| Pesticide buffer zones around water |
 |
|
 |
| WTC vs EPA court case |
|
Federal court decision affecting pesticide use in Oregon
Join our email list - you will receive updates by email on information relating to this court order.
Simply send an email stating you would like to be added to the mailing list to: pestx@oda.state.or.us
News - (Mar 15, 2006) Oregon Coast Coho ESU waterways removed from court order. See updated county maps. County maps of affected waterways
What is this lawsuit about?
In July 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle found that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had violated its obligations under the Endangered Species Act. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit brought by the Washington Toxics Coalition and other environmental and fishing groups.
The federal court ordered EPA to initiate a review of the effects of 54 pesticide active ingredients on salmon and to consult, as appropriate, with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) on any of the 54 pesticides that may affect salmon. NMFS is now known as NOAA Fisheries.
Washington Toxics Coalition then filed for injunctive relief, requesting interim restrictions on the use of these active ingredients until the required determinations and/or consultations could be made.
What additional restrictions have been imposed?
The additional restrictions requested by Washington Toxics Coalition included “buffer zones” around waterways identified as bearing endangered and threatened fish species, including certain salmon and steelhead. On January 22, 2004, the federal judge finalized his decision on the injunctive relief and ordered certain protective measures be taken. These measures include “buffer zones” around certain waterways, which are currently in effect.
Which pesticides are affected by the judge’s order?
Not all pesticide active ingredients are impacted by the federal judge’s order in this case. The original case involved 54 specific active ingredients. Between July 2002 and January 2004, EPA had completed the required determinations and/or consultations with NMFS and USFW regarding many of these active ingredients. The list of affected active ingredients had thus been reduced to about 26 as of December 1, 2004. As additional consultations are completed, the number of active ingredients affected is expected to decrease. Following are the 26 pesticide active ingredients thought to be currently affected by the order.
| Active Ingredient | Sample Trade Names* | | Active Ingredient | Sample Trade Names* | | 2,4-D | Various names | | Fenbutatin-oxide | Vendex | | Azinphos-methyl | Guthion | | Lindane | Lindane | | Bensulide | Prefar | | Malathion | Various names | | Bromoxynil | Buctril | | Methidathion | Supracide | | Carbaryl | Sevin | | Methomyl | Lannate | | Carbofuran | Furadan | | Methyl parathion | Penncap-M | | Chlorothalonil | Bravo | | Metolachlor | Dual | | Chlorpyrifos | Lorsban, Dursban | | Naled | Dibrom | | Diazinon | Various names | | Phorate | Thimet | | Dimethoate | Cygon | | Prometryn | Caparol | | Disulfoton | Di-Syston | | Propargite | Omite, Comite | | Diuron | Direx, Karmex | | Triclopyr (ester) | Garlon 4 | | Ethoprop | Mocap | | Trifluralin | Treflan | | *This table may not include every trade name for each active ingredient. Always check the active ingredient list on the label to verify presence of the above ingredients. |
What “buffer zones” are required?
The federal judge’s order identifies “buffer zone” to be the distance between the waterway, measured at the ordinary high water mark, and where the pesticide active ingredient can be applied. Generally, “buffer zones” of 20 yards are required when making applications of affected active ingredients using ground equipment, and of 100 yards when using aerial application equipment. Not all pesticide active ingredients have a “buffer zone” requirement —just certain ones that might harm salmon (see list above). Most uses of the affected active ingredients, not just agricultural uses, are subject to the federal judge’s order. Not all bodies of water have “buffer zones” —just ones that have or may have endangered and threatened salmon species. To complicate matters further, the listed pesticides may not have “buffer zones” on all salmon-bearing waterways —just the ones that contain a salmon species that may be affected. County maps of affected waterways.
How can I find out if my use of pesticides is subject to this order?
- Read the pesticide label to make sure the product can be used on the proposed site or crop.
- Find out what active ingredients are in the product – they will be listed on or near the front of the product label. If none of the active ingredients are on the list above, this court order does not restrict the use of the product.
- Determine the waterways in or near the intended use site and which endangered and threatened fish species are officially considered to be in that waterway. This information may be found at Streamnet, ODA, and/or EPA´s interactive mapping site
The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) is continuing to work with EPA and Oregon State University (OSU) to clearly identify when and what “buffer zones” are required in Oregon.
Current sources of additional information regarding this order are identified below:
|
|
|
|
