1. Salmon and Steelhead Interim Measures and Point of Sale Notifications

2. Court Order in WTC v. EPA Directs EPA to review 55 active ingredients Potential effects to 26 ESU’s of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead 2.5 year schedule –Ends December 1, 2004 Orders Interim no-use buffers for certain pesticides/uses/salmon

3. Review of 55 Active Ingredients Have assessed over 40 AI’s –14 AI’s have “no effect” Remainder have varying combinations of no effect, not likely to adversely effect and may affect determinations for various ESU’s On schedule to complete assessments for remainder by December 1, 2004

4. Review of 55 Active Ingredients Determinations made with a focus on exposure –Where specific uses may occur –What the environmental concentration is estimated to be –Use rates and practices –Species habits and geographic locations –Monitoring, sampling and incidents

5. Interim Buffers Court Ordered interim no-use buffers for certain pesticides in certain geographic areas –Those for which EPA has not yet completed its assessment –Those for which an assessment is completed and for which EPA determined the pesticide is likely to affect the species

6. Interim Buffers Buffers generally 20 yards for ground and 100 yards for aerial applications from Salmon Supporting Waters in CA, OR and WA Exceptions and variations –Specific to certain pesticides –Specific to certain uses –Specific to certain use rates

7. Interim Buffers Court defined Salmon Supporting Waters –Waters below the “ordinary high water mark” –Within the critical habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service –And in WA and OR, those identified by the StreamNet data set, as supporting the species –In CA, all waters within the designated critical habitat notices

8. Basis for Specific Buffers Ordered by the Court These buffers will appreciably decrease the likelihood of jeopardy to the species Perhaps directionally correct but not necessarily a scientifically sound basis

9. Enforcement of Court Ordered Buffers Court Order does not impose changes to pesticide registrations under FIFRA Buffers are not enforceable under FIFRA as use requirements No anticipated enforcement action on the part of State pesticide regulatory agencies or EPA Regions

10. Enforcement of Court Ordered Buffers Enforcement would focus on enforcement of the court order itself –This would be done by the court –Order doesn’t bind users that were not party to the suit Most likely outcome if broad non- compliance might be for plaintiffs to request implementation via FIFRA labeling

11. Assisting Pesticide Users’ Understanding of the Buffers Interactive Web site to assist pesticide users in knowing: –What buffers we believe the court order for each pesticide/ESU combination –What exceptions and variations apply to each pesticide, use, or ESU –When a particular buffer is no longer required by the court

12. Assisting Pesticide Users’ Understanding of the Buffers Court Ordered Buffers Around Pacific Salmon-Supporting Waters Shaded Counties on the map below, are those that support threatened and endangered salmon or steelhead habitat, and in which pesticide use buffers may have been ordered by the court. If you plan to use any of the pesticides subject to the court order in a shaded count YOU SHOULD FIRST READ THE BACKGROUND section. Pesticide users are urged to check this site, before, but close to the time of application of the pesticide, since the buffers may become unnecessary s EPA continues its review of the subject to the court order. A suit was filed under the Endangered Species Act against EPA by a group of environmental organizations (Washington Toxics Coalition, et. v. EPA). In response, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington issued on January 22, 2004, an order that established pesticide buffer zones. Buffer zones are areas adjacent to certain streams, rivers, lakes estuaries and other water, which the court is ordering certain pesticides not be used. Generally, the buffers established by the Court are 20 yards for ground application and 100 yards for aerial application, adjacent to certain "salmon-supporting waters" in Washington, Oregon and California. The order applies to pesticide use in these three states, for any product containing one or more of the pesticides subject to the court order. The Court Order which became effective on February 5, 2004, defines salmon-supporting waters as certain water bodies below the “normal high water mark" and thus, any buffer should be measured from that normal high water mark. The buffers apply to the waters indicated on our interactive mapper, and to estuaries relevant to each of the salmon and steelhead. An estuary is a water passage where a tide meets a river current. Failure to comply with the court order is not a violation of the Federal Insecticide and Fungicide Act (FIFRA). Federal Insecticide and Fungicide Act (FIFRA) However, EPA recognizes the legal effect of the Court's order and is providing the information on this Web site and linked sites, to assist pesticide users in understanding the specific provisions of the Court's order. There are several general exceptions to the buffers in the court order and many pesticide specific variations. You should read the general exceptions to determine if any buffers apply to your use of the pesticides subject to the order. If the general exceptions do not apply to you, consult our interactive map to determine whether a specific buffer applies to your use of a pesticide, and the waters to which that buffer applies. Enter our interactive map site to determine how the Court's order applies to a pesticide use you intend to makeinteractive map

13. Assisting Pesticide Users’ Understanding of the Buffers

19. Assisting the Public in Other Ways WWW.EPA.gov/espp –Quick Resources Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA –Court Ordered Buffers Around Salmon-Supporting WatersCourt Ordered Buffers Around Salmon-Supporting Waters –Federal Register Notice and Supporting DocumentsFederal Register Notice and Supporting Documents –Effects Determinations and ConsultationsEffects Determinations and Consultations Endangered Species Consultation Process/Joint Regulations ProposedEndangered Species Consultation Process/Joint Regulations Proposed

20. Court Ordered Point of Sale Notification EPA must develop point of sale notification Applicable to urban use pesticides containing any of 7 active ingredients Notification must display the words “Salmon Hazard” Notification must contain specific text Notification must contain a prominent graphic

21. Court Ordered Point of Sale Notification EPA must make retailers of pesticides in urban areas aware of the POS notification Industry Intervenors must make POS notification available to retailers EPA must provide POS notification to State agriculture and fish agencies and University pesticide extension coordinators –Request they provide to Certified Applicators who may apply pesticides in urban areas

22. Court Ordered Point of Sale Notification EPA notified via FR notice EPA provided 500 copies with instructions for obtaining more, to state and University personnel with a request to distribute to certified applicators Industry intervenors responsible for providing to retailers –Sent hard copy (quantity unknown) –Provided Web site address for downloading

23. Court Ordered Point of Sale Notification Order dictated certain content for the POS notification but not the physical form of the notification –EPA provided to industry in a form they could shrink or expand –Did not advise industry whether to provide as hang tags, posters, etc. –Did provide via enforcement discretion, opportunity for industry to distribute as labeling without violating FIFRA

24. POS Notification and FIFRA Labeling Concern for distribution of POS notification –If shipped with product, it would be labeling that was not approved –EPA likely would not approve due to the statement “salmon hazard” If hazard has not been determined, that statement could be false and misleading –Court did not require any actions under FIFRA