Facts About Pesticides, Salmon, and the Endangered Species Act

Background Information on Pesticides and Salmon

Pesticides have profound effects on Northwest salmon and may be a serious factor in their decline. The US Geological Survey has found concentrations of pesticides in Pacific Northwest rivers and streams at levels that are associated with negative impacts on fish growth, development, behavior, and reproduction.

• Some pesticides are lethal to salmon, and large fish kills have occurred.
• Pesticides can impair swimming ability, cause abnormal sexual development, and cause skeletal deformities.
• Pesticides can indirectly affect fish by changing the aquatic environment, by reducing the food supply, and by eliminating vegetative cover used by young salmon.
• Pesticides can impair salmon's ability to transition from freshwater to seawater.

Background Information on the Economic Importance of Salmon

"Salmon and steelhead fishing was once a very valuable industry to the west coast economy. As recently at 1988, according to independent economic studies, salmon and steelhead fishing in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Northern California brought in $1.25 billion to the regional economy and supported an estimated 62,750 family wage jobs. Since then, many salmon runs have declined because of a combination of many factors including too many dams and widespread habitat loss. One likely fact that has received little scrutiny, however, is the long-term impact of increasing uses of agricultural chemicals and pesticides in many Northwest river systems." (Source: "The Economic Imperative of Protecting Riverine Habitat in the Pacific Northwest," Pacific Rivers Council Research Report No. 5 (January, 1992).)

Basis of Legal Action

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the agency charged with carrying out the Endangered Species Act for listed salmon, has indicated serious concern about the effects of pesticides on salmon. In issuing its recent 4(d) rule, NMFS stated that "concentrations of pesticides may affect salmonid behavior and reproductive success. Current EPA label requirements were developed in the absence of information about some of these subtle but real impacts on aquatic species such as salmonids."

The Environmental Protection Agency currently makes extremely limited efforts to determine the effects of pesticides on fish, and even when serious detrimental effects are found, EPA rarely takes action.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires that federal agencies consult with the relevant agency (here, NMFS) to insure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out does not harm endangered species. EPA has failed to initiate this consultation with NMFS to determine whether its actions related to pesticide regulation are harming threatened salmon.

Key Elements of Lawsuit

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Washington Toxics Coalition, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and Institute for Fisheries Resources, represented by Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, are filing suit to compel EPA to:

• initiate a consultation with NMFS to evaluate the effects on salmon and steelhead of EPA's regulations on pesticides;
• review its programs and consult with NMFS to determine how to use EPA pesticide and water quality authorities to conserve salmon and steelhead;
• prioritize action on pesticides that are known to be toxic to fish and/or are likely to be found in fish habitat; and
• take immediate protective actions, such as restrictions on pesticide use near water.

The Court Orders EPA to Begin Process of Curtailing Pesticide Uses That Harm Salmon

On July 2, 2002, a U.S. District Court in Seattle ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin the process of ensuring that use of 55 pesticides will not harm salmon in the Pacific Northwest. The environmental and commercial fishing group plaintiffs had targeted the 55 pesticides based on evidence that these pesticides are getting into salmon streams at levels the cause harm to salmon or their habitat.

The Court found that "it is undisputed that EPA has not initiated, let alone completed, consultation with respect to the relevant 55 pesticide active ingredients" and that "EPA's own reports document the potentially-significant risks posed by registered pesticides to threatened and endangered salmonids and their habitat." According to the Court:

NMFS listed the Sacramento winter run chinook in 1989. During the 1990s, NMFS listed as threatened or endangered approximately 25 additional salmonids. Despite competent scientific evidence addressing the effects of pesticides on salmonids and their habitat, EPA has failed to initiate section 7(a)(2) consultation with respect to its pesticide registrations. . . . Such consultation is mandatory and not subject to unbridled agency discretion. The Court, declares, as a matter of law, that EPA has violated section 7(a)(2) of the ESA with respect to its ongoing approval of 55 pesticide active ingredients and registration of pesticides containing those active ingredients.

The Court rejected the claim that EPA had failed to establish an adequate salmon conservation program. According to the Court, all EPA must do is begin a dialogue with NMFS and engage in some activities, however meager, to promote salmon recovery. "It is not the province of this Court to judge the substance of EPA's conservation programs or to determine the best way for EPA to promote the conservation of threatened and endangered salmonids."

(The decision is available at http://www.pesticide.org/SalmonLawsuitOrder.pdf)

Fact sheet developed by Washington Toxics Coalition, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and Earthjustice.
July 3, 2002