(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 […]

(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2007) A lawsuit was filed in federal court on Monday by fishing and environmental groups seeking to force the federal government to uphold five-year-old rules aimed to keep toxic agricultural pesticides from endangering salmon and steelhead. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle, petitions the court to order the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to identify measures needed to protect salmon from the pesticides and to complete required consultations with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NMFS has failed to carry out these measures first ordered in 2002 by federal court. It was ordered to consult with the EPA to develop permanent methods for protecting salmon and steelhead from 54 toxic pesticides found in west coast salmon streams. Under the federal Endangered Species Act, the NMFS is required to complete such actions within 90 days. “Apparently what it takes to get this administration to do its job under [the Endangered Species Act] is to have someone there enforcing the law every step of the way,” said Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney for Earthjustice, the environmental public interest law firm representing the advocates. Pesticides have been detected in every major salmon stream in the Pacific […]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2007) On June 28, 2007, forty years after it received protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and thirty-five years after the banning of DDT in the U.S., the bald eagle was removed from the ESA’s “threatened” list. Bald eagle populations declined dramatically in the last century, attributed mostly to the accumulation of the pesticide DDT in fish, a staple of the eagle’s diet. The pesticide gradually poisoned females, causing them to produce thinly-shelled eggs that broke easily, preventing the embryos from growing. Years of hunting, accidental poisoning and habitat loss took an additional toll. “The rescue of the bald eagle from the brink of extinction ranks among the greatest victories of American conservation.” said John Flicker, President of the National Audubon Society. “Like no other species, the bald eagle showed us all that environmental stewardship has priceless rewards. In every state, parents and grandparents can still point to the sky and share a moment of wonder as a bald eagle soars overhead.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 1967 listed the bald eagle as endangered, a designation that gave the bird legal protection from harmful human activities and in 1972, the U.S. Environmental […]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2007) The Center for Biological Diversity today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA). EPA has registered and allowed the use of 60 toxic pesticides in habitats for nearly a dozen San Francisco Bay Area endangered species without determining whether the chemicals jeopardize their existence. “Ending the use of known poisons in habitat for our most endangered wildlife is an appropriate 100th birthday tribute to Rachel Carson, who alerted us to the hazards of exposure to toxic chemicals almost half a century ago,” said Jeff Miller, conservation advocate with the Center. “Unfortunately the EPA has not learned from her legacy and still has no plan to adequately assess impacts while registering and approving pesticide uses that pose a clear and present danger both to imperiled species and human health.” At least 61 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients were applied in Bay Area counties from 1999 through 2005 ”” over 8.5 million pounds annually. Actual pesticide use may have been several times this amount since most home and commercial pesticide use is not reported to the state. Under the Bush administration, EPA has consistently failed to […]