Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Wildlife and Aquatic Species Hazard Analysis Data from the same sources as human health data Wildlife data bases.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Wildlife and Aquatic Species Hazard Analysis Data from the same sources as human health data Wildlife data bases."— Presentation transcript:

1

2

3 Wildlife and Aquatic Species Hazard Analysis

4 Data from the same sources as human health data Wildlife data bases

5 Data includes a mix of species representing a variety of habitats and feeding niches

6 There are significant data gaps especially in chronic and subchronic toxicity data

7 Presented alphabetically By chemical name Within topics of discussion Available Toxicity Data

8 Toxicity Data (acute, subchronic and chronic) CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 6-8/9

9 Toxicity Data (acute, subchronic and chronic) AM -- DEIS -- P. 6-8/9

10 Toxicity Data (acute, subchronic and chronic) O/O -- DEIS -- P. 6-8/9

11

12 Wildlife Toxicity Data Numbers the same as for human health - 4,320 mg/kg... A few additional data points available for deer and other test animals

13 Glyphosate Toxicity Data (by formulation – relevant to wildlife) CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 6-24/25

14 Glyphosate Toxicity Data (by formulation – relevant to wildlife) AM -- DEIS -- P. 6-24/25

15 Glyphosate Toxicity Data (by formulation – relevant to wildlife) O/O -- DEIS -- P. 6-24/25

16

17 Glyphosate Toxicity Data (by formulation – tabular form) CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 6-26/28 All 3 pgs

18 Glyphosate Toxicity Data (by formulation – tabular form) AM -- DEIS -- P. 6-26/28 All 3 pgs

19 Glyphosate Toxicity Data (by formulation – tabular form) O/O -- DEIS -- P. 6-26/28 All 3 pgs

20

21 Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms Significant difference between Roundup versus Accord and Rodeo Surfactant in Roundup poses significant inhalation risk to fish

22 Wildlife and Aquatic Species Exposure Analysis

23 Representative Species are Used in the Analysis

24 Animal Exposures Direct spray (dermal) Preening (ingestion) Foodstuffs (ingestion) Breathing (inhalation) (relevant for fish)

25 Other Exposure Considerations Body size Food consumed (amount) Respiration rate Feeding range of the species (both size of range and variety of foodstuffs in the range)

26 Wildlife and Aquatic Species Risk Analysis

27

28 EPA Standards Non- T&E Species Terrestrial species Dose must be < 1/5 LD 50 Aquatic species Dose must be < 1/10 LC 50

29 EPA Standards T&E Species Terrestrial species Dose must be < 1/10 LD 50 Aquatic species Dose must be < 1/20 LC 50

30 1/5 LD 50 Criterion Table CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 8-11

31 1/5 LD 50 Criterion Table AM -- DEIS -- P. 8-11

32 1/5 LD 50 Criterion Table O/O -- DEIS -- P. 8-11

33

34 Application of the 1/5 Rule No animal species is at risk when the EPA 1/5 LD 50 standard is applied to modeled potential glyphosate doses This is true of both the realistic and the extreme scenarios

35 Accident Scenarios CP/P -- FEIS -- P. 8-32/33

36 Accident Scenarios AM -- DEIS -- P. 8-32/33

37 Accident Scenarios O/O -- DEIS -- P. 8-33

38

39 Accident Scenarios Rodeo and Accord do not pose risk to aquatic organisms Roundup, however poses significant risk (surfactant)

40 Some Conclusions Concerning Wildlife from the Risk Assessment

41 Typical application rates result in doses of 1/5 LD 50 to wildlife

42 Primary Concern for non-T&E Species resulting from habitat alteration

43 Aquatic Species Are often at risk from accidents T&E Species Some risk under the EPA standards

44 Completing Appendix A Glossary References cited Subject index

45

46

47 Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables First Pages

48 Front – Table of Contents Back – Subject Index

49 Scope & Issues

50 Affected Environment

51 Environmental Consequences

52 Summarizes Expected effects on a variety of environmental elements

53 Including Human health and safety Vegetation Wildlife T&E Species Soil

54 Water quality Air quality Visual quality Cultural resources and Socioeconomic conditions

55 Human Health and Safety Chapter IV Reviews risk assessment methodology Documents incomplete or unavailable data Presents a readable summary of the risk assessment Projects MOS data

