## Chuck Peck, Mark Corbin (EPA) George Noguchi, Karen Myers (FWS) Tony Hawkes, Scott Hecht (NMFS) 4/28/2015

1

# Agenda  

# ESA Risk Assessment Paradigm  

# Conceptual Model and Aquatic Bins / Watershed Sizes  

# Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) Scenarios and Meteorological Stations  

# Downstream Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) (“Downstream Dilution”)  

# Other Considerations  

# Case Study – Shortnose Sturgeon

2

# ESA Risk Assessment Paradigm

Step 1 May Affect? Step 2 Likely to Adversely Affect

3

# Aquatic Bins **Generic Habitat Depth**  **(meters) Width**  **(meters) Length**  **( meters)**  **Flow (m**  **3 /s)**  **1 –**  **Aquatic -**  **associated terrestrial habitats**  NA NA NA NA **2 -**  **low -**  **flow** 0.1 2 Length of field 1 0.001 **3 -**  **Moderate -**  **flow** 1 8 Length of field 1 **4 -**  **High -**  **flow** 2 40 Length of field 100 **5 –**  **Low -**  **volume** 0.1 1 1 0 **6 -**  **Moderate -**  **volume** 1 10 10 0 **7 -**  **High -**  **volume** 2 100 100 0 **8 -**  **Intertidal nearshore** 0.5 50 Length of field NA **9 -**  **Subtidal nearshore** 5 200 Length of field NA **10 -**  **Offshore marine** 200 300 Length of field NA 1 length of field – The habitat being evaluated is the reach or segment that abuts or is immediately adjacent to the treated field. The habitat is assumed to run the entire length of the treated area. 4

# Conceptual Model – Bins and Distance

Treated Field 30 m

Static Water Bodies Runoff + Drift (Bins 5, 6, and 7) Sheet Flow Flowing Water Bodies Runoff + Drift (Bins 2, 3 , and 4) Drift Static Water Bodies Drift Only (Bins 5, 6, and 7) Estuarine/Marine Runoff and Drift (Bins 8 and 9, assumed to occur within 30 m of field)

Drift Only beyond 30 m (Bins 8, 9, and 10)

5

# Conceptual Model  

## For Step 1, to derive the offsite transport extent of the action area, model EECs in Bin 2 and couple with downstream assessment; model Bin 5 for effects of spray drift only  

## For Step 2, model all “representative” aquatic bins  

## Evaluation of estuarine/marine bins would be limited to coastal areas and areas influenced by tidal flux  

## Within 30 m, all flowing and static aquatic bins would receive runoff and spray drift  

## Outside 30 m, static bins would only receive spray drift

6

# Watershed Sizes – Spatial Context  

## Given differences in precipitation and evaporation rates across the country, the size of a watershed’s contribution to a water body will be different  

## Estimate regional watershed size, as well as pesticide loading ( e.g. , surface water modeling), for a waterbody via hydrologic unit codes or HUCs  

## HUC 2 – 18 regions in the conterminous US, containing the drainage area of a major river or series of rivers, as well as HI, AK and PR 

##  

## Efficient way to assess regional differences in environmental concentrations and manage resources needed for modeling 7

# HUC 2 Regions

8

# Watershed Sizes – Flowing Bins  

## Use NHDplus dataset to assess relationships between drainage area and stream flow rates  

## Confine analysis to streams and rivers and eliminated human - modified water bodies ( e.g. , canals, pipelines, etc.) and artificial pathways  

## Generate ln - ln regressions between flow and drainage area for each HUC2 region  

## Estimate drainage areas, or watersheds, for each aquatic bin and HUC2

9

# Watershed Sizes – Static Bins  

## Conduct analysis using the SWCC, MS corn scenario (determined to be a high runoff scenario) and all available SWCC meteorological stations throughout the country ( 237 stations )  

## Using the runoff estimates from the SWCC runs, and precipitation and evaporation data from meteorological station files, estimate the watershed size required to maintain the volume in the aquatic bins  

## Try to achieve a median drainage area to normalized capacity (DANC) value of 5 - 15 m 2 

## /m 3

10

# Watershed Sizes – Estuarine/Marine  

## Uncertain how to estimate watershed sizes and/or model runoff from the watersheds into estuarine / marine water bodies and aquatic - associated terrestrial habitats  

## Issues regarding tidal flux, salinity of receiving water body that current models do not address  

## Use static and flowing water body bins as surrogates, generally:  

## Bin 5 for tidal pools  

## Bins 2 and 3 for low and high tide  

## Bins 4 and 7 used for marine species that occasionally inhabit offshore areas
11

# Spatial Modeling - Scenarios  

## Over 120 SWCC scenarios are available for modeling pesticide releases to surface water  

## Agricultural – corn, wheat, citrus, etc.  

## Non - agricultural – rights - of - way, impervious surfaces, residential 

##  

## Weather data are available for over 237 meteorological stations throughout the country  

## Scenarios not evenly distributed across US  

## In some cases, no current scenario exists for regions of the country (southwest US)

12

# Spatial Modeling - Scenarios  

## For Step 2 modeling:  

## Identify current SWCC scenarios for each HUC2 for each of the 11 crop data layer groupings  

## For HUC2 regions that do not have SWCC scenarios, develop a surrogate scenario for use in the HUC2  

### Representative scenario in nearby HUC2 with highest curve number  

### Replace existing meteorological station with representative(s) of the HUC2 region 

##  

## Identify most conservative scenario for use in Step 1 analyses
13

# Precipitation in United States

14

# Selection of Meteorological Stations  

## Group all available meteorological stations by HUC 2 and estimate cumulative 30 - year precipitation value  

## Use the meteorological station with the median cumulative precipitation value for all HUC 2 regions except where there is a large difference in the precipitation values (>3x between min and max stations)  

