1

**Anne Fairbrother, D.V.M., Ph.D.** Principal Scientist 

## Assessing Risks of Pesticides **to Listed Species:** Operationalizing National Academy of Sciences Recommendations
U.S. EP A Of fice of Pesticide Programs Public Workshop April 2014 • Arlington, Virginia2 

### NAS **Report —** 

**April 2013**  **Addressed key issues to harmonize risk**  **assessments across agencies** 

– Use of best available science

– Sublethal , cumulative, and indirect effects

– Mixtures and inerts

– Models

– Interpretation of uncertainty

– Geospatial datasets and information3 

### Three Step Process EPA, USFWS, NOAA: “Interim Approaches for National Level Endangered Species...Assessments”  **Step 1:** Determine whether action “ may affect”alisted species or its critical habitat. If yes, action agency has the option of formal or informal consultation.  **Step 2 (Informal Consultation):** Determine whether action is “l ikely to adversely affect”alisted species or its critical habitt . If no, and FWS or NMFS agrees, no further consultation. If yes, formal consultation required.  **Step 3 (Formal Consultation):** FWS or NMFS must determine whether proposed action is likely to jeopardize the existence of the listed species and issues a biological opinion.4

St ep 1 ( EP

A) May Af fe ct?

St ep 2 ( EP

A) Informa l Consult at ion Likely t o Adversely Affe ct?

YES – Option 1

Concur rence? FWSorN MFS St ep 3 ( FW S orN MF S) Formal Consult at ion Jeopardy? YES Problem Form ulation Exposure Analy sis Effe cts Analy sis Risk Ch aracterization ESA Pro cess

NO REGISTRA TION OR REREGISTRA

TION OF PE STICIDE Problem Form ulation Exposure Analy sis Effe cts Analy sis Risk Ch aracterization Problem Form ulation Exposure Analy sis Effe cts Analy sis Risk Ch aracterization NO
YES – Op tion 2

EP A DE CIDES WH ETHER AN D U ND ER WHA T CO NDITIONS TO REGISTER PE STICIDE YES NO

NO YES **ESA Process ERA**  **P rocess** 5 

### Step 1 No Effect/May Affect Determination and Action Area: 

###  **Overlap of the action area with the species’ ranges and**  **designated critical habitats** 

– Species or critical habitats that overlap with the action area during the time of pesticide application

– Geography and phenology 

###  **Hazard classification**

– Assessment of potential to cause toxicity in organisms  Birds  Mammals  Fish  I nvertebrates (terrestrial and aquatic)  P lants6 

### Interim Approaches for National**- Level**  **Endangered Species... Assessments** Readily available geospatial data sets will be used to establish agricultural and non agricultural pesticide use areas. The Agencies will develop a proposal to aggregate data over multiple time periods to more fully account for past, present and reasonable future use area changes. **Sources of information**   USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Census of Agriculture data (county level)  The National Land Cover Database (NLCD)  The Cropland Data Layer (CDL) and/or CDL aggregated by years7

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cr- pl.asp8

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cr- pl.asp9

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cr- pl.asp1011 

### Interim Approaches for National**- Level**  **Endangered Species... Assessments** For species range and designated critical habitat geospatial information, priority and weight will be given to spatial data provided by the Services. If sub-county spatial data are not available from the Services for particular species and/or designated critical habitats, an interim approach for supplementing listed species locations will be used **Sources of information**   FWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS)

– Information, Planning, and Conservation System ( IPaC )

– Critical Habitat Portal 

###  FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force (FESTF) database  NatureServe12

http://ecowatch.com/2013/08/30/proposal -weakens- endangered -species - protections -on - public- lands/ 

### Number of Federally **Listed Species**13 

### Species of Potential **Concern (e.g., Spring)**  **Corn**

– Birds  Species 1  Species 2  Species 3

– Mammals  Species 1  Species 2  Species 3

– Plants  Species 1  Species 2  Species 3 

###  **Soybean**

– Birds  Species 1  Species 2

– Mammals  Species 1  Species 2  Species 3

– Plants  Species 1 

###  **Cotton**

– Birds  Species 2  Species 3

– Mammals  Species 1

– Plants  Species 2 

###  **Wheat**

– Birds  Species 3

– Mammals  Species 1  Species 2

– Plants  Species 114



###  **Species of**  **concern**

– Birds

– Mammals

– Plants

– Fish

– Invertebrates (soil)

– Invertebrates (aquatic) 

### Initial **Hazard Assessment**  Retain or Eliminate Species Classes (direct effects) 

###  **Toxicity data from standard toxicity tests** 

– Yes / no 

###  **Mechanism of action**

– Broad spectrum versus targeted species 

###  **Read across**

– Known data from similar chemicals15



###  **Species of**  **concern**

– Birds

– Mammals

– Plants

– Fish

– Invertebrates (soil)

– Invertebrates (aquatic) 

### Initial **Hazard Assessment**  Retain or Eliminate Species Classes (critical habitat attributes) 

###  **Critical habitat attributes**

– Cover type

– Forage

– Etc. 

###  **Direct effect of pesticide on habitat attributes** 

– Yes / no from previous slide16 

### Interim Approach **Effects**  Action Area will be based on the lowest relevant toxicity value for the most sensitive species in the environment that results in the farthest distance from the use site(s) based on the effects thresholds described below. The aquatic portions of the action area will incorporate/characterize downstream transport. **Exposure**  Estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) will be based largely on modeled estimates

– PRZM - EXAMS

– AgDRIFT

– AGDISP

– Variable Volume Pond Model

– T- REX

– TerrPlant17 

### Interim Approach **Effects**  Action Area will be based on the lowest relevant toxicity value for the most sensitive species in the environment that results in the farthest distance from the use site(s) based on the effects thresholds described below. The aquatic portions of the action area will incorporate/characterize downstream transport. **One in**  **a million = LD**  **0.000001**18 

### But Most Importantly  **Why spend so much time at Step 1?**   **Focus should be on problem formulation**   **Then go to Step 2 and do a quantitative risk analysis of**  **exposure and effects for each species of potential concern** 

– Include distributions, etc. for appropriate uncertainty analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...19 

### Conclusion  **Interim Approach document is a significant step forward**  **Further discussion is needed for how to operationalize the approach, particularly for Step 1** 

– Consideration given to need for high through - put at Step 1

– Quantitative analyses are preferred for Steps 2 and 3  Include quantitative assessment of uncertainties to achieve desired statements of probabilities



### – Approach for Step 3 has not yet been identified  May constrain the discussion for Step 2 if there is no vision for how the output will inform the next step