Site #Site_Name Atrazine Detected Atrazine Metabolite Detected Hexazinone Detected 1Fish Creek near mouthXXX 2Lake Creek above Fish CreekXXX 3Congdon Creek near mouthX X 4Private spring to Congdon Creek 5Nelson Creek below Almaisie X

Comparison of Aerial Spraying Pesticides Regulations Washington State Forest Practices Act Oregon State Forest Practices Act Fish Bearing Stream Buffer ’ for Forests similar to the Coast Range 60‘ Domestic Water Supply 200’ triggers the Special SEPA Review 60‘ Perennial Non Fish Stream Buffer ’0‘ Intermittent Non Fish Stream Buffer, with surface water present ’0‘ Buffer next to Residences200’None Buffer next to Agriculture Lands 100’None

Comparison of Aerial Spraying Pesticides Regulations, con’t Washington State Forest Practices Act Oregon State Forest Practices Act Posting Site Must post 5 days in advance and 15 days after spraying No posting required Public Comments Allowed YesNo Agency Review Period3 WeeksNo Review Application Records Available to the Public YesNo 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  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 Hale  Jan Wroncy  Justice Workman