The Environmental Protection Agency's Implementation
of the Endangered Species Act with Respect to
Pesticide Registration
Prepared by
James Serfis
Richard Tinney
and
Roger E. McManus
July, 1986
Produced by the Center for Environmental Education
for the President's Council on Environmental Quality
and the Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This report was written by the Center for Environmental Education (GEE)
under contract to EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
It reviews Agency pesticide registration policy and procedure for
implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA), with respect to the
regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). CEE analyzed and evaluated specific
case studies of Agency pesticide actions associated with endangered
species from 1980 through 1984. The report includes recommendations
for changes in Agency procedures which, if implemented, could result
in more timely and effective compliance with ESA requirements.
BACKGROUND
What ESA Requires; The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that
their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any en-
dangered/threatened species. Under the ESA agencies are required
to identify potential risks and, when risks are identified, to consult
with the Department of Interior's Office of Endangered Species (OES)
to obtain a biological opinion. If the opinion establishes jeopardy
to endangered species, agencies are required to act to mitigate
risks to the affected species.
What FIFRA Requires: EPA, through FIFRA, registers all pesticides
used in the United States. Registration decisions are based upon
evidence adequate to demonstrate that a pesticide's use will not
pose unreasonable risks to people and the environment. Under the
ESA, EPA must ensure that the registered uses of pesticides in the
range of endangered/threatened species will not place the species or
their critical habitats at risk.
STUDY DESIGN
Research for the CEE report included numerous interviews with govern-
ment personnel responsible for regulatory activities regarding the
protection of endangered species and review and analysis of all the
chemical-specific consultations and generic (or use pattern) that
occurred consultations between EPA and OES during the 1980-1984
period.
RESULTS
This report identified two major problem areas associated with EPA's
implementation of the ESA under FIFRA during the period 1980-1984:
1) EPA did not take sufficient action to address risks cited
in OES opinions, this arose both from a misinterpretation of ESA
requirements by EPA and from inadequate communication within EPA
and between EPA and OES during the consultation period.
-------
=2-
2) EPA did not routinely conduct "may affect" analyses to
determine if consultation with OES was appropriate for certain
types of pesticide regulatory actions.
The report's most important recommendations are: 1) improve EPA
compliance with ESA requirements by better identifying risks to
endangered species; 2) expand the consultation process with OES?
and 3) take appropriate action to mitigate jeopardy to listed
species. Specifically, EPA should:
• Implement restrictions for products identified as posing
jeopardy in chemical-specific and generic consultations?
4 Implement pesticide container labeling to mitigate jeopardy
by developing generic product labeling to convey endangered
species precautions;
0 Improve risk identification measures by conducting more
intensive evaluation of endangered species impacts during
the registration standard process.
0 Improve the working relationship with OES by additional
sharing of information, developing alternatives to mitigate
jeopardy, and expediting the consultation process.
CONCLUSION
This study was commissioned by EPA as a critical self-examination
of how effectively EPA implements the ESA with regard to pesticide
regulation. Although improvements in EPA compliance during the
study years are documented in the report, further improvements are
needed, including the mitigation of jeopardy situations.
NOTE TO THE READER:
During and after the period covered by the CEE report, EPA initiated
numerous activities to correct problems associated with the implemen-
tation of the ESA under FIFRA. Some corrections resulted from
recommendations outlined in early drafts of the report, others were
underway when the report was being written. In order to bring the
reader up to date, a brief description of past and future changes in
Agency implementation of the ESA follows.
-------
EPA UPDATE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
UNDER FIFRA
INTRODUCTION
In August 1984, EPA commissioned the Center for Environmental
Education (CEE) to examine how effectively EPA was implementing
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in its pesticide actions. The
attached CEE report outlines specific weaknesses in EPA's
compliance with the ESA under FIFRA between 1980 and late 1984.
The report recommends several policy and procedural
modifications to enhance the Agency's ability to meet ESA
requirements. Although EPA began program modification prior
to completion of CEE's research, the report underscores the
need to implement changes promptly and to continue to mitigate
risks to endangered species. The purpose of this update is to
identify the changes EPA has initiated or will initiate to
resolve issues raised by the CEE report.
EPA'S REVIEW/CONSULTATION PROCESS
EPA reviews the impact of pesticide uses to listed species
and their habitat by conducting an endangered species risk
assessment. When EPA determines that a pesticide use pattern
"may affect" a listed species, EPA formally consults with the
Office of Endangered Species (OES) in the Department of the
Interior to determine whether or not listed species may be in
-------
-2-
jeopardy.
Each year EPA assesses potential risks to endangered species
for approximately 700 proposed new pesticide uses or changes to
existing uses (only a small percentage of the reviews result in
"may affect" determinations). While some pesticide registration
actions reviewed by EPA between 1980 and 1984 were not evaluated
for risks to endangered species, EPA now asse.sses all major
outdoor pesticide uses that have the potential to affect
endangered species.
EPA uses both case-by-case (or chemical-specific) and "cluster*
(or use pattern) approaches to assess risks to endangered species.
Case-by-Case Reviews
Prior to 1982, EPA assessed endangered species risks only
on a chemical-specific basis. Implementing mitigative measures
resulting from case—by-case reviews did not, however, adequately
protect endangered species from risks since users could shift from
a chemical identified in OES jeopardy opinions to an unreviewed
chemical that might pose an equal or greater risk to the species.
EPA has not implemented mitigative measures for all case-by-case
pesticide jeopardy opinions while others, like the 1080 toxic
collar, dicofol, and zinc phosphide, have been.
The Cluster Approach
To address this problem presented by case-by-case reviews,
EPA, in cooperation with OES, initiated the more efficient cluster
approach. Under this approach, EPA assesses all chemicals
-------
-3-
within the same use pattern together for effects on endangered
species. OES then prepares biological opinions for each cluster,
addressing all species at risk. Twelve clusters, representing
over 70% of agricultural pesticide use, were selected: corn,
cotton, soybeans, sorghum, small grains, rangelands, forests,
mosquito larvicides, non-croplands (i.e., rights of way),
aquatic herbicides, rice and alfalfa. Case-by-case reviews
continue for pesticide uses not included in any one of the
clusters.
Although completion of cluster risk assessments and
accompanying OES biological opinions is a complicated and
resource-intensive process, OES and EPA endorse the cluster
approach because it is both consistent and effective.
EPA has assessed the risk to endangered species for the
following eight clusters and has received OES biological
opinions for each: corn, cotton, soybeans, sorghum, small
grains, mosquito larvicides, forests, and rangelands. EPA's
risk assessments and OES1 biological opinions for the remaining
clusters — non-croplands, aquatic herbicides, alfalfa and
rice — will be finished in 1987.
When the Agency completes the cluster project, most
pesticides registered under Section 3 of FIFRA will have been
evaluated for risks to endangered species. All existing OES
jeopardy opinions — twelve identified in the CEE report and
seven received since 1984 — will be mitigated when all clusters
are fully implemented.
-------
-4-
IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO PRECLUDE JEOPARDY
EPA's primary mitigative measure is to restrict use of
pesticides in ranges of jeopardized species. This is
accomplished by: 1) placing a specific endangered species
statement on the product label that prohibits pesticide use in
the range of endangered species; and 2) providing users with
additional information clearly identifying ranges .of the
endangered species to be protected.
Labeling - A generic label statement will be placed on each
pesticide product determined by OES to jeopardize endangered
species. The label will warn of endangered species risks;
prohibit pesticide use in the range of endangered species; and
require users to review specific endangered species range
information. Label restrictions are legally binding under FIFRA.
Additional Information - While the generic label will prohibit
pesticide use within ranges of endangered species, those
ranges will be identified by providing users with additional
information. EPA is considering two approaches in making their
range information available to users.
The first approach is to develop Endangered Species
Information Bulletins for certain clusters or use patterns..
The appropriate bulletin would have to be obtained by affected
users before using the pesticide in listed counties. Bulletins
will be readily available through county extension agents,
state fish and game agencies, farm supply stores, and regional
-------
-5-
offices of EPA.
The other approach utilizes supplemental labeling. The
agency would use the Label Improvement Program (LIP) to require
pesticide registrants to change labels (the supplemental labeling
could be attached to pesticide products) to include affected
endangered species range maps. The LIP would be backed up by
product cancellation if registrants do not comply.
Regardless of which approach is chosen, adequate range
definition of jeopardized species has significantly slowed
development of this additional information.
EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Beginning in 1987, over 50% of species identified in
existing OES jeopardy opinions will be protected by enforceable
EPA labeling requirements. Product labeling requirements for
the remaining species determined to be in jeopardy will go
into effect in 1987.
EPA will, however, initiate an intensive public education
campaign designed to reach users of pesticide products which
jeopardize endangered species. Information about risks to
species and ways to avoid those risks will be described and
distributed to users. State agriculture and wildlife officials,
pesticide dealers, and-federal officials who will carry out
EPA's endangered species plan also will be given information
to help them explain the Agency's plan to pesticide users.
-------
-6-
EPA expects to achieve full ESA implementation for the 1988
growing season and will mitigate all existing OES jeopardy
opinions at that time. Specifically, endangered species labeling
for the forest and mosquito larvicide cluster chemicals will
be required in early 1987. Label changes for the remaining
cluster chemicals will be required later in 1987, bringing EPA
into full compliance with the ESA for the 1988 growing season.
ADDITIONAL PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS
A number of EPA program changes have been initiated to
more fully assess risks to endangered species. These include:
* Routine Endangered Species Screening - EPA now routinely
reviews all major outdoor use pesticide actions that have the
potential to affect endangered species.
0 Non-Cluster Crop Use Evaluations - EPA will evaluate pesticide
use on crops not included in the established clusters tor
endangered species risks when a chemical is undergoing
re-registration. In an effort to protect species in non-cluster
crop sites, use of pesticides posing use-specific jeopardy will
be prohibited on all crops grown in ranges cited in OES
biological opinions.
0 Emergency Actions (Section 18 actions) - EPA now reviews
all Section 18 emergency exemptions for endangered species risks,
-------
-7-
0 EPA/OES Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - EPA and OES are
negotiating a MOU, which will provide for: improved communications
during consultations; development of a common methodology to
identify both risk and workable prudent alternatives; expedited
consultations; and sharing of information sources.
0 Endangered Species Database System - EPA has developed an
Endangered Species Database System containing information on all
formal EPA/OES consultations sought since April 1980. EPA will
also use the Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species
Information System when it becomes available.
0 National Ecological Effects Monitoring Plan - EPA is developing
a fish and wildlife component for the national pesticide
monitoring plan that will assist in detecting ambient pesticide
levels which may affect endangered species and other fish and
wildlife.
0 Endangered Species Product Labeling - EPA will require labeling
to protect the endangered species included in all OES jeopardy
opinions.
In summary, EPA has initiated appropriate program modifications
to more fully assess risks to endangered species, will mitigate
risks when they are identified, and has established a reasonable
schedule to fully implement measures to preclude jeopardy in
existing OES opinions. EPA must still resolve some implementation
issues (endangered species range information). Regardless
-------
-8-
of which option is chosen, however, EPA believes that endangered
species will be adequately protected from pesticide risks
without placing undue burden on pesticide users.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
I. Study Description 1
II. Legislative Mandates and Requirements 3
A. The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Section 7 3
2. Consultation process 3
3. Exemptions 5
4. 1982 amendments and 1985 reauthorization 7
B. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 8
actions requiring Endangered Species Act consideration
III. Environmental Protection Agency's Implementation of the 14
Endangered Species Act Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
A. Case-by-case reviews
1. Current review process 14
a. general procedures
b. endangered species risk evaluations 17
c. OES consultations 19
2. Study findings for case-by-case reviews and recommendations 21
a. study findings
1. registration reviews
2. experimental use permit reviews
3. emergency exemption reviews
4. special local need registration reviews
5. re-registration
6. special reviews
b. discussion of study findings 26
B. Cluster reviews 33
1. Current review process
2. Study findings for cluster reviews and recommendations 34
C. Interaction between the Environmental Protection Agency 35
and the Office of Endangered Species
D. Monitoring pesticide poisoning incidents 37
1. Study findings and recommendations
E. Public awareness 39
1. Study findings and recommendations
-------
ZVo Summary of Recommendations
V. Appendixes
Appendix A
1. List of products for which a consultation was initiated
2. Survey of EPA actions involving endangered species
3. Detailed summaries of EPA actions involving endangered
species
Appendix B EPA Standard Operating Procedures
Appendix C Summary of endangered species considerations for
cluster reviews
Appendix 0 Summaries of pesticide poisoning - incidents
involving endangered species
Table 1 Summary of OPP/OES case-by-case endangered
species consultations from 198O through 1984
Table 2 Results of cluster analysis consultations
Table 3 Summary of pesticide poisoning incidents
involving endangered species
-------
I. Study Description
The purpose of this study is to examine the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) in relation to actions authorized by the Fed-
eral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Bodenticide Act (FZFRA). More
specifically, the study identifies methods to enhance the effec-
tiveness of the pesticide program, to correct, any deficiencies in
Agency actions, and to decrease the amount of resources needed
for effective implementation. The study concentrated on adminis-
trative procedures of the pesticide programs and not the adequacy
of toxioological testing and data required by EPA's pesticide
The ESA directs federal agencies to protect endangered and
threatened species by avoiding those actions which will jeopar-
dize "the continued existence of the species*" Although all of
EPA's actions concerning endangered and threatened species are
covered by the ESA, the study includes only those decisions
involving the regulation of pesticides.
The study focused on the consultations process between the
EPA and the Interior Department that identifies pesticide use
that may harm listed species or adversely affect their habitats.
The study sample consisted of all of the consultations completed
between April 1980 to November 1984. (A list and summary of these
cases can be found in Appendix A and Table 1.) These consulta-
tions were initiated by the Ecological Effects Branch (EEB) of
the Hazard Evaluation Division of the Office of Pesticide Pro-
grams (OPP). Although a number of consultations were completed
-------
before and after those in the study sample, the majority of all
the case-by-case consultations that have been completed by EPA
were reviewed. Earlier consultations were excluded because they
were conducted differently than later consultations, were com-
pleted by various branches within the Agency other than the EEB,
and were not well documented. Later consultations were not in-
cluded because they were still pending at the time the study was
initiate.
The major source of information were EPA documents. Other
background information was gathered from interviews with persons
from the Registration Division (ED) of EPA, the Ecological Effects
Branch (EEB) within the Hazard Evaluation Division of the Office
of Pesticide Programs of EPA, the Fish Wildlife Service (FWS). the
National Marine Fisheries Service (UMTS), congressional staff,
and non-government organizations. Infatuation on the cluster
approach was oihtvuned from TTRR documents and consisted of *n
eight of the completed clusters.
The Agency has conducted thousands of reviews of proposed
pesticide uses. As the study was limited primarily to pesticide
registration reviews subject to ESA consultations, the incidence
of reviews that should have but were not subject to consultations,
if any, is unknown.
-------
II. Legislative Mandates and Requirements
A. The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Section 7
Once a species is determined to be endangered or threatened
the Endangered Species Act provides for protection of the indivi-
duals of that species and its recovery. Among the most signifi-
cant provisions of the Act are the requirements of Section
7(a)(2) that require each federal agency to "ensure that any
action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency ... is
po^ JjJcely to jfpp^T^^ *° the goii* ^nugd a*"8 y»-oncua of any endan-
gered species or threatened species or result in the destruction
or adverse modification of habitat ... critical" to their survi-
val. As applied to pesticide regulations. Section 7 requires EPA
to:
its actions to ensure they do n
-------
The ESA requires federal agencies to:
o review their activities and identify those that night have
an effect on listed species or their habitats; and
o request, in writing, consultation with the appropriate
Service if potential adverse effects are indentified.
The Agency initiates consultation with either the FWS
or the BMFS if a marine species is involved. The purpose of
the consultation is to identify pesticide uses that may harm
llst-prl species or adversely affect their habitats. As stated in
EEA's Standard Operating Procedures for pesticide registration
activities, the consultation process serves as an early warning
that will enable the Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
to "...modify its programs or activities to eliminate possible
adverse action." The consultation process is meant to supply
advice or information. It is not a device to veto Agency actions.
Although obliged to consult, the Agency determines the appro-
priate regulatory action after the consultation is completed.
This action, however, must comply with the Act's mandate that all
federal agencies conserve endangered or threatened species and
not jeopardize their continued existence.
The request for consultation is to include all available
information on the action, and may cover more than one activity
if the activities are similar and occur within a given geograph-
ical area, administrative unit, or segment of a comprehensive
plan.
The FWS and NMFS may themselves initiate a consultation if
they identify an agency action on which no consultation has
red and the action may have an effect on a listed species or
its habitat. Amendments to the ESA in 1982 now allow a permit or
-------
license applicant or prospective pesticide registrant to initiate
consultation. The action agency nay also consult informally with
the PWS or the NMFS, but this is not a substitute for formal
consultation.
Agencies must reinitiate consultation with the Services if:
o new information shows that the activity for which a
consultation has already been conducted may affect listed
species or their habitats in such a way or degree not
contemplated by the original consultations; and
o the activity is modified, even if the modification is a
consequence of the biological opinion resulting from the
original consultation; and
o a new species is listed and that species might be
affected by the activity for which the original con-
sultation was conducted.
3. Exemptions
If the Services find that an Agency action may jeopardize
the continued survival of endangered species, the ESA provides a
process whereby the federal agency and others can apply for an
exemption from the requirements of Section 7.
To be considered for an exemption, the applicant, in addi-
tion to other criteria, must demonstrate that the consultation
was carried out in good faith, made a reasonable and responsible
offtyf^j to develop ***ri fairly consider irodif i*^***^ on? or reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the proposed action, and did not,
after initiating consultation, make any irreversible or irre-
trievable commitment of resources that would foreclose the- for-
mulation or implementation of alternatives. Only actions of
regional or national significance or of overriding benefit to the
public can be granted an exemption. The applicant, in this case a
federal agency, the Governor of the state in which the proposed
-------
action nay occur, or a person whose application for a permit or
license was denied, initiates the exemption process by applying
to the Secretary of the Interior for an exemption within 9O days
of the fir"»T action by the agency to deny the proposed activity.
cat; i on must includes
o a copy of the biological opinion concerning the activity;
o a fl*pflcrf p** ^ e*ft of the
o a description of why the action can not be modified to
avoid jeopardy to endangered species.
'Die Secretary of the Interior then has 20 days in which to
determine that the agency concerned and the exemption applicant
have:
o carried out the consultation responsibilities in good
faith;
o made a "reasonable and responsible effort" to modify the
proposed action so that endangered species would not be
o conducted any biological assessment required by the ESA;
and
o refrained from making any "irreversible or irretrievable
connitment of resources" to the proposed project.
If the Secretary makes a positive determination, he refers
the application to the Endangered Species Committee, composed of
seven members including the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secre-
tary of the Army, the Chairmen of the Council of Economic Ad-
visors, the Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of the Interior,
the Administrator of NORA, and a state member appointed by the
President. An exemption is granted if, by a vote of not less
than five of its members voting in person, if the committee
determines that:
-------
o there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
agency action;
o the benefits of such action clearly outweigh the benefits
of alternative courses of action consistent with conser-
veration of the species and its critical habitat;
o the action is of regional and national significance;
o no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources
has been made by the federal agency or the exemption
applicant;
o other reasonable mitigation sw^ onham «unumt' measures are
ablished to minimize the adverse effects of the action*
No exemptions have ever been granted.
4. 1982 amendments and 1985 reauthorization
During the 1982 reauthorization, the Act was amended
in a number of significant ways. First, Congress reaffirmed
that the economic costs of protecting species were not to be
considered in determining whether they would be designated
as endangered or threatened. The Act specifies that the Services
are to determine that a species is endangered or threatened
through a regulatory process that does not consider the economic
costs resulting from such protection*
Other modifications to the Act provide for prospective per-
mit or license applicants to become directly involved in the
consultation process. For example, an individual wishing to reg-
ister a pesticide for a specific use who believes his registra-
tion may be affected by endangered species considerations,
may initiate consultation between the Agency and the Services.
Prior to the 1982 amendments the ESA required that consultations
be concluded within 9O days or within such other time period that
the Agency and the Services agreed. The new amendments also
require that the Services notify applicants before the 9Oth day
-------
if they and the Agency intend to extend the consultation up to
ISO days. The consent of the applicant is needed, prior to the
90th day, before consultation can be expanded to ISO days or
more*
At the time of this writing the 1985 reauthorization of the
ESA is still pending. The House of Representatives has: agreed to
increase funding, to establish new rules to protect sea otters.
and to extend protection to species that have not been determined
by regulation to be endangered or threatened but have been iden-
tified by the Services as likely candidates for such determina-
tions. The Senate has not voted on its reauthorization bill.
While it is uncertain what changes to the ESA will be adopted by
Congress during this rgTMtnoT** ^^IT, none of the amendments
proposed to date ara likely to affect EBA's current obligations
under the Act with respect to the regulation of pesticides.
B« Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodgn*'' <*f <^»» Act (FXFRA)
requiring Endangered Species Act consideration
As summarized by a recent EPA pamphlet: "EEA registers
specified uses of pesticide products on the basis of both safety
and benefits. FIFRA requires EPA to determine whether a pesti-
cide can pei £01 m its intended function without causing, 'unreason-
able adverse effects' upon human health or the environment -while
talcing into account the rx?£ w^ ^ a i T>?nff'fi'*'j? of the proposed- use*"
Nevertheless, the legislative and litigation history of the
ESA demonstrates that the routine procedures for pesticide regis-
tration, which involve balancing of cost and benefits, are over-
ridden by the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the Act. EPA's
actions to register pesticides and otherwise license their use,
8
-------
including experimental use permits, emergency exemptions, and
special local need registrations, are subject to the consultation
procedures prescribed by Section 7. Pesticides cannot be regis-
tered for uses that would jeopardize the continued existence of a
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat.
The core of the FIFRA pesticide regulation process is the
"registration" of pesticides under Section 3 of FIFRA. Registra-
tion is the equivalent of granting a license. The license is a
limited one, however, as registrations are granted subject to
sets of standards, conditions, and restrictions specified on the
label of the pesticide. Applicants who wish to register a new
pesticide are required to submit information to EPA, including,
among other things, the name of the pesticide, its chemical for-
mula, a statement of all claims made for it, and a full descrip-
tion of all the tests, together with their results, upon which.
the claims are made.
The tests are required by EPA to demonstrate that the pesti-
cide will perform its intended function without unreasonable
adverse effects when used in accordance with commonly.recognized
prapfrjpBt While EPA has guidelines r*yr?n|inor|<^'' "g specific testing
methods, alternate methods are acceptable so long as basic data
requirements are «*•*•-*< *f* *>*- These tests, and the review of them
and other data from the applicant, are done in conjunction with
applications for registrations involving new active ingredients,
new uses for an already registered pesticide, and changes in the
the p^gtici^0'? formulation, method of appi Irw^lrru or rate of
use.
-------
Section 3 of FIFRA also requires EPA to review past pest-
icide registrations and to update and improve the base of scien~
tific data supporting their registered uses. This is known as re-
registration. In the event substantial data gaps are discovered
in the course of conducting these reviews, EPA may grant con-
ditional registrations in lieu of suspending the registration of
previously registered products or uses. Conditional registra-
tions are granted contingent upon the registrant submitting addi-
tional data on a schedule set by EPA. This re-registration
process is intended to bring older registrations, accepted with
fewer data requirements, into compliance with the new standards
that apply to current registrations.
FIFRA sets out a number of provisions creating exceptions to
the Section 3 registration process. These are the experimental
use permits authorized by Section 5 of FIFRA, emergency exemp-
tions under Section IS, and special local need registrations
under Section 24(c).
Experimental use permits (EUFs) are intended to allow the
applicant to test the efficacy and properties of pesticides under
field conditions* They may be granted only for research neces-
sary for the accumulation of information needed to support a
registration under Section 3. EPA is authorized to set condi-
tions, terms, and time of use restrictions for the EUP.
Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes emergency exemptions from the
Section 3 registration requirement. This authority was granted
in r"< x.xji i tli iffn that occasionally g^riffliff infestations of pests
-------
health, or crises exemptions. One type of specific exemption is
granted in situations where it is necessary to avert a signifi-
cant risk to endangered and threatened species. Emergency ex-
emptions are granted to state or federal agencies to allow them
to use such pesticides, subject to restrictions set by EPA, to
control or prevent the infestation. An exemption is authorized
only after meeting several conditions, one of them being that the
i.vy» of the pesticide under exemption will not cause, according to
EPA regulations, "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment
ion 24(c) allows individual states to provide registra-
tions for afMTt^ionai naoe of federally registered
beyond those uses for which the federal registration has been
granted. These state registrations are intended to address
special local needs. No special local need registration may be
granted for any use which has been denied, disapproved, or can-
celled by EPA. A special local need registration is the equiva-
lent of a full Section 3 registration, but only within the bor-
ders of the state granting the registration. After a state has
granted a special local need registration the EPA has 9O days in
which to disapprove it.
A 1982 congressional report on the EPA's pesticide regula-
tory process found that the Agency had significantly increased
the rate of issuance of emergency exemptions and Special Local
Needs registrations. Requirements for granting these registra-
tions were much less stringent than Section 3 registrations and
endangered species concerns were not routinely addressed* In
1985, EPA placed greater limitations on granting emergency exemp-
-------
tions, whereby these are only issued in true emergency situa-
tions. Requirements for Special Local Needs registrations, how-
ever, have not changed, and therefore, endangered species con-
cerns for pesticide use under such actions could go unidentified.
Emergency exemptions and Special Local Nooda registrations
are designed to expedite the registration process in an effort
to address localized pest management emergency needs or unique
pest control situations. Both types of registration are designed
to address g*p*»yn*?ndc3 that may need foflinpyili ft**? attention* Con*"
sultations often take longer to conduct than the existing need for
the registration (ie. consultation time can exceed the growing
geqsm or pest damage may occur before application can be proces-
sed) and, therefore, can slow the registration process to the
point that these remedial actions are ineffective.
Another regulation pertinent to endangered species concerns
is special review. This review, originally «-S»TI<»H the Rebuttable
Presumption Against Registration, is a mechanism to expedite de-
cisions by ERA. to either remove a registered pesticide product
from the market, or restrict its use, if new information in-
dicates that its '!«?*» may be a pofagii*!**^ hazard to the public
health or environment. According to EPA. regulations, the criteria
for initiating a review are triggered when it is determined that
the use of a pesticide:
o may pose a risk of serious acute injury to humans or
animals
o may pose a risk of inducing in humans an cncogenic,
teratogenic, fetotoxic, reproductive effect, or a chronic
or delayed toxic effect;
o nay pose a risk of inducing a mutagenic effect in humans
based on appropriate test systems or epidemiological data.
12
-------
nay result in residues or other degradation products in
the environment of non-target organisms at levels acutely
or chronically toxic to such organisms or which have been
determined to cause reproductive effects in such organism;
may pose a risk to the continued existence of any endan-
gered or threatened species or may result in the destruc-
tion or other adverse modification of any of their habitat.
13
-------
III. Environmental Protection Agency's Implementation of the
Endangered Species Act Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
A. Case-by-case reviews
1. Current review process
a> general procedures
EPA regulations <3og«**"ita«» the prooyJ''nrQ9 for processing" ap-
plications for registration. Most of this process is adminis-
tered by the Registration Division of EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs. Each pesticide product is assigned to a team headed by
a Product Manager that generally handles all actions relating to
that product including registration, amendments to registration,
resUbmissions, renewals, 3md <^»p<^«»i l**** j/y? ap<3 suspensions. The
regulations cite that experimental use permits are not processed
by the team, but in practice managers do process these permits.
The teams do not handle matters such as enforcement of use re-
strictions, but even in these matters the Product Manager is kept
informed of actions relating to the product for which he is re-
sponsible*
When an application is received by EPA, a copy of it is
returned to the applicant as an acknowledgement. EPA publishes a
notice of the application for a new or amended registration in
the Federal Register if the pgs*"*cid
-------
meriting regulations. The application is further reviewed to
determine whether the product can reasonably be expected to
result in any level of residue on food or feed when used as
directed, whether it is effective for the uses claimed and the
directions for use are both practical and adequate, and whether
the label contains the necessary precautions to adequately pre-
vent unr*M^gnpahi o injury to humans* t?^p°fi ci ^ T animals/ ^p^ the
environment.
Once these reviews are completed, the Product Manager noti-
fies the applicant of any deficiencies in the data or product
label. The application may be denied if the pesticide product is
determined to be ineffective (this requirement can be, and usually
is, waived), is misbranded (e^. if the label is misleading,
lacks the necessary directions or precautions, or is an imitation
of another pesticide), if the test data submitted in support of
the application does not comply with the requirements of FIFRA,
or if the pesticide will not perform its intended functions
without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, and
other reasons. An application will also be denied if there are
insufficient data to make the required determinations. Appli-
cants are informed of the pending denial of their applications
and given 3O days to correct the applications or to petition for
its withdrawal.
The Registration Division (RD) will grant a conditional
registration if the data and label are adequate and in compliance
with FIFRA and Agency regulations. The rnnrii floral registration
assigns a registration number to the pesticide product, outlines
any necessary label changes, and requests that the «r»i printed
15
-------
label, containing the necessary changes, be submitted to EPA.
After the final printed label is submitted, RD will review
it. If the label is acceptable, RD informs the applicant by
letter and publishes a notice of approval of the registration in
the Federal Register. The use becomes authorized on the date of
the approval letter and remains effective for five years.
In the course of processing applications for various reg*-
istration actions the Hazard Evaluation Division determines whether
the use of the pesticide, in accordance with customary practices,-
will result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.
EPA has developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to pre-
scribe procedures for this process. (A copy of this document can
be found in Appendix B)
The SOP specifies that in ai i instances of aFFt ica** •* .***«? for
registration under FIFRA Section 3 for new chemicals for outdoor
uses, RD is to refer the applications to the EEB of the Hazard
Evaluation Division (HED). New chemicals for indoor use are not
referred to EEB. Most new outdoor uses of previously registered
chemicals are referred to EEB, depending on the Product Manager's
evaluation of the need for an incremental risk assessment.
Supplemental registrations and the so-called "me too" minor
change amendments to product registrations normally are not re-
ferred to EEB, except for changes in products intended for use as
, aouatic Tior^3J-Ci.
-------
determines appropriate for referral.
Requests for emergency exemptions are evaluated by the Emer-
gency Response Team to determine the necessity of an EEB review,
such as in the case of a new use pattern which EEB has not
already reviewed. Special Local Need registration requests are
reviewed by the Product Manager to determine whether the re-
gistration poses an environmental threat.
Importantly, applications for registration are not all -routinely
referred to raR- Since EEB does not review all applications there
is a possibility that some adverse effects to endangered species
may be overlooked.
b. endangered species risk evaluations
All EEB evaluations, regardless of the type of registration,
are to be handled in essentially the same way through guidelines
set in Standard Operating Procedures. With respect to endangered
and threatened species, the procedures are designed to determine
whether any listed species is likely to be exposed to the pesti-
cide and whether the exposure will have any effect on. the listed
species or its environment. These determinations are to be made
through a review of the distribution of protected species and
examination of toxicological ^a-t-q submitted by the applicant as.
part of the ^ppl i cation.
uses UD5O or LC5O extrapolations to assess the
threat to endangered and threatened species. A pesticide is
considered potentially detrimental to such species when it ex-
ceeds a specific criterion. These criterion, referred -to as
triggers, are tripped when the chemical exceeds 1/lOth.the
mammalian ID5O or LC5O, 1/lOth the avian LD5O or I£5O, or l/2Oth.
17
-------
the aquatic LD5O or LC5O. For granular pesticides, the trigger
for avian species is the number of granules required to reach
1/lOth the ID5O. This trigger is not considered serious if the
number of granules required to reach the 1/lOth mark is more than
an avian species would normally ingest. There are no specific
triggers for endangered plant species; however, a herbicide is
considered to be a prt^Trtirri threat whenever its use occurs in
the habitat of endangered plant species.
If TERR determines that a pggt-'»
-------
c. QES consultations
Upon receiving a request far a consultation, the Services
conduct an examination of the proposed action to determine
whether it is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or to result in destruction or adverse modifica-
tion of its habitat. The Services traditionally have made use of
their own information and data for implementing their responsi-
bilities under the ESA, however, it is the Agency's responsi-
bility to provide any additional data or information needed for
the consultation. EPA can seek data and information from external
sources, including from the applicant.
Prior to 1984 the FWS conducted consultations in the Office
of Endangered Species (QES) in Washington, D.C. Now consultations
are usually conducted in the regional offices where endangered
species habitat and proposed pesticide use overlap. Only one
pesticide-related consultation to date has involved NMFS.
The Services have 9O days, from the time of initation,
to complete the consultations. Time extensions may be granted,
but are limited to 149 days unless the applicant gives consent
to a longer period. This consent must be sought prior to the end
of the initial 9O-day period.
At the conclusion of a consultation, the Services are re-
quired to provide the Agency with a written opinion detailing how
the Agency action will affect the species or its critical habi-
tat. If the action will jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or will adversely alter the species' habitat, the Ser-
vices are required to identify "reasonable and prudent alterna-
19
-------
tives" which they believe "would not violate subsection (a)(2)
and can be taken by the Federal agency or applicant in. irople~
nenting the agency action."
Once the consultation has been completed and the biological
opinion issued, it is the responsibility of the Agency to deter-
mine what action it will take. The Services do not have veto
power over the proposed actions. Specifically, a federal agency
must determine whether it will proceed with the activity in light,
of its obligations under Section 7 of the ESA. to Insure that Its
activities do not jeopardize listed species or their habitats.
While it is each agency's responsibility to comply with Section
7, -die courts have given great weight to the biological opinions
of the Services in determining the effects of agency actions on
endangered and threatened species. The firm opinion of the
expert wildlife agency is given a presumption of validity, unless
the consulting agency is able to produce overriding evidence in
rebuttal.
For example, certain aspects of a new segment of a highway
in Mississippi were enjoined by a federal court until .changes
were made so that the FWS could reach a no-jeopardy opinion,
despite the court's observations that the act-ing agency has the
^rmi say on whether it has taken all necessary actions to ensure
that it will not jeopardize endangered species or their habitat.
Clearly this is no problem if the FWS or the NMFS issues a "no
jeopardy" opinion, but if there is a finding of jeopardy, the
agency must carefully assess its options.
If the Services issue biological opinions finding jeopardy,
the Agency SOP identifies several regulatory options for Registra-
20
-------
tion Division Product Managers. These regulatory options include,
but are not limited to, the following:
of the p^sticldft as a restricted use
pesticide;
o labeling restrictions to mitigate jeopardy to endangered
species;
o clarification of the reasonable and prudent alterna-
tives with QES;
o involvement of the registrant to seek means to avert
exposure of listed species (ie. alteration in the use
pattern, restriction of the pesticide to specific
sites only, and/or use by certified applicators only);
o field studies to demonstrate possible safe usage at pre-
scribed label rates using indicator species closely related
to the listed species of concern; or
o refer to special review procedures and cancellation if
necessary.
2. Study findings on case-by-case reviews and recommendations
The following section describes the case-by-case consulta-
tions completed between 198O and 1984.
a. Study findings
The investigation revealed that the FWS determined that
endangered species would be in jeopardy in 27 of the 39 con-
sultations reviewed. In all but one of the jeopardy opinions, the
Service detailed alternatives that the Agency could take to avoid
harm to endangered species. In 12 of the 39 cases (31%), the
Agency did not properly comply with ESA requirements or its
corresponding Standard Operating Procedures. These 12 cases in-
volved 1O jeopardy consulations, 1 no jeopardy consultation, and
one pesticide registration for which a consultation was not
completed.
21
-------
Specifically, these 12 consultations were not in compliance
because:
- 6 registrations were granted before a consultation was
completed,
- 5 registrations did not include QES recommendations in the
product label, and
- 1 registration was granted without a consultation.
OES did not. complete nine of the case-by-case consultations
within the 9O=day tine period for conducting consultations*
although EEB did not grant OES tine-extensions. On average,, these
nine consultations were late by two and a half months* Although
this study did not review consultations initiated after November
1984 in detail, available data suggests that delays in completing
consultations are increasing, sometimes by as much as one year.
According to EEB personnel, these delays are a result of the
procedural change by FWS to complete consultations at regional
field offices instead of its Washington office. Delays of any
length can hinder or disrupt the process of pesticide registration.
During the FWS's l^^^<^>i of the 39 ir^n^nl >»** j onq nine ex—
were rgqBiggtgl « These
-------
The following sections review the specific findings con-
ing the case-by-case registration of pesticides. These re-
views are divided into categories taken from the larger study
sample, (note that regulatory actions described in consultations
as label amendments, amendment reviews, reevaluation, and evalua-
tion are discussed below as registration reviews.)
1. registration reviews
The study sample included a total of 3O applications for
registration that involved consultations with the Office of En-
dangered Species regarding possible or potential jeopardy to
ligj-ofi species. Of the 3O, 23 resulted in jeopardy findings
and 6 resulted in no jeopardy findings. In addition, one case
never went beyond the informal consultation stage so no finding
of any kind was made.
In 11 of the 30 registration cases (37%), the Agency did not
properly comply with ESA requirements or its corresponding Standard
Operating Procedures. Specifically, these 11 registration cases were
not in compliance because:
- 5 registrations were accepted before a consulation was
sted.
- 5 registrations did not include OES recommendations on the
product label,
- 1 registration was accepted without a consultation.
Since this study limited its analysis to chemicals for which
consultations were initiated, the set of chemicals for which con-
sultation was warranted, but not initiated, is undefined.. The
failure to complete a consultation for this last case .raises the
en that EEB has not initiated consultations on pesticide
GUHUBC.
usage when necessary: however, analysis of ran and KD information
23
-------
revealed only one product for which consultations should.have
been initiated but were not. (see Appendix A under Lasso).
2. experimental use permit reviews
Five endangered species reviews were completed for experi-
mental use permits. None of these reviews resulted in findings of
jeopardy to listed species. The study revealed no compliance
problems with the five permit reviews. Although no problems were
identified, there is a potential for some risks to go.undetected
since EUP's are not routinely examined for endangered species risks.
3. emergency exemption reviews
An EPA memorandum dated December 5, 1979 asserts that the
applicant, either a federal agency or governor of a state, is
responsible for ensuring that the pesticide used under an emer-
gency exemption is not applied in areas where endangered species
would be negatively affected. Negative effects include a toxic
exposure of a pesticide to the species or a disruption due to the
pesticide in the habitat or food supply on which the species
depends. While it is the applicant that must ensure that a pesti-
cide does not negatively affect an endangered species, the Depart-
ment of the Interior Office of the Solicitor has issued, an
opinion that the Agency is ultimately responsible for -implement-
ing Section 7, and that this responsibility cannot be.delegated
to regional, state, or local authorities. The Agency memorandum
also states that prior to applying for an emergency exemption,
state and federal agencies must consult with local state fish and
wildlife agencies and must submit information about the.pesticide
to be used. According to EPA regulations, decisions regarding an
24
-------
application for an exemption are to be made in a "timely manner".
Such a decision could be delayed because of the consultation
process. These delays could conceivable hinder the usefulIness of
the emergency exemptions.
The only emergency exemption that was reviewed for consulta-
tions was found to be in compliance with all EPA and ESA provisions.
4. special local need registration reviews
No special local need registration reviews have resulted in
consultations with CES concerning possible jeopardy to listed
species.
5. re-registration
An examination of currently registered pesticides is man-
dated by Section 3 of the FTFRA. This examination considers the
health and environmental safety of previously registered prod-
ucts. The ro-registration process has been conducted by reviewing
the active ingredients and use patterns of different pesticides,
rather than product by product. Once the review is completed, the
agency establishes conditions to be met before re-registering the
product. These conditions are compiled in a Registration Standard
which is also used to register new pesticide products.
The process of ro-registration is not addressed specifically
in the SOP. But it is assumed that much of the process essen-
tially parallels the procedures for case-by-case consultations.
Two re-registration cases were considered for consultation. One
of the two was not in compliance because:
- the registration standard was completed before the
consultation could determine jeopardy or no-jeopardy.
25
-------
6. special reviews
One special review was considered in a consultation. This
review was found to be in compliance with the provisions of ESA
and EPA
b« Discussion of study findings
One major finding is the number of actions subject to
jeopardy opinions for which appropriate regulatory action has
not been taken. The Service identified regulatory optionse other
than cancellation, which could have been implemented. -Restrictive
labeling to avoid jeopardy has not been implemented for approxi-
mately one-third of the jeopardy opinions issued for the case-by-
case reviews.
The procedures most often recommended by the FWS are re-
quirements to prohibit or restrict the use in specific counties.
In response to CES jeopardy opinions, the Agency initiated only
one special review. This review was on dieofbl, for which the
biological opinion stated that use limitations could not mitigate
jeopardy and recommended cancellation. Jeopardy was associated
with EOT contamination.
The Agency did not respond to any of the jeopardy opinions
by classifying products as "Restricted-Use". Restricted-Use -clas-
sification requires that products be applied by trained certified
applicators or those under their supervision. Such regulatory
action may be appropriate when risk mitigating measures allow the
continued use of a product within a species habitat. For example,
a pgs*r ^fjj, A»* g use during certain times of the year or on certain
crops may be allowed under a biological opinion. A well-informed,
trained applicator is more likely to follow label directions for
26
-------
such use than an applicator which is not trained.
The Agency rarely designates products for restricted use
only or invokes special reviews. Despite the delays and failure
by the Agency to implement the labeling changes recommended by
the FWS, Agency personnel explained to the investigators that the
two procedures have not been utilized with regard to endangered
species because they would not reduce a product's use in a timely
fashion.
If the Agency desires to apply for an exemption, it will be
difficult to argue that it acted in good faith or did not make
irreversible or irretriveable commitments of resources in these
and many other cases where registration actions were implemented
without measures to mitigate risks identified in CES jeopardy
opinions. In some cases, the Agency approved registration
applications before endangered species consultation for those
actions were complete.
Many of the Service's opinions identify clear threats to
protected species and identify precise actions the Agency can
take to avoid jeopardy. If the Agency disagrees with jeopardy
opinions or believes the Service could improve its identification
of reasonable and prudent alternatives, the SOP provides that it
can initiate discussions to resolve those issues as soon as
possible. The Agency is at serious risk from citizen lawsuit if
it continues to delay in complying with the ESA. The results of
such litigation cannot be predicted with confidence, but the
litigation history of the ESA strongly suggests a ruling against
the Agency that would adversely affect current registrations and
27
-------
disrupt Agency regulations and procedures.
EPA has felt the consequences of failure to comply with the
ESA in other contexts. For example, in Pacific Legal Foundation
vs. Clark (539 F. Supp. 841, C.D. Cal. 1982) a non-profit organ-
ization sued to block the granting of Clean Water Act sewage
project construction funds, asserting that EPA had failed to seek
jeopardy opinions on certain sewage projects in the Los Angeles
area. The court enjoined EPA from granting the funds until they
complied with the ESA, In another case, Roosevelt Campobello
International Peace Park Comm. vs. U.S. E.P.A. (684 F.2d 1O41,
1st Cir. 1982), the court enjoined EPA from awarding a NPDES
permit for the proposed Pittston, Maine, oil refinery until
certain jeopardy-related studies were completed. As the Supreme
Court observed in the Tellico Dam Case (TVA vs. Hill, 437 U.S*
153, 185 1978), as it brought the $100 million project to a halt.
Congress explicitly dggld^d to require agencies to afford first
priority to the declared national policy of saving endangered
species, even over the primary missions of the agencies.
A critical step in ensuring that the pesticide registration
process is in compliance with the ESA is the determination, of
when a registration should be subject to a consultation .with-the
-FWS or NMFS. As noted in the study description, the focus of this
study on the consultation records did not allow for a thorough
analysis of the incidence of failure to initiate consultations
when warranted. However, the study identified that one product
posing po^qn^ial risk was subject to consultation regulations but
was not consulted on. (see lasso summary in Appendix section A).
For most of this product's new uses, EEB was aware of potential
28
-------
problems for endangered speci.es* This example appears to violate
statutory and regulatory requirements of the ESA.
Die study identified that the information base, used in
deciding when to initiate consultation, could be improved. This
information could include such basic A*^ as the distribution,
behavior, and biology of endangered species, as well as a current
list of species protected by the Act. These considerations, and
the need for a data base to aid all federal agencies in the
consultation process, has prompted the FWS to develop an Endan-
gered Species Information System (ESIS). The system is designed
to consider specific pesticide regulation needs, and is acces-
sible by computer terminals using modems. When the data base is
completed, it could meet most of EPA's endangered species needs,
eliminating a duplicative effort by the Agency.
As a result of the study and the findings concerning the
Agency review of proposed new uses and existing uses, the follow-
ing recommendations are made:
Jeopardy Opinions
While recognizing the difficulty of restricting pesticide
use, either for practical or political reasons, the Agency is
responsible for ensuring registrations do not violate Section 7
of the ESA and must find a mechanism to control uses when their
impact may be detrimental to endangered species. The following
reocmnendation is therefore made:
o the Agency should take immediate steps to cancel or modify
registration standards issued inconsistently with jeopardy
opinions. If the Agency disagrees with opinions or reason-
able and prudent alternatives it should confer with the Fish
and Wildlife Service as soon as possible.
Screening Process
In an effort to ensure that all endangered species risks are
appropriately identified, and that when necessary, consultations
are appropriately initiated:
29
-------
o all applications for outdoor registration should be routinely
referred to EEB for screening. Such applications include _ routine
new use and new chemical registrations , experimental use permits f
emergency exemptions, and Special Local Needs Registrations. Re-
registrations should also be routinely screened for endangered
species concerns -
Registrations
One important trend identified in a 1982 congressional study
on EPA's pesticide regulatory program was the increasing ' use
allowed under Section IS and 24. Rules proposed in the .Federal.
Register on April 8, 1985 have made Section 18 requirements
stricter. According to a staff report issued from this-_study,
Section 24 registrations place greater responsibility: on-jstate
regulations, and "irvTrg8**?** the chances of
adverse environmental and .wildlife impacts." Perhaps even, more
importantly, ESA does not allow delegation of federal. n
sibility to the states. To enhance protection of endangered
species under Section 18 and 24, the following is recomroened:
o the Agency should review its policies concerning
delegation of its ESA Section 7 responsibilities to
other federal and state agencies for FIFRA Section
24(c) Special Local Need registrations to ensure it
is in compliance with the ESA.
o the Agency should adopt written policies to ensure
protection of endangered and threatened species during
special local need registrations.
o in an effort to resolve conflicts between registration
dearil inea and time needed for consultation, the Agency
should negotiate with OES for an expedited consultation
process or, if it appears that a jeopardy opinion is
likely to be issued, consider denying the application.
General Procedures
To correct 'foyfici^ncj^g in its pr|oc^d'T|*g3 jgurj to ensure
their effective implementation the Agency should review and re-
vise the current SOP (and, as necessary, governing regulations).:
o to Trrlrg Agency procedures into compliance with the
requirements of the ESA as amended. For example, amend-
ments concerning the applicants role in time extensions
should be incorporated into the current SOP.
O tO gS^^frl j °h T°n"'i T'fyn^p+'ff for
administrative records of ESA Section 7 consultations
to assure effective monitoring of the process.
to establish clear standards and procedures for imple-
menting reasonable and prudent alternatives.
30
-------
o to require EEB to notify the Services of its response
to jeopardy opinions and the identified reasonable and
prudent alternatives.
o to clarify when a Special Review is to be initiated be-
cause of endangered species concerns.
Information Sources
To improve the EPA's data base the following recommendation
is made:
o the Agency should adopt the EWS Endangered Species
Information System when completed and make it available
to EPA Staff.
Labeling Requirements
The SOP provides that labeling can be used to restrict use if
Product Managers determine that labeling is adequate to implement
reasonable and prudent alternatives. Labeling for endangered
species concerns has not been uniform between different products
and has not clearly defined requirements for use. Recognizing
that the Agency has conducted reviews of its labeling require-
ments with respect to endangered species we recommend the follow-
ing:
o the agency should complete its reviews, determine stand-
ards fjcr labeling to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives, and implement such standards as soon as
possible to prevent jeopardy to the continued existence
of listed species and to avoid adverse modification of
their habitats.
At present, the most effective means for controlling the use
of pesticides that may jeopardize protected species or .adversely
modify their habitats appears to be use restrictions placed on
label instructions. Adherence to restrictions by users is depen-
dent of their having readily available information about the
product. This information is not currently available on -many of
the labels for pesticide use subject to jeopardy opinions .from
the EWS. Users of pesticides would be better informed and-better
able to comply with use restrictions if they had the following
kinds of information included on the label;
o precise information concerning geographic locations and
times where use is prohibited to avoid jeopardy;
o a warning that protected species may occur in other loca-
tions at other times and that the use is also restricted
under such circumstances;
o information concerning applicator liability in the event
their use of the pesticide results in the taking of an
endangered species or threatened species.
31
-------
o the telephone number of the Agency's Pesticide Service
Center Hotline or another SCO number where additional
information nay be obtained or where to report suspected
poisonings of protected species.
Recognizing that the container label is limited in size,
additional information would help the ^ppl icafror comply with
use restrictions and help satisfy the Agency's obligations under
Section 7 of the ESAs brochures could be made available from the
Services, the Agency, the USDA Extension Service, appropriate
state agencies, and pesticide dealers. Such brochures could
include:
o ^at-a-n^H information on geographic restrictions;
O ayM *^» ^fstffi \ \n fiji]ie\+I'\ f^ QJJ ftfflfpncy giyj applicator
under the ESA;
o potential hazards of pesticides to wildlife and proper
application techniques?
o names and telephone numbers of federal or state
government endangered species specialists Iran whom
a/M'f •h'jipnai guidance can be o^^aingd and to whom the
reader can report suspected incidents of endangered
or threatened species poisonings; and
o the telephone number of the Center Hotline or other a SCO
number i*> »*•» which a«M<»
-------
B. Cluster reviews
1. Current review process
In 1982 the Ecological Effects Branch of the Hazard Evalua-
tion Division undertook a project to improve the review process
for pesticides that affect endangered and threatened species (A
summary of these cases may be found in Appendix C and Table 2).
This project, which has come to be Known as "the cluster ap-
proach," was developed in response to several problem* inherent
in the case-by-case approach to reviews that had been conducted
up to that time.
The primary problem with the case-by-case approach is that
pesticides that had been through the review process were con-
sidered to be at a market disadvantage to those that had not been
through the process since the review process tended to result in
label restrictions on reviewed pesticides — restrictions that
were not borne by unreviewed pesticides. Additionally, indivi-
dual pesticides, considered separately, sometimes received incon-
sistent treatment leading to different label restrictions for
identical use patterns.
Finally, in use patterns involving several pesticides that
could have effects on endangered or threatened species, the
affected species would not be protected from the effects of the
pesticides until the last pesticide in the use pattern was re-
viewed and the label restrictions implemented. All of these
problems combined to produce an incentive to change the review
approach of pesticides used on a particular crop or site*
The cluster approach was initiated to alleviate these pro-
blems. In this approach, all pesticides with the same use pattern
33
-------
are considered together. The FWS reviews all of the
registered for a particular major crop or use pattern and pre-
pares a biological opinion addressing all listed species that
might be affected by those pesticides. In this way, more products
can be reviewed in comparison to the slower process of- case-by-
case analysis, and therefore more endangered species problems.
be
2. Study findings for cluster reviews and recommendations
The crops and uses covered in the completed cluster
analysis include corn, cotton, soybeans, sorghum, MMII
grains, forestry uses, and mosquito larvicide. Although the
cluster consultations were completed in 1983 and 1984, QES
mendations have not been implemented for any of the clusters.
Once the biological opinion is rendered for a cluster,
appropriate label restrictions are to be developed. As currently
planned, the format for these label restrictions would, be an
Endangered Species Bulletin that would be available from a county
extension agent, state fish and wildlife agencies, regional
offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service, or through a toll free
number. The container label would refer the user to the appro-
priate Bulletin depending upon the use pattern of thet pesticide.
These bulletins would outline all restrictions and prohibitions.
Although the cluster approach may identify those pesticides
that are the most threatening in terms of their relative toxici-
ties, and exposure potential to endangered species with respect
to major crop uses, it does not address minor uses of these
pesticides. This approach may result in restricting one use for
one crop in the habitat of an endangered species, while allowing
34
-------
its use on another crop in the sane geographic region.
Another problem is that the cluster approach has been sub-
ject to delays of up to two to three years. The amount of work
Involved in completing the cluster project, bath during the
stage and labeling fm. ii"*i atl
-------
During the course of the consultation, OES may ask for informa-
tion and data concerning the specific action.
Either ras or EPA nay ask to reinitiate a previously
completed consultation. Reinitiation is requested if new informa-
tion concerning the product use has been found since the con-
sultation.
The study identified several cases in which, even after
several requests from FWS, the EPA had consistently failed to
communicate to FWS what action was taken concerning the consulta-
tions. In addition, according to EPA personnel, the "55 has
reversed several jeopardy opinions forcing EPA to withdraw pro-
posals for product cancellations. It is in the interest of both
agencies for the Service to know what actions have been taken to
respond to jeopardy opinion and reasonable and prudent -alterna-
tives identified by the Services. Many problems result, from the
-------
0. Monitoring of pgg** ici^° poisoning incidents
1. Study findings and '**««nnMnrfcvH rmn
The use of pesticides must be monitored to ensure that the
use does not cause harm to endangered species* Harmful effects
due to pesticide use may arise regardless of precautions taken
during registration. These effects could be the result of over-
sights during the registration process, the dynamic nature of
endangered species* or an unforeseen property of the pesticide*
Monitoring encourages compliance and enforcement of use restric-
tions and ensures that endangered species concerns are addressed
during the registration process. Monitoring is therefore a neces-
sary part of revising a pesticide's use so that it will.-not .be
detrimental to endangered species. Moreover, a national plan for
monitoring pesticides is required by Section 2O of FIFRA.
The study identified that EPA. had no system of collecting
such information, with the exception of use of NMFS's mussel
reports, or of making incident data available to GPP personnel
for their administration of FIFRA. Neither is it apparent that
there is a systematic program to make CPP staff aware of pub-
lished accounts of such data in the scientific literature. OFF
personnel seem unaware of any established mechanism fan-reporting
pesticide poisonings that may resul£ from misuse of the products.
