Note: Earlier this month we sent out an alert regarding a different attack on the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While the two alerts may appear similar, both issues warrant individual action. Please use your voice in order to keep the ESA intact.

BACKGROUND

Since the passage of the ESA in 1973, EPA has failed to uphold its legal duty to protect salmon and other endangered species from the impacts of pesticides. In July 2002, the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and our allies set a strong legal precedent when a federal court judge ruled in our favor and ordered the EPA to initiate consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service on protection of salmon from 54 pesticides. Consultation is a process required under ESA; any agency that regulates or performs actions that could harm endangered species (i.e. EPA's regulation of pesticide use) must consult with the agencies charged with protecting wildlife, either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively the Services). The consultation process creates checks and balances.

The proposed rules, released by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service on January 24, 2003 take away much needed checks and balances in the consultation process. EPA would be given unilateral decision making power to determine the risk of many pesticides to endangered species. Thus, removing authority from the Services charged with protecting wildlife. To learn more about these rules you can find them at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/January/Day-24/p1661.htm.

EPA has a terrible track record with regards to pesticides and endangered species. Rarely has EPA assessed the risk of pesticides to endangered species. The few times it did assess the risks, it did nothing to protect the species from the risks found. Obviously, EPA has not demonstrated either the will or the capability of taking on the awesome responsibility of ensuring protection of imperiled wildlife from pesticides.

The ESA is the only act that's sole purpose is to protect species on the brink of extinction. By weakening ESA, salmon, snowy plovers and many other species lose what little legal protection they have.

PLEASE SPEAK OUT TO PROTECT OUR NATIONS MOST IMPERILED WILDLIFE FROM PESTICIDES

The Administration is taking comments on its proposed rules until March 24, 2003.

PLEASE TELL THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION THAT:

• Pesticides are known to kill wildlife and there are numerous instances of impacts to endangered and threatened species from legal pesticide use. For example, salmon and steelhead were killed by acrolein in Oregon; Kit Fox were killed by brodifacoum in California, and Piping Plover were killed by fenthion in Florida.
• It would be irresponsible of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, the agencies charged with endangered species protection, to defer to EPA to determine the effects of pesticides on endangered species.
• EPA and the Services should not be allowed to side step the ESA. EPA's backlog of pesticides requiring consultation is due to years of non-compliance with ESA. It must begin to perform it's duty under the law not attempt to weaken the law.

SEND COMMENTS TO:

Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Protection Agency (7502C)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001
Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0010

You can also submit comments by email to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0010.

Please send a copy of your comments to acode@pesticide.org

SAMPLE LETTER

To whom it may concern,

For many years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service (jointly the Services), have failed to adequately protect endangered fish, birds and other organism from the harmful effects of pesticides. Now to catch up on the backlog, it appears that EPA and the Services are trying to side step the law instead of fulfilling their collective duty.

It would be irresponsible of the Services to defer to EPA to determine the effects of pesticides on endangered species.

The EPA's track record on protecting endangered species is appalling. Its backlog of pesticides requiring consultation is due to years of non-compliance with ESA. Instead of trying to change the process to protect species, EPA must simply begin to perform its duty and consult with the Services.

Sincerely,

Your name
Your address

NCAP respects the personal nature of e-mail communication. Every effort is made to offer only information about upcoming events and pressing environmental issues. IF you prefer not to receive e-mails from us please reply and let me know. Thank you. Aimee Code.