U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BIOLOGICAL OPINION
ON SELETED PESTICIDES:
DATED JUNE 14, 1989
REVISED SEPTEMBER 14, 1989
-------
REVISIONS TO BIOLOGICAL
OPINION DATED JUNE 14, 1989
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
SEPTEMBER 14, 1989
-------
TAKE
United States Department of the Interior SSS
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ADDRESS ONLY THE OMECTOft.
FISH AND VMUXJFE SERVICE
In Response Refer To: JJN 1 4 1969
FWS/EHC/BFA/EPA-9-89-1
Mr. James VI. Akerman
Chief, Ecological Effects Branch
Environmental Fate and Effects
Division (TS-769c)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Akerman:
This responds to the Environmental Protection Agency's (Agency) September
30, 1988, request for reinitiation of formal consultation, in accordance
with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, on selected portions of five
previous "cluster" biological opinions. Those opinions evaluated pesticides
for certain crops (corn, cotton, soybeans, sorghum, wheat, barley, oats,
and rye), forestry use pesticides, mosquito larvicides, and rangeland and
pastureland pesticides. Your September 30, 1988 letter stated that
consultation was reinitiated to reevaluate new and existing data, correct
certain errors, propose new reasonable and prudent alternatives, and provide
more substantive data on certain species and pesticides.
The Agency's request was divided into six parts:
1. Reevaluation of the jeopardy posed to aquatic species by a
selected group of pesticides, based on new analyses of their
estimated environmental concentrations.
2. Evaluation of pesticides that may affect four bird species listed
since the prior opinions were completed.
3. Reassessment of the potential exposure of certain species to
selected pesticides, based on biological and toxicological data.
4. Consideration of new reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid
jeopardy to species occurring solely or largely on Federal lands,
and for the red-cockaded woodpecker and wood stork.
5. Assessment of the potential for certain pesticides to indirectly
harm listed species through their food supply.
6. Consideration of withdrawing or cancelling jeopardy opinions for
pesticides that have been cancelled or suspended.
-------
Additional data were provided by the Agency on December 12, 1988. Included
were profiles on the nature and toxicity of several chemicals,
bioaccumulation and product degradation data, historical data on wildlife
kills, and, most significantly, an analysis of the registered uses for
most of the chemicals. Because of the extent and importance of this new
information, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) had to review all of
the analyses that had been completed previously for these chemicals.
Pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 402, and with the Agency's January 30,
1989, concurrence, the consultation was restarted effective December 12,
1988.
A draft of this opinion was provided to the Agency on March 9, 1989. At
the request of the Agency, copies were provided to the Interagency Technical
Group which includes several agencies in the Department of Agriculture
(Agriculture). Based on a request from Agriculture, the date for closure
of the review period was extended from April 10 to May 17, 1989. Comments
received from the Agency and Agriculture have been addressed and
incorporated in appropriate sections of the text of this opinion. Some
additional data will be provided to the Agency by the Service under separate
cover, as noted in the text of this opinion.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
The proposed actions have been examined by the Service in accordance with
the Interagency Cooperation Regulations under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (50 CFR 402 and 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Service previously issued biological opinions to the Agency on
pesticides registered for the uses identified in the reinitiation request.
These opinions are described below. Dates of issuance are in parentheses.
Corn cluster (May 18, 1983): Jeopardy was determined for 21 species
from one or more of 39 pesticides considered. Conservation
recommendations were made for 7 species subsequently listed.
Small grain cluster (October 12, 1983): Jeopardy was determined for
21 species from one or more of 58 pesticides considered. Conservation
recommendations were made for 6 species in addition to the 21 previously
mentioned.
Forest cluster (October 25, 1983): Jeopardy was determined for 58
species from one or more of 23 pesticides considered.
Mosquito larvicide cluster (October 25, 1983): Jeopardy was determined
for 77 currently listed U.S. species from one or more of 11 pesticides
considered.
Range!and/pasture!and cluster (December 11, 1983): Jeopardy was
determined for 159 species from one or more of 32 pesticides considered.
-------
Clarifications of issues related to the Agency's implementation of
reasonable and prudent alternatives for the above opinions. (January 2D,
1987).
Additionally, biological opinions were issued individually for the
following pesticides that are addressed in the current reinitiation:
Aluminum phosphide (July 22, 1981, and November 11, 1984)
Carbofuran (May 1, 1981, and July 2, 1987)
Chlorpyrifos (May 21, 1982)
Oiazinon (January 17, 1986)
Oicofol (August 13, 1984, November 14, 1985, March 20, 1986, and
July 22, 1987)
Endosulfan (July 30, 1982)
Fenitrothion (May 18, 1981)
Magnesium phosphide (June 19, 1981, and November 4, 1982)
Oxyfluorfen (November 13, 1985)
Strychnine (May 25, 1988)
Tebuthiuron (July 15, 1982, and November 17, 1982)
To the extent that these prior opinions addressed specific uses outlined
in this reinitiation request, the opinions have been reviewed and revised
as appropriate. All determinations of jeopardy/no jeopardy/no exposure,
reasonable and prudent alternatives, reasonable and prudent measures, and
other findings of this opinion shall supercede corresponding portions of the
prior opinions listed above.
Chemicals and uses not reinitiated in this request have not been reviewed,
and all pertinent findings and recommendations of the prior opinions stand.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Aquatic Endangered Species/Pesticide Risk Assessment Model
A pesticide consultation team consisting of representatives from each of
the Fish and Wildlife Service regions in the conterminous United States
was established to prepare this biological opinion. Each team member was
responsible for evaluating species within his/her jurisdiction for pesticide
Impacts. To promote consistent and systematic evaluation of the potential
impact of pesticides on listed aquatic species, the Service developed a
conceptual model which directs the user to consider certain factors in
formulating a biological opinion. These factors Include: 1) potential
for exposure of the listed species to the pesticide; 2) information on
chemical toxicity relative to estimated environmental concentration; 3)
potential for secondary Impacts; and 4) special concerns not specifically
addressed above or unique to the situation being evaluated. The conceptual
model requires the user to address each variable based on available data.
Variables are described in greater detail below.
1. Exposure: The determination of exposure potential was based on the
nature of land use in the area of species' occurrence and the registered
-------
use(s) of each pesticide. For example, a species associated with forest
habitats was evaluated for the impacts of those chemicals registered for
use on forests. This variable also estimated the extent of exposure
relative to species' total habitat or population.
2. Toxicity: This variable takes into consideration the direct toxicity
of a chemical to a listed species based on the most appropriate hazard ratio
model for the taxon most closely related to the listed species. This
variable was based on the toxicity to the most vulnerable life stage exposed
to the chemical, as well as information on pesticide persistence and the
anticipated frequency of pesticide application, when available.
Since laboratory toxicity data for endangered species are generally not
available, data for closely related taxa were used to estimate values for
listed species. For example, freshwater fish data were considered directly
applicable for endangered fish; such data also were used for amphibians,
when more specific data were unavailable. For invertebrates, data from
the most closely related invertebrate taxon were usually selected. However,
for freshwater mussels, toxicity data were unavailable for closely related
freshwater species. In these cases, data for the freshwater invertebrates
Daphm'a and Gammarus were used because such data are widely available and
these species are highly sensitive to toxic chemicals.
For the most part, estimates of toxicity were based on the hazard ratio
models provided by the Agency in its consultation request. However,
considering only the hazard ratio for the species itself was sometimes
insufficient as a measure of effect as the chemical may cause harm to the
species through its food supply or other significant feature of its
supporting habitat.
The Service selected a specific model (direct application, drift, runoff,
etc.), or combination of models, according to the species' habitat,
pesticide profile, proximity of potential pesticide use to species'
habitat, and local drainage patterns. Although the Agency provided several
models to determine hazard ratios, frequently no model was applicable or
data were lacking within the appropriate model for some chemicals. In
these cases, the Service used the model which in its opinion most closely
approximated pesticide transport in the species' habitat.
3. Consideration of secondary impacts from pesticides Included:
a) Poisoning and bioaccumulation: The potential for poisoning was
estimated from documented case histories of such occurrences to similar
species and by examining known or estimated bioaccumulation potential
of the chemical and the species' food habits.
b) Toxicity to food items: This is especially critical when a species'
diet is so restrictive that the loss of a class of organisms, such as
aquatic arthropods, from the food chain could have significant adverse
effects on the listed species. Considered in this variable are both
the dietary selectivity of the species and the expected hazard ratio
of the chemical relative to the species' food supply.