The study also revealed that current planning for establishing a
national monitoring plan did not substantively address wildlife,
including endangered or threatened species. A number of programs.
administered by FWS and NMFS could be used by EPA for --monitoring
purposes. For example, the FWS's Environmental Contaminant Eval-
uation Program monitors trends in levels of contaminants in fish
37
-------
and wildlife. The FWS also investigates wildlife and endangered
species mortalities that may have been caused by pesticide -con~
The investigators found no indication that EPA had taken
enforcement action on the poisoning of endangered or threatened
species. In fact, personnel from the Office of Compliance Mon-
itoring were unaware of any cases involving endangered or threat-
ened species. When questioned about incidents of poisonings (Sum-
maries of these p?i.9r?n7iMg ^yv*^<3on»a can be found in Apprx^* D
and Table 3)r FWS field personnel were unaware, with the excep-
tion of one case, of what action EPA had taken. In that excep-
tion, EPA knew of the reported deaths of brown pelicans in Puerto
Rico but did not investigate these deaths or take any -action.
Once the EPA becomes aware of poisoning incidents, the-
Agency should initiate an investigation, consult with OES on the.
implicated pgg**1/*'v^<*f and, if it determines that the
existence of a listed species is at risk or its habitat may be
destroyed or adversely modified, initiate a special review.
The Agency could aid in specific enforcement efforts for viola-
tions of the ESA by identifying FWS and NMFS offices to which
the public ryTul*? report poisoning incidents.
Monitoring Pesticide Poisoning Incidents
The following is recommended so that pesticide incidents
will be properly reviewed:
o the Agency should identify FWS and NMFS offices that
should receive reports of endangered or threatened
species poisonings and establish procedures for staff to,
direct the public to those offices. These two actions. will
help ensure that the Agency will meet the requirements of
Section seven. This information could be provided to the
Pesticide Service Center Hotline or the 800 number, and
could be added to the endangered species brochures and
38
-------
product labels. Better use of the existing enforcement
current system could also include exchange of information
between different agencies. Also the procedures for re-
viewing incidents should be incorporated into the SOP.
o any initiative to develop a national monitoring plan
should address incident and trends data concerning wild-
life and pesticides. While resource limitations may argue
against extensive new initiatives in obtaining poisoning
incident <^q**» or in monitoring trends of pesticide in-
cidence in wildlife, the Agency can, without great ex-
pense, compile <*»*•-» fmm existing sources, including tiie
scientific literature and data bases already maintained
by other federal agencies.
o the Agency should enter into a memorandum of understanding with
FWS and NMFS to ensure that it receives incident reports con-
cerning wildlife pesticide poisonings and trends data.
FWS enforcement personnel have indicated to the investiga-
tors that incident reports could be copied and conveyed to the
Agency without difficulty. Arrangements to receive trends data,
for example from starling or mollusc monitoring programs, should
not be difficult to establish*
E. Public awareness
1. Study findings and recommendations
Agency pihl ic** I**"* examined during the course of this study
contained little or no useful information on wildlife concerns
including endangered or threatened species. Particularly notable
was the absence of any such information in a pamphlet on re-
stricted pesticides. This information would enhance EPA-'s -ability
to meet the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA by educating the
pesticide user on safe use of the product.
The Agency provides the public with information concerning
proper pesticide use through a variety of publications -and- a
Pesticides Service Center Hotline, located in Texas, that-can be
reached 24 hours a day through a toll-free telephone number.. The
study found that hotline personnel are responsive to inquiries:
concerning endangered species, but have inadequate referencea-to
comply with information requests.
39
-------
Public Awareness
To increase public awareness and participation in the process
of pesticide regulation the following is reoonroended:
o the Agency should incorporate endangered species information
in revisions of existing EPA publications such as the
brochure entitled "Suspended, Cancelled and Restricted Pest-
icides*" Con* •«""«** use of p^g**!^!^**" subject to jeopardy opinions
supposes compliance with reasonable and prudent alternatives. An
appropriate and inexpensive step to ensure better compliance ia
to inform the public about the use restrictions and sources of
information in the Agency's literature* A .list_of
current p**i
-------
IV. Summary of Recommendations
Jeopardy Opinions
While recognizing the difficulty of restricting pesticide
use, either for practical or political reasons, the Agency is
responsible for ensuring that registrations do not violate Section
7 of the ESA and for finding a mechanism to control uses when their
impact may be detrimental to endangered species. The study deter-
mined that a significant number of Agency actions were not com-
pleted by prescribed means and many were not in compliance with
the Endangered Species Act. The following recommendation is
therefore made:
o the Agency should take immediate steps to cancel or modify
registration standards issued inconsistently with jeopardy
opinions. If the Agency disagrees with opinions or reasona-
ble and prudent alternatives it should confer with the Fish
and Wildlife Service as soon as possible.
Cluster Approach
The implementation of the cluster approach has been hindered
by delays of two to three years. Although completed in 1983 and
1984, the "5s recommendations have not been implemented for any
of the clusters. Since neither -die case-by-case nor the cluster
approach can by themselves offer a mechanism both detailed and
expeditious, the following suggestions are made:
o the Agency should combine the case-by-case and cluster ap-
proaches. Pesticides that exceed a trigger in the cluster
analysis should be reviewed in a single case study to iden-
tify the problems involving the pesticides other crop uses.
o the Agency should also continue to accelerate its efforts to
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives identifed by
the EWS for pesticide uses which will jeopardize the con-
tinued °Tifft'gTiTva of endangered species.
Screening Process
The study determined that applications for registration are
not routinely referred to EEB. In an effort to ensure that all
endangered species risks are appropriately identified,, and. that
when necessary, consultations are appropriately initiated;
o all applications for outdoor registration should be routinely
referred to EEB for screening. Such applications include routine
new use and new chemical registrations, experimental use permits,
emergency exemptions, and Special Local Needs registrations.
Re-registration should also be routinely screened for endangered
41
-------
CES and EPA interaticns
The OES and the EPA have not effectively coordinated their
actions. This is primarily the result of differences in how each
implements the Endangered Species Act. While both have similar
obligations under the Act, each has its own system and standards
from which decisions are made. The ensuing misunderstandings
unnecessarily hinder the protection of endangered speciesi
o the Agency and the Services should coordinate standards and
guidelines used by the Services in determining jeopardy
and identifying reasonable and prudent alternatives with
those used by the Agency in restricting pesticide
These issues should be addressed in a memorandum of
understanding.
General Pre
The Standard Operating Procedures were found to be deficient
in a number of ways. The guidelines were not in compliance with
the requirements of the ESA, did not clarify the responsibilities
of personnel, and lacked requirements necessary for an effective
program. The Agency should review and revise the current SOP (and
as necessary governing regulations):
o to bring it into compliance with the requirements of the ESA
ao amended*) For example, amendments «y?n
-------
the Agency should review its policies concerning
delegation of its ESA Section 7 responsibilities to
federal and state agencies for FIFRA Section 24 (c)
Special Local Need registrations to ensure it is in
compliance with the ESA.
the Agency should adopt written policies to ensure
protection of endangered and threatened species during
Special Local Need registrations.
in an effort to resolve conflicts between registration
deadlines and tine needed for consultation, the Agency
should negotiate with OES for an expedited consultation
process or, if it appears that a jeopardy opinion is
likely to be issued, consider denying the application.
Species Tn dji p^f IT Base
The study revealed that the information relied upon by
EPA personnel was not adequate to make informed decisions.
Available sources of information were not used by the Agency.
One source that could be very useful to the Agency is the
Endangered Species Information System (ESIS). Although still
under development, this data base should be able to meet most
of the EEA'S endangered species information needs.
o the Agency should enter into a memorandum of under-
standing with the US. Fish and Wildlife Service to
ensure that the Endangered Species Information System
can best provide endangered species information needed
for Agency review of the potential effects pesticide uses
may have on endangered or threatened species.
o the Agency should make ESIS available to Office of Pesticide
Program staff and other Agency personnel with responsibilities
for implementing FIFRA, particularly as it concerns endangered
species.
Label
ing
The SOP provides that labeling can be used to restrict use
if Product Managers determine that labeling is adequate to-imple-
ment reasonable and prudent alternatives. Labeling for endangered
species concerns has not been uniform between different products
and has not clearly ^fip*** requirements for use. Recognizing
that the Agency has conducted reviews of its labeling require-
ments with respect to endangered species we recommend the follow-
ing:
o the agency should complete its reviews, determine stand-
ards for labeling to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives, and implement such standards as soon as
possible to prevent jeopardy to the continued existence
of listed species and to avoid adverse modification of
their habitats.
43
-------
At present, the most effective means for controlling the -use
of pesticides that may jeopardize protected species or adversely
modify their habitats appears to be use restrictions placed on
label instructions. Adherence to restrictions by users is depen-
dent of their having readily available information about the
product. This information is not currently available on many of
the labels for pesticide use subject to jeopardy opinions from
the.FWS. Users of pesticides would be better informed and better
able to comply with use restrictions if they had the following
kinds of lp^r>TTtMv*! Ion Upcl'vi^j on the labels
o precise information concerning geographic locations and
times where use is prohibited to avoid jeopardy;
o a warning that protected species may occur in other loca-
tions at other times and that the use is also restricted
under such circumstances;
o information concerning applicator liability in the event
their use of the pesticide results in the taking of an
endangered species or threatened species.
o the telephone number of the Agency's Pesticide Service
Center Hotline or another SCO number where additional
information may be obtained or where to report suspected
of protected species.
Recognizing that the Tj»tsoi container is limited in size*
would help the applicator comply with
use restrictions and help satisfy the Agency's obligations under
Section 7 of the ESAs brochures could be made available from the
Services, the Agency* the U5DA Extension Service, appropriate
state agencies, and pesticide dealers. Such brochures could
o detailed information on geographic restrictions;
infij^jotj^tpn on Agency and applicator
\ i*"* gs under the ESA;
potential hazards of pesticides to wildlife and proper
/"a-fr i ori techniques »
names and telephone numbers of federal or state
government endangered species specialists from whan
additional guidance can be obtained and to whan the
reader can report suspected incidents of endangered
or threatened species poisonings; and
the telephone number of the Center Hotline or other a 80O
number frym which a**3«^'*'fom*\ in CIM I*H*I iffli may be ob^^p^^
and numbers of government endangered species specialists
feem whom additional information can be obtained and to
whom suspected wildlife poisoning incidents can be reportede
44
-------
If the Product Manager determines that labeling is not the
best regulatory option available, the SOP provides several alter-
natives. These include reinitiation of consultations and the
requirement of additional research by the pesticide registrant.
In cases where measures to mitigate jeopardy to endangered
species involves use-restrictions (such as use during certain
times of the year or only on certain crops) as opposed to out-
right geographic restrictions, classifying a pesticide as "Re-
stricted-Use (listed as an option in the SOP) may be an appro-
priate regulatory measure. However, when mitigating measures
require outright geographic restrictions and use within a habitat
is not allowed, Restricted-Use classification may result in
little additional risk reduction.
o the Agency should assess whether to revise its options for
responding to jeopardy opinions and implementing reasonable
and prudent alternatives. This could possibly eliminate the
option of classifying a pesticide for restricted use only
by a certified applicator.
Monitoring Pesticide Poisoning Incidents
A system to monitor impacts of pesticides to endangered
species is virtually non-existent. There has been very little
or no coordination between EPA and FWS concerning incidents of
endangered species poisoning. A number of poisoning incidents
have occurred that have gone undetected by the Agency. The
following is reoannended so that pesticide incidents will be
properly reviewed:
o the Agency should identify FWS and NMPS offices that
should receive reports of endangered or threatened
species poisonings and establish procedures for staff to
direct the public to those offices. These two actions
will ensure that the Agency will meet the requirements of
the Section seven. This information could be provided to
the Pesticide Service Center Hotline 800 number, and
could be added to the endangered species brochures and
product labels. Better use of the existing enforcement
current system could also include exchange of information
between different agencies. Also the procedures for re-
viewing incidents should be incorporated into the SOP.
o any initiative to develop a national monitoring plan
should address incident and trends data concerning wildlife
and pesticides. While resource limitations may argue against
extensive new initiatives in obtaining poisoning incident data
or in monitoring trends of pesticide incidence in wildlife,
the Agency can, without great expense, compile data from existing
sources, including the scientific literature and data bases
already maintained by other federal agencies.
o the Agency should enter into a memorandum of understanding with
FWS and NMFS to ensure that it receives incident reports con-
cerning wildlife pesticide poisonings and trends data.
45
-------
FWS enforcement personnel have indicated to the investiga-
tors that, incident reports could be copied and conveyed to the
Agency without difficulty. Arrangements to receive trends data,
for example from starling or mollusc monitoring programs, should
not be difficult to establish.
Public awareness
The system for disseminating information is inadequate.
Little, if any, information on pesticide impacts to endangered
species is available for public use. To increase public awareness
and participation in the process of pesticide regulation the
following is recommended;
o the Agency should incorporate endangered species information
in revisions of existing EPA publications such as the
brochure entitled "Suspended, Cancelled and Restricted Pest-
icides." Continued use of pesticides subject to jeopardy opinions
supposes compliance with reasonable and prudent alternatives. An
appropriate and inexpensive step to ensure better compliance is
to inform the public about the use restrictions and sources of
additional information in the Agency's literature. A list of
current publications should be compiled, revision schedules
identified, and plans made to incorporate endangered species
information in the publication of new issues.
o the Agency should review the Pesticide Service Center
Hotline for its potential to assist the public in obtain™
ing Ip'fpi*"18*'^ TI about pggticvifo use ap*^ endangered species, to
monitor pesticide poisoning incidents for such species and to
facilitate enforcement of use restrictions. The Center Hotline
potentially can serve a key function in the Agency's efforts to
comply with the ESA. It would be relatively easy to review the
resources and procedures of the facility and to provide
additional references and devise new procedures to satisfy all
of the objectives identified in the recommendation.
46
-------
Appendixes
-------
section
List of pe-stieide products for vfaich a. consult at ion was initiated
1. Matacil
2. Lasso
3. Zinc Phosphide
4. Furadan
5. Chlorpyrifos
6. Chlorpyrifos
7. LontroL
8. Tebuthiuron
9. Sumithion
10. Magnusium Phosphide
11. Zinc Phosphide
12. Velpar
13. Aluminum Phosphide
14. Mecolaehlor
15. Thimet
16. Gas Cartridges (predieide)
17. Rozol
18. Temik
19. Endosulfan
20. 1080 (single lethal baits)
21. Copper
22. Tebuthiuron
23. Gas Cartridges (fumigant)
24. Lindane
25. Bant
26. 1080 (single lethal baits)
27. 1080 (toxic collar)
28. Oust
29. 1080 (grain bait)
30. CGA-12223
31. Sonar
32. Endrin
33. Dicofol
34. Orthene
35. Prairie Dog Toxicants
36. Volid
37. Tilt
38. 1080 (single dose bait)
-------
Surrey of. EPA actions involving endangered species
* denotes a problem with compliance
1. Matacil
"conditional registration
-review completed August 1> 1980
-consultation initiated April 2, 1980 (FWS) and April 30,
1980 (NMFS)
-jeopardy
-biological opinion July 23, 1980
-product was removed from market and new formulation was
registered on October 4, 1982. Consultation was not reinitiated
-NMFS requested more information before making a decision on
shortnose sturgeon
2. La-sao (A-lachlcr-| *
-conditional registration
-review completed July 17, 1980
-consultation initiated August 6,1980
-no jeopardy
-registration accepted on September IS, 1980
-several EEB reviews completed before and after the consultation
found potential impacts on endangered species but failed to
initiate a consultation for each.
-biological opinion January 21, 1981
3. Zinc phosphide
-conditional registration
-review completed February 13, 1981
-consultation initiated September 23, 1980
-jeopardy
-biological opinion January 2, 1981
-registration accepted on August 17, 1981 with endangered species
considerations.
4. Furdan
-conditional registration
-review completed December 23,1980
-consultation initiated January 5, 1981
-jeopardy
-biological opinion May 1, 1981
-registraton accepted October 1981. Label changes to include
endangered species statements occured on January 20, 1982.
5. ChloTPvrifoa *
-conditional registration
-reviews (4) completed April 3, 1980, December 16, 1980, May 26,
1981. and February 23, 1981.
-consultation initiated July 7, 1980 and reinitiated November 20, 1980
-jeopardy
-registration of 4E accepted on May 15, 1981
-------
-biological opinion July 1, 1981
-disagreement between BO and EEB on endangered species concerns
Sa.Chlog-pyrifos * (second of cwo consul caciona)
-conditional registration (considered reinitiation of a
previous consultation)
-review completed December 31, 1981
-conaultation initiated January 8, 1982
-jeopardy
-registration accepted for 4E for use on alfalfa on April
22, 1982
-biological opinion May 21, 1982
6. Bolero *
-conditional registration
-review completed September 19, 1980
-conaultation initiated December 29, 1980
-jeopardy
-biological opinion March 6, 1981
-registration accepted on February 26, 1982. label
statements did not include endangered species
consider ationa.
-EEB determed chat criteria to initiate BPAi were fulfilled.
7 .
-conditional registration
-review completed January 21, 1981
-consultation initiated February 5, 1981
-no jeopardy
-biological opinion October 28, 1981
-registration held up because of study deficiencies
8 . Tefrntfaiacon *
-conditional registration
-review completed February of 1980
-consultation initiated February 25, 1981
-jeopardy
-registration accepted on December 4, 1980
-biological opinion July 13, 1982
-EEB submitted label changes to include endangered species
statements which were found to be satisfactory to FWS. It is
uncertain if BD incorporated these label statements.
9 . S um/thipn
-conditional registration
-review completed February 4, 1981
-consultation initiated March 9, 1981
-no jeopardy
-biological opinion May 18, 1981
-registration accepted July 27, 1982
10. Magne-sl-om
-conditional registration
-review completed February 13, 1981
-consultation initiated April 30, 1981
-------
•jeopardy
-biological opinion June 19, 1981
-registration accepted on November 20, 1981
11. Zl-ne pfao-8-phi-de
-registration standard
-review completed February 13, 1981
-consultation initiated May 28, 1981
-jeopardy
-biological opinion July 24, 1981
-registration standard completed in June of 1982
12.
-conditional registration
-review completed March 10, 1981
-consultation initiated February 5, 1982
-registration accepted on September 8, 1982
-a formal consultation was never completed even though
OES recommended that one be completed and EZB knew of this
-the product has never been used commercially
13 . AlTmva.Tii.TBii
-conditional registration
-review completed July 7, 1981
-consultation initiated July 6, 1981
-jeopardy
-biological opinion July 24, 1981
-registration accepted October 13, 1981 with endangered
species statements
14.
-conditional registration
-review completed September 19, 1980
-consultation initiated August 7, 1981
-jeopardy
-biological opinion November 17, 1981
-registration accepted December 16, 1981 without endangered
species statements
15.
-conditional registration
-review completed August 4, 1981
-consultation initiated Auguat 31, 1981
-jeopardy
-registration accepted August 21, 1981 with a condition that
endangered species statements be added at a later date
-biological opinion January 22, 1982
-label revisions to include endangered species statements
did not occur
16. Ga» caT-crl-dgg
-conditional registration
-review completed March 10, 1981
-consultation initiated September 25, 1981
-no jeopardy
-------
-biological opinion October 30, 1981
-registration acceptance dace unknown
17. goyoi,
-conditional registration
•review completed November 19, 1981
-consultation initiated November 18, 1981
- jeopardy
-biological opinion March 11, 1982
-registration accepted August 18, 1982 with endangered
apecies statements
18.
-conditional registration
-review completed February 20,1982
-consultation initiated October 9, 1981
-jeopardy
-biological opinion January 22, 1982
-registration accepted April 20, 1983 with endangered
species statements
19.
-registration standard
-consultation initiated February 4, 1982
-jeopardy
-biological opinion July 30, 1982
-endangered species considerations were not included in the
standar da
20. 1680 (single lethal bait)
-experimental use permit
-review completed March 2, 1982
-consultation initiated May 26, 1982
-no jeopardy
-biological opinion July 14, 1982
21. Cotroer *
-conditional registration
-review completed July 21, 1982
-consultation initiated July 21, 1982
-jeopardy
-biological opinion October 21, 1982
-registration accepted January 14, 1983 without endangered
species statements
-product has never been used commercially
22. ^Bbashitjcas * (second consultation)
-conditional registration
-review completed April 15, 1982
-consultation initiated September 23, 1982
-jeopardy
-biological opinion November 17, 1982
-registration accepted July 22, 1982 without endangered
species statements
-these statements were supposed to be included at a later
-------
date but were not
23. Ga-a sactrjJgB* (second consultation)
-label review
-review completed September 23, 1982
-consultation initiated September 23, 1982
-jeopardy
-biological opinion November 4, 1982
24. Irndane
-emergency exemption use
-review completed October 25, 1982
-consultation initiated October 25, 1982
-biological opinion February 17, 1983
-no action was taken on registration
25. Bant
-conditional registration
-review completed November 2, 1982
-consultation initiated November 22, 1982
-jeopardy
-registrant withdrawal of product on January 20, 1983
-biological opinion February 2, .1983
26. iOJBO. (single lethal baits)
-amendment to experimental use permit
-review completed March 22, 1983
-consultation initiated January 31, 1983
-no jeopardy (described as consultation unnecessary)
-biological opinion March 21, 1983
27. 1086 (toxic collar)
-extension of experimental use permit
-consultation initiated November 15, 1983
-no jeopardy
-biological opinion Match 23, 1984
28. OOTC *
-conditional registration
-review completed April 22, 1983
-consultation initiated May 2 ,1983
-jeopardy
-registration accepted February 8, 1982
-biological opinion June 30, 1983
29. ifl86
-experimental use permit request
-review completed July 25, 1983
-consultation initiated July 29, 1983
-no jeopardy
-biological opinion August 23, 1983
30. CGA-J2323
-conditional registration
-consultation initiated November 10, 1984
-------
•no jeopardy
-biological opinion January 10, 1984
31. Sorar
-conditional registration
-review completed September 24, 1982
-consultation initiated November 16, 1983
-jeopardy
-biological opinion February 21, 1984
-no action on regiatration
32. SndT-in
-evaluation of uae patterns
-consultation initiated February 6, 1984
-jeopardy
-biological opinion June 22, 1984
33 .
-special review
-consultation initiated March 28, 1984
-jeopardy
-biological opinion August 13, 1984
34. Or-thgne
-state registration
-review completed May 21, 1984
-consultation initiated May 18, 1984
-jeopardy
-biological opinion August 22, 1984
-registration of the product was not pursued
35. lEaiiie dog conrantt
-reevaluation of pesticides used to control prairie dogs
-consultation initiated May 31, 1984
-jeopardy
-biological opinion November 9, 1984
36.
-conditional registration
-consultation initiated June 7, 1984
-no jeopardy
-biological opinion November 2, 1984
37. Tilt
-conditional registration
-review completed March 24, 1984
-consultation initiated July 31, 1984
-jeopardy
-biological opinion November 20, 1984
38. 1086
-experimental use permit
-consultation initiated November 6, 1984
-formal consultation not required
-------
Detailed ly1"*™^ e"8 of EPA actions involving endangered sneer ea
1. gii|nmafy of Endangered Snee-ie-a CgQsi.dera.ti.2its. for Matae-il
1. Produce Hame/ Common name/ Chemical name
Macacil/ Amino carb/ 4-(Dimethylamino)-3^nethylphenol
methylcarbamate .
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Insecticide for use on
coniferious tree to control spruce budworm. Use in New England,
new York, Hew Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
3o Hazard Evaluation Division (Bco logical Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
Recommendation against registration of Matacil 1.5 oil solu-
ble concentrate (osc) for use on coniferous forests in the North-
eastern United States. Further recommendation against registra-
tion of any pesticide product containing nonylphenol in the
indicated quantities of 6.425 oz./acre. Nonylphenol residues, at
chis rate of application, were determined to exceed the acute
toxicity criteria for RPAR. "Therefore, the proposed use of
Matacil 1.5 osc may pose an unreasonable hazard to aquatic
species, including at least one endangered species [Chittenango
ovate snail, Sucelnea ehittenangoenaial . in the use area". Review
dated 8/1/80.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on April 22, 1980
and co the National Marine Fisheries Service on April 30, 1980.
5. Consultation Administration
The NMFS reply to the EEJB review was an informal letter stat-
ing that not enough information was available to issue -a biologi-
cal opinion, even though it was also stated, correspondence dated
July 2, 1980, that Matacil could very well affect the shortnose
sturgeon (Aeioenaor previTOfffrr"T? - EBB in reply agreed to
delay the consultation and to reactivate the procedure when
additional information was available.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FVS/OES EPA-80-2, letter received by'EEB on
July 23,1980) concluded that the use of Matacil could affect the
Chittenango ovate snail
-------
Chiteenango snail (S-. ehitt«aangoenc-ia-| or its habitat.
The HMFS concluded that, although Matacil use could affect
the shortnose sturgeon (A. £lSZizS££X3^ • ao action vould be
taken until more information was made available.
Sometime after the consultation was completed, EEJJ received
information that the product had been removed from the market.
Registration of a new formulation, one with a lower level of
nonyl-phenol. vaa granted on October 4, 1982. Consultation was
not re-initiated because the original formulation was dropped.
-------
2. of Endangered Speries CorralTteratlnn-s fjjr
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Lasso/ Alachlor/ 2-chloro-2-6-n-(methoxymethyl) acetanilide
plus mix with Atrazine/ 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-
(isopr opylamino)-6-tr iazine.
2. Regulatory Action
Label amendment to allow use of Lasso and Lasso plus
Atrazine on post-emergence on corn.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Specie*
No objection to "the proposed label change allowing
postemergence application of Lasso and Lasso plus Atrazine to
corn". It was noted that only a conditional registration would be
given since not all of the data requirements for Alachlor were
satisfied. Since the use of Atrazine with Alachor doubles the
exposure to nontarget organisms, there is "a substantial risk of
depletion and/or extinction of the only remaining population of
Texas wild-rice (Zlzania twain), an endangered aquatic plant.
Review dated 7/17/80.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Ecological Effects Branch, Hazard Evaluation
Division originally on August 6, 1980 and in memorandum form on
November 6, 1980.
5. Consultation Administration
The original consultation request was sent to the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) region 2 office and then, because the use
of Lasso and Lasso-Ateazine mixture was considered a nationwide
threat, was channeled to the FWS Washington office. Two other
listed plants, bunched arrowhead
-------
the continued existence of the three listed species.
The FWS recommended that, "because of Che lack of sufficient
biological data concerning both immediate and long-term effects
of Alachlor-Atrazine on living organisms", studies be done to
test and monitor Che effeccs of Che herbicide mixture under field
and laboratory conditions.
7. Notes on the Effectiveness of the Process
It is important to note the reviews made previous to and
after the review described above. These reviews concern endan-
gered species and , alchough Che uses in Che reviews seem to
impact on two endangered species, no consultation was initiated.
