Groups Submit Evidence that Proposal Contradicts Agency Science

April 16, 2004

Washington, D.C. -- Leading conservation groups submitted official comments today opposing a Bush administration proposal aimed at shutting federal fish and wildlife experts out of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions regarding pesticide use. The comments show how the proposal would seriously undermine the Endangered Species Act and negatively impact listed species. 

"It's not biology but political science at the heart of these schemes," said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife. "Time and again, industry doesn't like what the scientists say, so science gets the boot."

The regulations respond to a series of successful lawsuits by environmentalists that were based on the EPA's failure to consult with the wildlife agencies on the impacts of pesticides to wildlife. Instead of working to comply with the law and protect wildlife, high-level officials at EPA chose to craft a way to circumvent the law.
 
"Rather than following the current law and working to improve their terrible record protecting fish and wildlife from pesticides, the Bush administration chose instead to change the process so EPA can continue to favor the needs of the pesticide industry over the needs of wildlife," said Patti Goldman of Earthjustice.

The groups are equally troubled by the support the proposal is receiving from high-level officials in the Department of Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversee the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Groups submitted evidence that the Services' current positions regarding EPA methodologies directly contradict past positions.

For example, the Services have long voiced concern that EPA focuses too exclusively on pesticide-caused mortality to fish and wildlife and does not adequately consider more subtle impacts such as on behavior and immune effects. The Services have now stated that EPA's methods appropriately consider these other effects; under the new policy, the Services would reverse this long-held position.

"Our federal fish and wildlife agencies are letting politics trump science with these rules. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have long voiced serious disagreement with EPA's evaluations when it comes to pesticides and endangered species. Suddenly, the Services have now had an epiphany and have declared EPA's methods adequate," said Erika Schreder, staff scientist for the Washington Toxics Coalition.

The rules would significantly weaken the requirement that EPA obtain input from the Services when making decisions regarding pesticides and endangered species. Specifically, they would:

• shut fish and wildlife experts out of endangered species protection by allowing EPA to assess the impacts of pesticides on endangered species alone;
• allow outdated science to be the basis for determining how endangered species should be protected from pesticides; and
• give the chemical industry special participation rights not shared by the public.

Northwest groups opposing the rule change include the Washington Toxics Coalition, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, People for Puget Sound, Washington Environmental Council, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, and many others.

"Our nation's most imperiled species are regularly exposed to harmful pesticides. Instead of working to protect endangered wildlife, the Administration wants to remove the scientific input of wildlife biologists who are finding pesticides to be a serious concern," said Aimee Code, water quality coordinator for the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.

A copy of the comment letters can be downloaded as a Word document here.

Contact:

William Lutz
Defenders of Wildlife
202-772-0269

Erika Schreder
Washington Toxics Coalition
206-632-1545 ext. 119

Patti Goldman
Earthjustice
206-343-7340 ext. 32

For more information please see our press release of January 29, 2004, which contains links to two documents of further background information.