|
A publication of
the Clean Water for Salmon Campaign
Northwest Coalition
for Alternatives to Pesticides
Washington Toxics Coalition
Pollyanna Lind is the Clean Water Campaign Coordinator for the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides *More credits at end.
Executive Summary
Salmon are a cornerstone of our region’s cultural and environmental heritage. In order to thrive, salmon need clean water. The use of pesticides by people in both rural and urban areas, however, pollutes our streams and rivers and poses a serious threat to the health of salmon runs and communities.
Areas of
Threatened and
|
Salmon start and end their lives in inland waters from southwestern California through Oregon, east into Idaho, and up through northwestern Washington. In much of their range, pesticide-contaminated water is one of the major hurdles that salmon must overcome to survive.
Pesticides can kill salmon directly, or perhaps more commonly, cause subtle damage that reduces their chance of survival. Many pesticides cause reproductive harm, reduce survival of young salmon as they transition to seawater, impair migration, or cause behavioral changes that limit survival. Some pesticides also affect salmon indirectly by changing the abundance of food, cover, or other conditions of the aquatic environment.
Three federal laws are in place to protect salmon and their habitat from pesticide contamination: the Endangered Species Act, intended to protect and promote the recovery of species in danger of becoming extinct due to human activities; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the national pesticide law that governs pesticide use; and the Clean Water Act, meant to protect waters from contamination and degradation. However, as this report describes, government agencies have failed to use their full authority under these laws to protect salmon from pesticides.
The Endangered Species Act listing of twenty-six Pacific salmon runs is a wake-up call for urgent action to recover salmon. Government agencies, businesses, and individuals must all take action to ensure that pesticides no longer pollute waterways where salmon live.
Major Findings
Pesticide Contamination of Water is Widespread and Significant.
Surface-water testing shows five major watersheds in the Pacific states are
contaminated by pesticides.
Pesticide pollution of surface water in Oregon, Washington, California, and
Idaho is extremely widespread, exposing salmon and their habitat. The U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) detected 35 or more pesticides in each of the five
watersheds studied in the region.
Sixteen pesticides contaminate the region’s watersheds at harmful levels.
Sixteen currently used pesticides have been found in the region’s
watersheds at or above aquatic life criteria, indicating they are likely to
cause harm to salmon. Many other pesticides have been detected for which no
criteria have been established.
EPA identified at least 36 pesticides used in the Pacific states that
threaten fish or their habitat.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings in its pesticide
registration documents reveal that approved, legal uses of at least 36
pesticides used in this region are expected to have a negative impact on salmon.
These documents found that legal uses of various pesticides will exceed EPA
hazard levels for aquatic organisms (i.e., invertebrates, aquatic and
semi-aquatic plants, and endangered and non-endangered estuarine and freshwater
fish).
Public Agency Response Fails to Address the Problem
EPA has not complied with its most basic legal responsibilities to protect
salmon.
Current federal restrictions on pesticide use have not kept pesticides from
contaminating water. Although agency documents show that current uses of at
least 36 pesticides pose risks to salmon survival, the EPA has failed to take
the most basic actions to protect endangered or threatened fish species. Since
the first salmon run was listed under the Endangered Species Act more than ten
years ago, the EPA has violated the Act by failing to consult with the National
Marine Fisheries Service on its registration of pesticides that are likely to
harm salmon. EPA ignores its own findings that allowed pesticide uses will
exceed hazard levels for aquatic species and continues to allow pesticide uses
that pollute water and threaten salmon.
Information on pesticide use is not systematically tracked or accessible to
the public.
To be effective, those involved in research on the effects of pesticides on
salmon, surfacewater monitoring, and stream restoration efforts need to know
what pesticides are being used when and where. California is the only state with
listed salmon runs that has a required pesticide use tracking system in place.
Oregon’s program is not yet fully functioning, and Washington and Idaho have
no systems for tracking pesticide use.
State and local governments fall short in protecting salmon from pesticides.