56 Public Risk Typical Scenario CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-15

57 Public Risk Typical Scenario AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-16

58 Public Risk Typical Scenario O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-15

59

60 Public Risk Maximum Scenario CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-16

61 Public Risk Maximum Scenario AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-17

62 Public Risk Maximum Scenario O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-16

63

64 Worker Risk Typical Scenario CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-17

65 Worker Risk Typical Scenario AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-18

66 Worker Risk Typical Scenario O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-17

67

68 Worker Risk Maximum Scenario CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-18

69 Worker Risk Maximum Scenario AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-19

70 Worker Risk Maximum Scenario O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-18

71

72 Human Risk Accident Scenario CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-19

73 Human Risk Accident Scenario AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-20

74 Human Risk Accident Scenario O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-19

75

76 Lifetime Cancer Risk CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-21

77 Lifetime Cancer Risk AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-23

78 Lifetime Cancer Risk O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-21

79

80 Summary of Accidents (Region 8’s CA-1 Record; 3 yrs) CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV MOST FULL PAGES

81 Summary of Accidents (Region 8’s CA-1 Record; 4 yrs) AM -- FEIS -- P. IV MOSTLY FULL PAGES

82 Summary of Accidents (Region 8’s CA-1 Record; 5 yrs) O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV Mostly full pages

83

84

85

86 Vegetation Section Chapter IV Presents a generalized summary of herbicidal effects on plants (target and non-target)

87 Wildlife Section Chapter IV Summarizes the assessment of tools Summarizes incomplete and unavailable wildlife data Summarizes wildlife risk assessment data Discusses toxicity information – relating it to the EPA’s standards Indicates that data beyond that used in the human health analysis is limited

88 Terrestrial Accident Risk (5 gal spill in a farm pond) CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-63

89 Terrestrial Accident Risk (5 gal spill in a farm pond) AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-107

90 Terrestrial Accident Risk (5 gal spill in a farm pond) O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-102

91

92 Aquatic Accident Risk (100 gal. spill into a reservoir) CP/P -- FEIS -- P. IV-65

93 Aquatic Accident Risk (100 gal. spill into a reservoir) AM -- FEIS -- P. IV-108

94 Aquatic Accident Risk (100 gal. spill into a reservoir) O/O -- FEIS -- P. IV-103

95

96 Wildlife / Herbicide Toxicity Conclusions 2,4-D, 2,4-DP or triclopyr can cause negative effects on some species An accidental spill of herbicide can cause risk to most species Diesel oil and kerosene pose a risk to nesting birds All P.E.T.S. plants are at some risk from herbicide use

97 Habitat effects -- food, water, cover and their arrangement as a function of method, intensity and frequency of pesticide application -- Discusses

98 Habitat Alteration Comments Change affects different species in different ways Mitigating measures will generally be necessary Selective application methods pose less risk than broadcast ones

99 Perform Site-specific Analysis Set your objectives before analysis (include the desired future condition as the target of the analysis) Review specific tools, methods and chemicals available for the task Consider habitat alteration and other secondary effects Develop and document mitigations

100 Site Preparation Habitat Effects Reduces forage (selective treatment causes less reduction) Can benefit cavity nesters

101 Release Habitat Effects Broadcast methods reduce hard mast and suppress soft mast Effect varies with the herbicide used Selective methods are very good for enhancing the hardwood component This is often the critical step in moving towards the desired future condition

102 STAND IMPROVEMENT HABITAT EFFECTS Herbicides can be used to reduce or increase the hardmast component They can improve the stand for wildlife In some areas they can be used to protect or enhance specific plants such as grapevines

103 RIGHT-OF-WAY HABITAT EFFECTS Herbicides are a viable alternative to mowing Selective treatments can be used to improve deer and bird habitat (create linear wildlife openings)

104 T&E Species Section of Chapter IV General discussion Much of it relates back to the wildlife section

105 T&E Toxicity Effects Discussion Level of concern is very restrictive It is based on the EPA standard for acute toxic effects (Terrestrial <1/10 LD 50 and Aquatic <1/20 LC 50 ) Allows only ½ the dose allowed for the general wildlife population

106 T&E Toxicity Effects Discussion Typical herbicide application rates are generally acceptable under the EPA standard Extreme rates of application commonly exceed the standard

107 T&E Habitat Effects Herbicides are valuable tools for wildlife habitat maintenance or improvement Care must be taken to remain within low-risk parameters Spills generally present high risk to T&E species

108 T&E Habitat Project Planning In Appendix D Use tables D-1, D-3, D-5 and D-6 to assist with planning actions in T&E habitat Prepare both a B.E. and an E.A. when T&E’S are present

109 Soil, Water, and Air Discussion in Chapter IV Discloses the potential effect of herbicide application separately and cumulatively

110 Chapter IV Finishes with discussions of the potential effects on - Visual quality Cultural resources Socioeconomics

111 Alternatives

112 The formulation of the alternatives The 9 alternatives evaluated The 11 herbicides evaluated The 3 additives evaluated The application tools considered The potential patterns of application The mitigation measures developed (both general and method specific) Discusses

113 Displays a Comparison Of the expected effects of the 9 alternatives

114 Sources of Mitigation Measures F.S. Manual F.S. Health and Safety Code Forest management plans Some new ones developed to counter problems identified in the risk assessment

115 Mitigation Measures A classification of herbicides by effects on health and the environment was developed and is presented

116 Class A Herbicides Pose no risk requiring mitigation beyond that specified in Chapter II (at E.2.c)

117 Class B Herbicides Pose health or environmental risk which can be mitigated with additional measures (beyond those discussed in Chapter II)

118 Class C Herbicides Pose health and environmental risk which can be mitigated with additional measures (beyond those discussed in Chapter II)

119 Class D Herbicides Pose health or environmental risk which can not be reasonably mitigated

120 Herbicide Classification Developed in the EIS CP/P -- FEIS -- P. II-42

121 Herbicide Classification Developed in the EIS AM -- FEIS -- P. II-45

122 Herbicide Classification Developed in the EIS O/O -- FEIS – Not presented – all herbicides evaluated are “A”s

123

124

125 Mitigation Measures Herbicides May not be used at greater than “Typical Rate” Without further analysis

126 Typical Rates CP/P -- FEIS -- P. II-59

127 Typical Rates AM -- FEIS -- P. II-62

128 Typical Rates O/O -- FEIS -- P. II-55

129

130

131 Weather Mitigations Wind speed limits Temperature maxima Humidity ranges

132 Weather Parameters CP/P -- FEIS -- P. II-60

133 Weather Parameters AM -- FEIS -- P. II-63

134 Weather Parameters O/O -- FEIS -- P. II-56

135

136 Aerial Mitigation Mitigations Buffer size Weather parameters Personnel requirements

137 Aerial Mitigations CP/P -- FEIS -- P. II-60/64 Scattered throughout

138 Aerial Mitigations AM -- FEIS -- P. II Scattered throughout

139 Aerial Mitigations O/O Aerial application is not permitted on either Forest

140

141 Mitigations (Toxic Effects) Minimum protective clothing is required

142

143 Mitigations (Toxic Effects) Herbicide use is permitted only at the lowest effective rate Use the most selective application method which will accomplish the task

144

145 Mitigations (Toxic Effects) Restrict application near water Be careful when handling the formulated products

146

147 Mitigations (Toxic Effects) Also, To protect the general public and private lands To protect target vegetation To protect PETS

148

149 Mitigations (Toxic Effects) And, Defining response in the case of an accident

150

151 Mitigations (Habitat) Perform a site specific analysis (Mandatory B.E. and E.A. if T&E species are involved) Protect selected habitat groups Favor selective treatments Protect non-target vegetation Minimize drift

