Source of this article - Los Angeles Times, August 25, 2006
By Marla Cone, Times
Staff Writer
Ruling that the Bush administration
"plainly violated" the Endangered Species Act, a federal judge overturned a
regulation Thursday that streamlined approval of pesticides by eliminating
reviews by wildlife officials responsible for protecting rare animals and
plants.
The judge restored pre-2004 standards requiring the Environmental
Protection Agency to consult federal wildlife biologists before licensing
pesticides.
The ruling was a victory for nine environmental groups that
sued the U.S. Interior Department two years ago.
"Pesticides are driving
America's wildlife toward extinction, and this administration wants to remove
the checks and balances that hold them accountable," said attorney Patti Goldman
of the law firm Earthjustice. She represents the coalition.
Added John
Kostyack, senior counsel for one of the plaintiffs, the National Wildlife
Federation: "The judge's decision means that these species may still have a
fighting chance against pesticides."
The Bush administration's 2004 rule
had allowed the EPA to bypass the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order to
shorten the years-long process of reviewing whether each pesticide posed danger
to any of the nation's 1,200-plus endangered species.
The Center for
Biological Diversity, another plaintiff, concluded in a 2004 report based on
federal data that about 400 animals and plants at risk of extinction — including
species of owls, salmon, frogs and sea turtles — were jeopardized by pesticides
that are applied to or drift into their habitat or that flow into waterways from
farms or yards.
Amphibians, including California's tiger salamander,
red-legged frog and mountain yellow-legged frog, are among the most vulnerable
to pesticides. Also, some of California's rarest fish — salmon, steelhead and
delta smelt — are exposed to the chemicals from agricultural and urban
runoff.
U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle ruled that the
process approved in 2004 was "less protective" of wildlife than the old process
and that there was a "total absence of any technical and scientific evidence to
support or justify" it.
"There is overwhelming evidence on the record"
that if the Fish and Wildlife Service were not consulted, "EPA risk assessments
(leading to pesticide registrations) would actually result in harm to listed
species," the judge wrote.
Coughenour acknowledged the EPA faced "a task
of gargantuan proportions" in consulting Fish and Wildlife scientists on
pesticides. But he said the Bush administration was "arbitrary and capricious"
in letting the EPA bypass their review, because the Endangered Species Act
requires such consultations for any action that could jeopardize a species'
survival.
Interior Department officials said they received the ruling
relatively late Thursday and were not prepared to offer a detailed
response.
"Obviously these regulations arose out of our efforts to both
protect wildlife and ensure pesticide applications are reviewed in a timely
manner," said Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Chris Tollefson. "Our foremost
concern here is protecting threatened and endangered species, and we'll continue
to do that. We'll just have to evaluate this ruling to see where we go from
here."
Pesticide manufacturers had long urged the 2004 change, calling it
a "sensible approach" to allow the EPA to judge the risks to wildlife from their
products.
One of the most controversial pesticides is atrazine, an
herbicide used on corn crops. The EPA approved its continued use in 2003 despite
a finding by UC Berkeley biologist Tyrone B. Hayes that it feminizes frogs at
low concentrations.
"Up to now, EPA's track record in addressing the
effects of pesticides on endangered species has been abysmal," said Jamie
Rappaport Clark, former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and now
executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff in the case.
"Instead of solving the problem, they simply weakened the rules…. The court has
put a stop to that."