Forest Service Official: Managers Skirted Policies on Pesticides
By Susan Montoya Bryan/
Associated Press
A regional U.S. Forest Service official contends he has documents to back up accusations that some managers skirted the agency's policies and environmental laws for spraying pesticides and weed-killing chemicals in the Southwest.
The Forest Service recently released a thick stack of documents concerning pesticide projects in New Mexico and Arizona after being sued by Doug Parker, pesticide coordinator and assistant director of forestry and forest health for the Southwestern Region.
Parker, who has worked for the agency for nearly four decades, had been seeking the documents since his supervisor rejected a request he made in December under the Freedom of Information Act. He followed with a lawsuit in April.
According to Parker's attorney, the documents shed light on accusations that the region has a "systemic problem'' when it comes to proper pesticide use.
The documents include proposals to use pesticides that were signed by employees who didn't have the proper authority. Some of the proposals also lack signatures from pesticide experts who are responsible for reviewing the projects.
Forest Service spokesman Carl Holguin declined to comment Thursday, saying Parker's accusations relate to personnel and civil matters.
But Holguin stressed that all projects involving pesticides and herbicides undergo a process to ensure the public is involved and that requirements spelled out by the National Environmental Policy Act are met.
"If there's something out of line then we get told about it pretty quickly and we make modifications to bring it back in line,'' Holguin said. "We adhere closely to the requirements of the NEPA.''
The law, which serves as the basis for federal management of public lands, requires agencies to conduct sometimes-lengthy environmental reviews before approving projects or issuing permits.
Parker is under an order from his supervisor not to speak publicly about the matter, and declined to talk with the AP about his accusations.
His attorney, Dennis Montoya, said Parker is concerned that not following agency policies or environmental laws could lead to "potentially serious public safety and environmental threats.''
Montoya said he's also concerned about documents the Forest Service refused to release.
"Part of what they are withholding is probably the smoking gun,'' he said.
Montoya said the agency didn't release any information regarding a project in New Mexico's Cibola National Forest that sparked Parker's concern and resulted in a whistleblower complaint.
Parker alleged a district ranger approved the aerial application of a herbicide last fall to fight salt cedar but did not have the authority to do so.
The Forest Service denies it's withholding key documents.
The agency said in a June 9 letter that some documents weren't released because they included personal information and details about the agency's decision-making process. Draft documents and opinions about the drafts were among the documents.
"It is important to protect these discussions and processes that help to formulate agency policy and positions,'' the letter states, "and to release the information would likely stifle honest and frank communication within the agency.''
Parker sought information on all pesticide projects in the region's 11 forests since January 2002, namely proof that certified employees reviewed and signed off on the plans and that workers who applied the chemicals or supervised the projects had proper training.
According to Montoya, Parker believes some documents show a pattern of skirting agency policy.
Proposals to treat more than 8,000 acres of various noxious weeds in the Lincoln National Forest in southern New Mexico this summer was signed by the forest's pesticide use coordinator, but Parker contends that policy requires such proposals to be signed by a line officer in addition to being reviewed by the coordinator.
He also cites proposals in which forest officials used a categorical exclusion to move ahead with spraying for beetles in southeastern Arizona rather than conduct an environmental assessment. Parker contends the work required an analysis.
In an e-mail included in the documents, an official in Arizona referenced Parker's feelings about the projects: "As you know we really have a process predicament with the regional pesticide coordinator.''
In his own e-mail, Parker told co-workers about his interest in training Forest Service workers so they can do a good job using or supervising the application of pesticides.
"I don't think we can afford anything less. Proper training is costly, but ignorance could cost us much more,'' he wrote. "I don't know why this is such a hard concept for some individuals to understand and/or accept, but I can't get the necessary support.''
The documents also include memos describing why the agency chose to move ahead with certain projects without conducting an environmental analysis, e-mails from workers seeking training opportunities and licenses of employees in the region who are certified to use pesticides.
Even though the Forest Service turned over more than 880 pages, Parker has filed an appeal with the agency to seek the release of the remaining documents.
news 
...go to bookmarks
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
