About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

14 Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 1 (1989)

handle is hein.animal/endanspb0014 and id is 1 raw text is: January/February 1989 Vol. XIV Nos. 1-2 ME m M aM aMa AM a =o - a= - mu -m - - u m m am mamm m mm - a - m m - - _ Technical Buletin Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 20240 Pesticides and Endangered Species: New Approaches Larry Thomas Division of Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation Washington, D.C. It is becoming increasingly apparent that pesticides can have a significant impact on some plant and animal popula- tions. For example, an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of recent pesticide studies (EPA 1989) and mortality rates from field studies (Bal- comb et al. 1984) estimated that 1-2 mil- lion bird deaths per year result from the use of carbofuran alone. Further, a review of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Endan- gered Species Information System (ESIS) database in 1988 for 313 of the Endan- gered and Threatened species listed in the United States shows that 52 were listed, in part, because of herbicide use and that 61 species were listed, in part, because of pesticide use in general (Halvorson 1988). Impacts from pesti- cides, including herbicides and insec- ticides, are 2 of 63 kinds of reasons given in the ESIS database as causes for listing species as Endangered and Threatened. Notable examples of species negatively impacted by pesticides include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), per- egrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and Wyoming toad (Bufo hemiophrys baxteri). The EPA is responsible for evaluating pesticides and registering them for use. Any appropriate use limitations are in- cluded on the product labeling. Since it is a Federal agency, the EPA is required to conduct these activities in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. Section 7 states, in part, that every Federal agency ... shall, in consultation with and with the assist- ance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopard- ize the continued existence of any endan- gered or threatened species ... - or adversely its critical habitat. When an agency determines that one of its pro- posed actions may affect a listed species, it is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service then issues a biological opinion. If the biological opinion finds that the proposed action is likbly to jeopardize the survival of a listed to Evaluating Impacts species or adverseiy modify its critical habitat, the Service attempts to identify '-reasonable and prudent alternatives that would avoid such impacts. In 1982, the Endangered Species Act was amended to authorize permits in cer- tain cases for the taking of listed spe- cies incidental to a proposed action, provided such incidental taking is not at a level that jeopardizes the survival of the species. If such taking is anticipated, the 1982 amendment requires that the biolog- ical opinion contain arl incidental take statement that specifies the anticipated amount or extent of incidental take and provides reasonable and prudent meas- ures, with implementing terms and condi- tions, for minimizing the take. Additional instructions describing monitoring and reporting requirements if taking occurs are to be included in the statements. Between 1977 and 1982, the EPA con- ducted over 2,500 pesticide registration actions. It requested formal Section 7 consultation with the Service on 56 of these actions, resulting in 36 jeopardy biological opinions. By 1982, it was recog- nized that a great deal of time would be required to adequately ensure that pesti- cide registration actions would not jeo- pardize listed species. In an attempt to remedy this and other problems, a new approach to the consultation process was initiated: groups or clusters of chemicals were selected for review based on their registered use patterns (e.g., chemicals used to grow corn). This approach was intended to give a comprehensive, con- sistent review of alt pesticides with com- mon use patterns. It was also intended to provide labeling consistency, which would reduce economic impacts caused by the seJective labeling associated with individ- ual registration reviews. In 1983 and 1984, five cluster con- sultations were conducted in which 180 active ingredients were reviewed. These cluster consultations resulted in 305 find- ings where listed species could be jeo- pardized. As required by the Endangered Species Act, the biological opinions in- cluded reasonable and prudent alterna- tives to avoid jeopardizing the species or adversely modifying its critical habitat. In some cases, the alternatives were pro- hibitions on the use of the pesticide in the habitat occupied by the species. These areas of occupied habitat were to be iden- tified by the Service. After these biological opinions were formulated, it became the responsibility of the EPA to implement the reasonable and prudent alternatives. In 1986, the Center for Environmental Education issued a report, The Environ- mental Protection Agency's implementa- tion of the Endangered Species Act with Respect to Pesticide Registration, which was prepared for the President's Council on Environmental Quality. The report was critical of the EPA for not implementing reasonable and prudent alternatives iden- tified in the Servce's biological opinions. It concluded that neither the case-by-case nor the cluster approach alone offered a consultation mechanism that was both detailed and expeditious. The report rec- ommended that a combination of the two approaches be adopted and that a pesti- cide that exceeds a trigger in the cluster analysis be reviewed in a single case study to identify problems involving other uses of the pesticide. It also recom- mended that immediate steps be taken to implement reasonable and prudent alter- natives identified in existing jeopardy opinions. In late 1986, the EPA initiated an accel- erated effort to complete its Endangered Species Protection Program. A key facet of this effort caked for maps detailing occupied habitat for a select group of listed species, combined with bulletins that would establish certain limitations for pesticide use in these areas. Unfor- tunately, in an attempt to make the maps more understandable, some were ex- panded far beyond the borders of occu- pied habitat. For example, proposed boundaries for restricted use areas were extended to the nearest highway or other recognizable feature, occasionally includ- ing hundreds of acres that were not intended to be identified as occupied habitat. A number of pesticide user groups responded to the proposed maps and the EPA's plan to implement its Endangered Species Protection Program. Unfor- tunately, much of the information was misinterpreted. In part because of the user groups' concerns, Congress ex- (continued on page 7) 1 ENDANGERED SPECIES TECHNICAL BULLETIN Vol. XIV Nos. 1-2 (1989)

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most