(Beyond Pesticides, February 3, 2011) Following numerous developments on the antibacterial pesticide triclosan in consumer products over the last year, including several published studies highlighting the serious adverse effects of exposure, the submission of a federal petition calling for the ban of the chemical, and increased consumer awareness, experts are urging companies to take precautions and remove the ingredient from their products. Newest on the list of companies to remove triclosan is GlaxoSmithKline, which has removed the chemical from its Aquafresh and Sensodyne toothpastes, as well as its Corsodyl mouthwash. Recently Colgate-Palmolive, makers of Colgate Total and Softsoap antibacterial hand soaps, has removed triclosan from most of its products, excluding its Total brand toothpaste, a line that the company claims fights gingivitis. However, as Elizabeth Salter Green, director of ChemTrust, a UK-based health and environmental organization, says in Cosmetics Design: “If one eats the right foods and maintains correct dental hygiene, then triclosan, or other antibacterial agents are not needed.” Antibacterial Soap: Public Health Survey In response to a recent survey on antibacterial soap by the chemical industry, Beyond Pesticides has released its own survey questions about the health and environmental issues surrounding antibacterial cleansers and asks that you share […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2011) Citing the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency’s failure to protect over 200 endangered species from pesticides under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), two national environmental groups filed on January 20, 2011 a lawsuit to force agency implementation of the act. In what is penned by the groups, the Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), as the most comprehensive legal action ever brought under ESA, the lawsuit specifically challenges EPA’s failure to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service on the impacts of hundreds of EPA-registered pesticides that are known to be harmful to endangered and threatened species. “For decades, the EPA has turned a blind eye to the disastrous effects pesticides can have on some of America’s rarest species,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center. “This lawsuit is intended to force the EPA to follow the law and ensure that harmful chemicals are not sprayed in endangered species habitats.” According to EPA, the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies, in consultation with FWS and/or the NOAA Fisheries Service, “to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 13, 2011) Bayer CropScience finally announced on January 11 that it would stop producing the toxic chemical methyl isocyanate (MIC), 26 years after it killed thousands and contaminated the community of Bhopal, India. MIC is used to produce carbamate pesticides. Bayer also announced it would stop production of two highly toxic pesticides, aldicarb and carbaryl, which are both products in the carbamate family of pesticides. “This is an important success after a quarter-century campaign! The company now has to ensure that all workers are offered adequate new jobs,” says Philipp Mmikes from the Coalition against Bayer Dangers (CBG). CBG, based in Germany, introduced several countermotions to Bayer ´s Annual Stockholders ´ Meetings, demanding that MIC stockpiles at a production plant in Institute WV are dismantled and the frequent spills of hazardous substances stopped. According to a Bayer press release, the company will be shutting down its Woodbine, Georgia formulation facility and will be closing manufacturing facilities dedicated to carbamate pesticides in Institute. The production operations, which include the manufacture of MIC, will be phased out over the next 18 months and shut down in mid-2012. Though the company denies any connection, the U.S. Chemical Safety board is […]

(Beyond Pesticides, January 5, 2011) Your voice is critical in generating public comments on a petition, published in the Federal Register, to ban the antibacterial chemical triclosan. As you may know, this chemical, now found in the bodies of 75% of the U.S. population, is linked to endocrine disruption, bacterial and antibiotic resistance, dioxin contamination, and contaminated fish and biosolids. We have five more weeks —until February 7, 2011— to let EPA know that triclosan must be banned to protect the public, workers and the environment. Click here for the document you can use to publicize the public comment period on Ban Triclosan petition or email info@beyondpesticides for the word version. EPA published in the Federal Register a petition, filed by 82 public health and environmental groups, to ban the hazardous antimicrobial/antibacterial pesticide triclosan for non-medical use. The chemical is found in products from clothing to soaps. The Federal Register notice (Petition for a Ban on Triclosan, 75 FR 76461, December 8, 2010) announces a public comment period until February 7, 2011 on the need to ban triclosan under numerous federal statutes from pesticides, clean water, safe drinking water, to endangered species. SUGGESTED ACTION AND SAMPLE PUBLIC COMMENT: Please send […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 16, 2010)The Center for Biological Diversity notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) December 15 of its intent to sue the agencies for failing to study and act on threats posed by more than 60 pesticides to the threatened California red-legged frog. A 2006 legal settlement secured by the Center required the EPA to assess the impacts of pesticides on the frog, then consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act to address those impacts, by 2009. The completed assessments were submitted to the Wildlife Service between March 2007 and October 2009. Although EPA determined that 64 registered pesticides are likely to harm the frogs, the Service has not completed any consultations or adopted protective measures. “The EPA acknowledges that scores of pesticides