Development of a Common Development of a Common Effects Methodology for Effects Methodology for

OW and OPPOW and OPP

EPA Development TeamEPA Development TeamOffice of Pesticide ProgramsOffice of Pesticide Programs

Office of WaterOffice of Water

Office of Research and DevelopmentOffice of Research and Development

Regional Stakeholder Meetings Regional Stakeholder Meetings January 11-22, 2010January 11-22, 2010

OutlineOutline

BackgroundBackground

Goals, Milestones, and Goals, Milestones, and CommitmentsCommitments

Next StepsNext Steps

EPA's mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon which life depends.

USGS reports pesticides measured in US USGS reports pesticides measured in US waterswaters 100% of streams100% of streams 33% shallow ground water33% shallow ground water 90% fish90% fish Typically more than one pesticide found at a timeTypically more than one pesticide found at a time

Concerned citizensConcerned citizens

Environmental groupsEnvironmental groupsEPA Office of WaterEPA Office of Water

EPA Office of Pesticide ProgramsEPA Office of Pesticide Programs

Pesticide companiesPesticide companies

EPA Office of Research and DevelopmentEPA Office of Research and Development

BeginningsBeginnings

SFIREG writes letter to OW-OPP September 1, 2006SFIREG writes letter to OW-OPP September 1, 2006

EPA sends response to SFIREG November 3, 2006EPA sends response to SFIREG November 3, 2006

OPP makes aquatic benchmarks web-available March 7, OPP makes aquatic benchmarks web-available March 7, 20072007

SFIREG raised issues at bi-annual meeting (availability SFIREG raised issues at bi-annual meeting (availability of benchmarks, differences in methodology, etc.) 2008 of benchmarks, differences in methodology, etc.) 2008

Directors of Office of Water and Office of Pesticide Directors of Office of Water and Office of Pesticide Programs pledge joint effort to harmonize effects Programs pledge joint effort to harmonize effects characterization methodologies at 6/23/2008 SFIREG characterization methodologies at 6/23/2008 SFIREG meeting. meeting.

GoalsGoals Build on the substantial high quality Build on the substantial high quality

science developed and used by both science developed and used by both programs and make ecological effects programs and make ecological effects assessment methodologies assessment methodologies consistent. consistent.

Enable OW, OPP, and stakeholders to Enable OW, OPP, and stakeholders to make consistent and best use of make consistent and best use of available available data,data, with focus on chemicals with focus on chemicals with smaller with smaller data sets than those currently used to data sets than those currently used to derive AWQCderive AWQC. .

Improve communications on consistency Improve communications on consistency of EPA effects assessments.of EPA effects assessments.

ScopeScope Focus on ecological effects assessment Focus on ecological effects assessment

methodologies.methodologies. Focus on studies using well-established Focus on studies using well-established

population relevant endpoints (survival, population relevant endpoints (survival, growth and reproductive endpoints)growth and reproductive endpoints)

Based on available effects data. Based on available effects data. Potential for later application in NPDES Potential for later application in NPDES

permits for interpreting narrative toxics permits for interpreting narrative toxics criteria.criteria.

Approaches will Approaches will augment and enhance augment and enhance existing OW existing OW GuidelinesGuidelines and the current taxa- and the current taxa-specific OPP assessment methodologies specific OPP assessment methodologies rather than replace themrather than replace them. .

MilestonesMilestones

Common effects characterization methodology project Common effects characterization methodology project outlined at the “PREP”, a workshop for state outlined at the “PREP”, a workshop for state regulators 9/2008.regulators 9/2008.

EPA sends letter to stakeholders describing the goals EPA sends letter to stakeholders describing the goals

for this project and the important role of stakeholders for this project and the important role of stakeholders (11/08).(11/08).

OW and OPP issued a “Scoping Document” (4/09)OW and OPP issued a “Scoping Document” (4/09)

Steering committee and workgroup established with Steering committee and workgroup established with participants from OW, OPP, ORD (7/09)participants from OW, OPP, ORD (7/09)

OPP-OW-ORD Expert workshop held (8/09) – OPP-OW-ORD Expert workshop held (8/09) – developed draft outlines for white papersdeveloped draft outlines for white papers

Initial outreach efforts (SFIREG, PPDC, WQSMA) Initial outreach efforts (SFIREG, PPDC, WQSMA)

Status – Recent ActivitiesStatus – Recent Activities

Consensus decision made at Consensus decision made at OPP-OW-ORD Expert Workshop OPP-OW-ORD Expert Workshop to develop three white papers:to develop three white papers: Development and Evaluation of Development and Evaluation of

Predictive ToolsPredictive Tools for use in Derivation for use in Derivation of “Community Level Benchmarks”of “Community Level Benchmarks”

Development of Development of Aquatic Life Aquatic Life Community Level BenchmarksCommunity Level Benchmarks with with Datasets that do not Conform to the Datasets that do not Conform to the “1985 Guidelines”“1985 Guidelines”

Methods for Incorporating Methods for Incorporating Aquatic Aquatic PlantPlant Effects into Community Level Effects into Community Level BenchmarksBenchmarks

CommitmentsCommitments

Regional stakeholder meetings to solicit public Regional stakeholder meetings to solicit public comment on the approaches (January 2010)comment on the approaches (January 2010)

EPA Region 1, 2, 3 (Edison, NJ)EPA Region 1, 2, 3 (Edison, NJ) EPA Region 4 (Atlanta, GA)EPA Region 4 (Atlanta, GA) EPA Region 5 (Chicago, IL)EPA Region 5 (Chicago, IL) EPA Region 7 , 6 (Kansas City, KS)EPA Region 7 , 6 (Kansas City, KS) EPA Region 10 (Seattle, WA)EPA Region 10 (Seattle, WA) EPA Region 9 (San Francisco, CA)EPA Region 9 (San Francisco, CA)

A national multi-stakeholder meeting in DC to A national multi-stakeholder meeting in DC to solicit further public comment on the approaches solicit further public comment on the approaches (Spring/Summer 2010-TBD)(Spring/Summer 2010-TBD)

An SAB-SAP on the proposed approaches An SAB-SAP on the proposed approaches (Fall/Winter 2010 - TBD)(Fall/Winter 2010 - TBD)

Tools and Approaches Will

Continue to be based on sound science and utilize available data

Be legally defensible under statutory mandates

Be based on methodologies that are as consistent and practical as possible

Be implementable at the federal and state level

Be developed as quickly as possible, and Reflect stakeholder input and comments

What we hope to achieveWhat we hope to achieve

Provide a common basis for the characterization of aquatic effects of pesticides under the CWA and FIFRA resulting in effects assessments that are consistent with both statues.

The community benchmarks generated for protection of aquatic wildlife and plants may be adopted: by states for standards, permitting, 303(d) for assessment of monitoring data by OPP in addition to other benchmarks in risk assessment.

The tools developed for generating toxicity values can be used to develop species sensitivity distributions for characterizing

interspecies variability for bridging data to characterize uncertainty

Methodologies are identified for using aquatic plant data in deriving community-level benchmarks.

Presentation TopicsPresentation Topics

Development & Evaluation of Development & Evaluation of Ecotoxicity Predictive ToolsEcotoxicity Predictive Tools

Methods for Developing Community Level Benchmarks For Aquatic Animals

Methods for Incorporating Aquatic Methods for Incorporating Aquatic Plant Effects into Community Level Plant Effects into Community Level BenchmarksBenchmarks