-------
c) Interference with habitat, symbiotic or other special
relationships: This covers a wide range of factors, Including habitat
requirements (e.g. vegetation cover), and life stage requirements (e.g.
host fish for freshwater mussel larvae). This variable required
consideration of chemical toxicity to such critical species'needs.
d) Physical disturbances: This variable accounts for the effects of
physical disturbance on the species due to the particular method used
to apply a chemical. Factors such as noise from low-flying aircraft
or direct physical effects on species or habitat by ground application
equipment were considered.
4. Special concerns are those factors for which no other category of
variable was appropriate. Species rarity or limited geographical
distribution, extremely high chemical toxicity, and species sensitivity to
certain chemicals are examples of special concerns.
The conceptual model was applied to each species/chemical Interaction to
help assist the biological opinion and reasonable and prudent alternatives.
Occasionally, species with similar geographical distribution, biological
or ecological characteristics were analyzed together for a chemical or
class of chemicals with similar properties.
The Service relied on available data to the extent possible, but also made
certain assumptions (see Section I below) and judgments in its
determinations, including extrapolation of data from related species.
Furthermore, patterns and extent of crop cultivation and other land use
practices near the listed species, both of which were important for
evaluating exposure in this opinion, were identified but could change in
the future. Consequently, patterns of pesticide use and exposure could
change.
Data were sometimes lacking on species population status and pesticide
impacts to critical life stages or habitat components, such as the host
species of freshwater mussel larvae. Where data were lacking, the Service
used the best available information and applied scientific judgment to
formulate decisions of jeopardy/no jeopardy. The Service recognizes that
there are provisions for reinitiation of consultation when new data become
available.
FORMAT OF THIS OPINION
This opinion responds in a consolidated manner to the many questions raised
in the Agency's request. This biological opinion is organized as follows:
Section I - lists the assumptions the Service used in developing this
opinion.
Section II - presents determinations of the effects of 112 pesticides
on one or more of 165 listed species, with the appropriate reasonable
and prudent alternatives to preclude jeopardy, and actions required to
minimize the likelihood of incidental take.
-------
Section III - presents profiles of affected species, including their
potential for exposure to pesticides, the resulting biological opinion,
and incidental take statements with their accompanying reasonable and
prudent measures. Additional information requested by the Agency (May
17, 1989) about the factor(s) affected by each chemical (species, food,
symbiont or other habitat feature) will be provided under separate
cover.
Section IV - lists those species for which maps or location
descriptions were provided separately, as requested by the Agency.
Section V - presents chemical data sheets which, with hazard data
provided in the request, assisted the evaluation of the potential for
exposure and effect on listed species.
Thus, for example, to determine the response to questions raised on the
Scioto madtom in Parts I (chemical effect), 3 (continued existence of the
species), and 5 (food habit considerations) of the Agency's request, the
Service has consolidated the current biology of the species in Section III
of this opinion, and identified the current jeopardy/no jeopardy
determinations and required actions in Section II.
Generic questions raised by the Agency on the use of memoranda of
understanding as a reasonable and prudent alternative, and the Agency's
request to withdraw jeopardy calls on cancelled or suspended chemicals are
addressed below.
GENERIC QUESTIONS
1. Federal agency memoranda of understanding:
Part 4 of the request proposed that memoranda of understanding be developed
between the Agency and Federal land managing agencies and that the Service
view this proposal as a reasonable and prudent alternative for precluding
jeopardy to species that occur largely or entirely on Federal lands. The
Service cannot accept the Agency's proposal as a reasonable and prudent
alternative for the following reasons:
a. No determination of the extent to which such an approach would
protect listed species can be made until the actual terms of an executed
document are presented to the Service. This would require a future
joint consultation between the Service, the Agency, and the action
Federal agency.
b. Other Federal, State, or local agencies, beside the actual Federal
land managers, could conduct programs on Federal lands that could affect
listed species (e.g., the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
sprays for grasshoppers on public lands). It is not clear how these
memoranda would cover these other Federal and non-Federal entities.