may be dangerous to California’s rare red-legged frogs, but nothing’s been done about it,” said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center. “This three-year delay violates the Endangered Species Act and jeopardizes the future of the largest native frog in California.” Historically abundant throughout California, red-legged frogs have declined in numbers over 90 percent and have disappeared from 70 percent […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2010) Announcing a 60-day public comment period, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday published in the Federal Register a petition filed by 82 public health and environmental groups, led by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch, to ban the controversial antimicrobial/antibacterial pesticide triclosan, found in products from clothing to soaps, for non-medical use. The Federal Register notice (Petition for a Ban on Triclosan, 75 FR 76461, December 8, 2010) invites the public to comment until February 7, 2011 on the need to ban triclosan under numerous federal statutes. The petition, filed on January 14, 2010, identifies pervasive and widespread use of triclosan and a failure of EPA to: (i) address the impacts posed by triclosan’s degradation products on human health and the environment, (ii) conduct separate assessment for triclosan residues in contaminated drinking water and food, and (iii) evaluate concerns related to antibacterial resistance and endocrine disruption. The petition cites violations of numerous environmental statutes, including laws on pesticide registration, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. It also documents that triclosan is no more effective than regular soap and water in removing germs and therefore creates an unnecessary […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 1, 2010) Several fishing and environmental conservation groups are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to limit the use of six agricultural pesticides to protect salmon. Restrictions on the use of six pesticides in Oregon, Washington and California shown to harm endangered salmon and steelhead, were ordered after a court found that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to restrict the pesticides from entering salmon habitat. However EPA has failed to act to restrict the pesticides. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington is the fourth lawsuit the plainstiffs -Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations; Institute for Fisheries Resources and Defenders of Wildlife- brought against the EPA to restrict the pesticides diazinon, malathion, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, carbofuran and methomyl in streams of endangered salmon and steelhead. The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that EPA’s failure to implement the organophosphate (OP) and carbamate biological opinions issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violates the ESA, and a judgment declaring that EPA is taking listed salmonids in violation of the ESA. The lawsuit seeks an order vacating and enjoining EPA’s authorization of the uses of […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2010) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a new Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with a finding that the application of products containing any of 12 organophosphate (OP) pesticides are likely to jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered Pacific salmon and steelhead and their designated critical habitat. The 12 OPs addressed in this Biological Opinion, issued under the Endangered Species Act, are azinphos-methyl, bensulide, dimethoate, disulfoton, ethoprop, fenamiphos, methamidophos, methidathion, methyl parathion, naled, phorate, and phosmet. This opinion concludes that EPA’s registration of pesticides containing bensulide, dimethoate, ethoprop, methidathion, naled, phorate, and phosmet are each likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more of the 28 endangered and threatened Pacific salmonids and are each likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for one or more of the 28 threatened and endangered salmonids. NMFS reached this conclusion because predicted concentrations of these seven pesticides in salmonid habitats, particularly in floodplain habitats, are likely to cause adverse effects to at least one listed Pacific salmonids including significant reductions in growth or survival. EPA’s registration of bensulide, dimethoate, ethoprop, methidathion, naled, phorate, and phosmet is also likely to result […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 30, 2010) Adding to a campaign that Beyond Pesticides launched in 2004 to alert the public and pressure government to restrict the highly toxic antibacterial chemical triclosan -commonly found in antibacterial soaps and household and consumer products, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit earlier this week against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for failing to issue a final rule regulating the chemical. The lawsuit follows on the heels of two petitions filed by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch in 2009 and 2010 with FDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), respectively, to ban the chemical. Because of the widespread poisoning and environmental contamination caused by triclosan, the petitions cite numerous violations of statutory duties under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. The NRDC lawsuit adds yet another dimension to the legal violations involving agency malfeasance on triclosan by asking the court to impose a strict deadline for FDA to finalize a proposed rule that has been pending for 32 years and could ban many uses of triclosan and its chemical cousin triclocarban. […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 19, 2010) EPA has announced plans to place additional limitations on the use of three N-methyl carbamate pesticides — carbaryl, carbofuran and methomyl — to protect endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The decision comes after manufacturers of the chemicals diazinon, malathion and chlorpyrifos refused to adopt the limits voluntarily. The new protections are based on recommendations by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in their April 2009 Biological Opinion relative to use of the three pesticides to ensure no likely jeopardy to 28 threatened or endangered Pacific salmon and steelhead species. In a May 14, 2010 letter to NMFS, EPA explains how the Agency plans to achieve protection goals through the methods outlined by NMFS in the Biological Opinion or by alternative methods that EPA’s scientific analyses determined will achieve the same purpose. For example, EPA will require pesticide drift buffers adjacent to salmon and steelhead habitat but will impose different width buffers, some wider and others narrower than those recommended by NMFS, depending on factors that affect how far the pesticide might drift from the application site. In correspondence to the EPA […]

(Beyond Pesticides, February 8, 2010) The Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week. The lawsuit argues that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act when it approved 394 pesticides known to be harmful to humans and wildlife, without consulting with wildlife regulatory agencies as to the pesticides’ effects on endangered species. By registering pesticides known to harm migratory birds the EPA has also violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, according to the suit. The pesticides named in the suit pose a danger not only to wildlife, but to human health as well. Some of the pesticides named include 2,4-D the most commonly used pesticide in the nonagricultural sector, atrazine, triclosan, and pyrethrins. Jeff Miller, conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said, “It’s time for the Environmental Protection Agency to finally reform pesticide use to protect both wildlife and people…Many endangered species most affected by toxic pesticides are already struggling to cope with habitat loss and rapid climate changes. For too long this agency’s oversight has been abysmal, allowing the pesticide industry to unleash a virtual plague of toxic chemicals into our environment.” The suit names 887 threatened and […]

(Beyond Pesticides, September, 15, 2009) On September 11, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to place additional limitations on the use of three organophosphate pesticides ”” chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion ”” to protect endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The announcement comes in response to a series of lawsuits brought by Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and other salmon advocates, with legal representation from Earthjustice, aimed at removing toxic pesticides from salmon spawning streams throughout the northwest. In response to the litigation, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in November of 2008 released a “biological opinion” that set forth a plan for protecting Pacific salmon and steelhead from three toxic organophosphate pesticides. That decision came after almost a decade of legal wrangling between salmon advocates led by Earthjustice and the federal government. The biological opinion prescribed measures necessary to keep these pesticides out of water and to protect salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. The announcement from EPA moves this work forward. Although the experts at NMFS recommended prohibiting aerial applications of the three pesticides within 1,000 feet of salmon waters […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2009) American Bird Conservancy has petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the import of crops containing any residues of 13 pesticides that are banned or restricted for use in the United States. These pesticides are highly toxic to birds, but are commonly used on crops throughout Latin America where many species of U.S. migratory birds spend the winter months. In addition to the environmental risks to birds, several of these chemicals also pose a risk to agricultural workers. “Allowing residues of these hazardous pesticides on imported food gives tacit U.S. approval to foreign countries to use chemicals that are known to be deadly to U.S. migratory birds,” said Dr. Michael Fry, American Bird Conservancy’s Director of Conservation Advocacy. “EPA has an obligation under Executive Order 13186, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Endangered Species Act to ensure that migratory birds are not harmed.” Many Latin American countries that currently use these pesticides export coffee, bananas, citrus crops, and other fruits and vegetables to the United States. Agricultural areas — in particular shade coffee farms — provide valuable habitat for migratory birds, and so pesticide use in these areas can pose a significant […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2009) The Center for Biological Diversity notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) earlier this week of its intent to file suit against the agency for failing to consider impacts to the polar bear and its Arctic habitat from toxic contamination resulting from pesticide use in the U.S. Pesticides registered by EPA for use in the U.S. are known to be transported to the Arctic via various atmospheric, oceanic, and biotic pathways. Such pesticides are biomagnified with each step higher in the food web, reaching some of their greatest concentrations in polar bears, the apex predators of the Arctic. A body of literature demonstrates the far-reaching effects of commonly used pesticides that are suspected endocrine disruptors and persistent organic pollutants, such as atrazine, 2,4-D, lindane, endosulfan, and permethrin, on global ecosystems. These pesticides, among others, and related contaminants have been linked to suppressed immune function, endocrine disruption, abnormalities in reproductive organs, hermaphroditism, and increased cub mortality in polar bears. Human subsistence hunters