Exploring Complementary Options that Optimize the FIFRA/ESA ProcessLeah Duzy, Ashlea Frank, Bernalyn McGaughey, Tiffany Carro, and Paul Whatling

SETAC North America 39th Annual Meeting

Sacramento, California

Monday, November 4, 2018

Background

Under the FIFRA, the process of assessing the potential impact of pesticide use on species listed under the ESA can be resource intensive for all stakeholders.

In order to address risk management and species protection, there is interest in exploring alternatives or complements to the current process.

One option is to frame and evaluate risk and uncertainty given best available data to evaluate reasonable and affordable voluntary mitigation or management options.

Two Main Questions

Where do alternatives fit into the current process?The alternatives we are going to discuss relate to

targeted conservation actions and activities.

How to build a basis for development of strategies to achieve effective and protective registration actions?

EPA FIFRA

Process

FWS and NMFS Consultation

Process

National Pesticide

Registration Action

Federal and State Actions

Private and NGO Actions

Limiting Site Conditions

Federal Programs operated in or by States

State Programs

Conservation

Economic

Operational

Environmental

Pesticide Application on a Given

Field

High……………………………………………Risk/Jeopardy Conclusions Given Information Considered……………………………………….Low

Where do alternatives fit into the process?

Conservation alternatives can fit into multiple places before and during the FIFRA process and consultation with the Services.

The objective is not to replace risk assessments but to complement them and make the consultation process more efficient.

By having a full understanding of the interaction between the species and agricultural systems, current conservation actions and activities can be highlighted to show that species are not likely to be effected.

Prior to the EPA FIFRA process, registrants could explore which species may most likely benefit from cost-effective, targeted conservation efforts given knowledge about the species and agricultural systems.

This information and associated conservation actions could inform and frame discussions with EPA and the Services during the FIFRA/ESA process.

EPA FIFRA

Process

FWS and NMFS Consultation

Process

National Pesticide

Registration Action

How to build a basis for development of strategies to achieve effective and protective registration actions?

Consideration of existing programs, use sites, species, product, and economic factors

Species Factors

Pesticide Usage and Use Sites

Photo: USDA-ARS, Heping Zhu

Federal and State Actions

Private and NGO Actions

Photo: USDA-NRCS, Lynn Betts

Photo: USDA-NRCS, Tim McCabe

Limiting Site Conditions

General approach to combining factors

Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act

Meant to be a cyclical model.

It can be used to respond to an action and make an appropriate decision.

What is the “action” being considered and what variables are most important to the decision process?

Developing indices to help assist in making fully informed decisions.

Existing data

OBSERVE

Regulatory Setting

Industry Interactions

Analyses & Synthesis

Data Limitations

New InformationPrevious

Experience

ORIENT

DECIDEDecision

(Hypothesis)

ACT

Return to observe and work through the diagram given

different objectives, goals, and/or data.

• What is the objective or goal? Where does this fit into the process?

• Are we starting with a specific product, species, location, or combination?

• Do historical decisions/outcomes play a role?

• Opportunity to consider best available data related to species and agriculture.

• Try to utilize public sources of data.

• Clearly understanding the variables of interest as well as how to value qualitative variables is difficult.

• Important to consider not just the species but also how the complexity of agriculture may impact the final action (decision).

This process facilitates a better understanding of the relationship between what is known about the species and associated agricultural environment.

• Species Information

• What is known about the species?

• Do the species have recovery plans?

• How much of the recovery plans have been implemented?

• How much has been spent on recovery of these species in the past?

• Agricultural Information

• Is agricultural considered a stressor for the species?

• Is there overlap with the species?

• Product considerations including toxicity

• Additional Information to Consider

• Conservation activities, including BMPs

• Cost of recovery actions

• Past and current conservation projects, conservation partnerships

• Impact of missing data, incomplete species data

• Consideration of other species, co-occurrence

• Experience with other actions, targeted conservation, etc.

Observe

Orient

Conclusions Alternatives, such as targeted conservation, have a place in the national

pesticide assessment process.

Objective is to increase efficiency throughout the registration and consultation process.

Important to understand the baseline – what conservation activities and actions are currently in place? What BMPs are growers using on their operations?

Determine, establish, document – make a difference

Requires collaboration between stakeholders (registrants, growers, NGOs, other interested parties) and agencies (EPA, USDA, FWS, NMFS).

DECIDEDecision

(Hypothesis)

ACT

Thank you!

Leah M. DuzyPrincipal Consultant/Agricultural Economist

Compliance Services International

7501 Bridgeport Way WestLakewood, WA 98499

(706) 980-0999 – lduzy@complianceservices.com