Newsletter

Environmentalists Try to Bypass EPA at the State Level to Stop Pesticide Use in Oregon

August 2012

Unwilling to wait for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to act, the Northwest Environmental Advocates (NWEA) on August 9 filed a petition requesting that the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission implement measures mitigating the use of pesticides described in several biological opinions issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Generally, NWEA is asking that the Commission incorporate restrictions from the biological opinions into Oregon's water quality standards and require the use of buffers throughout the state for all pesticides—or ban their use altogether.  It also asks that the Commission itself petition the Oregon Department of Agriculture to adopt restrictions on the sale and use of pesticides, including rules to restrict the use of pesticides by farmers, and that the Oregon Board of Forestry adopt greater restrictions on pesticide use.

The underlying bases for the petition are six biological opinions issued by NMFS covering 28 pesticides, a 1989 biological opinion by FWS covering 41 pesticides, and a biological opinion regarding EPA's pesticides general permit under the Clean Water Act, allowing applications of pesticides to water.  According to NWEA, species at risk in Oregon covered by the opinions include threatened and endangered salmon, steelhead, inland fish, frogs, turtles, and salamanders.

All the biological opinions have concluded that continued use of the covered pesticides according to label directions would jeopardize threatened and endangered species and cause adverse habitat modification.  As a result, each includes reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to avoid jeopardy and reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) to lessen any incidental take.  As a practical matter, the most impactful and restrictive mitigation required by the biological opinions is large no-spray buffers around any waters that may harbor threatened and endangered species. 

NWEA contends that because the EPA has not implemented any of the RPAs and RPMs in a timely fashion, Oregon is under obligation to do so.  If it does not, NWEA claims, the state will be in violation of both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The CWA allegations in the petition are tied to water quality standards that states are required to set under the Act. These include: 1) setting beneficial uses; 2) formulating narrative and numeric criteria protective of the uses; and 3) crafting an antidegradation policy.  There are supposedly three ways Oregon is in violation here.  First, because salmonids and aquatic life have been designated as beneficial uses, the state's failure to implement the RPAs and RPMs violates the requirement to support those uses. Next is that continued unmitigated use violates the state's narrative criteria, which includes, for example, a requirement that there be “no amounts, concentrations, or combinations that may be harmful to aquatic life or wildlife.”  Last is that the state is ignoring its antidegradation policy by allowing the continued use of pesticides that NMFS and FWS have concluded are jeopardizing threatened and endangered species and are adversely modifying or destroying habitat.

As a corollary, NWEA also warns that the state could lose federal funding under the Coast Zone Reauthorization Amendments, which control funding to states under the CWA and Coastal Zone Management Act, if it does not put mechanisms in place before November 15, 2013 to avoid violation of state water quality standards.

Lastly, and perhaps as motivation for state action, NWEA alleges that EPA's inaction to implement the biological opinions obliges the state to avoid an unlawful “taking” of a threatened or endangered species.  Therefore, they claim, that unless the state takes some action, such as revising its water quality standards as suggested by NWEA, the state—and even local governments and private individuals—could be liable for “take” under the ESA and subject to potential civil and criminal penalties.

The Commission has 90 days to act on the petition. 

Read Time: 3 min
Jump to top of page

Wiley Rein LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When you visit our website, we use cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. For more information about how we use Cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Functional Cookies

Always Active

Some functions of the site require remembering user choices, for example your cookie preference, or keyword search highlighting. These do not store any personal information.

Form Submissions

Always Active

When submitting your data, for example on a contact form or event registration, a cookie might be used to monitor the state of your submission across pages.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek