National Academies Report Released: Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides

Recently, the National Academies Press (NAP) released a report produced by the Committee on Ecological Risk Assessment Under FIFRA and ESA; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Division on Earth and Life Studies; and the National Research Council titled, Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides (2013). The 176-page prepublication report (available free with a one-time registration) discusses how,

[t]he US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for protecting species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and for protecting habitats that are critical for their survival. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for registering or reregistering pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and must ensure that pesticide use does not cause any unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, which is interpreted to include listed species and their critical habitats. The agencies have developed their own approaches to evaluating environmental risk, and their approaches differ because their legal mandates, responsibilities, institutional cultures, and expertise differ. Over the years, the agencies have tried to resolve their differences but have been unsuccessful in reaching a consensus regarding their assessment approaches.

As a result, FWS, NMFS, EPA, and the US Department of Agriculture asked the National Research Council (NRC) to examine scientific and technical issues related to determining risks posed to listed species by pesticides. Specifically, the NRC was asked to evaluate methods for identifying the best scientific data available; to evaluate approaches for developing modeling assumptions; to identify authoritative geospatial information that might be used in risk assessments; to review approaches for characterizing sublethal, indirect, and cumulative effects; to assess the scientific information available for estimating effects of mixtures and inert ingredients; and to consider the use of uncertainty factors to account for gaps in data. Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides, which was prepared by the NRC Committee on Ecological Risk Assessment under FIFRA and ESA, is the response to that request.

In the News: Navy Applies to National Marine Fisheries Service for Letter of Authorization to Allow a Massive Incidental Taking of Marine Mammals

Recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources disclosed that the U.S. Navy submitted applications for letters of authorization (LOA) for marine mammal incidental takings under section 101(a)(5) (A-D) of the Marine Mammal Act of 1972 (as amended (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)) for activities to be scheduled over the next five years for both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.  Proceeding based on the authority given to them in the Supreme Court's Winter decision in 2008, the U.S. Navy has requested the following:

 

• U.S. Navy, Atlantic Fleet Testing and Study Area Application (Sept. 2012).

  the Navy requests 17 annual mortalities applicable to all small odontocetes (any combination of species known to be present in the Study Area) from training activities involving explosives, with a total of 85 mortalities predicted over the 5‐year period. Over the 5‐year LOA period being requested, the Navy requests 1,553 total Level A harassments and 10,267,161 total Level B harassments for all marine mammals combined for training activities. While the Navy does not anticipate any marine mammal strandings or mortalities from sonar or other active acoustic sources, the Navy requests authorization for additional take by mortality of up to 10 beaked whales in any given year and no more than 10 animals over the 5‐year LOA period as part of training activities involving the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources. (see pg. 107).

  Federal Register Comments are being accepted through Nov. 5, 2012, here.

• U.S. Navy, Hawaii Southern California Training and Testing Application (Sept. 2012). (see pg. 107).

              Federal Register Comments are being accepted through Nov. 5, 2012, here.

 

Related Resources:

Incidental Take Authorizations, NOAA Fisheries Office of Proected Res., http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications (last visited Oct. 15, 2012). 

 

Editorial: Marine Mammals and the Navy’s 5-Year Plan, N.Y. Times (Oct. 11, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/opinion/marine-mammals-and-the-navys-5-year-plan.html. 

 

Winter v. NRDC, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008).

Endangered Sea Turtles: Better Coordination, Data Collection, and Planning Could Improve Federal Protection and Recovery Efforts -- GAO

Endangered Sea Turtles: Better Coordination, Data Collection, and Planning Could Improve Federal Protection and Recovery Efforts, from the Government Accountability Office (12-242) January 31, 2012. 

What GAO Found


The services have coordinated some sea turtle protection efforts, including jointly developing recovery plans, and they established a memorandum of understanding in 1977 to define their roles in joint administration of their efforts. Nevertheless, neither the memorandum nor the services have clearly defined how and when the services are to coordinate; also, the services do not consistently share information about the majority of the take they authorize. According to sea turtle experts GAO spoke with, each service may therefore be authorizing sea turtle take without knowing how much its counterpart has authorized, and the combined allowance may be harming threatened and endangered sea turtles and delaying their recovery.

NMFS and FWS each use databases that collect information about consultations involving take of sea turtles and other species, but they do not use these databases to comprehensively collect and analyze sea turtle take data. Specifically, not all of the databases require entry of data on anticipated and actual take. The services also maintain separate documents that collect information about anticipated take, but these documents are not structured to easily allow analysis of total anticipated take and do not track actual take. According to some experts and NMFS officials GAO spoke with, total take should be considered when the services determine whether proposed actions are likely to jeopardize species or approve additional take authorizations.

Biological opinions prepared by NMFS and FWS do not clearly explain how the services determine that an action anticipated to result in the take of sea turtles will not jeopardize their continued existence. Guidance developed by the services states that the opinions should be written so the general public can trace the path of logic to the conclusion. But some experts GAO spoke with said, and GAO’s review of selected biological opinions found, that the opinions may not clearly describe why the services conclude that a particular action, such as commercial fishing anticipated to harm turtles, will not jeopardize the species’ existence. If the analyses and decisions in the opinions are not clear, neither Congress nor the public can be assured that the services are adequately protecting vulnerable sea turtle populations as required by the Endangered Species Act.

Neither NMFS nor FWS has developed its own service-specific operational plans describing the actions it will perform to achieve the goals in their jointly prepared sea turtle recovery plans. In the absence of service-specific plans, the services rely on the jointly developed recovery plans to guide their sea turtle protection and recovery efforts. But GAO’s review of these recovery plans found that they do not include key elements of effective planning, such as performance measures to gauge progress toward goals. Without service-specific plans and performance measures, neither service can ensure that it is taking the steps needed to realize sea turtle recovery goals.