FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 16, 2004

Contact:
Aimee Code, NCAP (541)349-9519
Patti Goldman, EarthJustice (206) 343-7340 ext. 32
William Lutz (202) 772-0269
Brad DeVries (202) 772-0237

CONSERVATION GROUPS OPPOSE CONTROVERSIAL BUSH PROPOSAL TO WEAKEN PESTICIDE PROTECTIONS FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES

Groups Submit Evidence that Proposal Contradicts Agency Science

Washington, DC — Leading conservation groups submitted official comments today opposing a Bush administration proposal aimed at shutting federal fish and wildlife experts out of EPA decisions regarding pesticide use. The comments show how the proposal would seriously undermine the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 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, Managing Attorney for EarthJustice’s Northwest Office

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 (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). 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 reversed this long-held position, stating that EPA's methods appropriately consider these other effects.

"For years wildlife agencies have been concerned that our nation's most imperiled species are regularly exposed to harmful pesticides; all of a sudden with the introduction of these new rules they changed their tune," said Aimee Code, Water Quality Coordinator for the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. For more on this go to: http://pesticide.org/counterpartservices.html

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: