ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION PROGRAM Presentation for Western Regional Meeting May 2004

2 Determinations  No Effect (no exposure of concern)  May Affect  Not Likely to Adversely Affect (Exposure may occur and may be at levels of concern)  Likely to Affect (Exposure likely to occur at levels of concern)

3 Potential Changes to Consultation Process  Services issued Proposed Counterpart Regulations (comment period closed April 16 th )  Services ability to do so based in large measure on their endorsement of our risk assessment processes

4 Potential Changes to Consultation Process  To gain endorsement, EPA agreed to modify:  Use of Ecotox for public literature searches  Review of pesticides for both direct and indirect effects to listed species

5 Potential Changes to Consultation Process  Proposed changes assume an Alternative Consultation Agreement is in effect  Explains how we will work with one another  Provides for cross training of staff  Provides for Services’ oversight

6 Potential Changes to Consultation Process  Proposed Regulations  consultation obligations for “not likely to adversely effect” determinations fulfilled, without further consultation  process for early involvement of the Services in assessment processes for likely effects

7 Next Steps  Joint review of public comment beginning  Finalization of regulations anticipated this year

8 Internal Implementation  Current focus on assessments is court orders related to specific species or pesticides  Pacific salmonids  Atrazine  Barton Springs salamander  CA red-legged frog

9 Internal Implementation  Longer term  Assessments and limitations based on review of entire pesticide Could result in determinations and PULAs being established in use areas for variety of species Example, use of pesticide X on corn could have limitations in parts of 14 states to address 3 mammals, 6 birds, and 2 fish species

10 Internal Implementation  Undertaking workflow analysis and process planning  Goal of completing ES assessments within other regulatory review  Staffing shifts to ensure adequate resources for ES reviews  Exploring tracking and work- planning tools of value

11 Internal Implementation  Can’t do everything at once  New registration  Reregistration actions  Registration review  Backlog of reregistration eligibility determinations (REDs)  Discussing with PPDC, ways to set priorities for completing ES work on these “bins” of pesticides

12 Field Implementation  Proposed implementation plan December 2002  Anticipate final by end of calendar year

13 Field Implementation  Products requiring use modifications will be labeled with generic statement  County-level Bulletins depict geographic area, pesticide, and pesticide use limitations (PULAs)  Use limitations will be enforceable under FIFRA

14 Anticipated Educational Materials  Web based information on pesticide use limitation areas  Interactive Web based applications  Species fact sheets

15 Success?  Measures of success need to be developed for both internal and field implementation  GPRA  PART  Good Government

16 Partnerships  Need to develop effective involvement opportunities for critical players  Need to balance involvement with time frames in which work must be accomplished

17 Statistics for Your Amusement  >600 Pesticide Active Ingredients  Used to formulate over 1900 pesticide products Each product having 1 to potentially 100+ uses  >1200 listed threatened and endangered species  In one or more of 2000 of the 3000 counties in the U.S.

18 Statistics for Your Amusement  Assume  typical A.I. has 5 products  Each with 4 different use sites  Levels of concern exceeded for 2 groups (mammals and fish)  3 mammals are in areas of potential use and  10 fish are in areas of potential use

19 Statistics for Your Amusement 5 products x 4 use sites = 20 scenarios 20 scenarios x 3 mammals = 60 determinations 20 scenarios x 10 fish = 200 determinations THUS – could be 260 geographically discrete determinations for this one A.I.