Action at the state and local level is necessary for salmon protection. All
states with listed salmon runs recognize the need to adopt policies at the state
level for the restoration of their rivers and salmon runs. However, no state has
enforceable pesticide policies for salmon protection in place. Each city and
county has responsibility for reviewing its policies and practices to ensure
that its actions do not result in harm to salmon. Some jurisdictions have taken
steps to prevent pesticide use from harming salmon, but the majority have not.
Addressing Pesticide Threats to Salmon
The findings of this report show that current practices are creating serious water pollution problems for salmon survival. Regulations are failing to keep pesticides out of surface water, resulting in contamination levels known to be hazardous to aquatic organisms. With listed species of salmon in our waterways, pesticide contamination is no longer acceptable. There is precious little time left to restore the quality of the region’s waters for salmon and the ecosystems and communities that depend upon them.
Solution:
Cleaning up our waterways to protect salmon from the impacts of pesticides will take sustained effort by government agencies, farmers, cities and counties, and individuals. For the health of the salmon and our way of life, we must take the following actions:
Phase out the use of pesticides that are hazardous to salmon and their habitat. Adopt measures to keep pesticides out of water needed for salmon survival. Establish pesticide use reporting to track pesticide use to aid in salmon recovery. Promote and adopt salmon-friendly practices that reduce reliance on pesticides.
Recommendations:
1. EPA must comply with the Endangered Species Act by phasing out the use of pesticides that harm salmon and keeping all pesticides out of water. EPA must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop and implement methods to end pesticide uses that threaten salmon. EPA must also develop pesticide water quality criteria and use its authority to ensure they are not exceeded.
2. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must enforce the Endangered Species Act to ensure that pesticides are not used in ways that harm salmon. NMFS should make sure that EPA acts to prevent pesticide use from harming salmon. NMFS must also ensure that local government agencies restrict and reduce pesticide use as part of salmon recovery.
3. States should stop the use of pesticide products that harm salmon or their habitat by phasing out or further restricting their use. Washington state has started this process and other states should act using state pesticide laws and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits now required for aquatic pesticide applications.
4. Local jurisdictions should make pesticide use reduction a core element of salmon recovery. Cities, counties, schools, and park districts should serve as models of salmon-friendly pest management by adopting strong policies to phase out pesticide use. Cities and counties should also promote salmon-friendly landscaping, gardening, and farming practices to reduce pesticide use by homeowners, businesses, and farms.
5. Every state with listed salmon runs must develop a comprehensive pesticide use reporting system with publicly accessible data. Information about what pesticides are used, where and when they are applied, and for what reason will ensure that salmon recovery efforts are more effective.
6. Farmers should switch to effective organic and sustainable techniques to reduce their use of pesticides.
7. Land grant universities must provide resources for pesticide-free pest management. Land grant universities should orient their research, education, and extension services toward sustainable pest management practices that reduce reliance on pesticide use.
8. Legislative bodies must provide more resources for surface-water monitoring. Comprehensive surface-water monitoring is necessary for a full understanding of the health of our waters and to determine if adopted measures are keeping pesticides out of salmon waters.
9. Individuals should make the choice to end their use of hazardous pesticides in their homes, gardens, lawns, and workplaces. Successful salmon-friendly practices are available that result in both reduced pesticide contamination in water and safer places for kids, pets, and communities.
Table 1 (p.17) Pesticides detected above criteria set to protect aquatic life
Watersheds of the region monitored for pesticide contamination that contain salmon habitat
Willamette
Puget Sound Central Columbia (phase I, II, or III) Sacramento San Joaquine-Tulare
Pesticide Name Washington Washington-Idaho Oregon California California
2,4-D X X
atrazine X
azinphos methyl X X
carbaryl X X X X
carbofuran X
chlorpyrifos X X X X X
diazinon X X X X X
dicamba X
diuron X X
lindane X X X X
(alpha or gamma)
malathion X X X X
metribuzin X
parathion X
simazine X
triallate X
trifluralin X X
USGS 1999; USGS 2001; Anderson, Wood, & Morace 1997; Williamson et al 1998;
Wentz et al. 1998; Dubrovsky et al. 1998; Domagalski et al. 2000; Ebbert et al. 2000.
