Challenges with the current methodology for conducting Endangered Species Act risk assessments for pesticides in the United States

Abstract

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA or the Agency) is responsible for administering the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Agency is also required to assess the potential risks of pesticides undergoing registration or re‐registration to threatened and endangered (i.e., listed) species to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. To assess potential risks to listed species, a screening‐level risk assessment in the form of a biological evaluation (BE) is undertaken by the Agency for each pesticide. Given the large number of registration actions handled by the USEPA annually, efficient tools for conducting BEs are desirable. However, the “Revised Method” that is the basis for the USEPA's BE process has been ineffective at filtering out listed species and critical habitats that are at de minimis risk to pesticides. In the USEPA's BEs, the Magnitude of Effect Tool (MAGtool) has been used to determine potential risks to listed species that potentially co‐occur with pesticide footprints. The MAGtool is a highly prescriptive, high‐throughput compilation of existing FIFRA screening‐level models with a geospatial interface. The tool has been a significant contributor to risk inflation and ultimately process inefficiency. The ineffectiveness of the tool stems from compounding conservatism, unrealistic and unreasonable assumptions regarding usage, limited application of species‐specific data, lack of consideration of multiple lines of evidence, and inability to integrate higher‐tier data. Here, we briefly describe the MAGtool and the critical deficiencies that impair its effectiveness, thus undermining its intention. Case studies are presented to highlight the deficiencies and solutions are recommended for improving listed species assessments in the future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:817–829. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Using emerging science to inform risk characterizations for wildlife within current regulatory frameworks

“…To assess risks to threatened and endangered wildlife species in the United States and its territories, the EPA has developed the MAGtool (Magnitude of Effect Tool), a tool that incorporates T-REX, T-HERPS, and various other models (e.g., AgDrift to determine spray drift at varying distances from treated areas) (see Teed et al, 2022). The MAGtool accounts for the diet, body weight, and other characteristics of each threatened and endangered species in estimating pesticide risks.…”

Understanding Pesticide Exposure Mitigation Effectiveness in Achieving Endangered Species Protection Goals

“…The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is responsible for the registration of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The registration process is rigorous and involves the application of highly conservative risk assessment methods and assumptions that are intended to account for uncertainty and avoid false negatives (Type II errors, i.e., concluding a pesticide or use poses acceptable risks when, in fact, it does not). , As part of this process, the EPA must evaluate the risk to listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). − The Agency recently completed biological evaluations (BEs) and proposed interim decisions (PID) that address listed species for several pesticides. − The ESA is administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services). For those listed species for which the EPA determines a potential for adverse effects (i.e., May Affect/Not Likely to Adversely Affect (MA/NLAA) or May Affect/Likely to Adversely Affect (MA/LAA)), the Agency is required under the ESA Section 7­(a)­2 to consult with the Services.…”