152 List of Preparers References Glossary Subject Index Public Comment

153 Front – Table of Contents Back – Subject Index

154

155

156 Human health – Section 3 Wildlife health – Section 6 Readable summary - Chapter IV

157 Human health – Section 4 Wildlife health – Section 7 Readable summary - Chapter IV

158 Human health – Section 5 Wildlife health – Section 8 Readable summary - Chapter IV Mitigation measures - Chapter II

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166 Coastal Plain / Piedmont Final Preferred

167 Appalachian Mountains Final Preferred

168 Ozark / Ouachita Mountains Final Preferred

169 All R.O.D.s permit all of the application methods evaluated to be used with the single exception that the O/O R.O.D. denies permission to use aerial applications

170 All R.O.D.s require implementation of all of the mitigation measures required in Chapter II as a minimum standard

171 However, forest plans are permitted to include mitigations which are more restrictive than those required by the R.O.D.

172 Permits the use only of class A herbicides without the Regional Forester’s signature

173 And restricts all use of 2,4-D and of tebuthiuron, and the backpack foliar application of 2,4-DP

174 Exhibit A in the R.O.D. Lists all of the mitigation measures required by the Regional Forester’s decision

175 Exhibit B+ in the R.O.D. Reproduce the forest plan amendments which incorporate the VMFEIS mitigation measures into the plans, Forest by Forest

176 Summary Effect of the vegetation management EISs On the use of herbicides in Region 8

177 EIS reviewed only a small number of the herbicides available for use in forestry and right-of-way work

178

179 Assessed Herbicides

180 Of the 11 herbicides reviewed, 3 are virtually eliminated from our program

181 Herbicides Evaluated 2,4-D 2,4-DP Glyphosate Hexazinone Imazapyr Picloram Sulfometuron methyl Tebuthiuron Triclopyr

182 3 Dropped 8 Retained

183 In most cases the allowable rate of use is restricted below that allowed by the label

184 Allowed Rates Disallowed Rates

185 Mitigations are added which further decrease risk to applicators and the public Not permitted! O.K.

186 Taken together this results in a very small, low-risk window for herbicide use You may work here

187

188

189 E.I.S. for the Suppression of southern pine beetle In the Southern Region

190 Suppression Strategies Cut-and-Leave Cut, Pile and Burn Cut-and-Remove Cut-and-Spray

191 Note: The difference in the four methods comes after trees are cut

192 Cut-and-Spray Chemicals Dursban (Chlorpyrifos) Lindane

193 At Present Only chlorpyrifos is available commercially (as Cyren 4E) and that registration is in serious jeopardy

194 Spray Approved for use in General forest areas and RCW colonies (felled trees only)

195

196

197

198 Applicable to Suppression and Eradication Projects

199 Approved Treatments are either Chemical or Biological

200 Pheromones Attractant or anti-aggregant chemicals which mimic natural behavioral chemicals

201 Biological Insecticides NPV (nuclear polyhedrosis virus) Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)

202 Chemical Insecticides Sevin (Carbaryl)) Orthene (Acephate) Dylox (Trichlorfon) Dimlin (Diflubenzuron)

203

204 Lest you feel specially picked on.. Here are a few other N.E.P.A. products to consider

205 History Region 8

206 Region 4

207 Region 5

208 Region 6

209 Region 6 & the B.L.M.

210 The D.E.A.

211 New risk assessments are being developed for the pesticides in general F.S. use (and a few not in general use)

212 New Risk Assessments Use RfD rather than MOS Have computed HQs (hazard quotients) Are better grounded in science Are difficult to use in their current form Are being adapted in a set of computerized worksheets to aid use

213 New Risk Assessments at:

214 Here’s what has been developed since the EIS Borax (fungic; R-6) Clopyralid 2,4-D Dicamba (Vanquish) Dyes Glyphosate Hexazinone Imazameth Imazapyr MCH (ins.) Metsulfuron methyl Mimic (ins.) Picloram Sethoxydim Sulfometuron methyl Tebuthiuron TM Biocontrol (ins.) Triclopyr Verbenone (ins.)


Download ppt "Wildlife and Aquatic Species Hazard Analysis Data from the same sources as human health data Wildlife data bases."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google