Table 2 (p.19) Pesticides Exceeding EPA Hazard Level for Fish and Fish Habitat
EPA documents reveal expected risk to aquatic organisms from registered pesticide use
endangered fresh-water endangered
Pesticide Name fresh-water fresh-water aquatic semi-aquatic aquatic estuarine estuarine estuarine common frequent
fish fish invertebrates plants plants fish fish invertebrates use detect
acephate X X
(degradate
methamidophos)
(R.A.)
alachlor (RED) X X X X X
bensulide (RED) X X X X
bentazon (RED) X X
bromoxynil (RED) X X X X
captan (RED) X X X
chlorothalonil X X X X X
(RED)
dichlobenil (RED) X X X X
1,3-dichloropropene X X X X
(RED)
dimethoate (RA) X X
disulfoton (RA) X X X X X X X
ethoprop (RA) X X X X X X X
fenamiphos (RA) X X X X X X
fenbutatin-oxide X X X X X X X X
(RED)
iprodione (RED) X X X X
methamidophos (RA) X X X
methidathion (RA) X X X X X X X
methomyl (RED) X X X X
methyl parathion X X X X X X X
(RA)
metolachlor (RED) X X X
naled (RA) X X X X X X
norflurazon (RED) X X X
oryzalin (RED) X X X X X X X X X
paraquat dichloride X X X
(RED)
pebulate (RED) X X X
pendimethalin (RED) X X X X
phorate (RA) X X X X X X X
phosmet (RA) X X X X X
prometryn (RED) X X X
propargite (RA) X X X X X X X X
triclopyr (RED) X X X X X
thiobencarb (RED) X X X X
thiodicarb (RED) X X X X X
terbacil (RED) X X
tebuthiuron (RED) X X X
EPA OPP 1994-2001; Gianessi 1995a, 1995b, 1995c; Gianessi 2000; USGS 1999; USGS 2001;
Anderson, Wood, & Morace 1997; Williamson et al. 1998; Wentz et al. 1998; Dubrovsky et al. 1998;
Domagalski et al. 2000; Ebbert et al. 2000.
RED = Registration Eligibility Decisions
RA = Risk Assessments
References
Anderson, C.W., Wood, T.M. and Morace J.L. 1997. Distribution of dissolved pesticides and other water quality constituents in small streams, and their relation to land use, in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, 1996. USGS Report 97-4268. Portland, Oregon.
Arunachalam, S. and S. Palanichamy. 1982. Sublethal effects of carbaryl on surfacing behavior and food utilization in the airbreathing fish, Macropodus cupanus. Physiol. Behavior 29:23-27.
Aspelin, A.L. and Grube, A.H. 1999. Pesticides industry sales and usage: 1996 and 1997 market estimates. Washington, D.C.: US EPA OPP Biological and Economic Analysis Division.
Burdick, G.E., H.J. Dean, and E.J. Harris. 1960. Effect of Sevin upon the aquatic environment. N.Y. Fish and Game J. 7:14-25.
Carlson, A.R. 1971. Effects of long-term exposure to carbaryl (Sevin) on the minnow (Pimephales promelas). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 29:583-587.
Cooper, A. 1996. Diazinon in urban areas. Palo Alto, CA: Regional Water Quality Control Plant, City of Palo Alto.
Dodson, J.J. and C.I. Mayfield. 1979. The dynamics and behavioral toxicology of Aqua- Kleen (2,4-D butoxyethanol ester) as revealed by the modification of rheotropism in rainbow trout. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 108:632-640.
Domagalski, J.L. et al. 2000. Water quality in the Sacramento River Basin, California, 1994- 98. Circular 1215. USGS, National Water Quality Assessment Program. Available at: http://www.usgs.gov/nawqa .
Dubrovsky N.M. et al. 1998. Water quality in the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins, California, 1992-95. Circular 1159. USGS, National Water Quality Assessment Program. Available at: http://www.usgs.gov/nawqa .
Dunier, M. et al. 1995. Effect of lindane exposure on rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) immunity. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 30:259-268.
Ebbert, J.C. et al. 2000. Water quality in the Puget Sound Basin, Washington and British Columbia, 1996-98. Circular 1216. USGS, National Water Quality Assessment Program. Available at: http://www.usgs.gov/nawqa .
