|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Bush Would Shut Wildlife Agencies Out of Pesticide Reviews
By J.R. Pegg WASHINGTON, DC, January 30, 2004 (ENS) - A new proposal by the Bush administration would allow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether pesticides will jeopardize threatened and endangered species without consulting the federal government's two key wildlife agencies. The administration says its proposal revamps a broken regulatory process while maintaining protection for wildlife, but environmentalists are outraged by a move they believe rolls back existing law. "There can be no reason for this change other than to excuse the EPA from upholding its task of protecting the environment," said Dr. Patti Bright, director of the American Bird Conservancy's Pesticide and Birds Campaign. "If EPA is no longer legally required to consult with endangered species experts, EPA regulators and government bureaucrats will be free to sanction pesticides that can kill endangered species." According to the EPA, some 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides are applied annually to crops, lawns, golf courses and other areas throughout the United States.
Critics worry that the administration's proposal could put endangered birds, including America's national bird the bald eagle, at greater risk from pesticides. (Photo by Steve Maslowski courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)These pesticides potentially affect any or all of the 65 endangered mammals, 78 endangered bird species, the 14 endangered reptiles and 12 endangered amphibians, and the 71 endangered fishes in the United States - from the sperm whale to the gray wolf, from the brown pelican to the bald eagle, to the coho, chum and sockeye salmon, to name a few.Under the Endangered Species Act, the EPA is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure that pesticides approved by the agency are not likely to adversely affect listed species or their critical habitat. But few consultations have been completed in the past decade and the Bush administration says this is an indication that the process is broken. "This is the first administration to address a longstanding need to create a workable framework to protect species, ranging from salmon to butterflies to songbirds, ensuring that the potential effects of thousands of pest-control products are examined in a timely and comprehensive manner," said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams. "At the same time, we are making sure that farmers can continue to provide abundant food for our country and consumers can continue to use many popular household and garden products," Williams said. Federal officials said a scientific review of EPA's risk assessment methodology for pesticide approval indicates it will reliably assess the effects of these products on listed species and critical habitat without the need for consultation with the wildlife agencies. The proposal would authorize the EPA to make determinations that products are not likely to "adversely affect" a threatened or endangered species without concurrence or informal consultation.
Sonoran pronghorn in the Arizona desert. Fewer than 30 remain alive. (Photo courtesy USFWS)If the agency determines that a formal consultation is required, the EPA could directly or indirectly involve the wildlife agencies, which under the law would make the final determination."We have worked with EPA to make sure that this new process will help eliminate the chances of pesticides harming threatened and endangered species," said NMFS Director Bill Hogarth. "I am very pleased that we are able to help expedite the pesticide review process." Hundreds of pesticides are up for registration review by the EPA this year, many of which could impact the more than 1,200 species protected by the Endangered Species Act. Administration officials say the proposal will actually result in more consultations between the agencies, but critics are far from convinced. The EPA has a very poor track record of consulting with biologists at the wildlife agencies and has only fulfilled the mandate to consult when forced to do so by the courts, said Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen. "The EPA has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to adequately consult with wildlife experts when assessing the impact of chemical use on wildlife and habitat," Schlickeisen said. "The President's proposed regulation only serves to let the EPA off the hook while further endangering hundreds of species and their habitat."
Brown bear enjoys a meal of sockeye salmon. (Photo courtesy USGS)The proposal comes less than a week after a federal judge ruled against the EPA and restricted the use of 38 pesticides near salmon streams in the Pacific Northwest. Many species of Pacific salmon are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.The judge ordered the EPA to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and establish permanent restrictions needed to protect salmon from pesticides. To propose giving the EPA more authority in light of ample evidence of its inability to protect endangered species makes little sense, says Aimee Code of the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. "These rules, if enacted, are a huge step backwards for our region's salmon recovery efforts," said Code. "We cannot sit back and watch years of work unravel at the whim of the current administration." The federal wildlife agencies are seeking public comment on the proposal, which can be found here. A complete list of Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of the United States is online at: http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species |
