Download pdf - Al Barefoot (DuPont), Kellie Bray (CLA) AAPCO Update March ... · 2 Background and Drivers • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report issued in April 2013 on Endangered Species

©CropLife America 2014

Endangered Species Update

Al Barefoot (DuPont), Kellie Bray (CLA)

AAPCO Update March 8, 2016


2

Background and Drivers

•  National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report issued in April 2013 on Endangered Species assessments and consultations.

•  EPA and Services announce interim process November 2013 –  Using pilot projects in Registration Review to develop

process •  National scale assessment – all listed species •  Dates for completed BiOps: OPs, 12/17 and carbamates, 12/18

–  Publicizing progress in workshops, professional societies, EMPM

AAPCO Meeting - 3/8/16


EPA/Services Report to Congress – 12/14

•  Endangered Species assessments and consultations using the interim process will be developed via Registration Review.

•  For new active ingredient registrations, EPA will provide a comparison of the new a.i. to the registered alternatives.

•  For herbicide tolerant crop systems (GMO), EPA will conduct Endangered Species assessments based on the 2004 Overview document.

3 AAPCO Meeting - 3/8/16


Interim Process for Registration Review – Steps 1-3

•  EPA Risk Assessment –Biological Evaluation (BE)

–  Step 1 – Definition of Action Area and the No Effect/May affect Decision

–  Step 2 – Not Likely to Adverse Affect/Likely to Adversely Affect

4

•  Services’ Biological Opinion §  Step 3 – Jeopardy/No Jeopardy Decision §  Adverse/No Adverse Modification of Critical

Habitat v Population Level Analysis

§  Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Alternatives

AAPCO Meeting - 3/8/16


Interim Process Development

•  EPA/Services’ presentations at workshops, professional society meetings, EMPM

•  Biological Evaluation methods –  Released Dec 2015 –  Problem formulation, exposure modeling, effects

determination, literature review

•  Biological Evaluation complete draft – Steps 1 and 2 –  Early April, 2016 –  May Affect/No Effect; Likely to adversely affect/NLAA –  Comment period

AAPCO Meeting - 3/8/16 5


Interim Process Development

•  Stakeholder workshop – late June •  Draft Biological Opinion – 3Q 17

–  Jeopardy decisions –  Adverse effect on critical habitat

•  Final Biological Opinion – Dec 2017 –  Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Alternatives



Communicating Mitigation Requirements

•  Websites with mapping applications –  http://www2.epa.gov/endangered-species/salmon-mapper

•  Bulletins Live! Two –  http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/bulletins.htm –  Pesticide use labels direct users to the site –  Use limitations in the bulletin are enforceable under FIFRA –  Bulletins for 14 listed species in 113 counties in 10 states

•  Small number of active ingredients



Observations on the OP draft BE Methods


Chapter 1 Analysis

Plan

Chapter 2 Effects Analysis

Chapter 3 Exposure Analysis

HAZARD + EXPOSURE = RISK

Draft Biological Evaluation

(Risk Analysis)

Expected in April 2016




Chapter 1 Analysis

Plan

Guide to the risk assessment plan •  Difficult to fully understand how the analysis plan will be applied

at the listed-species level •  Slightly different use of labeling and other information among the

three OPs

Chapter 2 Effects Analysis

Chapter 3 Exposure Analysis

Product effects •  Effect arrays and summaries are not always well documented,

are highly variable between assessments, and not always linked to survival, reproduction or growth

•  Literature values of varying quality and relevance

Potential exposure •  Generic, screening level habitat descriptions in models – not

species specific •  Exposure scenarios span large and variable areas of the country •  Regulatory consequences of the new modeling tools are not

clear




Chapter ?? Risk

Analysis

How risk will be expressed on an individual listed species basis is not yet evident.


CLA Activities

•  Participation in workshops –  Topics for next stakeholder workshop –  Contributing to planning

•  Presentations at EMPM, professional society meetings •  Review of BE methods and conclusions •  Preparation for comment period following Effects

determination •  Government Affairs



Government Affairs

•  Western Governors’ Association –  Conservation partnerships –  Species conservation and ESA initiative –  Webinar: Voluntary species conservation incentives and collaboration

•  House hearing on EPA with Gina McCarthy –  Focus on WOTUS –  Members expressed interest in pesticide issues

•  EPA process •  Pollinators •  Endangered species •  Timely product approvals

–  CLA continuing interactions with Congress



Contribution of States to the Process

•  FWS/NMFS policy on co-operation with States –  https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-02-22/pdf/

2016-03541.pdf –  Any state agency or entity with responsibility for wildlife

management –  Actions to prevent listing species – e.g. State Wildlife Action

Plans –  Scientific basis for listing decisions –  Consultation of effects of Federal actions on states –  Habitat conservation programs –  Species recovery planning

13 AAPCO Meeting - 3/8/16


What can States do?

•  What can you do? •  What do you do now within your state ES

programs? •  What role is possible in developing mitigations? •  What improvements in the consultation process

are possible?



Summary

•  Consultation process is complex and evolving within short timelines

–  ESA related processes are still under development •  Federal government resource requirements are significant •  Stakeholder input is invaluable and needed

–  Registrants – product knowledge, technical expertise –  NGO’s – protection goals, process improvements

•  State and Local Governments –  Designated role in the assessment and consultation process –  State and local endangered species programs

•  Species location •  Existing protections •  Input into mitigation