The following are brief descriptions of these reviews:
a) Beview 1/17/80-2/29/80
The regulatory action in Chia review was a label amendment
to add an additional application post-emergent to the crop but
pre-emergent Co the weeds. EEB concurred with Che additional use
of Lasso on peanuts. A potentially "adverse affect" on two endan-
gered species, the Houston toad (flqfo HotreteTrai.?) and Bed Hills
salamander (Pfaaetagaatfatta h-nfar-irn-ti). was determined and use re-
strictions were recommended in the review. No consultation was
initiated.
b) Beview 4/4/80-4/14/80
The regulatory action in chia review was a label amendment
to add the application of Lasso plus Atrazine to milo. EEB con-
curred conditionally to the addition. Threats to three endangered
species were raised in Che review. Two species of these species,
Bed Hills salamander (Pfaaeognachmi hTrfar-yen^i) and the masked
bobwhice quail (Collntts vifftiri^flra rldnwavi.). were not be-
lieved to be affected. A "possible hazard" to the third species,
che Houston toad (Btrfo honytgnsls). was determined and label
modifications were Cherefore required. No consolation was initiated.
Consultation review 5/23/80-7/17/80
c) Beview 12/11/80-2/10/81
The regulatory action in this review was Che registration of
Lasso for use on sunflower fields. EEB concluded that, provided
label modifications be made, only a "minimal increase in risk"
would occur for the Houston toad (fltrfo hotrstBtrsT-a). The risk
to the toad was determined avoidable if label restrictions were
made. No consultation was initiated.
d) Beview 5/28/82-6/24/82
The regulatory action in this review was an amendment to
change the formulation to a capsule form( Lasso ME), while its
uses remained the same. EEB concluded that Lasso ME use on peanuts
"may a over sly affect" the Houston toad (flttfc honate-nsl-s) and
the Bed Hills salamander (Pha«ugnatfaq» h-ofrc-rcfati). The review
stated that EEB " requires as a pre-condition to registration",
that the Lasso ME label restrict its use on peanuts in counties in
which these two species are found. No consultation was initiated.
-------
2. of STrfaTBtergd Species Comi-deta t itma for Zinc
(first of two consultacions)
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Z.P. Rodent Bait AS/ Zinc Phosphide/ Zinc Phosphide.
2. Regulatory Action
Label amendments to include specific additions and deletions
on current label. Approval of such changes would expand usage over
large areas formerly free from Zinc Phosphide application. The
rodenticide is used for the control of ground squirrels in noncrop
areas, prairie dogs on rangelands, rats in sugar cane, roof rats in
maeadamia nut groves, voles in orchards, noncrop areas,- groves, and
nursery stock, and pocket gophers.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that endangered species would be jeopardized by
the use of Zinc Phosphide and initated a consultation with OES
before the close of the review process. The review, therefore,
included not only EEB's acknowledgement that harm would occur to
endangered species, but also the results of the OES biological
opinion. Label changes were included in the review which paralleled
the results found in the opinion, (review 2/13/81)
4. Consultation Initation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to Office of Endangered Species on September
23, 1980.
5. Consultation Administration
The FWS requested an extension of the consultation on Octo-
ber 28, 1980.
6. Consultation Conclusion and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-80-5, January 2, 1981) concluded that
the use of Zinc Phosphide would likely jeopardize the existence
of the following species:
salt marsh harvest mouse (8gitfaToxtontomyg ravi7entri-'8)
Morro Bay kangaroo rat
Utah prairie dog (e
Puerto Bican plain pigeon
yellow-shouldered blackbird (AgeiaiTta xanthomns)
Attwater's greater prairie
chicken (TmoanuehCT errel'do attwateri)
Aleutian Canada goose (Branta cana-dcrat* Igqcopareia
whooping crane (SJJIB amerirana)
Laysan finch (TelCTprra eantans)
nihoa finch (T? ultima)
The FWS noted that Zinc Phosphide had "...been recommended
as the preferred alternative to strychnine, compound 1080, and
other pesticides in seven previous biological opinions." (opin-
-------
ions done before April of 1980) This recommendation was made
because Zinc Phosphide is considered the least objectionable
pesticide presently used as a field rodenticide. "However,
no previous consultation has considered its affects on all
listed and proposed species."
While FWS would not consider alternative modes of pest
control, two "reasonable and prudent" alternatives were given as
follows:
"1. Zinc Phosphide should be restricted from use within the
areas (counties) specified in the [consultation] discussions
and the Aleutian Canada goose [B-; ea-Hattegyi-s l-eatypargia 1 . this
pesticide needs to be restricted from use in the areas specified
only during the months indicated [in the consultation] ; and
2. In those areas specified in alternative 1, Zinc Phosphide
could be available for a special use purpose on a case-by-ease
basis. If Critical Habitat or a species range is restricted to
only a snail portion of the county specified, there is oo need to
restrict the use of this pesticide over the entire county. Prior
to use in these restricted areas, applicators should contact the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endanger d Species personnel) for
information pertaining to endangered and threatened species."
After further consultation, it was determined chat the use
patterns would not jeopardize the laysan finch (T-. eatrca-rra) and
che nihoa finch (Ti^ ui-eina) and they therefore were not included
in labeling considerations.
BO communicated to the registrant on April 13, 1981, that
the application was considered deficient. It was indicated that
precautionary labeling for endangered species concerns, taken
from the 2/13/81 EZB review, would be necessary for acceptance of
the registration. This labeling either prohibited the use in the
habitat of the endangered species, restricted its use by including
buffer zones around the habitat, or excluded use during
certain times of the year.
On May 1, 1981, the registrant requested that che endangered
species statements be modified. These modifications included
changing the Attvater's greater prairie chicken
atrroteri) statement from prohibiting the products use in
specific counties to consulting with local, state, and federal
authorities before use to insure the species is not present and
changing the yellow-shouldered blackbird (Av sa-ntham-gB ) and the
Puerto Si can plain pigeon (ۥ; inorna-ca wgesjsss) statements from
restrictions of above ground use in Puerto Sico to restricting use
within 1/2 mile of their known habitats. The statement re-
quests were then slightly "amended" by EZB and BD that each
statement included where the product could not be used in Att-
water's greater prairie chicken (T^ cn-pi-do
habitat and where the product would have to be used in tamper-
proof bait boxes in Puerto ELico.
BO accepted the use of Zinc Phosphide on August 17, 1981.
(label- included)
-------
1*1*' p* lu»mlitl il I..*'!"*."! A*p-«| tiin
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
il |iii.« on l'»tl«t b«H ""V IM k'Mnl K«'|> 'Mil n>
• l*mlv nl ».i" Do not x'i'iy «•••»•» nmnil •• i.»*'» in
i ••*
ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSIDERATIONS
• lH^..<-q !"••••* »f. "II »»i**l< J»l«l 1*11 "III II" U'.« ••••••I-.- • "• *ll\-
.. !• •••.«* mt in H. .1 HH" «•• *ta*»-?+ e<*» <•«-. « •»•.•.-
f r.v-» Oii« It !••••••• •^
tf II* •» » I ll 1^ pi ..I .* *fr.«
^.. ^t.^.».- -.
.. I...-. ..... HI. III. -.•! .,.« »••• I" «*iM »•••«•« • * •— •' .......
I-.I. ..win •,.• .-Ml'", tow t**M «*%*»• *»••»"•!» •«•»«••• »••••»• »• I I
, f. «.>...•„. B .. t-.KH. »• »!,>.. -I IK »• •• «••••«• • • ••' '
...„ H., Jf.c~t.K-n •»«!« Ul^lKnfJ* S|H.1>»»>. •>««••••-«•• !••• ••'•• j
. i.. . I. ..l..• P it Wumir.»t •••<•• .— .H-I— •
. ..... « I u.l-ll »!<••• l«-«-l» >ri»l«H I tolHXtlV.*! P-
1.1 I- I ••••••• II* ll^.#. ll» M»lfl» IH t» »
I. ... !••» *il«ir nl l'«l lwi»»«» ^»» *-i»
•-* I Mil* ••!• •• •*••»•«• »•*••
»•»•••«> »" «"•• I1"
III I • II. .H. ..-Ill .l*n'"«*« •^••"•«»i* ••• » l-.wVH I •— H* •••»• •
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
III •»••*.•* I M •» n»» !•••« •«*••*
l I' *.'• -ill
UON CHOPniGIUSOF WAV
ll»*l'. loi n— li»i rl IV.I»i""» l
I.. I !!«»« I'V^t •»! ••
„..!...»• /^ IMMIINI
•«••••• ••••••«
u'.f
*».| A |tlta."l|. il«
f»^ **| i |M. |i^l ».. H-l
RANGfl AND
.«*• UK,. i«. !•*..•• *M- -••
,n A.ifiioA l!|il«" »li. *l i
RESTRICTED OSE PESTICIDE
fin !• I nl i.il'- In .TIM! "<•• Oi'ly I iv IVilili'il A|i
(lll-IHH Illtl"! |l»'ll "lll'TI »ll|»'l»l'.i«MI I'ill li'llv ll'l ll'O'.r
uu'i • nvii il liy II"' llri liliril A|t|>ln .ili.i'. ( • ilil'i .limn
FOR CONTROL OF GROUND SOUIIinFIS «NONCnOP
AREAS). PRAIRIE OOOS IHAN«f LANOl. HATS
ISUKAR CANE. MACAOAMIA Nil! OIICMAROSI.
MEAOOW MICE - PINE MICE. VIUF.S mnr.MAHOS.
GROVES. LAWNS. OHNAMfNTALS. OOLf COtlMSFS.
PARKS A NURSEHIESI GOPHERS (BELOW GROUND
USE).
IIIIAI UK)-.
ACTIVE i
INI Ml INCilUDUNIS .
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
CAUTION
STATEMENT OF PMAC1ICAI TREATMENT
II ttv.illnwui-il llui'V I IM '} i|l.w.«-i ••• i-ol'-i .»M| imlncr
vixiuliii'i liy linn IIHIII liai * «l lliiii.il ivilli liifcii'i
A»IIM| H\f .«! .ill ml* ll.'vi- IMlH-iil If ili'lAi' .»M| I i-r|i
DII inil imliNr «>Hiii|nH| ••• «|iv .i"vllniM| liy uliHIIIi I
HIM iMiM-Mim IH-IMIII (i> I iii«-i|ii .ll .iH'-i'lii'H
II nil -^ ill ill i" ryi*> I I" I' >villi |ili-iil v nl >• ill i
Si-r li-ll ll.lili'l IIH .Tililililiii.il |'"'l lillllili.il V «l.ilrini'liH
"l|i-i|.«|r.nl
S INC
I »I4 IS'.f f«fc
. ^b tf ft'*1*
.. J * I y • Jg* '»
•-•
. '.li
.. I. ,4 I.— IM !••««••* .1 !•«•• «— »" ••" -••••«•" •'
In.,.. I . . •• • ••••
MACAOAMIA Nig nnr.iiA« «•!" »«•'
.Ml '. .-.I IM I*. II." l« I* * ^.l-h-'.'-H |l* 'I*
I. . ., .1.1
HII.IAIH AM
IIM
til ... ».l.l— ..I IM I «• ? « Im M-"« •!«••« ««««.••- ••*•• "• » " •
..... IS i.l lM*r» •»»!«* IM .."•>*.*.• »"il I'M-. ••* «»»i—... l-«^ I.."
i i i i .Ik Ir « ...«*« tvi«.«fl.i* !•» |^^*i«*.^—'-.'M-H|^. ».!.•.. •• •
.ri.. |h. M.M Vl"^ I. Ml H- 1^ ..|^I*M!«I«|«^I» W -."-I !•*• i'l«l "I.!1
H r ..i.— « i,.lr-.i (III .1 ll.. ...» nl I I l.^.«»* H~ « •• ••• •••••••••I
I- ..-I
I II All Mllll III H II, I*. lr.Ml.i.,l.ll.l IM...II, "' I. Hi •! « •• "I •
......... .„ ».. ..I.I, J I... • ... •» l<( Hi» .|-*l—.i r ....... "f •••••••H'
I..., ,.™ IH |l. »!.> nl *. I.«M A,1». 1 «•• • »• ••• ' • ••••••"I' I"' • "
• Hi Ml II »« I HAIIIUKi llf'lr. «i'».l~l •>••• !.••.•» I' ••'•»• I-
Al IIIAI AITI II AIIIIN A.m-h ••! !••• » • ••<• "f « HI !"-•••••• r"
1 .. IS, n... «-..., ..r •«»» <..... 1 ^« «• -~ -~l ' • »"
NimSfRV SIOCK OHNAMINIAI
AMO NONMAIMNO I HIM I lOirS
ll*-l nlSIIIM IIIIN*. ••« ll^'l. Ill "I »».J.|l^* t".l I. •«• W.^. ••!••-
!»«.;. Oil.. «l«f» I «» Ol..l^.^.l« *H| »^.l- l-*<--.l^ •-•»••»* "I. •*. /I
•I ..b-nt A . I Ai; .....I i..i. I* «i§-l.«l nw i.i^ll* •>*••• » .". 'K *rf'-,»
... I ..« ».. M.|l«>. lo. llk'lt It! L'll
•I'll iAI M A« IIM. IIAIIIHI. lli~»i .nl«l~l •«.••••.» .I.I.-I »»!•••
ifi i I.l*. .Ill *...*• l'^». lll'i.h Ml ••»>»!. In I %l l.»l» ..l^>'. ll. 1^ I- w I
I ...»..•!• II. «• *»••
IIAIIII HAlll-ir. ••'«. •" >*• Hi •••"I'.l «•« • •*• •• ••"•"» ••' i
r.....|»-. ..I |i»-l At /4 IIM ,.l-li..« •lrt.». in. I...I-. |..nl. "• * •
ll I I I." ••• ».|H^^I »*^ ll»
Nil • 4..I' ol > I l«»..l|l»
nor HERS
II ••111 B "I I INI,
„..•.« I ..... I.... r
..... ^,. Al... 1. 1 I .. ,|.
,«• nil 1*1 >k Hi H..«~||I^I
luiiiii'lA Rim O|i» n-.^i i...|k«.ni.,i iHi^m iv A! ln-i -i « •> li.,i
....•,!.. .- III. ».«,l-..*l IMM.IMI. -*••'• IH Hi* .i-.*ili.".
.J ? 1 iM.n^h f" K» r« » .» *--l h •••» «• «|i."~l li 1 1
HAND HAI1INR IN NONCKnr AHf AS
Surh » l«»ni Oiiumrnlttv fioll COIMIH.
IIM
1» riwliMl ol «-«»«. «
III i,.... I. ....I «.'ll|i^| «»*'••
f .ciV>>.
|.-.n- t.
-------
DIHECf 8ONS FOR USE
NON tMOf niQMlit Of WAV
f.l f>| -Ellin IlllriX fa.
kl tlil'M ••«••»• «IM| •*«••• f
/r nimiNi n»»t
!>• r «•!!>••>.• r..~'-t» ^.^.-.rf.
n^*n !•••«•* •^ii^pti •!• f r*«*
g..^ |.«.lf.lr» no*
r-,l ••• •— l-l •••
.^ P | • .* •• |^ ••••• -il
in> pi Ihr •.» r-l
MANRCLANO
»» rf-i-m «l
Ml.. |.|>l«.l 1C IXfi
..Ik 4
pi I** px.lxl IJnl,
til H-.t, ft.,
P* lit* anil pr I
n cDHtnvv m
M • «•• .nr1* til • ••*••! r"
«<»M •««•»!• ••* •••»
i *•••• *••«• *•••• *••••• '•
fin net p»l*> •^"•- •*••«
<*»d m »m»-i-il
pi ••«!»! n-n
I
ran CONIROL OF GROUND SOHIMIIEIS INONCHOP
AREASI. PRAIRIE DOGS IRANGELANOl. RATS
ISUGAR CANE. MACADAMIA N1II ORCHARDS).
MEADOW MICE - PINE MICE. VOLES (ORCHARDS.
GROVES. LAWNS. ORNAMEN1ALS. GOI.F COURSES.
PARKS ft NURSERIES! GOPHERS (BELOW GROUND
USE).
I- 7%
IOIAL imr.
AC.IIVF
INERt INGREDIENTS
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
CAUTION
STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL TREATMENT
«tl w.iin ,IIH| HN|IIGI>
v.ilh
II »w»M««v»rd - Oimk I at 2
vmniliiui liy (mir.hii«q li»ch nl
Avitiil IK* nl all nil* ll.ivr ii.iliriil IIP ilntvn
On inn IIN|IIC<> voiniumi in qw* iiiiyltiiKil l»v niimlli In MI
liiiriintrintit |»non Gfl nwiliriil all"»limi
II tut «Lni ni ill *yf>< Fluili ivil'i |ili*nly <>l w.il<*i
Srr Irll piiwl Ini iMlililiniinl |wvcaiiliiin.iiy
rit liail«t..ik BILL LAnonAIOIIIFS. INC
M H in l.« Ininl liy
BELL LARORATOHIER. INC.
MADISON. Wl S3 MM USA.
IFAIII'. Nf»
IIAA
NET CONTENTS 50 Mis. 17? 7? Kilns)
II.I IIIMIIil lllir«k • H lonl'Ol ol «n*«tlnM •»! «•*
111111%
•* M» D ftn*>i«»ll'
lir»t
IffJAIiaillHirn Ilinn M.vmnnlut irlln|.l. al brt M 44 InM
Imp an fcnlh utpi al Ihp l»ai Anil* M Ibp IMP al I 1 pnin4i pw art*
• •IIINIi llnd» nlPIIMl, l-p>t IMIKAM P^nkj P«
IPIIIM hand bfffvkail
on tori aionnj at voannf ciaal *et*v al UN) late ol
Xrmai Arriir*iiciN KIM* M bd *t • •«• m ^ ia pawn* v
«•» Da Mil IBII'V nn It*" vi»"Ml BI VP««.*%« i Mq«
NURSCRV SIOCK ORNAMENIAl
AND NON BEARING FRUlf 1RIEI
mi niSIBirilOM* »oi coMial nl UpMliM >nl IMM m** •*««.
IU4 •mill vn I in a>njnipnld ml lion b>vi«4 "umi» llork If
DKI »C null nnl h»
f ounvn loi loud o» l**«
HAIIIHC
i«i
»*iit« • •^•IWIM eo«~ D* •"•
• IMP al • tOanunfflOPv tftf
•AIIING N»» Hi
al b»| M 14
•MI^IIH n* hi|l-t I»a4-n«
I>M in br'npn>pt| nn !•••» r »
KM V • •«• al 1 1 mun^i p»i • •• Pi mlPMHl iintk
GOPHERS
IKf lirMllirlinNS »™ tmlinl nl «•• PI«H" n-a-kcl
tlart. !*•.
••*•• On IU »*•• 01 M
Do an!
l« nl nii> '
OI^*»MI llhvnunny
HANI) HAH INK
*^« <*•• poc
> nn l-^.oin 14 B.«ml ill lw>l at t * »n M-im
irin* a «mh«n.ril nxib* ai IOT4H ifc*«- "MO »•• u~l-i«iniii4
••>•<•« AIIPI bi.l •• 'praiiMd mm IH* P'al* »rt» ro»> (Hrbnu r<»
l nupM-lir pl •>«•! « •« t»M
MilllllW niHLIIfll flino i
nl 1 1 p
HAND BAI1ING IN NONCROP AREAS-
Such M Ltmni. Om.nvnl»ll. Coll Com tot.
Pathl Mid HlHMfl**
ll-.l nlMnirllONS •« caxl'ol nl «•«*«. an* mn> •««<• •••«••
IN.. ..
l»ln»nlin>«liill pnl f»«einM a.nnml «.PI
hn-thpril 7f IIUOFNI HAII AH miMI not n» •
r»i» at «•••.« «l«nu ••• vMfn lo< loort ai IMIII
l — » • nounril ol •nlml'd nM ain.ll pn ari« V I rint
M.« bud »•• b— • lho«n M p-inxrl.
MANII HAlHWi »•«• 4 alum lon> l»*inaonl al bMl aian-Ml »«•>
ari.» twin., at ^~>» «"o~ but lo l«n IhinuaH ai«t to r •««•"'
«.. i«i • b>l ita not 9n»« M boil »oynd Do «oi aiat* b»i -n h«*w ai
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
tin noil
. Inua) a> l~< by no'W m
ma in Ia1»< aiiniKloim Mull »a *IOnwd O> a»o>vin« la
• '••Mil. »!•!• o> lot* aiezaibni'liidii *M NvlMiC* ConMlM
•4m ll«ra«Mv Ac*
»e Ot
€»»»••«
Inn (Wi
Acl
i
-------
4-. Stannary of Endangerad Specie? Co-nsi-deratioTra fr>r F-oradan
1. Product Hame/ Common Hame/ Chemical N«
Turadan/ Cacbofucan/ 2,3-Dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl
met.-, '.cac hamate.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration for new or expanded uses
of Furadan 10G and 4F formulation changes of Furadan 15G. The
proposed amendments would expand or add the uses on sweet corn,
peanuts, cotton, soybeans, potatoes, cucurbits, grapes, snail
grains, and sweet potatoes. Fur dan 10G is currently used on field
corn, sugar cane, peanuts, tobacco, peppers, sugar beets, pota-
toes, sorghum, Siberian elm, cottonwood, pine seedlings, and
•southern pine seed orchards as an insecticide and nematicide.
Furadan 4F is currently registered as an insecticide for use on
potatoes, alfalfa, field corn, strawberries, sugar cane, and pine
seedlings. The proposed changes of the 15G formulation would
increase the toxic active ingredient by 50Z .
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
In a review of Furadan 10G and 4F (12/23/80), EEB concluded
that the proposal of new and expanded uses may affect endangered
species. The review also stated that "[a] 11 of the proposed uses
may expose endangered species to levels which could be potential-
ly deleterious." A review of the formulation change for 15G
(11/5/80) concluded that increasing the active ingredient by SOZ
"may pose an unreasonable adverse hazard to avian wildlife." EEB
included the following endangered species that were of particular
concern:
Mississippi sandhill crane (Gr-na cana-demia polia )
whooping crane (&; amerlcam)
Aleutian Canada goose (flranta cana-dewi?
red-cockaded woodpecker
Attwater's greater prairie chicken (Tmpanxicfaq» COT! TIP
Kirtland's warbler (Dendrpira kiTtlatrdi)
Eskimo curlew (Numctri.'CT bpjrsaiJS.)
masked bobwhite quail (Ctrll-ima virmtianqa
ivory-billed woodpecker (€ampepfallg»
EEB stated that both reviews would be forwarded to the
Office of Endangered Species for a biological opinion.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on January 5, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional material and/or time were not made.
6 > Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The registration of Furadan 15G was accepted on February 13,
-------
1981. In a Match 18, 1981 memorandum to BED, BD explained why it
had decided Co accept Che 15G registration. The fact oca relevant
co theic decision included chat use patterns and dosage races foe
156 veee identical co 106, Chac ao real incremental risk occurs
with approval of 156 since 1 granule of 106 will kill an avian
species. Chac label requirements lessen any hazard, and that data
on avian species reveal that hazards do not exist for such species.
In a March 30, 1981 memorandum chat was intended for but
never sent co BO, EEB expressed its concern chat che 156 re-
gistration had been approved "... without benefit of a biological
opinion..." According to this sane memorandum, EEB had requested
on February 17, 1981 chat BD make field monitoring a condition of
registration and that no further registrations be made until
evaluation of these studies.
BD informed EEB on March 25, 1981 that che requested field
monicoring was not made a condition of registration and that the
request had not been made of the registrant.
The FVS (FWS/OES EPA-81-2, May 1, 1981) determined that the
proposed uses of Furadan, as well as the existing registrations
for all formulations of Furadan,, would likely jeopardize Che
following chree endangered species:
Attvater's greater prairie chicken (Tmrpanch-CT coni-do attirateri)
Aleutian Canada goose (Branta cam-dewi.1
Kern primrose sphinx moth ( Snortyse t aitma
So Chat che continued existence of these species would not
be in jeopardy, che FWS recommended che following reasonable .and
prudent alternatives: Che use of Furadan should be prohibited in
the Walker Basin, Kern county, California Co protect Che Kern
primrose sphinx moth (E-. enferpe ) . prohibited in four counties in
California to protect Che Aleutian Canada goose (B- eana-de-aat-s
JLss.csp3££ia)> and prohibited in che "occupied range" within nine
Texas counties to protect the Atevater's greater prairie chicken
(Tj. cttoitto atrratgri) .
The Service also recommended chat several different types of
studies on the effects of che products be initated so that the
agency would be assisted in exercising its "...authority for the
conservation of che species."
An EEB memorandum co BD on May 13, 1981 stated chat "EEB
still contends chat Che proposed amendments substantially in-
crease che exposure and hazard to non-target organisms. The
hazard Co endangered species, can be, at least in part, mitigated
by geographical restrictions on che label. Additional information
is needed eo fur Cher evaluate Che hazard to endangered aquatic
species. The registrant is still required to submit additional
data to negate Che presumption of an unreasonable hazard."
EEB submitted label changes to BD on July 15, 1981, incor-
porating che geographic restrictions for terrestrial endangered
species. On August 4, 1981, EEB reiterated its concerns to BD
regarding the hazards of Furadan and stated chat Che registrant's
field studies were inadequate.
BD granted conditional registration for 4F and 106 in Octo-
ber 1981, provided chat the registrant submit a fish embryo
larvae study, an aquatic invertebrate life-cycle study and avian ;
-------
field studies by March 1, 1983. RD accepted label changes foe 10G
and 4F that included endangered species considerations on January
20, 1982.
EEB initated an informal consultation with OES to consider a
proposed experimental use permit to allow the use of Furadan on
sunflowers. FWS responded (FWS/OES EPA-82-2-I, August 13, 1982)
that if the alternatives cited in the May 1, 1981 biological
opinion were followed, no jeopardy would occur as a result of the
experimental use permit.
-------
of ETttiaTigp?gd Speriea Cong±3tet atlstts for
(addresses several formulations with multiple use patterns)
(first of two consultations on Chlorpyrifos)
1. Produce Sane/ Common Haste/ Chemical Name
Lor a ban 4E, 15G, SOU, Dursban 10 CH/ Chlorpyrifos/ (0,0-
diethylO-(3,5,6-triehloro-2-pyridyl) phosphor thioate.
2. Begulaeory Action
Conditional registration for four formula tiona on 12 cropa
and mosquito larvae. The products would be used as an insecticide
for control of various pests infesting field crops, and for
aerial application (Ducaban 10 CR)for mosquito larvae control.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
In the initial 4/3/80 review for lot a ban SOW use on apples,
4E use on aorghua, and 15G use on peanuts, EBB concluded that
"...proposed use of these products may adveraly impact upon
endangered/threatened species..." in the following manner:
Apples All animal species
aorghua All aquatic animal apecies
peanut a All avian apecies
EEB recommended that formal consultation be initiated. The
branch went on to note that OES "...may recommend against use of
Loraban in habitats frequented by endangered/ threatened apecies"
and that "[t]he use of Chlorpyrifoa could be excluded in the
product labeling from the counties and/or drainage basins in
which these habitats occur." A list of endangered/threatened
species found in areas where the three crops are grown was in-
cluded. (See compiled list at end of this section)
A requeat for consultation was made on July 7, 1980. In the
request letter, EEB stated that, although the products could
adveraly impact on endangered apecies, the registration of Chlor-
pyrifos could be made if the following statement accompanied the
labeling: "This product must not be used in areas where adverse
impact on federally designated endangered or threatened- species
is Likely. Prior to making applications of this product, the user
must determine that such apeciea are not located in or immediate-
ly adjacent to the area to be treated. Consult your regional U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Office (Endangered Species Speacialist)
or the local Fish and Game Office for apeeific information on
endangered apeciea."
In the review dated 12/16/80, EEB considered a conditional
registration for the use of Loraban (4E, 15G, and SOW) as an
insecticide for control of various insect peats and mosquito
larvaei EEB "...determined that the continued existence of num-
erous endangered or threatened species, in many states, may be
jeopardized by both the registered and proposed uses of chlor-
pyrifos." EEB referred "all proposed registration actions" to OES
for consultation. A list of endangered apeciea was included, (aee
compiled liat)
10
-------
/
(fill*
(Si. crpfaa)
(Satan a-parfae)
(PlagtnrtgTTta ar ge-ati
(€lia
lmma )
A third review (5/26/81) concerned the "[plropoaed
conditional registration for the use of Lorsban 4E as an insecti-
cide to control various pests on tomatoes." EZB concluded that
risks to endangered species could not be assessed at the time
because the consultation was still in process.
The following list is a compilation of those species cited
in the 12/16/80 and 4/3/80 reviews as occurring in the areas of
proposed use and those species believed to be jeopardized by the
use of the products:
Fiah
leopard darter
watercress darter
Alabama cavefish
slackwater darter
«potfin chub
bony tail chub
humpback chub
Gila topminnow
Arizona trout
Gila trout
woundfin
Mohave tui chub
Owens Biver pupfish
unarmored threespine
stickleback
Lahontan cutthroat tront
little kern golden tront
Paiute cutthroat trout
Colorado squawfish
greenback cutthroat trout
yellowfin nadtom
pahranagat bonytail
slender chub
cui-ui
moapa dace
bayou darter
fountain darter
Maryland darter
Okalooaa darter
snail darter
shortnoae sturgeon
big bend gambusia
?8cos gambusia
Pahrump killifish
scioto madtom
Tecopa pupfish
Comanche Springs pupfish
Devil's Bole pupfish
Warm Springs pupfish
T )
(a-iTrtarfci
CflL
(Slla
i cm TIB
a )
(Etfagoattma rubeuin)
(g- fpnticola )
(g-
(g-
tanaal)
(€aarfapyia
(Gi noblli-a )
yicnthya latoa)
ncpacT /
nevadenai-s ealxdae)
(€•; el«aaa)
CfiL diatolia)
(.€-. ncvaTJenala •pegtoratla )
Bed Hills salamander
blunt-nosed leopard lizard
desert slender salamander
Santa Cruz long-toed
gogna tfa-CT hgfar'irhti)
^finiT*Ti^?-a ailna)
(Batr acnoagca
11
-------
salamander
aa'CY •gda'egyi'nm
San Francisco gaccee snake
Island oighc lizard
Atlantic salt march snake
Eastern indigo snake
8-Lt-ds
Bachman'a warbler
Cape Sable seaside speerov
dusky seaside sparrow
Everglade Kite
(Thantnyofaia
(Xagttraia
ferra-tag-aia )
fasciata ta«ri.ata )
(ftrymarentm eotais comae? 1)
faajchmamx J
aatltlma 05
Alabama lamp pearly mussel
Higgin's eye pearly mussel
fine-rayed pig toe
pale lilliput pearly mussel
shiny pigtoe
pink mucket pearly mussel
white warty-back pearly
mussel
orange- footed pearly mussel
fat pocket book
Cumberland bean pearly
mussel
rough pigtoe
turbercled-blossom pearly
mussel
tan ciffle shell
yellow-blossom pearly
mussel
shiny pigtoe
Sampson's pearly mussel
white cat's paw pearly
mussel
Curtis' pearly mussel
Appalachian monkeyface
pearly mussel
bicdwing pearly mussel
Cumber land monkeyface
pearly mussel
dromedary pearly mussel
green-blossom pearly mussel
turgid-blossom pearly
mussel
(Fnaro-naia enneolas)
C Toxoiaama nv It mlc BlTa j
(23.
(iL
eapag)
(g-
(Hi flucmitTna £ •lor entma
(g-
(g- fl
dallrata )
(Qqadcxiia goaf aa )
cacl'ata )
?.nceriue-dia)
Stock Island snail
noonday snails
painted snake coiled forest
snail
Virginia fringed mountain
flat-spiced three-toothed
etarfci nantafaata )
piatygaoi-de-s )
12
-------
Iowa Pleistocene (SJTC-CT
El Segundo blue butterfly (gcpfaiigtes, faattoi-de*
Lange's metalmark butterfly (ApoTiemia normo tamrei)
Lotis blue butterfly (Lveagrdg* argyftrenomav
mission blue butterfly (IcaTiria jgarioi-de-i m±8-8ipgen»i» )
San Bcuno elfin butterfly (€aitTypfaTT« mayai.!
Smith's blue butterfly (Exrptaii trees enootes «nritfal)
Kern primrose sphinx moth ( EtrDrp«en>linra eTTfer-pe )
Bahama swallowtail
butterfly (Papitlo anrfr'aemon bonfaotei )
Schaus swallowtail
butterfly (Eapiiip SSXOS^SSSS. peueeataa)
.blue black silver spot
butterfly (?)
Sococeo isopod
gray bat (Mvtrti? grl-ae»rgg»)
Indiana bat (JS.
After determining that the "...scope of [the] hazards could
not be adequately addressed by performing separate IRA'S for the
various actions...", after modifying the 4/3/80 review, and after
postponing the pending OES consultation, EZB found it necessary
to respond to a rebuttal of the 4/3/80 review by the registrant.
The rebuttal raised points which arqued that the use of Lor s ban
would be less serious than the EEB review had implied. EEB dis-
agreed on each of these points and continued to have "serious
concerns over the expansion of the outdoor uses of Chlorpyrifos."
(review dated 2/23/81)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on July 7,1980. After
withdrawing the consultation request on September 3, 1980, the
consultation process was reinitiated on November 20, 1980.
5. Consolation Administration
The initial consultation request, made on July 7,1980, was
withdrawn on September 3, 1980. The withdrawal was based on EEB's
recommendation against registering the product because of "pro-
jected unreasonable adverse effects to nontarget organisms."
EEB stated that they would "request reactivation" of the consult-
ation is if registration was pursued. On November 20, 1980, in
conference with OES staff (memo to OES dated 12/30/80) it was
determined that consultation would be reintiated "...for all
currently proposed use of Lots ban (Chlorpyrifos)." It was noted
that BPAB criteria for endangered aquatic organisms were
"..clearly exceeded by the mosquito larvicidal use."
Because of the complexity of the consultation, the TVS
requested an extension of the consultation period from April to
13
-------
June, and Chen to July.
6. Consolation Conclusion and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
In an action memorandum, ELD addressed the proposed use of
Lorsban and the objections raised by EEB. The draft included the
Eg* conclusion that ".o.endangered species may be adversly
affected." The product manager stated that BD "...should grant
conditional registration for all proposed uses..." based on the
"rather clean" use history of Chlorpyrifos , EEB'a inability to
provide "defensible" reasons for denying conditional registra-
tion, SPBD findings that EEB's referral of Chlorpyrifos to RPAfl
were not acceptable, and on specific crop use rationales.
A response to the BO action memorandum was made by EEB in a
memorandum dated 4/6/81.-This response noted that the Pit had
"...overlooked risk factors for assessing the impact of Chlor-
pyrifos proposals as reviewed by EEB." These omissions included
BPAB criteria for endangered/threatened species. Many of the Pit's
points were addressed individually and thereby expressed EEB'a
disagreement with each.
The EEB memorandum was never sent to RD and therefore the
PM's rationale never received critical review.
The BD accepted the registration of Lorsban 4E for use on
sorghum and nectarines on May 15, 1981. (see label)
The FWS (FWS/OES EFA-81-1, July 1,1981) reviewed the pro-
posed request for use of Loesban 4E, 15G, and SOW on twelve crops
and the "...expansion of the mosquito larvicide use of Dursban
10CB to allow aerial application." At the tiae of the consulta-
tion, Chlorpyrifos was registered only for use on field corn,
sweet corn, and popcorn. The FWS determined that the proposed use
of the above formulations would likely "...jeopardize listed
species and destroy or adversely modify their respective critical
habitats as follows:"
Dursban 10CR for control of mosquito larvicide.
T COP8 T ttlZ^TO
Hawaiian coot (FTiii-ea amerlra-na aiai)
Hawaiian stilt
Hawaiian duck
Hawaiian gallinule
Marianas mallard
light-footed clapper rail
California clapper rail
Yuma clapper rail
all listed fish
all listed mussels
pine barrens treefrog (HvJ,a anner-gom!)
Houston toad
San Marcos salamander (2j
Bed Hills salamander
Atlantic salt marsh snake (Ngrmiia faciata tagniata)
all 13 listed insects
14
-------
registration
Lorsban 4E and 15G on corn.
^pjBC^e.s. ^eopa T qtz^Tl
Atcwater's greater prairie
chicken (Tvnmaanetma copi-do
fountain darter (££bsoj£sag
Alabama cavef ish (Speoptatrrfaiims poxrisoni)
-__1 * ^•••tfi *•!• * fllM^MM^^ f T II • • ' L - X
yeilovtiSD ma at on i ngTgr^ia rrav J.B LIMITS j
voundfin
spotfin chub
slackwater darter (gtfaeostona
h imp back chub (filta eTpfaa)
Colorado aquawfiah
bonytail chub
Maryland darter
Commanche Springs pupfiah (€varinoTion
Pecos gam busia (Saatmsia
pine barrens treefrog (HTia
Houston toad (j
all listed mussels
all listed insects
Proposed registration
Lor aban 4E and 15G on peanuts.
Attvater's greater prairie
chicken (TnaoanncfaTii
all listed mussels
pine barrens treefrog (H-yia aTtriersonii)
Proposed registration
Lorsban 4E on sorghom.
Species -i
fountain darter
slackvater darter
Commanche Springs pupfiah
pecoa gambuaia
Houston toad
all listed insects
Pjaposed recistratiop.
Lorsan 4E on tobacco.
ieopafdiaed
yellovfin nadtom
spotfin chub
alackwater darter (Etfacosttma
all listed mussels
Pt uoosed registration
Lorsban 4E and 1SG on cole crops.
15
-------
gerles
spot fin chub (Hybeiwis aotB'etia )
unarmored threespine
stickleback (Sa^teroifep-B aroi.gatp'a
all listed insects
all listed mussels
r-egjstratitm
Lor s ban SOW on apples.
woundfin
Col oe a do squawfish (££yehjo£nsx2s8 i-acitra)
Gila trout (Salmo gita«)
Pecos ganbusia (Samtmaia nobllla )
all listed mussels
all listed insects
The service made the following recommendations of "reason-
able and prudent alternatives" to avoid jeopardy to listed spe-
cies and to avoid destruction of their habitats resulting from
the use of Chlorpyrifos:
1) "To avoid jeopardy to the Attwater's greater prairie
chicken [T-.cqpT-do a-ttwteril the 4E formulation should not be
applied on corn after April 15 and on peanuts after August 15..."
in specific Texas counties that were listed. "Also, the 15G
formulation for use on corn and peanuts should not be registered
in ..." those sane counties.
2} "To avoid jeopardy to listed fish and mussels, delete the
aerial application on corn, sorghum, peanuts, and apples, and
require a 100-yard buffer zone between any treated crop (except
apples) and any aquatic habitat, and for apples, extend the
buffer zone to 1/4 mile."
Three other recommendations were made in which jeopardy to
the pine barrens treefrog (gyta antteTwnil) . Houston toad (Brxfs.
hQuaSsnaia ) , and to listed insects could be avoided by prohibit-
ing use in specific counties of their range. It was uncertain if
any alternatives existed for avoiding jeopardy from the use of
the mosquito larvicide. Such use was expected to cause high
mortality and therefore OES stated that they "...must receive
assurance that Dursban will not be used in the habitats utilized
by listed species. If such assurance is possible, Chen jeopardy
can be avoided."
On August 11, 1981, OES communicated to EEB that, after
reevaluation, the Attwater's greater prairie chicken (Tveuui-do
ajaarayerl) would not be jeopardized by the use of- Lor s ban 15G on
peanuts. The remainder of the biological opinion was not altered
by this finding.
In a EEB memorandum to ELO dated August 14, 1981, EEB, while
concurring with the jeopardy opinion findings, proposed modifica-
tions to the OES recommendations by allowing buffer zones during
aerial spraying so that such spraying need not be eliminated. EEB
considered that these modifications would provide sufficient
safeguards for endangered species. The memorandum ended by stat-
ing "[slince the agency has already issued conditional registra-
tions of Chlopyrifos for many of the use patterns for which
16
-------
ACCEPTED
MAY 1 5 1981
rSS'^B-SS*^
No.
86-1641 PRINTED IN U.S.A. IN MAY. 1981.
INITIAL PRINTING WITH FEDERAL EPA APPROVED USES ONLY.
-------
'jeopaedy opinions' were obtained, the [ESB] believes that the
continued existence of many of the listed species of concern is
now even more tencacive. We jgtSBBSli request that this agency's
efforts be directed at protecting these species by requiring that
the use of Chloryrifos be conditional upon implementation of the
'reasonable and prudent alternatives' indicated."
A later EEB memorandum to BO, dated October 27, 1981, re-
tracted the aerial spraying modifications stating that they would
"...not provide adequate protection for endangered species."
As reiterated in the Chlorpyrifos Registration Standard
(9/84), KD informed the registrant that they would implement
endangered species label requirements under the cluster
approach.
17
-------
uv our or MACM or CMILOMN
•MCAUnONAMY STATEMENTS
MAT M FATAL IF SWALLOWED • MAT K ASSONMO
THROUGH SUN • MAT U INJURIOUS TO CYCS ANO SKIN
0» Not T«h» ImamaUy • Oe NOT OM to iv>& on Shta or on
COMBUSTIBLE
O* N« U«a •» Sto» Mm MMI t»
Oa Not Cut at ««d Cora
£lM
-------
ACC
Uaie: -j
Fuogieiaa
u
a
< £
s
g
0)
Ill
I«
III
II1
_ 7__— ^^~ ^^^^^^ ^^•^^•^••^
... I
. t
iEEiizsr ••"•••
•••^•MZTfJ^^Z*
-------
njvr ce n*3< cr
...„ !•!•••*•
-------
K*ys3£*s*
(second of two consultations on Chloepyrifos)
1* Product Same/ Common Same/ Chemical Name
Lorsban 4E and 15G/ Chlorpyrifos/ 0,0-diethyl 0-(3,5,6-
trichloro-2-pyridyl) phosphor othioate.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration for Che use of Lorsban as
an insecticide Co control various pests infecting soybeans, cit-
rus crops, alfalfa, and sunflowers.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) -Action
Concerning Endangered Speeiee
EEB considered the proposed registration of Lorsban on the
four crops to be similiar to a previous determination that the
use of Chlorprifos would jeopardize several endangered-species.
EEB concluded that a number of endangered species could be
affected by the new uses. A list of those species considered
affected by one or more of the uses is as follows:
light-footed rail
California clapper rail va. Mn^.™^
Tuma clapper rail (Bi iouitiTq'srrl'a mmanwtf±»)
California least tern
Attwatee's greater prairie
chicken
Kirtland's warbler
thick-billed parrot (gfavncfaot»lfca oacnvTirrncna)
Everglades kite (go-strfaam-ns aorria-biil-B ptragfaetn)
Bachman's warbler (
Cape Sable seaside sparrow ^^"^•••ptza nati/ciaa mira'brii'a)
tutiuiita'i'8
salt marsh harvest mouse (8gl-ehTTHtontoiirra rasr
Morro Bay kangaroo cat (ginortenrrs heermattnl
yellowfin chub
Leon Springs pupfish
Clear creek gambusia
San Marcos gambusia
goodenough gambusia
pecos gambusia
Big Bend gambusia
Moapa dace (Moana eoriacea)
Scioto nadtom
yellowfin madton
Colorado squawfish
Alabama cavefish
Gila topminnow
woundfin
unarmored threespine
stickleback (GajBtsEPsten* agaleatTa
18
-------
Pah tana gat bony tail
Cui-ui
Kendall Warm Springs dace
Pahcump killifish
long jaw eiseo
blue pike
bonytail chub
humpback chub
Mohave chub
•lender chub
spot fin chub
Arizona trout
Gila trout
Little Kern golden trout
'Lahontan cutthroat trout
greenback cutthroat trout
Paiute trout
leopard darter
fountain darter
slackwater darter
watercress darter
Maryland darter
bayou darter
snail darter
Owens River pupfish
Comanche Springs pupfish
San Marcos salamander
Houston toad
pine barrens treefrog
Santa Ceuz long-tailed
salamander
desert slender salamander
Bed Hills salamander
(Sita robrrata Jordan!)
)
( Enmetricn tfav» latos)
(Coregouus
(Gila
(6- erpfaa)
(£3. faignlnr nohavcnil'i )
eahnl)
(Satao apache)
LsJas)
i agm bu nita
(8- trtarfci
(Si
( C V p C TPPTJOTl
(Slit vuga tama )
(••^^ • ^, •••E«io w ma ^
""•*•" nPH»CmH8ii»T» J
(Hvia
(fla-erarfaff»e-p» arldna)
California elderberry Beetle
Delta green ground beetle
El Segundo blue butterfly
Lotis blue butterfly
mission blue butterfly
Smith's blue butterfly
San Bruno elfin butterfly
Lange's metalmark butterfly
Kern primrose sphinx moth
caTTTot m.rm diuiprpfans j
(finpfaltote«
(g-
nritfal
( gn-pr tyser pl-mra
EEB referred the conditional registration proposals to OES
for a formal biological opinion.(review dated 12/31/81)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on January 8,~1982.
this action to be a reinitiation of the formal consultation
process since a previous consultation had been done.
19
-------
5. Consultation Initiation
EEB and OES agreed to a 30 day extension,, which placed the
conclusion of the consultation on May 22, 1982.
6. Consultation Conclusion and Environmental Protection Agency
Bespouse
The BD accepted the registration of Lorsban 4E for use on
Alfalfa on April 22, 1982.
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-82-3, May 21 1982) determined that
"...the sunflower and citrus uses of Chlorpyrifos are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of their re-
spective critical habitats." OES did determine ".'..that-the
alfalfa and soybean uses are likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of certain listed species and result in the destruction
or adverse modifications of their respective critical habitat as
follows:
Alfalfa
Pahranagat bonytail
Cui-ui
moapa dace
fountain darter
Pecos gambusia
San Marcos gambusia
pahrump killifish
Comanche Springs pupfish
Colorado squawfish
unarmored three-spine
stickleback
Lahontan cutthroat trout
woundfin
Houston toad
rough pigtoe
Higgin's eye pearly mussel
(
-------
ACvJ uri L.V
S32 j
F«o«rc.
and Hadaaucts* A:.
a* savr.dre. tai a*
86-1417 PRINTED IN U.S.A. IN JUNE, 1982.
REPLACES SPECIMEN LABEL 86-1417 PRINTED IN MAY, 1982.
DISCARD PREVIOUS SPECIMEN LABELS.
REVISIONS INCLUDE: (1) ADDITION OF CITRUS FRUIT CROPS, (2) GRASSHOPPER CONTROL
FOR COTTON, AND (3) VARIOUS INSECT CONTROL ON SUNFLOWERS. .
SL14S
-------
-Uorsban
4E
RQ INSECnOOE
LIQUID N.HS.
(CNarpynfoi MA 1993
rfMABLE LIQUID
insecticide
for Control of Various /nstcts
Infesting Cfrtun Fi»M. Fruit.
Nut. and V*ggt*6/9 Crops
Comalot* Diractions for Us*. Usa
Precautions and Restrictions. Hazards and
Other Important Information for the Proper
Us*. Handling. Storage and Disposal of this
Product.
EM Mao Ne «I4
-------
HAZARDS
KEEP OUT OP »EACH Of CHILDREN
WARNING
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
HAZARDS TO HUMANS ANO OOMSS7IC
ANIMALS
MAY 8C FATAL IF SWALLOWED • MAY 8(
ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN • MAT g( INJURIOUS
TO EYES ANO SXIN
Do Not Take Intemalrf • Oo NM Got In Em. «•
Shm of M ClottMQ • Aewe) SnadMo, Vooera ead
Spray Mm • Wart Ttofwt«Mv Aftw Headline.
Statements of Practical Treatment
H Swollewo* Oo not moueo vonmne, Camem* wenooc
0mai«ao> sonron Cob a pnveicien «nmo*eio*
HO* Skin in CM* a> contact remove eantam«eioa eoBmg
••at*
>r'! - -. n • •- r .' - ; a.- : •«••» -»
• te t.c »t •• b-ti i . -j«i
a* *a c .asjreur-ot. ix
is-»«
Uoe eod Oooeeo MocwMMeoonaao
•IHlf £ us* kCRSBAN i£ R ;oino- me (enowing costs ot
m* tosogos -wca-cs ay loexat^-- es e O'ooocosi lose-
spr»
eorr rootworms looumi
raunoooors "t te i otm or acre
AMira oiocn «orimwr utatta leoaor affaire ween
tomes cMMfim Egvpaan aitoMa wee* pant bugs
I a 1 pme oat acre
eaniMiMiwM ciomuig before rouM
Fhisii eyes wtmpiorir^o* worn tor nimmitos CHI
MU no rooiproo doooao mm enougn water n ensure
moreugn coverage ot ereo 1011040 ana aootv using aonoi
nlieo-wing or naMoann or oowai-oooroiaa grouna tars*
aoiuomoni For aona> aoetieanan u*o 01 leott 2 gonom 01
water DOT aero Troai wnen ftoM counts or creo awry
indKotos ma damaging pan goouMtMin on OOMMOMO or
present, nowauat do net oapw moro nan onto w em
fit •: -t •:;.«. ••- -.i-L 1-3^1;- :..t.-.
^I-K^': IS!D T r.l3:s*s«f •• :rx ;» ™»i- •»
1 1: .1 *wt ifl'SoAS «• :r ac-t •» su.-» :• :r
la-Mi p« a>i«(B ie-»»i aaen 6flC te :2X v*- :~
9a» ocro
r: a».-nj sane
aokaoot af «• *v dn»if sow* aooi* I20C :: 2UC gauont
o> sora* or aero Ok- do net iopi» noro ma' ;; B-rrs e*
LO"SB«n> *i eor Kri
'Coliano«o ear aero oasoo en atorogo tat tf msiirt trooi
Aoiua OS trot suo por acra
For duuio aooneoaons use no wccifiee aosoae •• nr
goUans al attar rar mo »e»ee moo maieotoa tor oon to oo
eomrauod. For toinoouaio «ara«o uso mo saoio amount o*
UJRSBAN 4C oor acre mot amna ee nmaotf tor aooncaoen
oe o Ottuto sorov usmo, aooroonoto aopueaoon- emoraqe
proBoauroi Troot wnon insocn ooeamo a erooiom or n
accoroonto witn-mo locoi IOTM sengoui* rteemmonaoe ov
vow &ioto btansran Sarmeo SooaoMst Oo noi oepr* eunn;
Moon eonoa or «m«n io">ooraiuro oieoaos £•*-
AooamaoMO-Oo not tea* ixmrtntn-} letfceiiariratf nvt
war or more nwr> it onis or IffffSaVM *f >«>oeficio* tf-
NOT8 T8 PNVSIOW CMorovnroo aocHomooioraio irmo>
m Trsat wiMtomeacaav MrooMie OINV o* ifqocnon « tf
tmoote
Physical mud Clttmtetl hasards
COMBUSTIBLE
Oo Not UM or Store Now Hen or Oeea Flame
Oe Not Cut 01 MMd Caraiaw
Environmental Httmrds
Thii oreaue: >s mom* tout a aoos uacne w a**
Ji aim en' v rtsioyos ar aiaamn; eran o> ««te: C*. n
•ao't nut 3rn«ue- ar wow " to arm te Sioomms ;-esi
••cos 1 6*« ar» winmf m« trooontm wot
LQRSBAN 4{ unoeoeioo snouM not Be lanMmod Mir
oooaeiflH atftactann ortomnoriorriniiaiionounianonor
uoe NOI mown mo cameuioaan no«nmgnau« unar you-
current ca««nom0uia SomooiwntancsvmotomimavOf
OBiOf«o« on coneio oer rti-
OTRUS FHUITS ,i» LORSBAN 4C «na:««ia at tr« rotoi
inaeiiae" ::trg no tonowina pests ust r.t icwv roioi
'o- tint .-tf.ai.gr.: *no inoeeae me ccupe ror naono*
•nlesionans
«o»> orrno Aeroie*'ruiroraeornor«>ar*in«eniuioeenroeriMn
TO « tnrnot t ttn tntr trttmtn Oa nor jkdw mtaee* te
grut m inane oroos
COm *OKOIM SWtET CORN For uoe 14 eomrw
am>fMio*m criincn Dugs, grnsnoooors. mto-
wcrms tioo oaeoe lorvao ana oauns ooniai DulOuOS gruBi
svmonvtono ono losoor eornsrou Oaror
Praoum Iworaaranan Tmnnmi • Uso IORSBAN «E at mo
touo*ing raioi 8v aopneonon in tuffcaom woia> (0 mo sou
surtaeo 010 incorooroio into mo SOP
Cutworms svmomwis 2 to * oints oar aert
Murotnorms. DMOuos nao ooroa lorvoo jrues * pmt:
oor aero
U flsomciao is tone to *sn Bras, me emo>
Fni>anacnisuctan»m«« ot ulaoeiRnrnMtorsart
tamammaiod «Mm mis proeuei Kaoo oat e> iwos, stroo'ns
:onoj ncai morsnn ana tsiuonao Oa not toot* wnort
-unort a ki«v 10 occur Oo not aeon w««n woaatfr csno.
. ions tonaronri from trootoa aro 01. Oonateontarmnoiovioir
iv ooonino, of aowpmom or dioeosal e> waste* Uso trus
jroouei anr» aa sooerfiod an tms loeol.
