Feb 04, 2016
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