Because the pathways by which pesticides move from their points of application to habitats of listed species might involve a complex sequence of transfers and diverse degradation processes, it is common to use a linked series of models to estimate exposure. Fate and transport modeling practices used by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are discussed below. The committee also elaborates on its suggestions for analyses that comply with Steps 1-3 in the ESA process when estimating exposure (see Table 2-1).

Approaches and Models Used by the Agencies

In Step 1 of the ESA process, EPA uses a program called DANGER to determine which listed species or their habitats coincide geographically and temporally with areas of pesticide use (EPA 2012a).1 DANGER is an electronic database of county-level information on occurrence of listed species and acreage of agricultural crops. If there is geographic and temporal overlap, EPA assumes a “may affect” for pesticide use and addresses the listed species during its pesticide risk assessment (Step 2), in which pesticide concentrations are estimated in the environmental media to which the species might be exposed, as discussed below.

In Step 2 of the ESA process, EPA first uses a generic screening model to determine whether the pesticide is likely to move off the crop and into a body of water in concentrations high enough to trigger a concern for any aquatic species. For that initial screen, EPA uses GENEEC2 (Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration) (EPA 2001), a model that estimates pesticide concentrations in a standard small farm pond (a 2-m deep pond that has a surface area of 1 hectare in a watershed area of 10 hectares), uses generic inputs, and simulates a single event. Few fate processes are considered in the model. EPA typically assumes the maximum pesticide application rate as allowed by the label, and the model estimates pesticide concentration in the pond on the basis of spray drift and runoff from a 6-in. rain event that lasts 24 h.

As a screening model, GENEEC is sometimes characterized as providing worst-case estimates of exposure. The term worst-case, however, is misleading and should be avoided. The documentation for the model does not use the term worst-case but states that GENEEC “may provide a good predictor of upper level pesticide concentrations in small but ecologically important upland streams” (EPA 2001). That conclusion is attributed to Effland et al. (1999), but they discuss general monitoring data in streams rather than specific field studies that might be used to evaluate the accuracy of GENEEC with respect to specified applications.

______________________

1The committee understands that EPA now commonly refers to the DANGER database as LOCATES (A. Pease, EPA, personal commun., May 13, 2013).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement