Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 16-27
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 16... ...
The consultations that have resulted from the court cases raise questions regarding the best approaches or methods for determining risks to listed species and their critical habitats. Because EPA, FWS, and NMFS have some fundamental differences in approaches, they and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
|
From page 17... ...
EPA has interpreted the "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" standard to require a balancing of costs and benefits in which EPA weighs the costs to human health and the environment resulting from pesticide use against social and economic benefits, such as the benefits of mitigating disease vectors and reducing crop damage. To obtain a registration, an applicant must provide data demonstrating that its pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects.
|
From page 18... ...
A pesticide that might have an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment if used at a particular dosage, for a particular crop type, or in a particular manner might not have an unreasonable adverse effect if its use is restricted to other specified crops or specified application rates or restricted in other ways to minimize human health or environmental risks. Thus, the label language is EPA's primary regulatory tool for reducing pesticide risk under FIFRA.
|
From page 19... ...
defines imminent hazard to include a "situation which exists when the continued use of a pesticide during the time required for cancellation proceeding…will involve unreasonable hazard to the survival of a species declared endangered or threatened by the Secretary pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973." Congress has on several occasions directed EPA to review the human health and environmental effects of pesticides registered before some specified date. In 1972, revisions of FIFRA mandated that EPA re-evaluate registered pesticides -- a process known as reregistration -- by using current scientific and regulatory standards to ensure that the data used to register the pesticides originally meet current standards.
|
From page 20... ...
In this report, the terms endangered species, threatened species, and listed species can refer to subspecies or distinct population segments as defined by the ESA. Once a species is listed, the ESA requires that the Services designate critical habitat for each listed species.
|
From page 21... ...
However, if the action agency determines that the action is "likely to adversely affect" a listed species or its critical habitat, formal consultation is required. Through the formal consultation process, FWS or NMFS determines whether the proposed federal agency action is likely to jeopardize listed species; if so, FWS or NMFS will develop "reasonable and prudent alternatives" (RPAs)
|
From page 22... ...
YES YES FWS or NMFS FWS or NMFS Propose RPAs to Propose RPMs to Reduce Likelihood Minimize Takes of Jeopardy Written Biological Opinion from FWS or NMFS Containing: Jeopardy Finding RPAs Incidental Take Statement RPMs End of Consultation. Action Agency Determines Whether and How to Proceed with Action FIGURE 1-1 Consultation process under ESA Section 7 for a federal action that potentially could affect a listed species or critical habitat.
|
From page 23... ...
The second policy statement is the Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities [59 Fed.
|
From page 24... ...
The FIFRA cost-benefit standard applies whether or not listed species are at issue, although presumably harm to a listed species would be considered a high cost. In fact, the only place where FIFRA mentions threatened or endangered species is in Section 6(c)
|
From page 25... ...
. The committee was asked to evaluate EPA's and the Services' methods for determining risks to listed species posed by pesticides and to answer questions concerning the identification of the best scientific data, the toxicological effects of pesticides and chemical mixtures, the approaches and assumptions used in various models, the analysis of uncertainty, and the use of geospatial data.
|
From page 26... ...
, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct scientific assessments of ecological risks from pesticides registered by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
|
From page 27... ...
2004. The purposes, effects, and future of the Endangered Species Act's best available science mandate.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.