## Where large rainfall difference, estimate the median precipitation and select a median station for both the highest station group and the lowest station group based on cumulative precipitation  

## For HUCs 15 and 16, large disparity between the highest precipitation station and others. Select highest precipitation station, along with the median of the remaining stations 15

# Downstream EECs (“Downstream Dilution”)  

## Step 1 – expand action area to include downstream effects  

### Estimate required “dilution factor” using EECs and threshold  e .g. - EEC for Bin 2 is 10 ppb and threshold is 1 ppb, need to reduce EEC at least 90% to get below threshold  

### Use NHDplus land cover attributes for chemical to determine the distance to reach an overall percent use area below EEC/threshold dilution factor 

###  

## Step 2 – estimate downstream EECs and evaluate exceedance of threshold in listed species habitat  

### Use of process similar to Step 1, but look at breakdown of percent use areas by use category for each chemical to evaluate how each SWCC run impacts species
16

# Downstream EECs (“Downstream Dilution”)

17

# Other Considerations  

## Mixtures  

## Qualitative line of evidence in effects determination  

## Consider various sources of information  

### Tank mixes/co - formulated products  

### CDPR mixture analyses  

### Labels and recommended tank mixtures  

### Environmental mixtures  

### ECOTOX plus pile  

### NAWQA concentrations and co - occurrence 

##  

## Degradates - oxons  

## T otal residue method  

## Estimate a weighted EEC 18

# Case Studies Species Info **Shortnose Sturgeon (** 

Acipenser brevirostrum **) Category**  **Information** Habitat Rivers and estuaries along east coast from Canada to Florida Aquatic bins 3 and 4 (flowing), 6 and 7 (static), 8 and 9 (estuarine/marine) Presence in Freshwater Juveniles: first 2 - 3 years Adults: l ate winter / early spring Reproductive Timing Late winter / early spring, depending on location along east coast Diet Juveniles: benthic insects and small crustaceans Adults: mollusks and large crustaceans NMFS Website

19

# Species Location

20

# Fate Properties - Chlorpyrifos

Parameter (units) Input Value Molecular Weight (g/mol) 350.57 Water Solubility (mg/L) 20 °C 1.4 Vapor Pressure (torr) 25 °C 1.87x10 - 5 Henry’s Law Constant ( atm - m 3 /mo l ) 6.2 x 10 - 6 Hydrolysis Half - life (days) 0 Aqueous Photolysis (days) 29.6 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half - life (days) 170.6 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half - life (days) 91.2 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half - life (days) 203 K oc (mL/g oc ) 6040 

###  

## Lab studies - degrades in weeks to months  

## Terrestrial studies - dissipates in weeks to months  

## Slightly Mobile  

## Semi - volatile  

## Bioconcentrates , but rapid depuration

21

# Chlorpyrifos Uses – HUCs 1 - 3

1. HUCs 1 and 2 only 2. HUCs 2 and 3 only. 3. HUC 3 only 3
2 1

2 2

22

# Chlorpyrifos Effects Thresholds Effect (endpoint) Value (μg/L ) Test species Duration of exposure Mortality (1/million) 0.088 HC 05 

### from SSD 96 hours

Sublethal (growth) 0.28 Atlantic silverside 28 days

23high end (Rutabaga) 

# Range of EECs

240.01 0.1

101/0101/0901/1701/2502/0202/1002/1802/2603/0503/1303/2103/2904/0604/1404/2204/3005/0805/1605/2406/0106/0906/1706/2507/0307/1107/1907/2708/0408/1208/2008/2809/0509/1309/2109/2910/0710/1510/2310/3111/0811/1611/2412/0212/1012/1812/26 Day median EECs (golf course) Fish and aquatic-phase amphibian mortality Fish and aquatic-phase amphibian growth 

# Range of EECs Over Course of Year

25

# Exposure Considerations

 

### Relevance of environmental exposure models for generating EECs for receiving waterbody habitats  High certainty in models developed to predict concentrations in species’ habitats  Less certainty in models that were not developed specifically to address species’ habitats, but adapted to achieve this purpose  

### Robustness of fate data used to derive EECs  High certainty in EECs when a robust fate data set is available  Less certainty in EECs when an incomplete fate data set is available  

### Targeted monitoring data comparable to EECs  Strengthens the confidence in the values, but lack of targeted monitoring data does not weaken it 26

# Effects Determination  

### Use weight of evidence approach to evaluate exposure and effects data for multiple lines of evidence  Mortality  Growth  Reproduction  Impacts to behavior  Sensory effects  Indirect Effects  Other stressors (chemical and non - chemical)  

### Evaluate the overlap of exposure and effects (risk) and the confidence in the data (weight) for each line of evidence to arrive at effects determination  

### Lines of evidence for mortality and growth suggest a likely to adversely affect determination, but a thorough evaluation of all of the lines of evidence would need to be done before the analysis is completed 27

# Questions?

28