El-Gendy, K.S., N.M Aly, and A.H. El-Sebae. 1998. Effects of edifenphos and glyphosate on the immune response and protein biosynthesis of bolti fish (Tilapia nilotica). J. Environ. Sci. Health B33:135-149.
EPA OPP 1994 - 2001. Pesticide reregistration status (REDs, IREDs and TREDs). Retrieved at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm .
Acephate. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: EFED Acephate RED Chapter, Released February 2000.]
Alachlor. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-98-020. December 1998.
Bensulide. Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-00- 002. June 2000.
Bentazon. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-94-029. September 1994.
Bromoxynil. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-98-013. December 1998.
Captan. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-99-015. November 1999.
Chlorothalonil. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-99-004. April 1999.
Dichlobenil. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-98-003. October 1998.
1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D). Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-98-016. December 1998.
Dimethoate. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA, February 4, 1999,Transmittal of EFED’s Revised Chapter for the Dimethoate RED. Memo from D. Rieder to P. Dobak.]
Disulfoton. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA, Amended January 13, 2000, Reregistration Eligibility Document for Disulfoton (D237134). Memo from EFED Disulfoton Team (Montague et al.) to C. Scheltema.]
Ethoprop. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA, February 18, 1999, Errata Sheet for EFED’s Ethoprop RED Chapter Dated October 5, 1998. Memo from D. Spatz to K Boyle and B. Shackelford AND US EPA, November 18, 1998, Errata Sheet for EFED’s Ethoprop RED Chapter Dated October 5, 1998. Memo from N. Federoff and D. Spatz to K. Boyle and B. Shackelford AND US EPA, October 5, 1998, Environmental Fate and Effects Division RED Chapter for Ethoprop. Memo from S. Abel et al to B. Shackelford.]
Fenamiphos. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page, US EPA, August 25, 1999, Fenamiphos Environmental Risk Assessment provided for SRRD by EFED’s Fenamiphos RED Team (Waldman et al.)]
Fenbutatin-oxide. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-94- 024. November 1994.
Iprodione. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-98-019. November 1998.
Lindane. Environmental risk assessment.[Cover page: US EPA OPPTS, 2001, EFED RED Chapter for Lindane PC Code No. 009001; Case No. 81856;DP Barcodes: D254762, D254764, D240496. Memo from ERB IV RED Team for Lindane. Federoff, Young, and Melendez to B. Shackleford and M. McDavit.]
Methamidophos. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA OPPTS, December 23, 998, METHAMIDOPHOS: Revision of EFED Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document to Include Registrant’s Comments. Memo from S. Syslo and M. Davy to A. Chiri.]
Methidathion. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA, November 30, 1999, Methidathion- Environmental Fate and Effects RED Chapter.]
Methomyl. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-98-021. December 1998. Methyl Parathion. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA OPPTS, October 27, 1998, EFED RED Chapter for Methyl Parathion PC CODE No. 109401; Case No. 2345 DP Bar codes D237285. Memo from K. Costello et al. E. Mitchell and A. Layne.]
Metolachlor. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-95-006. April 1995.
Naled. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA OPPTS, March 17, 1999, Naled: Addendum to EFED’s Registration Chapter DP Barcode: D254041. Memo from J. Peckenpaugh et al. to K. Monk and T. Myers.]
Naled. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA, November 14, 1997, EFED’s Reregistration Chapter C for Naled. Memo from J. Peckenpaugh et al. to K. Monk.]
Norflurazon. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-96-012. July 1996.
Oryzalin. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-94.016. September 1994.
Paraquat Dichloride. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-96- 018. August 1997.
Pebulate. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-99-005. November 1999.
Pendimethalin. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-97-007. June 1997.
Phorate. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA, Released September 9, 1999, Outline of Section C. Environmental Assessment.]
Phosmet. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA, April 24, 1998, Environmental Fate and Effects Division RED Chapter for Phosmet. Memo from S. Abel et al. to L. Werrell and K. Monk.]