in the Arctic, who share the top spot on the food web with the polar bear, also face increased risks from exposure to these contaminants. “The poisoning of the Arctic is a silent crisis […]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2009) Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to formally evaluate the harmful effects of 74 pesticides on 11 endangered and threatened species in the San Francisco Bay Area over the next five years, and to impose interim restrictions on use of these pesticides in and adjacent to endangered species habitats. The proposal stems from a settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity, which sued EPA in 2007 for violating the Endangered Species Act by registering and allowing the use of toxic pesticides in Bay Area endangered species habitats without determining whether the chemicals jeopardize those species’ existence. “Tens of millions of pounds of toxic and poisonous chemicals, known to be deadly to endangered species and harmful to human health, including proven carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, are applied in the Bay Area each year, and many of those find their way through runoff or drift into our soil, creeks and rivers, San Francisco Bay, and sensitive wildlife habitats,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center. “The toxic stew of pesticides in the Bay-Delta has played a major role in the collapse of native fish populations, and pesticides are a leading cause of […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 19, 2009) Nearly six months after federal scientists began issuing restrictions to protect salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has yet to take even the first step toward implementing these protections. This delay follows almost a decade of legal wrangling in which a coalition of environmental and fishing groups, led by the non-profit public interest law firm Earthjustice, won a court order. Tell EPA to stop its foot-dragging and protect salmon and steelhead from toxic pesticides. The six pesticides that scientists have reviewed so far are some of the most dangerous chemicals used today. All six””chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl””are neurotoxic and pose serious risks to both humans and wildlife. While many of these pesticides have been phased out for residential use, they continue to expose wildlife and farmworkers through their use in agriculture. Thirty-one more chemicals will undergo review by scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the next three years. The new restrictions require EPA to prohibit application of the six pesticides in or near salmon and steelhead habitat. They also require EPA to prohibit application when the weather may cause the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), is imposing use restrictions for the insecticide methoxyfenozide on cranberries in Wisconsin because of its potential effect on the Karner Blue butterfly. The Karner Blue butterfly is a federally listed endangered species. It remains to be seen whether, short of a ban, the complex and difficult to enforce restrictions on use and application methods will adequately protect the endangered species. The limitations for methoxyfenozide are contained in a series of county-specific Endangered Species Protection Bulletins (Bulletins) as part of EPA’s Endangered Species Protection Program (ESPP). EPA entered into consultation with USFWS after determining that use of methoxyfenozide on cranberries in Wisconsin may affect the listed Karner Blue butterfly. USFWS recommended a number of use limitations that, when implemented, should result in use that is not likely to adversely affect the Karner Blue butterfly, according to the bulletin. Limitations include not applying the pesticide within the designated pesticide use limitation area, ground applications- only which must be made using a drift retardant and nozzles, and when the wind speed is between 2-10 mph. These limitations are effective within specific areas […]

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2009) On April 20, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a Biological Opinion (BiOp) finding that three additional pesticides, carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl, harm salmon and steelhead protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The BiOp prescribes measures necessary to keep these pesticides out of salmon waters in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. It is the second such plan issued in the last six months under a court settlement with fishermen and conservationists, filed by the non-profit law firm Earthjustice. The previous BiOp identified three organophosphate insecticides: chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion. “These pesticides are designed to kill insects on agricultural crops, but when they get into the water system, they also kill aquatic insects that salmon feed on.” said Angela Somma, who heads the NMFS endangered species division. Under the terms of settlement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must implement measures within a year-long timeframe to prevent further exposure of the pesticides to the water that cultivate these species. The measures recommended by NMFS include: a ban on application of the three pesticides in windy conditions and buffer zones near water resources and require that land applications must be at least 50-600 feet from the […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2008) On November 18, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a biological opinion that sets forth a plan for protecting Pacific salmon and steelhead from three toxic organophosphate pesticides. The decision comes after almost a decade of legal wrangling between salmon advocates and the federal government. In the biological opinion, federal wildlife scientists comprehensively reviewed the science regarding the impacts of pesticides on salmon and ultimately concluded that current uses of the insecticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion jeopardize