1. Endangered Species Act (Section 7) Consultation In Federal Land Management Agencies American Chemical Society National Meeting Boston, Mass. August 2015 Shawna L. Bautista, US Forest Service, Portland, OR William P. Eckel, US EPA, Arlington, VA 1

2. Overview National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) & Endangered Species Act (ESA)Requirements for federal agencies How land management agencies comply with NEPA & ESA for pesticide use projects (e.g., herbicides on invasive plants) Desire for increased efficiencies at National and Forest Service project levels 2

3. NEPA Procedures ensure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. (Section 1500.1) – Includes EPA’s registration of pesticides – And when an “action agency” like the Forest Service wants to use a pesticide 3

4. Endangered Species Act Purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend Sockeye Salmon (Credit: Timothy Knepp/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 4

5. Section 7 of the ESA Federal agencies must consult with (the Services) to insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out …is not likely to jeopardize endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat – Per court decisions, includes EPA’s registration of pesticides and an agency’s use of registered pesticides 5

6. Pesticide Use NEPA & Consultation Environmental analyses of pesticide uses are complex, confusing, costly and controversial 6

7. The Forest Service (FS) Process Invasive Plant Treatment EIS’s After EPA approves herbicide, FS hires independent 3 rd party to conduct a programmatic Risk Assessment (RA), using exposure scenarios tailored to our uses RA is used as basis for local consultation 7

8. Invasive Plant Treatments Once RAs are done, FS unit starts the NEPA and Consultation process (Site-specific) – Analyze effects of all treatment alternatives (including each herbicide) on all listed species in project area (49 spp. in Pacific Northwest Region) – Submit BA to Services for concurrence No jeopardy Terms and Conditions 8

9. Action agency prepares Biological Assessment (BA) for specific pesticide use proposal Both FWS and NOAA (Services) prepare Biological Opinions in response Action agency must receive a “no jeopardy” opinion, or must change the action If Services conclude action “may affect” threatened and endangered (T&E) species, then action agency must comply with Terms and Conditions ESA Process for Local Use 9

10. Challenges Biologists unfamiliar with risk assessment and pesticide effects analysis methods – Analysis methods becoming exceedingly complex Consulting agencies “uncomfortable” and unfamiliar with pesticides uses/practices – “problematic” terms and conditions PNW Region of FS has spent over $1 million for invasive plant treatment NEPA & consultation in just the last 5 years ONE Invasive plant NEPA and Consultation for one forest can take 5 years or more 10

11. Data is always limited and uncertainties exist when considering natural landscapes – Push to be more “precise” Junk science versus best available science and public perception Challenges 11

12. Opportunities for Improvement Gain Efficiencies in Consultation – EPA level (National-level Biological Evaluations) Incorporate completed Federal agency ESA consultations into EPA’s Biological Evaluations Take account of Federal agency comments/experiences during public comment for national BEs Extend consultations for regional species to National level Coordination Bottom-line- utilize efficiencies, streamline for local analysis, make better decisions with local knowledge 12

13. Opportunities for Improvement Gain Efficiencies in Consultation – Field level “Incorporate by reference” the basic analysis done by EPA, and our own RAs – Don’t reinvent the wheel – Avoid arguing over analysis approach Utilize “Programmatic consultations” – E.g. Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion 13 Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington and portions of California, Idaho and Nevada (ARBO II)

14. Questions? 14