Prometryn. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-95.033. July 1996. Propargite. Environmental risk assessment. [Cover page: US EPA, June 7, 2000, Environmental Fate and Effects Division Science Chapter for Reregistration Eligibility Document for Propargite.]
Tebuthiuron. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-94-006. April 1994. Terbacil. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-97-011. January 1998.
Thiobencarb. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-97-013. December 1997.
Thiodicarb. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-98-022. December 1998.
Triclopyr. Reregistration Eligibility Decision. EPA 738-R-98-011. October 1998.
EPA OPP 1997. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of August 1, 1996. 730L97001. Washington, D.C.
EPA OPTS 2000. Protecting endangered species interim measure use for pesticides in San Luis Obispo county. Available at: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/es/espdfs/40pe1299.pdf.
EPA OW 1999a. Clean Water Act: A brief history. Retrieved on Nov 30, 2001 at: http:// www.epa.gov/owow/cwa/history.htm.
EPA OW 1999b. National recommended water quality criteria correction. (EPA 822-Z-99- 001).
Evenson, M. 1996. Draft Bear Creek fish kill estimate: salmonids. And Draft Bear Creek fish kill estimate: non-salmonids. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, June 21.
Ewing, R. PhD. 1999. Diminishing returns: Salmon decline and pesticides. Eugene, OR: Oregon Pesticide Education Network.
Gianessi, L.P. 1995a. Pesticide use in California crop production: 1993. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.
Gianessi, L.P. 1995b. Pesticide use in Oregon crop production: 1993. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.
Gianessi, L.P. 1995c. Pesticide use in Washington crop production: 1993. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.
Gianessi, L.P. 2000. National Summary Report; Pesticide use in US crop production: 1997. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.
Headwaters Inc., et al. v. Talent Irrigation District, NO. 99-35373, D.C. NO. CV 98- 06004-ALA, (9th Cir., 2001).
Little, E.E. et al. 1990. Behavioral indications of sublethal toxicity in rainbow trout. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:380-385.
Loudon, E. 2001. Are pesticides a factor in salmon declines? An investigation of the Thornton Creek Watershed. M.S. Thesis. The Evergreen State College, WA.
Moore, A. and C.P. Waring. 1996. Sublethal effects of the pesticide diazinon on olfactory function in mature male Atlantic salmon parr. J. Fish Biol. 48:758-775.
Moore, A. and C.P. Waring. 1998. Mechanistic effects of a triazine pesticide on reproductive endocrine function in mature male Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) parr. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 62:41-50.
National Research Council. 1993. Soil and water quality. Board on Agriculture, Committee on long-range Soil and Water Conservation. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 334.
National Research Council 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
NMFS 2001. Personal email communication from Rosemary Furfey, Protected Resources Division, Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon (Nov. 20).
NMFS n.d. Fish FAQ. Where do salmon go in the ocean? Retrieved on Nov. 30, 2001 at: http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/faq/fishfaq2d.html
NOAA NMFS. 2000a. Northwest salmon recovery planning. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2001 at: http://research.nwfsc.noaa.gov/cbd/trt
NOAA NMFS. 2000b. Endangered and threatened species; Final rule governing take of 14 threatened salmon and steelhead evolutionarily significant units (ESUs). Federal Register 65(132):42422-42481 (July 10).
NOAA NMFS. 2001. Endangered Species Act status of West Coast salmon and steelhead. Retrieved on March 29, 2001 at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/pubs/1pgr.pdf.
Nowell, L.H., and E.A. Resek. 1994. Summary of national standards and guidelines for pesticides in water, bed sediment, and aquatic organisms and their application to water-quality assessments. Sacramento, California.
O’Halloran, K., J.T. Ahokas, and P.F.A. Wright. 1998. Comparison of predator avoidance capabilities with corticosteroid levels induced by stress in juvenile coho salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121:544-547.
Oregon State University n.d. Pesticides Properties Database. Available at: http://ace.orst.edu/info/nptn/ppdmove.htm .
Rawlings, N.C., S.J. Cook, and D. Waldbillig. 1998. Effects of the pesticides carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, lindane, triallate, trifluralin, 2,4-D, and pentachlorophenol on the metabolic endocrine and reproductive endocrine system in ewes. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, A54:21-36.