-------
c. The necessity for such memoranda is not clear as the Service has an
understanding with the Agency (and other Federal agencies) that the
terms of any individual biological opinion issued to another Federal
agency for a particular pesticide application would become an agency-
specific alternative to the generic opinion on the registration and
use of that pesticide.
d. For some of the species listed as examples in the Agency's request,
the potential area of pesticide application that affects the species
extends beyond lands in actual Federal ownership. Thus label
restrictions to avoid jeopardy to listed species off Federal lands
would still have to be developed and reviewed. To segregate
restrictions based on land ownership alone would be needlessly co.nfusim
to users.
2. Cancelled and suspended chemicals:
In Part 6 of the request, the Agency asked the Service to consider
withdrawing jeopardy calls for pesticides for which registration is
presently "cancelled" or "suspended". On November 22, 1988, the Service
asked that the Agency provide detailed information on the significance of
each of these terms as it relates to continued exposure of listed species
to these chemicals.
The reasons for suspension and potential future uses of "suspended"
chemicals were not provided by the Agency, except for dinoseb, where the
Service understands that the Agency is in the process of purchasing the
existing stock because of its threat to human health. As the Service
understands, "cancelled" means the manufacturer can no longer distribute
the chemical for use in the United States, but existing stocks remain on
the market until exhausted.
Part 4 of the request also asked that jeopardy calls be dropped for
strychnine on the basis that its above-ground use is currently suspended
by court action.
After considering the information provided, the Service is not convinced
that cancelling or suspending registration(s) eliminates the potential
jeopardy posed by these pesticides until existing stocks have been removed
from the market or assurance can be given that they will not be used within
the species' habitat. Of the chemicals listed in the request, only dinoseb
appears close to meeting these provisions.
There was no way of assessing the amount and extent of continued exposure
of listed species to cancelled chemicals when existing stocks may continue
to be used. Thus, the Service cannot withdraw its jeopardy opinions for
these chemicals. Existing biological opinions remain in place for suspended
chemicals, including those evaluating strychnine effects on the grizzly
bear and gray wolf.
The Service recommends further, that in order to preclude jeopardy to or
minimize the likelihood of incidental take of listed species that could
-------
result from the continued availability and use of these compounds, the
Agency provide notice, in its County bulletins, of the appropriate
reasonable and prudent alternative or measure Identified in Section II.
This notice should be carried for a period of 10 years from the date of
cancellation of registration or until the Agency provides substantive data
that these chemicals no longer pose actual threats to these species and
the Service concurs.
REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
Regulations implementing Section 7 define reasonable and prudent
alternatives as alternative actions identified during formal consultation
that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the Intended purpose
of the action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically
feasible, and that the Service believes would avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives for each chemical for which jeopardy
to a species or adverse modification of critical habitat were determined
are recorded in Section II of this opinion. These alternatives represent
the Service's best professional judgement of the measures necessary to
provide the appropriate level of protection to the species given the data
currently available. An effort was made in this consultation to develop a
standard set of alternatives applicable to aquatic species to facilitate
Agency implementation and user understanding.
The Agency is required to notify the Service of its final decision on the
registration or reregistrati on of the chemicals found to jeopardize and
which reasonable and prudent alternative(s) the Agency will implement if
that chemical is so registered.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Section 1010(a) of the 1988 amendments to the Endangered Species Act
directs the Agency, in cooperation with the Departments of Agriculture
and Interior, to promptly conduct a program to Inform and fully educate
agricultural commodity producers of the the Agency's compliance requirements
under that Act. In addition to current multlagency efforts to provide
information on the program to general pesticide users, the Service
recommends that the Agency promptly incorporate endangered species
protection techniques into State pesticide certification programs.
2. The Service strongly recommends that the Agency conduct (or require
pesticide manufacturers to conduct) thorough pesticide toxicity studies on
freshwater mussels. Such data are essential to the development of accurate
hazard assessments for this group. The Agency-funded study by KBN
Engineering ("Early Life Stage Protocols for the Assessment of Pesticide
Effects to Freshwater Mussels") is an excellent first step in this
8
-------
direction. Although LC-50 data produced by this study are too preliminary
to allow any firm conclusions to be drawn, they do give an indication that
for some products, such as carbaryl, toxicity to freshwater mussels may be
orders of magnitude less than for Daohnia. On the other hand, for
nitrapyrin, toxicity on larval oysters indicates an EC-50 twenty times that
for Daohnia. This latter finding resulted in the Service's current
determination that incidental take of freshwater mussels will occur from use
of nitrapyrin. The Agency should continue its research to refine mussel
LC-50 test protocols and see that tests are run on freshwater mussels for
a significant number of the pesticides used in the range of listed mussel
species.