the existence of these imperiled fish. The biological opinion prescribes measures necessary to keep these pesticides out of water and to protect salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. The new mitigation measures must be implemented within one year. They include: * Prohibiting aerial applications of the three pesticides within 1,000 feet of salmon waters * Prohibiting ground applications of the three pesticides within 500 feet of salmon waters * Requiring a 20 foot non-crop vegetative buffer around salmon waters and ditches that drain into salmon habitat * Prohibiting applications of the three pesticides when wind speeds are greater than or equal to 10 mph “Keeping these pesticides out of the water is a major step […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2008) Three toxic pesticides used heavily in the United States ”” chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion ”” harm children and farmworkers, poison wildlife, and taint food and drinking water, and despite well-documented hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows homeowners, farmers and others to use these poisons in ways that harm salmon and steelhead. Coupled with public pressure, a recent scientific analysis from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) could force EPA to adopt new restrictions on the use of these pesticides in the Pacific Northwest and California. In a draft study — called a “biological opinion” — released on July 31, 2008, NMFS concluded that chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion are contaminating rivers and streams jeopardizing protected salmon and steelhead. Please urge NMFS and EPA to adopt strong measures to protect Pacific salmon from these poisons. It is their responsibility under the Endangered Species Act. Please send an email addressed to both: Jim Lecky Director of Office of Protected Resources, NMFS [email protected] James Gulliford Assistant Administrator, US EPA Headquarters [email protected] You can be sure that chemical companies are working to ensure the unabated use of their products. Make sure the voice of the public is heard. Harmful […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2008) The first report released by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as a result of a lawsuit (NCAP et al. v. NMFS, No. 07-1791 RSL) settlement reveal “overwhelming evidence” to suggest that the pesticides chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon increase the chance of extinction for protected salmon and steelhead. The report on the three pesticides and their effects on threatened fish is the first in what is expected to be a four year review process of 37 pesticides. “These are pesticides that EPA [the Environmental Protection Agency] has swept under the rug for years. These are three that stood out as the nastiest of the (pesticides) that are still in widespread use,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice who represented the plaintiff, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). The 377-page report is clear in its conclusion that current use patterns of these three toxic pesticides threaten the salmon and steelhead protected by the Endangered Species Act, but it does not delineate the next steps to reduce the risk. A report on mitigation measures, which could include restrictions or bans, is expected in the next few months. The timing of the report coincides with other […]

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2008) On July 30, 2008, a coalition of fishing and environmental groups settled a lawsuit (NCAP et al. v. NMFS, No. 07-1791 RSL) that requires an impact analysis of 37 pesticides on protected salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest and California. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the federal agency charged with protecting threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead, agreed to the settlement, which requires the design and adoption of permanent measures to help pesticide users minimize the harmful effects of those pesticides. The lawsuit, filed last year in the U.S. District Court in Seattle, petitioned the court to order the NMFS to uphold a five-year-old rule that directs the agency to identify measures needed to protect salmon from the pesticides. The petitioners pointed out that NMFS failed to carry out these measures. (See Daily News Blog of November 7, 2007.) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the 37 toxic pesticides at issue in the settlement may harm protected salmon and steelhead. Most of the pesticides have been detected in major salmon and steelhead rivers in the Pacific Northwest and California. Scientists have found that, even at low levels, toxic pesticides can harm salmon […]

(Beyond Pesticides, December 20, 2007) Responding to numerous requests from the public for more time to comment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has opened an additional 60-day public comment period on a draft mosquito management policy until February 17, 2008. The original press release on the proposal, issued on October 15, 2007, and the Federal Register Notice (72 FR 58321-58333) outlines guidance for determining the conditions under which national wildlife refuges will control mosquitoes. Notification of the public comment period was published in the Federal Register December 19, 2007. The Service received 35 comments during the original 45-day comment period, which closed on November 29, 2007. Mosquito Control Districts in several states as well as members of the public asked for more time to respond. The Service currently allows some form of mosquito control by state or local vector control agencies under Special Use Permits on approximately 40 national wildlife refuges, most of them in coastal areas. An interim Director’s Order, issued in May 2005, provided guidance for mosquito management on refuges while a permanent policy was being developed. The draft policy states that the Refuge System will allow populations of native mosquito species to exist unimpeded unless they […]