Scholz, N.L. et al. 2000. Diazinon disrupts antipredator and homing behaviors in chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 57:1911-1918.
Shea, T.B. and E.S. Berry. 1984. Suppression of interferon synthesis by the pesticide carbarly as a mechanism for enhancement of goldfish virus-2 replication. Appl. Exper. Microbiol. 47:250-252.
The Wilderness Society 1993. Wild salmon as natural capital: Accounting for sustainable use. Living Landscapes. Volume 1. Washington, D.C.
USFWS 2001. The Endangered Species Act of 1973. Retrieved on Nov 30, 2001 at: http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html
USGS 1999. Pesticides detected in urban streams during rainstorms and relations to retail sales of pesticides in King County, Washington. USGS Fact Sheet 097-99. Tacoma, WA: NAWQA.
USGS PNSP. 1999. (Updated August, 20) Pesticides analyzed in NAWQA Samples: Use, chemical analyses, and water-quality criteria. Retrieved on Nov 29, 2001 at: http://water.wr.usgs.gov/pnsp/anstrat
USGS 2001. NAWQA surface water data sets. Retrieved April 11, 2001 at: http://wa.water.usgs.gov/ccpt/pns_data/tables/sanj.sw.htm ; http://wa.water.usgs.gov/fs067/pest.view.html; http://wa.water.usgs.gov/pugt/fs.097-99/data/usgsps.data.html#data; http://wa.Water.usgs.gov/pugt/ccpt/pns_data/data/ccpt_sw; http://wa.water.usgs.gov/pugt/fs.097-99/data/usgs; http://wa.water.usgs.gov/ccpl/pns_data/data/will_sw.
Weis, J.S. and P. Weis. 1976. Optical malformation induced by insecticides in embryos of the Altantic silverside Menidia menidia. Fish. Bull. 74:208-214.
Weis, P. and J.S. Weis. 1974. Sevin and schooling behavior of Menidia menidia in the presence of the insecticide Sevin (carbaryl). Mar. Biol. 28:261.
Wentz, D.A. et al. 1998. Water quality in the Willamette Basin, Oregon 1991-95. Circular 1161. USGS, National Water Quality Assessment Program. Available at: http:// www.usgs.gov/nawqa
Williamson, A.K. et al. 1998. Water quality in the Central Columbia Plateau, Washington and Idaho, 1992-95. Circular 1144. USGS, National Water Quality Assessment Program. Available at: http://www.usgs.gov/nawqa
WSDA 2001. A Process for Evaluating Pesticides in Washington State Surface Waters for Potential Impacts to Salmonids. Olympia, WA. Washington State Pesticide/ESA Task Force. Available at: http://www.wa.gov/agr/pmd/docs/publications/Pesticide-ESA%20White%20Paper.pdf
WSDOE 2001a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for aquatic pest control. Olympia, WA. Notice of Permit Development, publication 01-10-059.
WSDOE 2001b. Summary Report: Washington PBT Working List. Available February 2002 at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov
The special contributions that the following individuals made to this report
are sincerely appreciated:
Aimee Code, Caroline Cox, Philip Dickey, Dr. Dick Ewing, Dan Ford Esq., Annie
Fulkerson, Patti Goldman Esq., Norma Grier, James Johnston of Cascadia Wildlands
Project, Elizabeth Loudon, Elissa Pfost, Kay Rumsey, Erika Schreder, Gregg
Small, Ken Steffenson, Laurie Valeriano, and Steve Witten.
Copies of this report can be found at:
http://www.pesticide.org/CleanWaterSalmon.html
The following individuals and agencies contributed photos and graphics that
are reproduced in this report with permission, and these are sincerely
appreciated:
Brett Cole of Wild Northwest Photography; Rory Banyard of North Shore
Productions and the Johnson Creek Watershed Council; James Johnston of Cascadia
Wildlands Project; Kathryn Kostow, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife; Leif
Studios; Lori Mudge; Public Interest GRFX; Tom Quinn; Ken Steffenson.
Art by Mary Rounds
We gratefully acknowledge the support of :
The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the supporting foundations and individuals.
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |