The value of increased spatial resolution of pesticide usage data for assessing risk to endangered species

• DOI: 10.1111/csp2.551
• Publication Date: 2021-10-17T01:53:15Z
• Authors: Erin L. Murphy; Steffen Eikenberry; Gwenllian Iacona; Greg Watson; Leah R. Gerber
• Keywords: 0301 basic medicine; Ecology; conservation; General. Including nature conservation, geographical distribution; QH1-199.5; 15. Life on land; value of information; 03 medical and health sciences; 13. Climate action; environmental policy; endangered species conservation planning; critical habitat; decision theory; 14. Life underwater; QH540-549.5

Abstract Decision makers often cite data quality as a limitation in environmental management. Value of information approaches evaluate the benefit new collection for management outcomes. Pesticide exposure risk assessment endangered species is one context where limitations may affect decisions and value type approach could be useful identifying optimal resolution. Under U.S. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide Rodenticide Act, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responsible registering pesticides before they can sold regularly reviewing pesticides. Section 7 Endangered Species Act requires that EPA consider potential impacts to listed critical habitats this process, Services—U.S. Fish Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service—to complete formal consultation if deems it necessary. The current process time‐intensive, lacks transparency confidence among stakeholders, leaves hundreds unreviewed on market. Increasing resolution pesticide usage address these concerns by improving estimated overlaps between ranges usage. Thus, we evaluated relative importance different resolutions assessing expected carbaryl plant endemic California. We found spatially explicit, township (~36 mile 2 ) excluded 33% terrestrial plants (55/168) 51% their (27/53) from requiring consultation, while coarser none. In contrast, EPA's biological evaluation only excludes 4% (nationally) consultation. This suggests high‐resolution increase review efficiency decrease amount time remain market without evaluation.