Using emerging science to inform risk characterizations for wildlife within current regulatory frameworks.

Many jurisdictions have regulatory frameworks that seek to reduce the effects of environmental exposures of anthropogenic chemicals on terrestrial wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians). The frameworks apply for new and existing chemicals, including pesticides (prospective assessments), and to environmental contamination from releases (retrospective risk assessments). Relatively recently, there have been many scientific advances that could improve risk estimates for wildlife. Here, we briefly describe current regulations from North America (United States and Canada) and from Europe that include risk assessments for wildlife to ascertain whether they are conducive to the use of emerging science and new methods. We also provide examples where new and emerging science may be used to improve wildlife risk characterization and identify areas in need of future research. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:765-779. © 2024 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management © 2024 Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Integrating emerging science to improve estimates of risk to wildlife from chemical exposure: What are the challenges?

Many jurisdictions require ecological risk assessments for terrestrial wildlife (i.e., terrestrial vertebrates) to assess potential adverse effects from exposure to anthropogenic chemicals. This occurs, for example, at contaminated sites and when new pesticides are proposed, and it occurs for chemicals that are in production and/or proposed for wide-scale use. However, guidance to evaluate such risks has not changed markedly in decades, despite the availability of new scientific tools to do so. In 2019, the Wildlife Toxicology World Interest Group of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) initiated a virtual workshop that included a special session coincident with the annual SETAC North America meeting and which focused on the prospect of improving risk assessments for wildlife and improving their use in implementing chemical regulations. Work groups continued the work and investigated the utility of integrating emerging science and novel methods for improving problem formulation (WG1), exposure (WG2), toxicology (WG3), and risk characterization (WG4). Here we provide a summary of that workshop and the follow-up work, the regulations that drive risk assessment, and the key focus areas identified to advance the ability to predict risks of chemicals to wildlife. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:645-657. © 2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

A risk-ranking methodology for prioritizing historic, potentially contaminated mine sites in British Columbia.

The Crown Land Restoration Branch (CLRB) of the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands is responsible for managing thousands of historic and abandoned mine sites on provincial lands (referred to as Crown Contaminated Sites). For most of these sites, there is limited information available regarding the extent of potential contamination or potential human health and ecological risks. Given the large number of sites, the CLRB sought a system for prioritizing investigation and management efforts among them. We developed a Risk-Ranking Methodology (RRM) to meet this objective, which was implemented in 2007/2008 with an emphasis on historic mine sites because of the significant number of sites and related potential risk. The RRM uses a risk-based Preliminary Site Investigation to gather key information about the sites. The information for each site is analyzed and summarized according to several attributes aimed at characterizing potential health and ecological risks. The summary information includes, but is not limited to, generic comparisons of exposure with effects levels (screening quotients) for human and ecological exposure pathways. The summary information (more than 25 attributes) is then used in a workshop setting to evaluate relative rankings among sites, and also to identify subsequent management actions for each site. Application of the RRM in 2007/2008 was considered successful, because there was confidence in the process, the content and the outputs. A key challenge was keeping the number of attributes to a manageable level. Ranking was based on discussion and consensus, which was a feasible approach given the relatively small number of sites that need to be ranked each year, and facilitated transparency in the ranking process. We do not rule out the future possibility of developing a quantitative function to capture trade-offs among attributes.