Representative chastises EPA for lack of action to protect salmon, but organization questions the data behind the threat

Representative chastises EPA for lack of action to protect salmon, but organization questions the data behind the threat

President Obama has issued an executive order for a retrospective review of existing regulations (including existing environmental regulations) that are unduly burdensome to industry. Section 5 of the order also says that “each agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency's regulatory actions.” A review of the whole consultation process within the regulations governing the Endangered Species might be a great place to start.

Last month Rep. Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and two representatives from California issued a press release about a letter they had sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about its lack of action to protect endangered Northwest salmon from pesticides. While EPA has jurisdiction over registration of herbicides and pesticides, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over salmon recovery. And therein lies the problem.

Under ESA, EPA needs to consult with NMFS on the issue of the impact of herbicides and pesticides in salmon streams. NMFS, however, has no expertise with the products while EPA has been testing, studying and regulating them for decades.

A lawsuit was filed in 2002 against EPA by environmental and fishing groups, including the Washington Toxics Coalition. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle found that EPA had violated its obligations under the Endangered Species Act.

The court ordered EPA to review the effects of 54 pesticide active ingredients on threatened and endangered salmonids and to consult, as appropriate, with NMFS on any of the 54 pesticides that may affect salmon. In 2004, the court ordered protections—including buffer zones—to prevent the potential adverse effects of any of the 54 pesticides on threatened and endangered salmonids.

The letter from the three Congressman to the EPA Administrator says that it is time for EPA to take action and asking EPA for a progress report in protecting this “critically important species” and pointing out that restoring salmon “could yield annual economic benefits of over $5 billion.” According to the Congressmen from Massachusetts and California, “We have science on our side…It’s time for EPA to take action.”

There are a couple of problems with the assertions made in this letter. First, the data used to determine the pesticide threat to salmon looks to be inaccurate.

Washington Friends of Farms & Forests (WFFF) is an organization concerned with producing safe, abundant, economical food, fiber and landscaping and maintain a healthy, productive and safe environment for our agricultural and urban communities. They responded to the Congressmen, calling into question the facts, science and computer models that NMFS used in making the determination that these 54 pesticides posed a threat to salmon.

They pointed out that use of the pesticides listed is significantly lower than in the past, asserting that no fish kills have been reported from the legal use of these products. In fact many salmon runs have been at record high levels in recent years.

It seems NMFS created its own computer models rather than use the ones that EPA had developed to evaluate the safety of these products for decades. In addition, NMFS used a farm pond model which assumes stagnant water to predict the exposure levels of salmon, forgetting that juvenile salmon swim in fast moving waters and rest is in areas of moving water. One NMFS model included a use that was never labeled and modeled uses not currently on labels. The agency assumed amounts much higher than are actually used. The models were so inaccurate that the EPA, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Oregon and Washington Departments of Agriculture were all critical. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has asked that the BiOps be redone.

In six years of monitoring surface water in agricultural areas, the Washington State Department of Agriculture has noted that these pesticides are at or below detection levels. NMFS did not to consider this data in their findings. They also left out the department’s database which helps determine the amount and locations of product used and correlates the location and timing of fish presence.

Next, with regard to the economics which the Congressmen raised in the letter to EPA: the NMFS outlined the economic cost to EPA to implement the BiOps, but not the costs to farmers and foresters. One farmer in Oregon estimated that if the buffer zones were enacted he would not be able to produce crops on 50% of his farm.

Rep. Markey estimated that full recovery of salmon would bring $5 billion in annul economic benefits to Oregon and Washington. A substantial figure, but compare it to agriculture production in Washington at $16 billion in economic impact; food processing and manufacturing, $17 billion in total economic impact; and agriculture and forestry support industries; $1.8 billion in total economic impact. These figures were compiled by Washington State University in November, 2010.An updated study based on 2009 figures shows that Oregon agriculture is directly and indirectly linked to $22 billion in sales of goods and services—15% of the statewide totals of sales in all industry sectors, and that’s during a recession year. Processing added $2.2 billion to the value of Oregon-grown food and fiber.

Fires in beetle-killed timber get scrutiny

An Associated Press article in Thursday’s Idaho Statesman said that new studies presented at a Helena, Montana, seminar are getting close to leading to great understanding of the connection between mountain beetle epidemics and wildfires in the West. A study by a Forest Service ecologist shows for the first time that beetle-killed trees contain 10 times less moisture and a different chemical makeup than healthy trees. According to the story “that means the red needles of beetle-killed trees can ignite three times faster and burn more intensely than healthy trees.”

There it is: a study confirming what we all have observed if we’ve watched a forest fire.