application Records Available to the Public

Yes No

Years Records are Kept 7 years 3 Years

Ground Water Protection Areas

Spray Application in vulnerable ground water areas trigger a Class 4 SEPA Review;

Chemicals Identified as Not Allowed:

Atrazine, Bromacil, Dcpa, Disulfoton, Diuron, Hexazinone, Metolachlor, Metribuzin, Picloram,

Prometon, Simazine, Tebuthiuron

None

There was a 92% increase in amount of pesticides sprayed from 2009 to 2011.

There was a 56% increase in acres sprayed from 2009 to 2011.

Repeated sprays on the same land cumulatively affect soil productivity.

Spring time sprays have a higher environmental impact to water, humans and wildlife.

Spring 2011 showed the highest EIQ ratings and the largest amount of 2, 4-D and Atrazine sprayed. In spring 2011, Atrazine and 2, 4-D were detected in

100% of the urine analysis of local residents.

Core Cold Water Habitat 13-19% of the private land was sprayed each

year Aerial sprays occurred within 300’ of salmon

and steelhead streams 2, 4-D was aerial sprayed closer than 300’ of

salmon and steelhead streams (Court Injunction)

Weyerhaeuser practices resulted in greatest environmental impact.

Oregon Forest Practices Act lack environmental protection.

Washington Forest Practices Act provides for: Agency and Public Review More Stringent Environmental and Health

Protection Corporate Accountability (SEPA)

Support Paul Holvey’s Bill to require all spray records to be turned over to the DEQ to increase public access to the spray data.

Reform our Forest Practices Act, including the chemical rules so they are more aligned with Washington State.

Determining what this means to our currently protected federal BLM land, which is threatened by a plan to harvest 50% of the trees.

In Oregon, the answer is sadly YES

Conclusion:Current Forest Practices Act is wiping out forestry ecosystems, fish populations and harming people.

Bobbi Lindberg, Retired Water Quality Specialist, DEQ

Laurie Bernstein, Retired Fisheries Biologist, USFS

Lynn Bowers, Forest Land Dwellers Sara Heule, UO Student Intern Emily Holm, UO Student Intern Alison Guzman, Community Outreach

Manger, Beyond Toxics Lisa Arkin, Executive Director, Beyond

Toxics

Eron King Gary HaleJan Wroncy Justice Workman