3. Appropriate scenarios for the Forest Service's spray models, using
worst case criteria, should be developed to assist in the identification
of spray drift patterns over various endangered and threatened species'
habitats. Resulting data could be used to tailor buffer zones to local
conditions. The Forest Service has indicated a willingness to work with
the Agency and the Service in developing such scenarios.
INCIDENTAL TAKE
Section 9 of the Act, as amended, prohibits any taking (to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct) of listed species without a special exemption.
Under the terms of Section 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act, taking that is
incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not
considered to be a prohibited taking provided that such taking is in
compliance with the terms and conditions specified in the incidental take
statement provided in a biological opinion. If the specified level of
incidental take is exceeded formal consultation must be reinitiated
immediately.
For many species considered in this consultation, the Service expects that
use of pesticides that otherwise do not pose jeopardy, are likely to result
in incidental take because of the acute toxicity of some of these compounds
and their expected environmental concentrations (as reflected in the hazard
ratios). Because of the inherent biological characteristics of many aquatic
species, the likelihood of discovering an individual death attributable to
pesticides is very small. For example, small size, behavioral modifications
before death, the presence of aquatic vegetation, natural and man-made
structures or obstructions, stream flow, and rapid rates of decomposition
make finding an incidentally taken animal extremely unlikely. Also
difficult to recover are species with wide-ranging habits. Therefore,
even though the Service expects incidental take to occur from the use of
pesticides in the range of these species, the best scientific and commercial
data available are not sufficient to enable the Service to estimate a
specific amount of incidental take. In instances such as these, the Service
has designated the expected level of incidental take as unquantifiable.
This biological opinion provides reasonable and prudent measures that are
expected to reduce the likelihood of such take.
-------
Similarily the Service cannot determine the extent of species' habitat
that will be affected by each or all chemicals. To do so would require
accurate, up-to-date information on all land use activities occurring within
the range of a particular endangered species, first-hand knowledge of the
type, amount and timing of all pesticides used on the above lands, and an
accurate population estimate of the particular species at the time of
application.
In most cases, there are little or no data available on the toxicity of
particular chemicals to an endangered species. Most of the information
is extrapolated from studies done on taxonomically similar species.
However, in the event that the remains of a listed species are found, it is
imperative that they be examined to provide insight into the cause of death.
If death is attributable to pesticide exposure, this information would be
valuable in developing future biological opinions. Therefore, if an
individual of a listed species is found and its death can be attributed to
a particular chemical or groups of chemicals, the Service believes this
would represent new information on the effects of this action that would
require reinitiation of formal consultation under the terms of 50 CFR
420.16(b).
It is possible to estimate incidental take for some species. These species
are most often larger terrestrial species for which there is information
on distribution and population numbers, a species restricted to a very small
range that is regularly monitored, or a species with a history of
mortalities as a result of the use of pesticides. In this opinion, the
expected amount and extent of incidental take from the use of pesticides
is presented for each species in the individual accounts in Section III.
Specific reasonable and prudent measures that the Service considers
necessary and appropriate to minimize incidental take and the terms and
conditions to implement such measures are listed for each species in the
pesticide profiles in Section II. In order for registrants and users to
be exempt from the taking prohibition in Section 9 of the Act, the Agency,
upon receipt of this opinion, must initiate compliance with the terms and
conditions for implementation of the individual reasonable and prudent
measures for each species. In addition to species specific actions, the
following generic terms and conditions apply to all affected species:
a. The Agency shall implement a labeling program to notify users of
the actions needed to protect listed species.
b. The Agency shall monitor incidental take to ensure compliance with
anticipated take levels as required by 50 CFR Part 402.14(1)(3).
BuiIdling upon an Agency suggestion (comments of Nay 17, 1989), the
Service believes that a label or bulletin requirement to immediately
report any dead or sick listed species found in or adjacent to pesticide
use areas would assist the Agency in meeting this requirement. Such a
requirement would provide incentive to the user to report such incidents
in order to remain exempt from Section 9 taking provisions. However,
the Service also believes that the Agency should strenghthen its
information gathering base by obtaining assistance from State or Federal
wildlife or plant agencies, the Extension Service, Department of
10
-------
Agriculture cooperatives or educational and private organizations In
reporting possible listed species take from pesticides.
c. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in the Region of the species'
occurrence, is to be notified by the Agency within 3 working days of
any dead or sick listed species found in or adjacent to pesticide
treatment areas. Cause of death or Illness, if known, should also be
conveyed to those offices. The Agency shall provide information to:
Region 1 (CA,HI,ID,NV,OR,WA)
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1002 NE Hoiliday Street
Portland, OR 97232 Tel: (503) 231-6150/FTS: 429-6150
Region 2 (AZ,NM,OK,TX)
Endangered Species Division
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 1306
500 Gold Avenue SW
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Tel: (505) 766-3972/FTS: 474-3972
Region 3 (IA,IL,IN,MI,MN,MO,OH,WH
Division of Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building, Fort Snelling
Twin Cities, MN 55111
Tel: (612) 725-3276/FTS: 725-3276
Region 4 (AL,AR,FL,GA,KY,LA,MS,NC,PR,SC,TN,VI)
Division of Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, Suite 1276
Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: (404) 331-3580/FTS: 242-3580
Region 5 (CT,DC,DE,MA,ME,NH,NJ,NY,PA,RI,VA,VT,WV)
Assistant Regional Director - FWE
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
One Gateway Center, Suite 700
Newton Comer, MA 02158 Tel: (617) 965-9217/FTS: 829-9217
Region 6 (CO,KS,MT,ND,NE,SD,UT,WY)
Federal Activities and Special Projects
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225 Tel: (303) 236-8186/FTS: 776-8186
Region 7 (AK)
Ecological Services/ Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99503 Tel: (907) 786-3431/FTS: Same
11
-------
d. To determine the success of the reasonable and prudent measures
outlined in this opinion, an annual report of all Agency-known
pesticide-related take of listed species shall be submitted by the
Agency to the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with copies to
each of the Regional Directors of the Service. This report shall be
submitted by January 31 of each year.
PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING OR DISPOSING OF LISTED SPECIES
As requested in the Agency's comments of May 17, 1989, the Service will
provide a protocol, under separate cover, for handling dead, injured
or ill listed species for pesticide analysis. In the event that the
Agency suspects that a species has been taken in violation of label
restrictions, such situation shall be reported to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement or their designee in the
Region in which the species is found. Instructions for proper handling
and disposition of such specimens will be issued by the Division of
Law Enforcement. The contacts for each Region are:
Region 1 (CA,HI,ID,NV,OR,WA)
See individual species accounts for local contacts and handling
instructions.
Region 2 (AZ,NM,OK,TX)
Assistant Regional Director, Law Enforcement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 329
123 4th Street, Room 332
Albuquerque, NM 87103 Tel: (505) 766-2091/FTS: 474-2091
Region 3 (IA,IL,IN,MI,MN,MO,OH,WI)
Assistant Regional Director, Law Enforcement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building, Fort Snelling
Twin Cities, MN 55111 Tel: (612) 725-3530/FTS: 725-3530
Region 4 (AL,AR,FL,GA,KY,LA,MS,NC,PR,SC,TN,VI)
Assistant Regional Director, Law Enforcement (ALE)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, Suite 1218
Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel: (404) 331-5872/FTS: 242-5872
Region 5 (CT,DC,DE,MA,ME,NH,NJ,NY,PA,RI,VA,VT,WV)
Regional Director (Special Agent in Charge)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
One Gateway Center, Suite 700
Newton Corner, MA 02158 Tel: (617) 965-5100/FTS: 829-9254
12
-------
Region 6 (CO,KS,MT,ND,NE,SD,UT,WY)
Division of Law Enforcement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225 Tel: (303) 236-7540/FTS: 776-7540
Region 7 (AK)
Assistant Director, Refuges and Wildlife (LE)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99503 Tel: (907) 786-3311/FTS: Same
This letter, and the biological opinion It transmits, conclude formal
consultation on the actions outlined in the reinitiation request. As
required by 50 CFR 402.16, further reinitiation of formal consultation is
required if the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, if new
information reveals that the Agency's actions may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion,
if the Agency's actions are subsequently modified in a manner that cause
an effect to listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in
this opinion, and/or as new species are listed or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the actions.
Sincerely,
• Director
13
-------
SECTION 1 - ASSUMPTIONS
Sections II and III of this opinion record or discuss the effect of
pesticides named in parts 1 through 5 of the reinitiation request (request)
on species listed as threatened or endangered (listed species). In
addressing these pesticides the following assumptions or parameters were
adopted:
1. This opinion addresses only those pesticides listed on Table 1
(pages 7,8, and 9) in request part 1; those listed for four bird species
(pages 48 and 49) in part 2; those associated with the Scioto madtorn,
freshwater mussels, and snails (pages 71-74) in part 3; those associated
with the Hays Spring amphipod and freshwater fish (pages 76 and 77) in
part 4; and those addressed in part 5 (pages 84 and 85). Not all
pesticides or species addressed in the original cluster opinions were
covered in this opinion. Thus, unless modified herein, prior opinions
remain in effect.
2. Based on the nature of the hazard data provided by the Agency,
the term "aquatic species", as used in this opinion, is restricted to
fish, aquatic invertebrates, and those amphibians that have fully
aquatic larval stages. This opinion addresses all aquatic species listed
as of May 1, 1989.
3. The possible effects of pesticides are considered individually.
The Service was not provided data with which to evaluate the potential
effects or toxicity of the hundreds of combinations of these chemicals
as they may be used on crops, forests, pastures/rangelands, or as
mosquito larvicides. Similarily, no analysis could be made of the effect
of the inert ingredients in pesticides or their carriers, like oil,
that may affect the species or their habitat.
4. The opinion assumes that all label instructions will be followed
and that application rates will be at the levels indicated in the
tables in parts 1 and 2 of the request.
5. Following review, the modelling techniques and the tabular results
presented by the Agency in the request were adopted as the "best
available data". However, the Service selected the particular model
that best fit the biology of each species. Where more than one
application model applied to a species, the scenario that posed the
greatest hazard was selected in the interest of ensuring minimum affect
on that species.
6. As used in this opinion, the term "crops" refers to most or all of
the following: corn, cotton, soybeans, sorghum, wheat, barley, oats,
and rye.
7. Based on the application rate for each chemical (in the tables in
part 1 of the request) and an uncertainty on the current registered
uses for several chemicals, the assumption was made that if a pesticide
was used on any one of the agricultural crops (corn, cotton, soybeans,
sorghum, wheat, oats, barley, or rye), it could be used on all. A
1-1
-------
distinction was made if the chemical was known to be registered for
only one or two of these crops (e.g. cotton). Thus, in this opinion,'
a jeopardy or no jeopardy call for any use of the pesticide on one
crop assumes the same call for all other crops that may be grown in
the vicinity of a given species.
8. If a jeopardy call is made for any one use of a given pesticide
within the occupied habitat of a species, it was assumed that any
similar application rate or method for other uses of the chemical poses
the same likelihood of jeopardy within that area. Thus the call will
be jeopardy for that chemical, although the reasonable and prudent
alternatives will address only those particular uses that pose the
jeopardy.
Examples: If use of the pesticide on crops poses no jeopardy,
while its use on forests poses jeopardy, the call for that
pesticide is jeopardy, although the reasonable and prudent
alternatives will address only its use on forests.
Only if the pesticide poses no jeopardy for all uses under
consideration in this request will the final call be no jeopardy
for those uses.
9. The following species, addressed in prior opinions, were not
addressed in this opinion as they have been delisted or do not occur
in the United States: Pine Barrens treefrog, Amstead gambusia,
Nicklin's pearly mussel, Sampson's pearly mussel, Tampico pearly mussel
and Palos Verdes blue butterfly. Additionally, the Pahranagat bonytail,
addressed in this and prior opinions, is now called the Pahranagat
roundtail chub.
10. The invertebrate species, Cambarus zoohonastes. has no official
common name, but is called the [cave] crayfish in this opinion for
convenience.
11. Aquatic species under the administration of the National Marine
Fisheries Service are not addressed in this opinion, although the short-
nosed sturgeon has been found to be jeopardized by at least one
chemical, endosulfan, in prior opinions.
12. Incidental take statements provided in this opinion address the
anticipated take from all pesticide uses that may affect listed species.
It was not considered reasonable to attempt to anticipate incidental
take for individual chemicals, combinations of these chemicals, or all
of their registered uses.
1-2
------- |