Development of a mixed-source, single pesticide database for use in ecological risk assessment: quality control and data standardization practices

Perkins, D. B.; Chen, Wenlin; Jacobson, Andy; Stone, Zechariah; White, Mark; Christensen, Brian; Ghebremichael, Lula; Brain, Richard A.

doi:10.1007/s10661-021-09596-9

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As an example, Florida has many years of actual field-level monitoring data specific to atrazine. From 1996 to 2011, monitoring recorded a maximum of 23 ppb of atrazine (Perkins et al 2021). However, the Watershed Regressions for Analysis Pesticides (WARP) model (Larson and Gilliom 2001) used by the EPA for estimating runoff into water complexes, predicted maximum likely detections (95% PI) in the 1,200 ppb range within these very same farmlands (https://www.regulations.gov/document/ EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1665).…”

Section: Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

FIFRA, ESA, and Pesticide Consultation: Understanding and Addressing the Complexities

Aerts,

Bahr,

Brain

et al. 2024

CAST

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the complexities and challenges that arise when trying to align the mandates of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), particularly in the context of pesticide regulation and the conservation of endangered species. It examines the difficulties faced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in approving pesticides under FIFRA in compliance with the ESA and discusses the differing definitions and approaches to risk between the two regulatory frameworks. The paper aims to propose solutions for better integration of the two acts to improve their functionality and effectiveness in achieving their respective goals.

show abstract

Section: Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

FIFRA, ESA, and Pesticide Consultation: Understanding and Addressing the Complexities

Aerts,

Bahr,

Brain

et al. 2024

CAST

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perkins et al [28], as well as Read et al [29] and references therein, highlight the need for standardised databases. Therefore, in order to aggregate and standardise data from different producers, data models shared by all have been set up.…”

Section: Water Data Exchange Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing groundwater resources using a national reference database: the French ADES concept

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groundwater is an integral part of the water cycle and an essential human resource. Humans must protect this ever-changing heritage and preserve it in a sustainable way by understanding the physical and chemical properties of aquifers and monitoring their quantity and quality. Numerous studies have collected immense volumes of data that are difficult to access and not always comparable or of adequate quality. A pioneering national-scale database, ADES, was created in 1999 to store and make available quality data on French groundwater. This tool is freely accessible for/to water managers, scientists and the public. The data management system used in the database satisfies two important objectives: it is interoperable and based on a recognised groundwater reference system and provides high quality data to a large public. Data from different producers require normalisation and standardisation of system requirements to allow data integration and exchange. The database designers set up shared data models, and based the system on communal repositories of water points and hydrogeological entities. Nearly 102 million groundwater quality records and over 17 million water-level records are currently available, describing almost 61,800 stations. ADES makes it possible to visualise in “real-time" water level data for approximately 1500 stations equipped with GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) technology. ADES also provides, on a public website and via web services, public quantitative and qualitative data. ADES is an essential tool for developing groundwater services based on the FAIR guiding principles: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable data (Wilkinson et al. in SD 3:160018, 2016) Article highlights A unique database for storing and disseminating reliable, comprehensive, and up-to-date groundwater data to a large public. An interoperable system based on a common reference system to ensure data reliability. An interoperable system based on a common reference system to ensure data reliability.

show abstract

“…Yet, no mention was made of the aquatic microcosm and mesocosm studies, nor were they considered in the weight‐of‐evidence assessments for listed aquatic plant species or other listed plant species that depend upon aquatic plants for habitat or food. Further, the MAGtool application for atrazine did not consider the extensive, targeted monitoring data set available for atrazine in surface waters of the Midwest, where usage is highest (Perkins et al, 2021).…”

Section: Proposed Solutions For Future Assessments: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges with the current methodology for conducting Endangered Species Act risk assessments for pesticides in the United States

Teed

Moore²,

Vukov

et al. 2022

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA or the Agency) is responsible for administering the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Agency is also required to assess the potential risks of pesticides undergoing registration or re‐registration to threatened and endangered (i.e., listed) species to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. To assess potential risks to listed species, a screening‐level risk assessment in the form of a biological evaluation (BE) is undertaken by the Agency for each pesticide. Given the large number of registration actions handled by the USEPA annually, efficient tools for conducting BEs are desirable. However, the “Revised Method” that is the basis for the USEPA's BE process has been ineffective at filtering out listed species and critical habitats that are at de minimis risk to pesticides. In the USEPA's BEs, the Magnitude of Effect Tool (MAGtool) has been used to determine potential risks to listed species that potentially co‐occur with pesticide footprints. The MAGtool is a highly prescriptive, high‐throughput compilation of existing FIFRA screening‐level models with a geospatial interface. The tool has been a significant contributor to risk inflation and ultimately process inefficiency. The ineffectiveness of the tool stems from compounding conservatism, unrealistic and unreasonable assumptions regarding usage, limited application of species‐specific data, lack of consideration of multiple lines of evidence, and inability to integrate higher‐tier data. Here, we briefly describe the MAGtool and the critical deficiencies that impair its effectiveness, thus undermining its intention. Case studies are presented to highlight the deficiencies and solutions are recommended for improving listed species assessments in the future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:817–829. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

show abstract

Development of a mixed-source, single pesticide database for use in ecological risk assessment: quality control and data standardization practices

Cited by 8 publications

References 19 publications

FIFRA, ESA, and Pesticide Consultation: Understanding and Addressing the Complexities

FIFRA, ESA, and Pesticide Consultation: Understanding and Addressing the Complexities

Managing groundwater resources using a national reference database: the French ADES concept

Challenges with the current methodology for conducting Endangered Species Act risk assessments for pesticides in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About