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
I • o melonae ol Fodorat law to oae CM oiedoot • o
UIRS8AM «E
•nm mmr one a xunaote (or use n oH eanwnmnol hono>
ina pewar-aaerataO) ground sorsw oouwfflOM. Aonoi sprov
lowomam eioa mev oo uoaa imnaro sooediad
To oroaore no sproy..aad o portion of mo roauvoe) omeum of
•otor to mo larov arm ona twin agnation ooe) me U1RSB AM
>E Cemomo ffliuig mo torn
-------
KCEP OUT OF PEACH Of CHILDREN
WARNING
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
HAZARDS TO HI/MAMS AND DOMESTIC
ANIMALS
MAT BE MTAl IF SWALLOWED • MAY BE
ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN • MAT BE INJURIOUS
TO EYES AND SKIN
Do Not Tome Internal* • Do Not CM to E*M M
Skin 01 oa Cloduog • Avoid Brooming Vapors and
Soro* Mm • Wood Thorough** After Handling
Statements of Practical Treatment
If lOTMoaeed Oo not otauco vommng Camera orematK
potraieum sonant. Con • pnvsioan immaaicianj
T'ase- an o* "-t —?ai — A; -.•««. •- .f I — 3,1-,-
'"•eae-aft B- »•: .ti.au >ei •«
Uae Md Douo* ••CMHMMKIO«I
ALHLFA .-so tCB£5Ar. 4£ « contra- r.. » .«•.>•; :*sii a-
me ootagei ">ft:»t»e sx aBpucai.or it a :• :*3. *»:
NOoSta in em a» eomta remove con
ana «nmetteie»v ikiifi tin wmt saw
csfiummctM ending Before rmt
a aonwtc
WMH
aonvsicnn
MDn Itl PNVSIOAII- CMarnrrtu • • elMMOIinit MiM5r
m Treat lymptameDCeMv Atropine am* o» inrecDon it tn
•man*
Miyucml ««td Cfcomie*/ HmUs
COMBUSTIBLE
Oo Not Use or Sioio Neor Hooi or Open Hunt
Oo Noi Cut or Wold Comomer
Cffwromne/rtt/ Hftmrds
Tim product a nig1"* tone to tm traosea to
manor o' rt»c«ti an b-asmmg eroas a> weeds De no;
s»v Wit oroauc- a* MO» n ic aim te seaming cropi or
•rates * oeei •'» «•««( IK* veotmem area
4{ ifaenciat is tone te ftsn was ma emr
wndite Ftsr.onacrusiacesrs «•« oe Miaou mar wote«ioro
CSWKIIMIM wrmIIM 0'OOu.l lOCO 0111 01 WtN SUtimi
gonas tie» marmei e»o tsimrws Oa n« taotv wnere
nine* is Mar* to occur Do not aoory wnan waamor cenai-
uonstavoranftframtraatea areas Oonotconiomwatowaier
ov ciiamng at tauipmom or disoosai of VMHM Ust mis
preouci only as specified on mis iittal
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
CD-''ocrnxxmi i»owm,
giassnoppns ^ u i aim or acre
Affeita BIOKR eetmmr a»or>a loeor pnona weew
aoflias cuivtorms tgvBMr Ulan* weew piem Dual
loamoeoers i to 2 emu par oca
Mil aia roauwea eaaagt wrgt eneugn watar n ensure
meraugr> coverage at croo tenage ana aoor* uuig aen«
ffiieo-wing or nencooteri or powr-ootrateo grouno sorov
eouiomom For oenoi aponeation use at least 2 gaiiarn tt
watar per acre Treat vmen fieio counts or crop «iuiv
inocates mat oemiging pest eoaiaotions ara aeveioemg or
prosam rtowever ae not appnr more man once per crag.
LORSBAN 4E mseaeiae snouio not aa t
posaciaas suftoctoms or rarmiar tormuunans umoss one*
u«a lies tnowo me combination nofwniunoul unar your
current conationi of use Some pnvtotauc symptoms mov oa
ooterveo an veung tenor reoidtv growing utaita wnen
treated wrrn lORSBAN tt Alfalfa VMI outgrow me symptoms
ana no yiaio loss snauid Be aioactao
Aeaovtoaa. Oe nor cur or aw* rreanW Itttttt mmim M
daw «ne* teanettieii a 1 amr of LOPSBtH 4f pt> acre nor
•0/M7I aav) *nineane*uon or ceres tu*» I e-mgtfien
Oo nor moae mare mar 4 les/'CJKO*! per »»«•
Onus HturTS Uir LOPSBA>« 4{ :istcti:iai ar me met
mojcaiee te contra ire tanowinc, pastt bit m» .OMV rater
tor igni intasuiion ane mcreete me aosact <*• niav.«>
mieitenom
jn-i
LORSBAN 4C i
•rim wetor one a suaooia lor wo ei ad csnvaneanol hand-
and powar-ooerated ground spray aawpmem. Aanal seray
eauipmem aiso may be wad wnara saecned
Jo proooro mo sorey. odd a aaraan of me roaovad amount of
wsteru ma spra* ant and wan agaoMn add ma LORSBAN
4E .Campioia Alkng me tank wan ma batanea of water
noodod Momtoin suffcciont agitation duimg aom mamg and
eppkenan m ansura undormny of mo spray manure
LORSBAN 4£ naocacMta may ate Bo wad m tank i
wim cortoin nofbNjidas ondior wim non^rossuro fonjuor
latutjons aa recommended under soaedw crop uae ettac-
bent. Proooro tank matures in ma same monnar as recom-
mended above tor usa of lORSBAN 4E atone Wnen tank
mmurei at LORSBAN 4E and harttedat era nvetved. add
wenafilt powdon first flawebias tecano. and amilsaebla
cancanvnae left Wtiere e f eittuoi selutien a nvaniad. it«
nrengly racommanoao mat o terttkier panada eomaaaaMy
agent lucti as Umte1 ar Campai' be used. Maaiuin constom
agnaoan dung bom mnang ana appkcsoan a ansura
unrlomny of dia carav moaura.
NOTE. Teat comaaao*tv of ma mended tana manura before
addmg LORSBAN 4E to me spray ar ma tank. Add prooorM-
l of aacn aigraoiant u a pun or guan ujr. cop.
Pago 4
1
S
8
!r
3
s
s
! .« •;•' ' s -> •• ::
»B-O. .-I w't». •:: si ~ ra. .j :•
*t
aosiQtt as ir (9' s-jif sa'ovi ica-« '?OC it ?(C
e* tc'»» po K;» s»- ac net Ki • «ort tn»r i;
lORSB** «: or icri
'C*ienoft oar irrt DISK OP •»••!$» wt e- m».
AOIUSI 10 iiat uf o«' t:rt
fo fcwit aopiieueni gst mi wacinea 9011;
gallons at «aiar te> mt >or«v r»o» «a>ciiae to- 31
camrouto fv coneaMraia saran JM ma same v
LORSBAN 4t par icri mat waiue ot naaaae
bloom periee o* wnan temparsiur* aicaeas SS>
daiOMOana'Oe nor •B«II> mart nun ! loenCfHom i
rear or marv man IS wni.e/ tOASAAM ff intent
aere0*r innirec Oa nor mitt ircane taaucvwn a
ata at rna hat aBewtMn Oe net trttt <*aiun Tt etvi
Aarvetr for aoMicanens ue n I gmt at LOHSS&k tt t
oar •mm JS-aars 'o/ jeancjnor ar r«*i MOM / »
acra Oo net 0>c« /rwr or oc orfff r von .n»o;».«0 c om»
a-at j •»m/i 7 nrs «"»' trtimtm Ot AC: *'O» »cs.
arua «i irtwae araa:
BOB CORN POPCORN SWEET CORN FOI use 'i
cuiwonns innx»ortn» cmncn au;s grismsiocs
•aims flap oerna larvia one *duiu *pnioi Dn>ovgs
svmpnviaRs »ne lasser cornsuii ooif
Praetam mecraoraiian TiMmnm •„» LOPSBAN c. a:' sc**> •:"-!• i.
• t ••»!•• »* n«: ;'c •••• i: a. «i. ;•
r t-n:n»r- r:;-c;-ju t-, huc:.>c
mt lot 2 1C * 'nenis o< ton using a sue t.*
-------
•idai
oaror control
aim armvwarm. aoMd. Eurasian *M
K inufloaadrs. ana inaar eomawl
i oroaoca* »r»» uiwa, oHWir aariaMlliod-wMd, or
« ar oonMr-aoarataa qrowu tan* towpdiim. far
j-Tinfl- mm '•«« 1 qauaMnt laran am aero. for
t t * orMVMM ra MOW IOHS8AN 4C «*M sort i«
4 -«rmi an acavd on or mar aid tat lurtaei. *
Tawaossrsrenmr* uma ottf daanon. «mnns
»gi«tM from end sorav and «(faca»o»aaa Ml 9*
. •* Tilt* '"~-
•aoon» n»arm»oon cantornmdi cutworm contra
• n vowr KM. far rtrw-qinoraoon Eurasian cam
•sat TI* wflwi ii to 50 oireim of mi com aunts
II
Far 9M ra«M an oaitaarmt. >i i« AtaoMtM (Ml ««Mi aa
icauiM IVMCI ear «MOI an« triaamoms «aao w*ios warm*
if • /. men ar i«n M i
in Euroooon earn aoror control. Tin -non no*
tag musM widKan pdsa ars ar mi* oaeomo •
Far Mutnwosnm cam Mrar control lrt« «non
ts o> too] massMMiOKai* OMH «r« ar m«* 0«cam«
i A ««eon« aooweanan m*» 01 aoflmd 10 to l« davi
nar aoon/ mdrd r»an a ram ot IS OMB oi LOHSMtM
n aft laaddit Od oor atfow tvdsidcf m jnw <«
/••as maMwn
aonmMd, «oad camral at ai»a. Camdor tnno niqgnaara
•nw «ow«itj LOHS8AK «C ntocnodd on eenon
Aonol AdHicann: Sharron Mom imam ta avoid tanv
tmwHid, tno vdrneaa at mo wMif, nas. 4MMOI Mi«n tnowd ao
d »neoon >t am umo as aronon at
ONMioodM oaratnion*
UTl/ACM
l taZoum
3iu» 1/1 ta vi out
Ml l/tra 1/4 wnt
I
jrouoo Jf itn
jamaqin; Astc-
Mnmar«auirae
I (02BMHS
j l/t ta i/I aim
l/Z ta l SIM
5iu« 2/3 to I 1/3 Oinw
t
US J.I,
aha at ib LI
at Id AmoncM tic
TnaaiMM at fMC Caroariaaa.
i ot fanantaontan Savor Gmon Lavonusan
'Usd «m» imidsulaoii 'armuiaaons comnnnq mm acovo
vta aw tarn numro camodnoms m wMaom wanr ta
msunuianudn eonoraqo oroiamsiatiaastl oadonot terav
par acre* and aaan> u*mq ainai sen* iduienism. Trial wnm
toM Cdomi imaeaci damadjMd, >nsaa aoauiaaons «« do-
IIISB»H or prosom. Ro- .•
Wlkc «r» one !
.• i -til jmwwirm
it rorcamra at ~i 'n tni wsartuwn 9) canon
MOf and 10 Ml ir r
Thi orooif nosfld amnqmiim and n»*0i -wotn to
mot and voroeaa «t*«t can 01 cniciid aux ev -Ni^ ay«r t
aaoar :aoi asanq mae»nd paaor* 'jun? »aiir «m jr
OTtnout tantow Jv* i f>« «vi v«as a oomanim -icarii
=S-)« M * "nant at WJ 'tat aoo»« »• * oouinid. Hio iwrnn —otn inowdnoc ao
MOW man mi soom :rrtt tdra* i »mid sera* M oa n«
dopond on «. Uto flat *an or aoencnoa and a «ra» priuuro at
«MO a» w*1l a drown «• at KB-200 mwrana.
L- Od nor aMn/ «wniit it *w a «/or» /rarvnt Od
pt«««Me*mfraMMImdrad«rta« 0dndf«Md«M
am* ar iraaaM foridw * (vosfaet.
UMSMN «t wMcacidd vt8t:»erv :a --t ?i«
>itr*-*l «« and znuv* >;ra»
. *••• 'i-»»r»s : -is • j >or '8 .•« u;*a -jr -3.-a,'».
"*» it »*«•
Oa toTTiar tiM*r v
an aor yidr 3»t»a on ««*•««•
«I.««d Jan. JI 3f LOHS8AM K W anwnt «v iuiat I
'•npcrod -e <«»M. Mcfx^aff. Mimttton. Viv .
Him, JO* 0rvddM Mumnim" ** W'tcamm
Jid u3"S8A*« «6 -sr Mmm it •«•
.issar ::rrv
u ; i-" - ;
•a- 1 '••• ••>
;••• j-.-» r
JV a »«;-
iian »ef ;«»
«C »
aoo
'•canary
Jwav 3or acri.
•wninocc. Jo
»r *eri jr 7 jot
aen a*r ? »«o«
aaarr
/avt
mu
ion as
*«i*t
jailor.
.:"nta>i ssrir * ta « aims sir »c:» -as 4
-------
ACCEPTED
APR 2 2 882
86-1417 PRINTED IN U.S.A. IN MARCH, 1982.
REPLACES SPECIMEN LABEL 86-1417 PRINTED IN JANUARY. 1982,
DISCARD PREVIOUS SPECIMEN LABELS.
REVISIONS INCLUDE: USE ON ALFALFA AND SOYBEANS TO CONTROL
CERTAIN INSECTS INFESTING THESE CROPS.
-------
KfiSP OUT Of REACH Of CMILOMN
MAV BE FATAL I* SWALLOWED • MAV Bt ABSORBED
THROUGH SKIM • MAV BE INJURIOUS TO (YES ANO SHIM
Do Mot-TM* imwfwllv • 0« Not Got «• EVM. a* Skin o» on
Clmiwng • AVON! •'••Mimf v«aon MM Son* Mta« • Want
MM In* <> •(•Of««rA*l/TV m «n«tl K» t
OMBVMI Oa«a»
U« ^BBiO .
THE OOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
AM SUMIOlMIH
meMia*M <*••• USA MQHOIM ••nrzCM.Ane
OA«IU nana* I»IM u»* SAHIMA. OMTAMIQ.
e
•«o•••
• • o *ee«
• ••
• • •
• ••
• ««
• • •
• • o
SL1090
-------
a • • • •
a e • « e»
a toe »«• *
a a * »
a • t, ..BO
m
is »i
>iM«
!lii
!|'o
! *°
'5
SPECIMEN LABEL
(HACK)
REDUCED TO 75%
HA1AROS
•ftp out of HI ACM at ctmoHtN
. WARNING
PHICAUIIIINAIK SIAIf MINIS
HAIAHOS IO MiMMMS AAlO UtIMI SI• •.!• fiwlacto k»»l« O^M U
f • thin i.plii.d*
1HANMAIMM. IIOIIIlUbtH M,wu...|
t Md I o glith da nui u» ihit fiaduct ynM Iho
bbM li» b..n lull! ••iii.uiMl lu MM I
to <••• ul m •m»(u>| MdMHMni M» M
pluti.n, UKol.iny ihit paaWl MoT ca*Kl
II? U* 4400
ACIIVtlMI»HkMfNlo
Cl.lu. U|i»1 „» |U U ilKMyl O
lit* uiihiuia 1 |i»na|t|
|thui|iliuiuihiB*l«|
•ul.wil
iNtHi ihcntoiiNia . .
Canluiii « pound! ul UlllUBf lHo» DM |(llan
»'••» w
r*iustl mult Clumictl lleuilt '
COMBUSIlBIt
Of *•> UM M li«. M»u MM M Opn IUM
Ot Nu CM «
U CHI •> mm ••Hl4«f »
•II »JB 44OO
AOIIICUIIUHAI CII4MICA1
B« NM Stiy « lun
Dings tt L
f awf mmmalml Humid,
It* tntMt « !.,•., )..< i. i,.. ,.,...« to oiia
fc««M«l (I l.v^.0 kl b..^., .•>,.« MM, IM Ml
y, mt
Co MM kbe huiiulli • G« bat Cai b l|0n o:
IIIHICHUNSIOHU&C
suuuuv uuf or uui
CMIIMII
UHMtDlH)!
MUM
i
t
i
t
e
l
II
It
M
II
It
U
I*
M
II
U
••MB
M Ml I»H ••• AM M
ml* to •« mi! Itrf M M* •*•!•• IAI U lOIUtll
N t««»i •».« M w. M> »7t.ur.« ...; 10<44*" « —"«-• •••« ««. ••» «-* -a
f tlfcliU IMrttClwa «I
IOIUM It MtlkiM M, «M M .M » IHO
.-. ^KAl u« M. i.M w,..^,.,
IMIMM IftU «tkllC • IlltUkl
kl. .. *• •»»••« •.«. nn«MN»wu MI MM
MU UM MfUU IMII COU I. M M .M..
-------
*4t4Mt4> 4WI k4* M4««
I»||.I'»4 ••* 144.11 • I
4^4k 44»Mf.AM
««UI K..4 4*4| • ••f4f!44t 4. »•-» V .14.
J||>| til* HIMM
Oil Ml* I Milch '•i*
W*im4 4)1 J J »•„
H M » *<
H.Kk.
I
IV
w* •••* r»»»i44.'( ' 4A4'.|klll4
-4.. 4»1» »4 >««• 4>< 4».l. -4 W4I»4) 1».M 4« M -44 f f I Jl" .1 H if f''
. T_ .,_ J«.k4.4M«4»'M»«4..«4< .
• MM,rtk.4l4»»«»rf4»»»4«4M. ' 1.44^4* ilCl •«..„!,
k CW*4l W4C44M44 «M4 I
IMl»»44M*l
".4
"M
.," anon*
,rf4>4U4ll4.b.«4. "•'! IWlM-l*.
l.l^41«W4.» 4"4 4*4
*4kM U.. *( «4>*
*41W4kl4>4>
/f\T
" it
.Ml'.. I..111.1 •.«•>'•'!••"« ^*'l »« — «»« |*
• .il «• |.*M»44.'«4J4 414M4MCI
M 4M llrtM 14 C4MI4I •••«-- -
4«l Ml -4..rf 4M4M iMk44«W (to* 4... II «-
M.t^J ..4 4*>4M m
*•"*'
»••»«..,^i •••• I-«-
<»lil«i •"< imvl Mill* M* »• "••
tMlKt • fM « •••** •«
•n,,t WK.I •«».«• •«••!
l4 41 !• t»^.«l
•I *• |«.(I«.A «..ng. k, 444>kl4kM M 4 t...4.1U
•Ujl«MtMlk>l4M4l'ttMMI4MI
I..IM«I«4MM444 M« |M tytorfk.!! |««kM« M4M. »
T;g*^y^!i t«*..,««4ii-»'»4.k«1..».,«
Ma iti ritii-it fTTijT
...... >• I* r~"< ..!*•«•."• -«• MOM
it-.i'.r - "-*-•-1 -* —- «•
WM' ••*• N M.HI
•kMk • •* 4.14(41 **»M U. *. im*44 4ll4|4 to 4>4<4I H |»» 4* M4 »M •
I* 4H 4.4» *l *. (4VM 0 4^ 44 • ««k BM4
M.M.. J.'Hr.y^JC*!^ r~-~ 4*41 •
M 0,1 .*>( tHMMM •« Ml »•« !"••
».- MM«4 ur.««> » «•< « '•'• ••— •" *"•' M
•Mil nlUMI II.. 1 0»SI«N M U «M«t r»«MV-M
•Mali
IMSMN « IkKlMMI M !•»
MltKIMU
t^t «T*>Mbt *MkM I* — 4M4| .k-. • 4>n
Ukn Uraia Iv «W 1441 M« «4».rf MA
•M44MMMM
l.f MM 4<4l4
. IM| 4M4>
Iw *-«• 44.4|4 •"•* 4*4kj *. 4*4ClkM 4...*. M •
».*!4U«k44l444MI»<>«J «U *• Mil
1M »MI MfWil Ml »MM
UM IIMM*N U MKKIM Id HMD •• **
I Mk I Ml «*M 4l I
I 44IM4I M* » •
I. 4l IMM4M 41 k> 44.414 Illllll4lll4l UU 44 41
Ml**MJ 4HI* «M l**4*4>IMM4*J
( M M •«
!»"••
M*»l
k, t M»4 •*••! I MM •»* *• «*M « ««««•!
fl40411 MCIMMII UM IOMI4.M « I -
»4 C4MI4I 4l M**" "44 »• «" H 4||4I|4|4 M • *•**
• *44>4M <
IHI MMI U4| IMUM 41 M • 4MBMI 41 4414144 .... .. . -. — .
i4!4I4*4l*4l4«.«^ I44IM *V M4 4>W •** 41 **» *4«Wl4 - ,:- -
M4WC •«•*•«
MMI4MII lM*IIMil>4J4l4>l4M4l.44IIMM4l4M T- ~^ J^ tH*^."^.1*^^
I •) I* «"«»•»<••
941 HMU44.
f MA |4
• • •
H4IM4I »4 «M I4UM 4>«l> 4M44M. •» ^T IMMM
riMV4V «.«k N M44.4I4 41^ kl«» «4» -444M • •
I4C4U4 (M, 41444 MM »«4>I4 '*~ 4>k«l U< 4<
•4U<44 I.M...C. *IM>
0« M« CM , t.4«4fc»4»
l«4» •4HIMI 4WI •.. 4»4«n 14^4»M 44 414
-------
CIlMUllSllBIl
04 MM UM M Stai* M.*J •••• M 0.4. f lMM>
•* N« CM M MMM (•MM**
,.1,4.1, ,4,41...., U,, k.44-11
AOMCUttlMAt CIltMIC At
•• M«l U.f M Jl.14 MM I... I..M
44 MM
M M >• 4-I »44 - >pi
• 44....JJ.. ... .1-4. ..»-.-.-.„...-.•. ..4444 M
4r4*» M .. ». .. J^t I .H ....A 4 I. 4 • I. I Jill 114 «.*M
• ..I. J I ...... ....»-. .4.
44,Ai^HQf «444.4 4l44» 41* 4.4.4-., |4* ll.444.Ml 4144
MEtr OU1 Of MACH Or CMHOMf N IIM-IA* «t ....I.... .. 4~.. t. ... k.*. ... ..M
WARMING 4*44H.I.Ul4..4HI-4l4..4*4«4|M444l4jy.M4>444.4M«
g ............. .4. ».. ..„*... .4., ..I 44 MM M.I'M.
•M^K^JI* ™ M.*. f-7 tr: ..t::: nt rr - —-"
M*« MI MM H SMMI Owt • • n»r »l ., "J.,*, j .,. v».,j ^ ..
... ....... u ...N . u», |( IMJUMOM M.4-I..4, .. ...li.j ..««
11*4. 4J>44> MM II «» 444M4M »>*l ***!. M* 4> 4M» fJIMM Vl. IMl.'M H 1*1 t.-J-f tf
III 4*1 4 M*l4Mi !• MM wMto*. «*MOI »w* 4M *4|
t*>M4444>4M4ltf 4M4. « • . Jtlll.l ..III • «4»4|» i
mr — it n-i"~t"""•*!•*• ~r~"•""**r-
-J-J-|-l--f *- ' ^--.—4— C.4M4I «I.«»>*M. M44I **4>l
W4M*jllto4.M>4l4l.44.*«4**lM.)MCk44«M>*«< »,|444«.<1» I* I*
IM«^44. M.M M^ *M M44«M «.*H»« to *>. M44It! ^Ht, S^ f
M*Uk
C.I III. I H*Uk ''»' H.I
-o.m. M J J 4,M |
Ml* »i»u> | |
Ml MtH •«•• l
MI*, u IM •>•
44 Cu*n'«« hto-a IM IM* M* •* MM*t»
I Ml >. UH44V4.4 I
-I"-*' -..
•••4*4 ..»-. fat MM « IMUUII a «•«• WM« l
•MMM •* ld*St Aft a **J >•»>< .Ml M« **.A«4
.***'* i. M •••Hill I ««WW
-4**4 ft ^,1
•» *M •** t •*'• MM 4 M»M JiMM Mf »»«
Mil MM. >OKM» IIMII (MM i* MM M
• Il*ll41.t *l »• 4fl*k *.4I'I*
UM I Mil AM U * »«
I .44144 1*1.44 |>.M I*MH
.»).....144.
I U 1 »»M »^ «Cf •
K 14 I 4.M M. Ml*.
M4 *M% **** •**'•*
44-414 J 14 Jr.,. .^ .1.4
Mil <•••«••)•
H^m M •••
M(MH *M« MUUt Ml
». IWMl I*MH»
IOHSONII
>».. !•—4'IJI
U4*.M4MM1 IMM4N4I
t*»rt*m'i»
CM M oumd H **«**« »« «
1 IWil.lt. M
« UkI Ml lu •
•»*-*** M
Ml Mi •** *
ru ill k M fM
**-• I.I). 1 <«(»*)
ru i/i wi i/i ,^4
Phrt 1 » •.
IMIItli
i|TI|itll[t v| aij^jti*,!! KMM §•** I
•Tit Jl H?jli!lfil.\jr»l«*lltt1 * ""•• •"• "*4»4«4«to M.4V4M4M 4VMI4W4
•VMMMM**!
-I
4« I 44i.*l.ll*4*l l4fM i<44)*l»»*Ttl44**
* 4*.*4* 4W4.I 4.«>*. 4.44 •. H44 i...4l Ig I444*
M* «*.«•! •*»«. <»>»*< M»HH ••h*rf»|M»f J«Hif •!• i»l li*M *
M-ii *•-•»• iliilt >H MPl*.)..*.! HUMI ».i»-i«li"JH •••
Trrlfn* M J'*
KffiWW iMMjl
** M«« M*l
M*« Hf -Ml I*i4 (.* n*.»
• •KlkXHll
N«i M .11. I. M
Ifv
•»*••' ••>•*•>••• «•• J >*«•»«••> ..
-------
CoroiTie^atioaa fee
1. Product Sane/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Bolero 8EC/ Thiobencarb/ S-[(4-chlotophenyl)methyl]
die thy lea c banothioa e,e .
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration for use in dry seeded rice
in Tezaa, Louisiau, Mississippi, and Arkanaaa to eonteol water-
grass and spe angle top <>
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effect* Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Specie*
EEB considered that, although the product vaa not hazatdoua
to non-endangered birds. and mammals, it could be hazardous :to
endangered organisms. Since the product was considered extcemely
hazardous to aquatic organisms, EEB stated that when applied the
user "•..must contact the office of endangered species and the
local Department of Fish and Game to determine if any endan-
gered/threatened species are located adjacent to the treated
areas." The review noted that an area of major concern would be in
Arkansas where the fat pocket book pearly mussel (Potamiigs cross)
is found near eic'e regions. EEB stated that the product "...must
not be used in areas where impact of endangered/ threatened
species is likely."
EEB also determined that 8 PAR criteria were fulfilled be-
cause residues in water were greater than 1/2 the acute LC30
values for many indicator species and exceeded levels that pro-
duce chronic effects in estuarine and freshwater invertebrates
and estuarine fish.
Based on the available data, EEB objected to the registra-
tion of Bolero SEC for use as a herbicide on rice fields. (review
dated 9/19/80)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division, (Ecological Effects
Branch) to Office of Endangered Species on December 29, 1980.
5. Consultation Administration
The consultation was to be completed by the FWS Atlanta
office. Bequests for additional time and/or material were not
made.
6. Consultation Conclusion and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
On November 10,1980, the registrant commented on the EEB
Bolero review. This additional information was to demonstrate
that the proposed use -of the product would not cause unreasonable
adverse effects to non-target aquatic organisms. EEB responded to
the comments on January 9, 1981 by stating that its position was
the same as documented in the September 19, 1980 review. EEB
believed that the registrant had not "...demonstrated the
environmental safety of Bolero."
While consideration for the registration was taking place,
the state of Mississippi requested a emergency exemption for the
22
-------
products use on eice beds. EEB determined that they could not
agree to the granting of an exemption for the use of Bolero since
"...it exceeded the SPAR risk criteria for acute and chronic
hazards to non-target aquatic organisms." No evidence was found
indicating whether the exemption was granted.
The FWS (FWS/OES, March 6,1981) determined that the use of
Bolero would be detrimental to, and therefore could jeopardize,
the fat pocket book pearly mussel ( Ptytanntiss <«gTQ-ptgta^ eapax).
This determination was based on testing that showed that Bolero
was highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, was persistent in the
environment, and has a potential for bioaccumulation.
"Reasonable" alternatives to avoid jeopardy to the listed
species included the following:
1)"Bolero should not be registered for uae on dry seeded
rice to control watergrass and sprangletop."
2."Registration of Bolero should be approved only after the
completion of further testing."
3. "Bolero should not be used on an emergency use basis
until the additonal field testings ace completed."
The FWS recommended* so that EPA would be able to excercise
its "authority for the conservation of the species", that alter-
native, less detrimental pesticides be used in dry seeded rice.
BD accepted the registration of Bolero on February 26, 1982.
This registration was made with a number of conditions, one of
which was a field monitoring program that would be undertaken to
assess the environmental impacts of -the products use. Reports of
findings were to be submitted after every growing season with a
final report submitted within 4 years from the date of registra-
tion. Endangered Species concerns were not included in the label-
ing statements, (label included)
The monitoring program was reaffirmed when the registrant's
request for discontinuation of testing was denied on April 13,
1984. RO stated that the conditions for registration would not be
considered satisfied if monitoring was to end.
23
-------
COT &OttC? ^yt-
1. Product Kama/ Common Hone/ Chemical Name
M-3972 herbicide, 3,6-Diehloropicolinic acid/ Loaceel/ 3,6-
dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Herbicide use foe the
selective control of beoadleaf weeds in spring and winter wheat,
barley, and oata which are not under seeded with a legume.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Spaciea
EEB, while reviewing a proposal to allow a experimental use
permit (EUP) for Lontrel, determined that the product would be
"highly hazardous to non-target planes." At the time of the
review, a "may affect" determination had already been made for
Lontrel' s use on areas with endangered plants. EEB concluded that
a formal consultation would be necessary to register the pro-
duct. EEB did "...not object to the issuance of the EUP on the
condition that , in order to protect endangered species, geo-
graphic restrictions be made once sites were selected. A list of
counties in Texas and Hew Mexico where endangered plants are
found was included. Consultation with OES was not initiated.
Shortly after the EUP was issued, Lontrel was proposed for
registration. EEB determined that at least 9 endangered and
threatened plant species "...may occur in close proximity to
fields in which... wheat, barley, and oats are grown." EEB be-
lieved that the use of Lontrel might affect the following nine
listed species:
solano grass
Texas wild-rice (£i?aSLa t^xa-na )
Northern wild monks hood (A^onifnn uu
Spineless hedgehog cactus ( EchTnorOT w« eg lg 1 ucfri'diatTrs var .
JTterai-s )
Uinta Basin bookless cactus ( Sgigrpga
Arizona hedgehog cactus (Sr trlgitren-jidiatTia var.
Hi chol "a turk's head cactus (Beitl-nocagt^M horizontfaalopi-OT var
Texas poppy-mallow (eallirnog
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on February S, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
On May 4, 1981 FWS(OES) advised HEO (EEB) that additional
phytotoxicity data on Lontrel were needed from the applicant
before a biological opinion could be rendered. This letter also
confirmed a 60-day extension of the consultation period.
6. Consultation Conclusion and Environmental Protection Agency
& espouse
24
-------
The FWS (FWS/OES, Oetobec 28, 1981) determined that "...Che
proposed action [would be] unlikely to affect..." those listed
species cited by EEB. "In that Lontcel 205 is effective only foe
the contcol of beoadleaf weeds, neither of the ...listed grasses
(solano grass [fr; nmcromtal nor Texas wild-rice [gi tcxana!)
will be affected by the application of this pesticide. In addi-
tion* after reviewing the distribution of the ... listed species,
there seems to be little chance of overlap between the usage of
this herbicide and the range of these listed plants."
EEB, while concurring with OES's opinion, "...continued to
be concerned with the potential aquatic phytotoxic characteris-
tics of Lontrel 205..." (November 6,1981 memorandum to BD)
EEB therefore recommended that the label should carry "...a very
prominent and clear warning about its potential phytoxicity to
•non-target terrestrial and aquatic plants." The warning war to
indicate that Lontrel 205 "...could be very toxic to the aquatic
environment and that contamination of this sort must be
avoided..."
As of July 23,1982, RD has not accepted the registration of
Lontrel 205 herbicide "...because of the number of studies which
do not meet the minimum data requirements."
25
-------
SL Sa^aSSSTB^ Soeriyi eoCTtrieg a-clotta for Tefenthlwoa
(first of two consultations on Tebuthiucon)
1. Product Sana/ Common Name/ Chemical Naaa
Gcaalan 20P, Gcaalan 10P/ Tebuchiucon/ N-[S-1,1-
dimethylethyl)-l,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,ir-dimethylurea.
2. Begulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Herbicide use for the
control of woody plant species on rangeland in the southwest. The
proposal would expand the use to include the states of Arizona,
Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) -Action
Concerning Endangered Species
Prior to the review of the proposal, EEB had determined in
February of 1980 that several listed plants species could be
adversely affected by the use of the product that had been re-
gistered in 1979. Although consultation was not initiated, EEB
requested &0 to "...advise the registrant to exclude its use in
several identified counties where these plants occur." The branch
was not certain if this information was conveyed to the company.
EEB recommended against the proposed conditional registration be-
cause it would increase the area in which the product would be
used and important data was still missing. Since EE3 considered
the action a hazard to endangered plants, a consultation was to
be requested.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division, (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Fish and Wildlife Service on February 25, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-81-4, April 19,1981) requested studies
on run-off and leaching potential and possible fish reproductive
problems and also clarification of effects of the product on
cacti. An additional request for information was made by the FWS
on January 6, 1982.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
3espouse
KD registered Graslan for use in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas,
Arizona, and New Mexico on December 4, 1980. This product label
was modified and registered on July 27, 1981. (labels included)
On January 29, 1982, so that the consultation would not be
delayed, EEB sent label statements to OES. These statements
required that the user consult with the FWS before application
and included lists of geographic areas where endangered plants
are found in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, as well as on range-
land. These label statements were modified on February 5, 1982 to
further restrict usage in several counties in all three states.
The statements expressed that use of the product in the above
areas would pose a hazard to listed species and it should not be
used in areas where an adverse impact on endangered species would
be likely.
26
-------
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-31-4, July 13, 1982) determined that
the proposed use would potentially affect 19 listed plants and a
number of candidate plant species. All of these species are found
in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. FWS concluded that, "...based
on the means of uptake, the persistence of this chemical, and the
broad range of target species of Tebuthiuron...", the following
endangered species would likely be jeopardized by the use of the
product:
silver pincushion cactus
Brady pinchuaion cactus
pebbles Navajo cactus
Nicholas Turk's head cactus
Arizona hedgehog cactus
gpga
(P-. btaTivi)
(22. pegbiCTJatrea var
horTZP a thai OTHTTS var
Ngw
Knovlton cactus
Mesa Verde cactus
Kuenzler hedgehog cactus
gypsum wild buckwheat
Sneed pincushion cactus
(E- trlgioch-rdiatTCT var
L /
( Srh'er nca & ma
mc»«F—»g*'
(
(gorTpfaairtfaa
var
Tobusch fishhook cactus
Nellie cory cactus
bunched cory cactus
Lloyd's hedgehog cactus
black lace cactus
Davis' green pitaya
Lloyd's Mariposa cactus
Texas poppy-mallow
Sneed pincushion cactus
Texas wild rice
)
(C; ramilltrsa )
(fc r^irfaeabariril var
(E- vrridiflorta var .
(Ngoi-iovrtia
(Ci
(Zlzauia
var
The FWS concurred with the label statements that EEB had
submitted on January 29, 1982 and recommended them as an alterna-
tive to jeopardy. In addition, the Service recommended that
restrictions be made in one other county in Texas, so that Texas
wild rice would be protected, and that further phytotoxicity
studies be conducted. No further action was taken to in-
corporate endangered species statements on the label.
27
-------
..,
« a:
c so:i« c:
n TOP
:*' Acre
n 10P Pounds P«r Acre
-> mete
:- :-.&< roots rr.av
u i-urv or ceain
•nen: to nomarge: areas curing
a or ctove'
aconcatior.
•ronn Gfasian-^'eatec areas for
•er MS* o«i
-------
Directions for Use
- c
3 to
v.ciai:cn •jr s-csra LJ* -o use t*n srcc.c: i a Tarter ^consistent *.tn ;r« «>e«
-!V Grasian 'OP .».m »:r wu.errert cn.crateu to *».- SUM "•» =<*««« .n.«cr^!v A
:0 aouncs car acre uece'"3ir.g jn target snjsn »e»ces. .
Grasian iOP ~av =» aoc;.ed at any ::n-e. 'reaim-enis oecarr? -"-".rive arw -ufr-em -an-in n w ^cc-msa 10
~ov» ire cremt *iti ae temoorar/ rorage grass
sroaacnon -suaiiv ncreases as orusn comcetmcn :s reaucea. ncjwever. mcreasea grass oroaucnon is aiso
^•cencent on acecuate 'aintait ano a souna rmge a^nagefT'em orogram.
Areas jreatea *iir Grasian IOP -^ay oe overseeaea wim a iocaiiv aoaotea vanetv of tail fescue Consult your
•ocai flange Management Soeoanst 'or cetans on ruseeoing. iucn as. varieties, seeamg rates, timing ana
'ertiiuer orograrr.s.
Application Rates:
Grawan lOP^s recomrrenoed for we-««*wot of tre foikjvmng scecies of unaesirawe -wooy atants at tr
naicateo range c» acSMCOtion rates. .,
-tgner aosages *.tmn rne recommencea range snouid oe used on deeo orohie fine textured sons or v»nen
treating aeeo rooted oiants.
Woody Species
Creosoteousn
Grasian (OP icc^eo as
ioi« i»ooov star's
Controlled
Soanofic Name
•.drrea mcsntata
Querc-js navarOu
Qraslan 10P
5- tO
c::ecied -JIMII aiso control several oroadieaf weeds found m association *itn unoear-
Weeds Controlled
-I, js 2.:«"«'2 .-wars
Grasian 10P Pounds Per Acre
I..Q
jrasian iOP i - ;• •• --.— — encev: 'ar camr-t of cemrrmcn. artery cear or :ra-a racv.s
Us* Precautions:
- . .., ,=c..a ^fas;a- :QP :f -.9:2 ;-:a^. --sir -:esirac:9 r-es or ;rr.os. or a'*5s •:; *f : re;r '•O's^-'a/
ar "3P": -*•*
I.-, -tt ice-- urasian IOP ..~ser isr-r-s
-cr .w«i :auie rwer
areas :u.-^i
.
ius:. Gris-.an tOP T-.. / :-cs :e' .*ar
Grasian !OP -a. :er-:w*-v -i.ra ;«s '*=:« •;•%';* *;-~'-- *-"
-., .... - ^. ..-riM -rai33 -:r -av TS.TI Grasian-"»a:*-: r*as --v -.vo .ears a-er icc:-:i:ici
:a -ot jtic-jr liacfg a.rv an,ma,s •= ;-5=* jr 3, csrs-^* -ay -ar.estec -cm Gras.an>-«tes areas -sr
-.vc -ears ir*r jcs:.car.cn
--cf.=-.;"iy r-ean ail traces at Grasiar iOP -5.11 «s:-c*cn wu.cment irer ,M. ^esi-jues .:e.
-T cat'cn «u,or-ent snou.d ict =e *r-o:.*c sn areas »r>ere ~ev *.« cor-e -to c=rtac: «.n me -cots -t
:rees. sr;ruas. atants. or *ater source
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
HAZARD TO HUMANS ANO DOMESTIC ANIMALS
CAUTION
r..! f s**!cwec. Avoid contac: *v- "" •"-'*• »"- -" '*= *
For Conti
in Texas,
and New
Ccnrams 5 ecu-
CAUTION
'Grasian'" —-re
._••' . j.:- i.-.i. '•;— :ii""--* •? :•«'-'
, .•• :* -. ••!••»•* '-^i 'i.-ci
-------
Herbicide
Net Weight 50 Pounds
For Control of Brush on
Rangetand in Texas, Oklahoma,
Kansas, Arizona and New Mexico
Active ingredient:
tebuthiuron: /V-[5-(1 .1 -dimethylethyl)-1 ,3,4-
thiadiazo!-2-yl]-/V,/V'-dimethyiurea ........ 10.0%
Inert Ingredients: ........................... 90.0%
Contains 5 pounds active ingredient per 50 pound bag
CAUTION: Keep out of reach of children.
See back panel for additional caution statements.
•Qraslan™ — the trademark for Elanco Products
tebuthiuron
ACCEPTED
JUL2 71981
Ton-.
-ill far-- tie: !c.
j R3sie:. . H. Ae
J Jar th« p.
WT6512 AMX
Elanco Products Company
A Division of EH Lilly and Company
Indianapolis, IN 46285, U.S.A.
EPAReg. No. 1471-115
-------
10- ~
'OP -». et i.eiesTLS A - a -TS
Vi-a:>.~ • ;>-•; ai-i -.-c.-a if '-seesnc ..c- a; •«•*••*•_
Grvstan IOP -ecc-i-*ioe: •:>• f« CCT'O- e: r11* is.io»ir>c soe&vs 01 u-isec.rasw »ooc. cants a. rs i-cc**: Q-:S -
ass eai«n rates
H,pie» souses «nr«n re fecr^meooea ranpe snowc o* usea or. oeeo D'o'i* t.ne ienur«a sans or wen ireaii-K ewe ruo'cr.
Weoov Plants Controlled
| CHASLAN 10P
Common Name
Soenniie Name
| Peunea Py Acre
Caicaw M-mosa
**mosa o>uncnera
_
Si. a =-^r.
Sa . a sa c.-ss- rs
' 3u-*^ s es— .a
Wooay Planti SuogfMsefl
5-10
GRASLAM 10P
Com—ci
Seientihe Name
Grasun tOP arr-es a> c-eetsa v: aiso ccn'f s?vcidi c.roaa «• weeos f;.-: - «sso=-3:1- » r U-=A -a: e /..::. : &—
ContrallM
I GRASLAN 10P
Corbie" Name
Saenntte Nam*
Pounos Pf Aens
Gunerrera eracuicu-r'Ct!
Taas
BurrovmreM
Raoweco
Haovtoaooui tf*ii srr:u&
Amorosa arifi-n-m ,d
Bme>
S-tC
GRASLAN 10P * not rec
I tor control ot persimmon prcmy pear or cnoua cactus
1 3 1 « »
a
i i
i » tt o •
»
• J • a •
Oo not aoorv Grasian tOP on he* croos nea» desirable trees or snruos or areas «to wrucn tnew roots mav extern or m locations
wnere tne cnemcai mav oe wasted in contaa witn meir roots as injury or oeatn mav occur
Oo not apprv Grasian 10P to newnr seeded areas
Do not aoorv Grasian tOP under conditions wncn W* cause peiiet movement to nontarga areas durng aooicanon
Aoprv Grasian tOP onrv once per vear
Groan 10P may senousiv miure oesiraoie forage Mgumes sucn as lesoeeeza or etc**'
Oo not cut forage grass tor nav from Grasian-rreated areas lor iwo vears after application
Do not allow ocaang oaoy anmais to graze on or consume nav narvesied from Grasian-treateo areas tor two vears aner
apphcation
Tnorougniy clean ail traces o» Grasian 10P trom aopucatien eaummeni aner use Resioues cleaned from aowcaicn eouiomei:
snoua not oe emptied on areas wnere tney will come mio contact witn tne roots ot oesuaoie trees snruos pants or water sou ce
PMECAUTIONARV STATEMEMTS
HAZARD TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS
CAUTION
Harmful t swaiiowee A«O« contact wrm sk« eyes or doming in case of contact, flusn witn water
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
Keep out of lakes pones or streams Oo not contaminate water oy cieanng of equipment or disposal ot wastes
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
Do not contaminate water, fool, feeo otner oesucioes. tenmzer or seeds
Pesticiae sorav mixture or nnsate mat cannot oe usea or cnemtcaiiv retwocesserj snoutd De aisoosea ot m a
tanotni aoprovea tor oesticiaes or Duriea m a sate oiace awav from water suooiies anc oesirao* vegetation
Oisoose of emorv container m an incinerator or lanoiiil aeproved tor pestiooe containers or oury in a sate p^ce
awav from oesiraoie vegetation
Consult feoerai state or local aisoosai autnorities for aoproved alternative ereceoures sucn as hmnea open
Durnmo
- The manutactiw mates 10 warranties eioress or imo'*a concerning ms product 9 its use wncn extend Devonotne description
on me laoei AU stater-ems maoe concerning m« product aopw oniy wnen usea as areoee
-------
9-i Snamaw fit Endangered Special €DPsl'dgration» for 3gmi.tni.on
1. Product Name/ Common Hone/ Chemical Name
Sumithion 8E/ Sumithion, Fenitrothion/ 0,0-dimethyl 0-(3=
methyl-4-nitcophenyl) phosphor othioate.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration for use in controlling the
southern pine beetle (fletateggtpma
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Speciea
EEB concluded that the proposal would provide "...for a
significant increase in exposure and acute risks to nontarget
organisms." The use of Sumithion would be expected "...to kill
large numbers of non-target organisms through acute exposures. "-
Most of these effects were considered to be more likely to occur
with aerial application and, although the proposal was for ground
application, "adverse effects" were still expected. EEB deter-
mined that the use of Sumithion "...could represent catastrophic
losses for endangered species." The following endangered species
were considered to be "adversely affected" by Che products use:
red-cockaded woodpecker
Ivory-billed woodpecker (Cam-Dgptrit-CT principal-is )
Kirtland's warbler (Bendroira fcirtlandii)
pine barrens treefrog (
Houston toad Itmfr* P.OWCOTOTI»M )
eastern indigo snake (Prvma-crfao-a eoraia cotmeri) *
The following list of endangered fish species which could be
affected by runoff or drift from areas of use was also included:
slackwater darter (EtneOTtoma faoachtmgi)
watercress darter (E-. rorehaie)
Okaloosa darter (S-. otalooaae)
Maryland darter (g-
Bayou darter (fc rufag-om)
Alabama cavef ish (apgTHriatvrfalnq« p
spotf in chub (Hybop«T» nmnacha)
snail darter (ggr-erga tanaai)
yellowfish madtom (Hotnemt fjavioianra)
slender club (H- eaiml)
The review was to be forwarded to OES for a consultation and
was to be used "...in further evaluating the potential hazard to
endangered species and possible label restrictions which may be
appropriate."
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on March 9, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
Ho additional time and/or material waa requested.
28
-------
6. Consultation Conclusion and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-81-5, May 18, 1981) determined that all
of the fish species noted in the EEB review, with the exception
of the Oka loose darter (E*v ofcaloosae) and the spot fin club
(HvpfTpaig mopcana). would not be affected by the use of Sumithion
because their habitat does not occur near "managed" pine forests
where it would be applied. Likewise, the ivory-billed woodpecker
(£a. principalis) would not be affected because of its habitat
requirements nor would the Kirtland warbler (ite kiTtiannTi) be
affected since it does not frequent areas where application would
occur.
The FWS considered six other species, the eastern indigo
snake (fc coral's cpnacTi). Okaloosa darter (Ei ofcalposaa).
spotfin chub (gvfaop»i» inonartaa). Houston toad (fl- faottstonemi*).
pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersoni!). and the red-cockaded
woodpecker (PiroiqM faor^atis). that might be affected by the
proposed registration of Sumithion. The opinion concluded that
these species would not be jeopardized because either the habitat
of pine forests were not that important as a part of their range,
treatment areas would be very small, contamination would be small
if compliance occured, the product would not be widely used
compared to salvage operations, and/or "awareness" of the endan-
gered species presence would lead to "...additional safequards to
protect the species habitat..."
Recommendations, at the close of the biological opinion,
included marketing the product under a "...restricted use label
to reduce the likelihood of misuse or abuse...", a label state-
ment to exclude its use within 1/2 mile of red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borga41«) colonies, and that use in Houston
toad (fli hoTtstpTOTtsi-s) habitat "...should only occur after con-
tact with endangered species personnel of Texas Parks and Wild-
life or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to insure adequate
safequards..."
BD accepted the registration of sunithion for control of
pine beetles (te fjrontalia) on July 27, 1982. The label state-
ments included the red-cockaded woodpecker (P-; PPTCTJTS) and
Houston toad (flt faon»tonen»M) concerns and the product was only
to be used by professional applicators. (Label included)
29
-------
Ni 8E
Irsecticiie. For Use Only By Professional
Applicators For Control of Southern Pine Beetles
0 ,0-Diir.ethyl 0- (4-ni tro-ra-tolyl) phospnorothi oate* . . . 76.85
Arcirafic petroleum distillate 7.31
:%EPT If.SSEDIENTS: 15.9t
—' lOO.Oi
•S'JMITH.IO!.
Icr.tsi.TS £ pour.es of SJ:'.:~-IO?. pe' Cc""or • -
KEEP Ql'T OF R-fCh CF CHlLC'r.;'. . .. - " _
V A ft N I f. G
SEE SIDE PANEL FOR PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
GAL. NET LITERS
EPA Reg. No. 476-2200 A-l
EPA Est. No. 476-FL-1
* K*?}s'-t'sC Trecs^ar. c' S-r-.ijro Cneri ce "5 . A'--: ' '. •: e , Ir.c.
This product Is sold only for uses stated on the label. No
express or implied license is granted to use or sell this product
under any patent 1n any country except as specified: Country:
United States of America.
Kade by
STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY
Westport. CT. 06880-0850
-------
i '"ION 8E 2.
FB E C ft U T I C N A. P. Y S 7 AT- " £ N T S
HAZARDS TO KUAN'S AN D DOMESTIC ANIMALS
WARNING;
May be fatal If swallowed. Harmful If InhaTed, or absorbed
through the skin. Oo not breathe vapors. Do not get 1n eyes,
on skin, or on clothing. Thoroughly wash skin or clothing with
soap and water If they become contaminated.
Keep out of domestic or animal water supplies.
Oo net store or transport with food or animal feed.
STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL TREATMENT
FOP PEST 1C P ? EVEPG-NCY
CALL A rKTSICI*% IfViDIATELY: if a kno-r- exposure occurs or is
Suste'cTec, ir-.s-rra'tTify irTTtigte the recc-T.eideC proced^-e: below.
Si^ul tft-eo-.-sl v cor.tact a Poison Control Center, a pi-ysicic'-. or
the rearest hcssitel. Describe the situation ar.s fc'llcv* tr.e
a c v 1 c e c : v e •• . '»C'T- : Be su'e to eovse the C'h.vsiciar tf.at _t*.e_
c OT. ? c -^ " e is a e :_r\ c '• t r.pst&rase inrntitcr, 2 n"a to t lc» tr.e ^ r.>- s T c i a r, ' s
aovice. " ~
For further information, call collect, day or night: Stauffer
Chen-feel Company (202)-225-6602 or Pesticide Team Safety Network,
(cOO)-42«-9200.
If swallowed. Immediately give large quantities of water but d_o
not induce vomiting. This product contains hydrocarbon solvent.
I * vo-.i t ir,c occurs, cive flu ic s acai n . Have a prysician aeternine
If condition of patient will permit evacuation of stomach. Never
give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.
cor eve j^ontact . hold eyelids apart an£ flush with large amounts
of rutTr, ;.-i: n«,ter for £t *eest 15 -Ir.jtes. Get medical attention.
gcr «•> 1» fcr?.e£*. t 'Tus^ kitr. :.ler.t» o' *.cts- for at least H
r-inj^ei. ,-fc.frr.ov« contari net et clothing ani shoes. Get medical
attention .if Irritation occurs. Wash'clothi ng before re-use.
If inhaled, remove to fresh air. Seek medical attention If
respi ratory Irritation occurs.
Note to Physician;
Exposure may cause choll nesterase Inhibition. Atroplne by Injec-
tion 1s antidotal. 2-PAM 1s also antidotal when administered
early and In conjunction with atroplne.
-------
N1 8-E 3.
This oroouct is toxic to fish, tir/js, bees and otKer *il-ciife.
Avoid direct application to lakes, streams, and ponds. pc not app'y
where runoff is liicely to occur. Do not contaminate water by cleaninc
of equipment or disposal of wastes.
Do not apply when weather conditions favor drift from area treated.
Do not use this product within one-half mile of any red-cockaded
woodpecker colonies.
Use in Bastrop and Burleson Counties, Texas, should only occur after
contact with Endangered species personnel of Texas farrs and Wildlife
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to ensure adequate Scf-scusras for tne
tndancerec Houston Toad.
Afply this product only as specified on this label.
C :Tis,stip le . Zs rot use, ecu', saill, or store nee* r«eat. or ocet
f.er.e. Do rot *.eet eLove 176U" (fO°C). Do not e>cose :o proloncec
reet. Contact of co-teine» with fl=res o- hich teT pictures »•>"! 1
: e v s e & r. e * r- '. c s : c -. .
!f. CAS- Or Sr!LL
ISOLATE the soil! .
HOLD this package, other cargo and vechicles involved.
IMMEDIATELY TELEPHONE 80C--424-9300 for 24-hour enercency assistance.
PRODUCT INFORMATION
Sj^IT-ir.r. Si is an e-.-jl sif iaile concent rale cor.tei -• i r.c ? 'rs. of
SUMITH10N per gallon. After dilution with water it is intended for
use by Professional Applicators in the control of southern pine
beetles.
Treetnent of pines *ith SUKITHIOI. SE Irsecticice w.ll reouce mortc'.
cs,-te; :v trf s:-t'.f- ;*.rc reetU. Ar?1v :^'/:'-::.'. E: *: c :-Tute
sc'-ey to ?ri3*. .-isus" trees L-STRC suiteMe hare ir ti^5r-i:«t r • t&;
grcunc appliceticri eqLipr.ent. S'JKITnlCK £1 r.5.» i»e -jsec cTtner to
prevent southern pine beetle attack (preventive trect^ent) or to
control beetles already established in trees (remedial treatment).
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
It'1s a violation of federal law to use this product In a manner
Inconsistent with Its labeling.
-------
Preventive Treatment: Prepare a 2\ solution by diluting 2.5 flird
6 u~n~
-------
SUM1"HlGN 8E 5.
NOTICE - PEAD CAREFULLY
CONDITIONS OF SALE:
Stauffer (and seller) offer(s) this product for sale subject to,
and buyer and all users are deemed to have accepted, the following
conditions of sale and warranty which may only be varied by
written agreement of a duly authorized representative of Stauffer.
WAPRANTY LIMITATION:
Stauffer warrants that this product conforms to the chemical
description 1n the directions for use or tr.e label sutj-ect to
the ir.r.eref»t 'is»s referred to be'ow. Stauffer r.eres no o;r.er
e>cre«s »ar'ant;es: THERE IS NO IMPLIED Wi.^.ANTY C? MERCHANT-
ABILITY er.d there ere no warranties whi;h e*ter.c second tr.e
description on tr.e Ictel hereof.
I ?» H i R • f. 7 P I T '• £ :
i
The di «-ect irr s for use of tr-^s r-'oio:: ere te1:e.-e: to Se reV.e:".?
anc shrulc r-: fci::-«: c e r t * -' " > . -:».£•.%'. it is i-rrss'rls
'•:ii* as su:1 ?-.?: •'itr use cr sz o* ' c ct •• cr. c* this rrccjct ccr-.-cr\-
iti o«s.
LIMITATION OF
In no case shall Stauffer be liable for special, indirect or
consequential damages resulting from the use or handling of this
product and no clairr of any kind shell be greater in amount than
the purchase trice of the Protiuct in rescect of which such danaces
are claimec.
-------
Summary of EQa3SS££SS SSPSXSS^ Co IIUTTiBTatTOYCT
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chemical
Magnesium Phosphide/ unknown/ unknown
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Fumigant foe the control
of burrowing rodents and moles.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB concluded that a hazard assessment was not possible
since "pertinent fate and toxicological data" were lacking. EEB
therefore could not concur with the registration. In order to
assess the risks involved, the following data were required:
Dbird studies to evaluate LD50 and "no effect" levels,
2) environmental fate data,
3) specific target species,
and 4} precautionary labeling "...to reflect outdoor use patterns
and endangered species considerations."
EEB also concluded that the use of the product could pose a
"may affect situation" to endangered species. The black footed
ferret (gssteia nigri-pe*) and the eastern indigo snake
(PjjnnaT-enon coral? comeri) were mentioned as two species that
might be jeopardized by the products use. The possibility of
impacts on other endangered species was also mentioned. Con-
sultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was to be
initiated as soon as bioassay tests, environmental fate, and
tozicity branch data were received and validated.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered species on April 30, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
Bequests for additional materials and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-81-6, June 19, 1981) determined that,
besides the black-footed ferret (Ms njgri-ro«). the eastern indigo
snake (Jfc. eftcai* conrogl), and the San Joaquin kit fox (Vnt-oe»
marroti-s amtira). "...the Utah prairie dog (Cviiumvii parvidpaa).
the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gamelia ail-as). and the desert
tortoise (ggphsrni. agaysizii.) may be affected, and , therefore
should be included in [the] consultation."
FWS noted that, as indicated by analysis of the chemical
action, the areas of intended use, and life history and ecologi-
cal data of endangered species, "...any species using or inhabit-
ing burrow systems could be impacted by the use of this pesti-
cide." Therefore, the species included in the consultation
"...are known to use or inhabit either rodent burrows or similiar
appearing burrow systems in habitats where this pesticide may be
used." FWS concluded that the above mentioned species were likely
30
-------
to be jeopardized by the proposed use of Magnesium Phosphide.
The FWS suggested that, "...because of the nature of this
chemical action, and the areas of intended use, Magnesium Phos-
phide should be prohibited in the areas, including critical
habitat, where these species are found." It was further stated
that jeopardy could only be avoided if label restrictions were
ma-de. These restrictions included avoiding use of Magnesium Phos-
phide in the range of the black-footed ferret (Mi tri.gri.pc'B) or
substituting its use with alternative pesticides, and avoiding
the use of the product in those counties where the other endan-
gered species were found.
The FWS requested that EEB submit to OE5, in writing, the
course of action in regard to the consultation.
In a 7/2/81 review, EEB stated that the product label should
include restrictions under the precautionary statement section to
appear beneath the heading "endangered species considerations."
These restrictions included instructions not to use the product
in the range of the black-footed ferret (jfe. mxr-van) and to
arrange for ferret surveys before its use to ensure the ferrets
are not present and prohibit the product's use in those counties
where the other endangered species were found. The statements
pertaining to the Utah prairie dog (
-------
MA/AHII*; l|l ItlMMAN*, I* .niM|*;iii
ill •. i mi i ii H';I i'i •, HI im
| I '••• |M>M|... I • It. i ..i|t.|.H» •.•-.t* .*•<'*,
NO •^in"ii*»Ai
i'v.1"..
1*1.. N» I IIIMII ,<.wl||t>. .^4... H|H*<
*-1* ..... •:••<• «-t|t. ** li
*c «M.* . .. i .Hi" if m iv
. .•!,., ..„..,I. ...... ,. ..,.,..., I,.,. ... , .« M
-•i .t*v 11 t . V i--.|...- .• ....I ....... l», i. ..,• i i.. . ,i •
,1-Mt." I ... .I,.....!. .,,!,. 1, -,,.. It .,.•.,.«,..(. ., (,,(,..,, .....i- .,,.. ...
i Ni*AN';rit|ii
I' lll.l'i l.,.,|.-l I ..... -1 (I.. .--I .,.
.In. Ill,, I I.,..,. , > I I .,..,,. I ,. . I ,
II '. . H.'. . ..IW.M". • ... .«
,, .,(.,.,... M>. Hty. ,.- ...... I.*, H *. * • • j-. .
l lit- t'«f.l lYlt'-"- I '• •'• '•' >• ' • .I...' • • ..•'.-»
(| I 1.1.1,.. .n- . IH|f|-- fc •" * • I'" * ...... ',(..
*. i"i i H ..t. t... "..i.,.. ).,«- ........ •.. H. .-,.
Ill Ml IMMi (WIN!. Ml MM M'.
».NH M«MI'.
':'„ ' ll|l I I" H III II'. I I l,^| >
I ' •«. •!»»• ...H'.«..-^«-| M..^t-»» i ritn«..lt<,lf> ,Tfc-.
-* .
i • • , "' • •' IMM ill Ml <
"Mi' III ••• MiH.iV> N» IKIUIIinVtrM. Mil* IM •
i*M'. J> ..... .< -it W*«»M* -• •*<»• "I >Mb*w Ht*. " ....... *
..„ i . f. ,,.,,. |>.,|r. |f.«« ft|.| ||||»|. *...,. t ll**|V Nr.'V •, • >l
il- 'I.-,.. M**> '.-...(.«t '.fueM-V M.flr-r \'-*..
--I —,..,
II ill Mill Mln N ! • '...H-. i
It .t HIM imff. I -HI MM V./»'»J<. ' IHM|I1"W"M. I'l M'
•*.!.( ii-. 1. 1 I -,- .* lt| i.l • f |i M >.| Mm* f» rt-.- ..-I.--I in.. . . ,. <
t-| .1 l*t •.„,.!..., ,«< ... .. H,. ..,,1. I.HC il|f*t 1.1-1 pn. t H| '( •
.^OM m.f * M. . in. ,tlr*l ... .< • t. |(M.. III-. .«« |(tf»..*M*f • ••-• ».,. .
• .M.I '.i..»..,lf .I..WK Him* «'».., HW .,>..
|t«'iM'l'-'*«'l >*' I - »« ••'•.• I..MIM. I. , I ...... ,, ... • ..I 't ,-
|*l.|.|l|t | *,l |l|—.*••* l|Hf,"»l< IM- it*.- I-. .-I.. '. ...tl ,,! I.. ,,.t.| ,. .(.,. f>
'.'I*..' .1 *|t Mil- 111- I- ... IH , V.,^-. |»1M|I;.| ( .1.. I,-.-.* >...(, ... I..,.. *l.
Hln It*»*lt^ BI I -»-|
H-At nn i.iif Mtrni
t • I.. t(i" l|ll'l I.IMt. («..... <<.., ....,-... ....... n
i-.ti. ,«,i.!.f i,,. r.-.i*-. i t. .„.,„. ....i,,.. .^»-..
t.l II ri iiM
.„., „,„ *...!,„, (I, (,... | •
t*HMl.lllHtl»l,
II ll«MAI I H •» ..... .,- • * ...... .. HIMM. -I. M>H|
M!i;i!.i li AMirurA iNr
..»...„... M.HN.M'.A « •...,... ...... /Ml. ,"M -Vf
l« •» I . •!.- III*.- 'I.I
iirifi M*JI\ mil in nniHr. IIM MM* AII"'\ MAI,IM'I •
III fi*M* A) I i .ill t'i. »» A till M N' " Am V iiitMirii,
MAIN i"' WMI N i "IM.HI, i*; iv* i MAi.i»i«;f •; nrAi i
VK*,|»Mi»M-.r. A'MM "'A.li' AMU MAv M AMI
•...•».!' i .. , ft.. .- • ..f in*, if .. ... .• .it tltly fi| »(
l fi'i H— *r»l«.- '..*. ..... *.- . ,. .»'.." *v;.
i .-.i-. t- ,•%.!
i —[ACCEPTED!
2 0 1981
1 1
.. '- -I l-vi. •' -I '».
. . .., I'.i I -nil. i li rtd
. ,.., . i...1 (• i i>".
...I'M H.-K. MI..
-------
(second of two consultations, registration standard)
1. Active Ingredient/ Chemical Same
Zinc Phosphide/ Zinc Phosphide.
2. Regulator? Action
Registration standard. Zinc Phosphide is a rodenticide
registered for a variety of large use sites such as agriculture
areas, range lands, aqua tie noncrop areas, and urban and rural indoor
comer cial establishments.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that Zinc Phosphide is an acutely toxic
1 rodenticide. Baaed on dietary studies, the agency concluded that
it is highly toxic to upland game birds and moderately toxic to
waterfowl. The endangered species considerations were taken from
the 2/13/81 EEB review.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on May 28, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional time and/or material were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusion and Enviriooaental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-81-7, July 24,1981) determined that
no additional species, other than those mentioned in the January
2,1981 consultation, except the Laysan finch (TclCTpyga cantans )
and the nihoa finch (T-; ultima) which were removed from consid-
eration after further consultation, would likely be jeopardized
by the continued use of Zinc Phosphide.
It was recommended that the label restrictions for the
pesticide should remain the same and be included on the appro-
priate labels. The following species were still considered likely
to be jeopardized by the use of the product:
salt marsh harvest mouse (RgitfaroTtoutwiys raviygntri-B )
Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Piumfaiip™ fegeSBSSL
Utah prairie dog (Cvuuiuvs par»idi*n»)
Puerto Rican plain pigeon (Cot-nubia igor-mta
yellow-shouldered blackbird (fapt+pfcn* ngthogras)
Attvater's greater prairie
chicken (TvmuaTmctnra enpide a tl water!)
Aleutian Canada goose (Brattta
whooping crane (Grog
The registration standard was completed in June of 1982.
Labelling statements were included that were identical to those
on the product label. A description of when each species specific
statement should be on the label, depending on the use site and
its geographic location, was also included.
32
-------
Summary of Endatarer
-------
of Velpae on listed plants species could be extrapolated." FWS
also stated that "...although only listed plants in the western
U.S. vere included in your letter [requesting consultation], they
felt that Velpar had the "...potential for nationwide appliction
and should be reviewed with this potential in mind." (FWS /OES EPA-
81-8, August 14, 1981).
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Besponse
Within the RO file on Velpar, a note written by RD staff was
attached to the EEB 5/19/81-6/23/81 review. The note indicated
that, [supposedly in reference to the review's conclusion that a
formal biological opinion was necessary], "[t]hia may be changed
by the policy that endangered species will be looked at when the
standard or LIP [labeling improvement program] ace written."- The
note also indicated, in concurring with EEB staff, that OES was
"...still looking to see if any exposed plants [existed]." It was
mentioned that a EEB staff person "...suggested that we inform
the company of the concern if they had any phototoxicity data to
cactus to let us know. We can't make any formal request for data
until we know that there's exposure." The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-
81-8-1 November 10, 1981) concluded that, since pertinent infor-
mation was lacking, the consultation should be pursued "...on a
informal basis by providing a list of endangered and threatened
species, or species for listing, which may occur in the area of
influence of this action." The furnished list included the
species cited above, with the exception of the Osgood mountain
milk-vetch( ? ) , and the following species:
Truckee barberry (Ss£beiJ3 sonnet)
McDonald's rock-cress (Arabia mcdonaidiana )
Contra costa wallflower (Eminem eapitati-om var
amtrrgt a torn )
Santa Barbara Island liveforever (Pn-dleva traafciae)
San Clemente Island broom (Lotna detnirciTieqa asp. traafciae)
San Diego mesa mint (Poguavae abramali)
San Clemente Island bush-mallow ( Ma-iaco-tfaaartnn trtemgntlires )
Eureka Valley evening primrose (fienasfesis avlta sap.
Antioch Dunes evening-primrose (Q~ delfoi'dea ssp. nowetila)
Solano grass (Orenc/tia nracrona-ca )
Eureka Dune grass (8wa41enia alexandrae)
San Clemente Island larkspur ( flgiphiniTmi ki.Tiiri.enae )
San Clemente Island Indian paint brush (Caatiiie-ia
Salt marsh bird's-beak (€or-drianth-na maritime* ssp.
naritiana )
Arizona hedgehog cactus (gsJiiasEBSSS trJgjLochAdiatgi. var.
Sneed pincushion cactus (Cue vuhanta amgdii. var . aneeriii,)
Texas wild-rice (giaania teaana)
Hichol's Turk's head cactus (gchlnocatrfM horizottthaimgg*
var. njcfaoii.!)
Wright fishhook cactus (8gtetacartn» wtlrireiae)
Green pitcher plant (£a.tTajeES±a. oretypfaita)
dwarf poppy mallow (Arctgaet»n
34
-------
Lloyd's Mariposa cactus (Meollovdia mati.po«eTOi« )
valden phacelia (Pfaarella fonnoyola)
Malheuc vice-lettuce (StecfaanomeTia
Navasota ladies-tresses -(SplTanthM
McKittcick pennyroyal (Hetterma aplr-niatnm)
Todsen's pennyroyal (Hi
The consulation letter reminded the EEB that it was their
ceponsibility to determine if a proposed action may jeopardize an
endangered, threatened, or proposed species, and that such a
finding would require a formal consultation process. The FWS
requested a copy of the biological assessment and "...any other
relevant information that assisted..." EEB in reaching their
conclusion.
After reviewing the OES list of potentially effected
species, EEB sent a memorandum to BD, dated February 5, 1982, to
convey that they had determined that the only species "seriously
threatened by the proposed action" were those listed in the
6/23/81 EEB review. Label suggestions were made and the
counties where Velpar was considered to be a hazard were in-
cluded. EEB stated that "[tlhe registrant may negate the need for
the ...label statement by providing appropriate phytotoxicity
data."
The above memorandum was forwarded to OES, along with a
explanatory letter. In that letter, EEB indicated that they had
reviewed the OES list and had "...determined that appropriate
label statements would avert exposure of this product to listed
species." EEB closed by stating that they did not "...see any
necessity to prepare an additional biological assessment and
therefore wish to withdraw our request for consultation on this
product."
The FWS responded (dated March 1,1982) to the EEB February 5
Memorandum by stating that they did "...not feel that the perti-
nent issues regarding this proposed conditional registration
[had] been adequately addressed." In response to EEB determining
that only those species listed in the 6/23/81 review were
"seriously threatened" and that additional species on the FWS
list (consultation letter, November 25, 1981) could be protected
by labeling, the FWS questioned how conclusions were made and
what evidence supported giving "a number of additional species"
protection through appropriate labeling statements.
The FWS also disagreed with EEB's contention "...that the
use of the broad term 'rangeland' restricts the area of consider-
ation to eight states", believing instead that the product had a
nationwide use pattern unless restricted by label statements.
"In order to determine if formal consultation should be ini-
tiated..." the FWS requested more information "...detailing how
[EEB] conclusions were formulated and which "additional species'
[EEB] ...included in the label restrictions." Determination on
whether a formal consultation was necessary was to have been made
after FWS received the information.
In a handwritten file memorandum, dated 3/9/82, EEB wrote of
its uncertainty of how to respond to RD's actions regarding the
35
-------
Registration of Velpac. BD bad indicated to EEB that they, in
the weeds of EEB staff, "...did not agree that the February
5,1982 statement was necessary and that the registration had been
issued without it." EEB had explained to RD that OES wanted to
include many other endangered species to those considered in the
EEB review. EEB stated that, considering the actions made by BD,
"...we cannot reasonably expect that they would accept a similiar
statement incorporating more species." Also it was agreed that on
rangeland plant species initially identified within the 6/23/81
review should be of immediate concern. A note on the back of the
3/9/82 memorandum, dated 3/18/82, indicated that after confering
with the EEB chief, no action was to be taken on the Velpac
consultation "...in light of the current circumstances."
BD accepted the registration of Velpar Gridball Ice Brush
Killer on September 8, 1982.
The product has never been used commercially.
36
-------
13-. SamnatT of EndaggetBd Species ftmsixteTatiTms fct Altari-mim
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chenical Name
Aluninium Phosphide/ unknown/ unknown
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Fumigant for the control
of burrowing rodents and moles.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB concluded that, since "...any life in the burrow will be
destroyed..." by the use of the fumigant, the product could
directly destroy numerous non-target organisms that prey, on
prairie dogs or utilize prairie dog burrows. The following six
endangered species were determined to be in jeopardy through the
use of Aluminum Phosphide:
black-footed ferret
eastern indigo snake
San Joaquin kit fox
Utah prairie dog
blunt-nosed leopard lizard
desert tortoise
(Mnateia nigri-pes )
n COT an coaperi)
(
(Gamelia siitts)
j
• « --- \
xneTCT i
EEB recommended that the product label incorporate state-
ments that the product should not be used in the ranges or dens
of the above endangered species, except the Utah prairie dog (•€-.
£aS2ajtea»)« Safeguards for this species were considered adequate-
ly conveyed by language found in the target animal section of the
label. The black-footed ferret (jh. nigrires) statement also in-
cluded instructions to contact the nearest FWS office before
using the product so that a survey could be done to ensure no
ferrets were present. EEB required that the registrant submit a
written statement agreeing to the inclusion of the endangered
species statements. Other further or additional registration
actions were recommended against until the written statement was
submitted, (review dated 7/7/81)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on July 6, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
Bequests for additional materials and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-81-9, July 24, 1981) determined that
the effects of Aluminum Phosphide would be "precisely the same"
as they are for Magnesium Phosphide. The FWS therefore determined
that the use of Aluminum Phosphide would jeopardize the existence
of the above listed endangered species.. To avoid jeopardy, the
FWS recommended the same alternatives that were recommended in
37
-------
the Magnesias Phosphide biological opinion. These alternatives
included avoiding uae of Aluminum Phosphide in the range of
black-footed ferret (&, ntgri-pCT) or substituting its use with
alternative pesticides, and avoiding the use of the product in
those counties where the other endangered species were found.
These label restrictions vere forvarded to the registrant on
August 26, 1981, for inclusion on the product label. The RO
accepted the registration of Aluminum Phosphide on October 13,
1981. (label included)
38
-------
NtW I.OAIII) lAIHEIS
l'«i Nn 313X167
Al'tibll lllil.li.luilil Aluillilllilll |lliu:.|illHl.l
Illl II ',ll
miCAUIHINAIIV SIAIIMINItt
IIAJAHUh 10 MUM.N* b OOMlil.C ANIMMt
IMMMM
*.|.H«».I»>. hi. -I'M ..... t M«»
INUANUIMtO fcCH:«$ CONSUIIHAIHH.*
.. «.».
N Int. *
. .. I ..(. ....... t
,» A.ji.^..,. •,... il, I .-."... IHMVUM ...»lll.."l.i
Kl.ilCAl OH CMtMICAl HA/AMU!.
RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE
«»•>. m |iriu«k
H
M)M LMN'HOL OF BUHHOWING RODENTS
ANU VOLES
KEFP OUT Of- REACH OF CHILDREN
DANGER POISON
SIAItMtN! OF PHACIICAL TREATMENT
II :. WAI. in win mtliiLw vuuHimti li» luuclunti buck ol lineal wnlll
tn.,|.'i 01 (jluiil ulimi.1 Can (iliykH nil iniinihlialely
II INIIAItlJ IIIIIHI«» VK iin. in iifwii UM rtiiil lumuvu cuiiluml
i,,.i. .1 . •.iiiium *«ii|> VH.IIIH warm. C«*
kniiHHll.ili-'y
MliiifcSCH AMERICA. INC.
W«V VA 01
|.«>A HUH No ««/** I
Cot.i.-.u MMiuuiullabteU • N«iW»tglil; IbtlOg U.JIbi.l
II to • vioUlion ol ladaril law Ut
pioducl it lot owldoor UM only.
Suw« onty in cool. dry. lock
or h«*l. Conumeti Hipta i»
or dispowl in «n
burying.
FOR CONTROL OF FOLl
. - WuudchuckS »i>d YBHow
Outfit. Norway ami Rout Rau
Chipmunk*
DIRECTIONS FOR USE A
Pliomamn Tabtou 10 «•« burr
packing itM opuiwiy with ci
PhoMuxm ubtei* and stuwmg i
MM) cotMMiora and liighm IHMM
liuiiowk * mtofMl WiM IIO 2 (la
OUTDOOR USE ONLY:
Do not UM within 16 taut IS rm
opan umtor or mra occupwd but
PtaaM corauh Local, SUM. an
not inttabH ina aim piopoted k
WARRANTY: St>»ai warrants
uMd accordNig lo label dune!
purposes tlalad on lh» labul.
buy w aMurnas a* i»k »houkl ih
OCT I o 19UI
Umlci • - - • ' • .' '
i-. •"••'l'I 'I "• '
-iJ*". ' • ••'• l":
-------
.hnuM I* UArn M pnm-l
•>>
•H. dl.wk I»MM~I •»"»• «"«*«•• lh»
in w-l^o* '<» • "•'•' «>">*• "* ,*•*
In. «
•••
,« ,..M» I,, ,,«• nl N>« ,«~*«
H- I*|"I .mvrf l
tr.l ll»- C*«n"«»
««.»« O»-« Slop* p«««i(«li»« "• *•
H* n|>«l Itonw* 0-1"
RESTRICTED USE PESTICIOt
„* ..,. II.... ..... r .^.r.lh, *« I ~«*«l «,»*'••••• • r..
DIRECTIONS FOW USE
.IK* v».i..i..». nt IP.MMHI i*w lo MM lh« pioduct m • nwmw mconMltnl with
Illlllllll I K III! IHlfUHH IHHOIlly.
»•*
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
«.l ii.'y HI i-iHil. fl»v. inrki^. •ml venl»»l«l loom
ni i A.II r is H
FOR CONTROL OF BURROWING RODFNIS
AND MOLES
»Ar«w«»lo«|«i««lii»n|- Aluminum phrw|>»Mrt« ..... • • •
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN '
DANGER POISON
m nn »IHMOV«| tonrtM o. h»M««l tn •
lof
ptoc« DwpOM of
toy
FOR CONlBOl OF F01IOWINO BUHROW«N(i KOOF.NTS AND MOI.IS M !••>•»
sp W|M»ii»n l»l.lrl« in llv. hufiow SB«! li«hlhf I'V »•««.<«*.,,! IMH> ov» lh« m.lirn.- nflir l«l
,..,.•» .,.| il»- iHWimn wilh ciumpbHl n««5pa.»c Tim w* pt«v«« »o4 lion. «*..*„ l.«
STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL IHFATMtNT
IF SWALIOWF.O wi'lurf VT<»HIMI|| l>v ii».i-ii»«ii i>»<^ «•( I'».|ii»l niil»Hii| **•*;> vii Inn W.IHII I ••'! I'l.yw..«.
I!
liNflHf htilfow. wlwn MMl mo«i.«. * vw» K.« Iff
s... ,,.,,.,i,,..,, »..< m
i ....... v..« .1 sornn.H....R I lo 2 day» «n«M IhBinilHilHMmienl. Fwui«onnoncfop»»«»»or«¥
nl Mih»b.l«d «Hucluiw Do no! •pplv to buwowr -vh.;h m»y
DEGESCH AMERICA. INC
EPA Fit No 4U7W. VA 01
EPA RPI|. N» «OWi I
ConlnnU: 600 found UbhiU • N.I W«IH!.I IBOOg 13 :ilbn I
• JIM noon USF ONLY
...... „! ,1W w.M.»i I
I.,H>II Hinlni of itiln ficri
!•«.«•:» . 'insiin I «:»!. Sww. wwl Fwlwal Owna Auihwrtim lo wwuw «h«l tmtonflw-rt «pnciir» «k
nut nil.nl HI ilmnma pioposndiot liftaltnanl.
- SB«PI
-------
SiiiiiHiHty or Endangered Scedgs ConsidBTatTom IDT Mctoracfalot
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Ontrack/ Metolachlor/ 2-chloro-n-(2-ethyl-6-methylpheuyl)-
n-(2-methyoxy-l-methylethyl) acetamide.
2. Begnlatory Action
Conditional registration for use on railroad rights-of-way.
Herbicide use to control annual grass weeds, or annual broadleaf
and grass weeds. The herbicide is to be applied as a mixture of
Ontrack 8E plus Atratol 80w or Princeps 80w. A subsequent amend-
ment was made to revise the label precautions on buffer zones for
bodies of water. (EEB review 9/19/80)
3o Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
The submission to register Metolachlor for railroad rights-
of-way was made on March 10,1980 and was forwarded to EEB on the
24th of March. It had initially been a part of the product's
broader use on crops, but was then changed to a separate use
on rights-of-way.
The registration of Metolachlor was accepted on September
22, 1980. (Label attached)
A request was made by the registrant to delete buffer zone
precautions on the label because the statement was "hindering"
the product from being competitive in the market place. This
request was sent to EEB for review on July 7,1981.
EEB had made no mention of hazards to endangered species in
the conditional registration review. (EEB review 9/19/80) No
consultation was initiated by EEB regarding the original regis-
tration of Metolachlor. Any general ecological hazards would be
mitigated if precautions were made on the product's use near
bodies of water. With reference to the label changes submitted by
the registrant, EEB initiated a consultation and, in a November
10,1981 EEB memorandum to BD, EEB agreed to such changes if
application rates were added to the label. No indication of
impacts on endangered species was made in the documentation
except that impacts were said to be a part of an ongoing Label
Improvement Program (LIP) in EEB.
[It is important to note that a consultation with OES had
been initiated by EEB on August 7, 1981 and a prelimininary draft
biological opinion had been made on November 2,1981 and had been
received by EEB on the following day, so this information was in
hand prior to the November 10 memorandum]
Consultation was to be initiated because EEB believed that
the "...product could impact on endangered aquatic species and
possibly endangered plants (aquatic and/or terrestrial)." The
formal consultation was to address the registrant's desire to
change the label restrictions on the layoff distance from bodies
of water. EEB stated that if the "...statements were removed,
then a sufficient quantity of the toxicant could reach the water
to cause reproductive impairment of fish."
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
39
-------
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on August 7. 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
A preliminary deaft was completed by FWS on November 2, 1981
and was sent to EEB the following day. This draft was substan-
tially identical to the final jeopardy opinion.
6. .Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
; The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-81-9 November 17,1981) concluded that
the use of Ketolaehlor on railroad rights-of-way is "...likely to
adversly affect only 10 listed species, the Bed Hills salamander
[gfaaeqgnatims tjsbrisfatiJ and 9 plant species. Other listed spe-
cies are not likely to come into contact with sufficient environ-
mental concentrations of Metolachlor resulting from the railroad-.
use to cause any concern." The nine plant species included the
following:
brunched arrowhead (Sagittaria f ascicoiata )
Conta Costa wallflower (ETvrimom capita-trim vac.
Solano grass (Orcnfta
salt marsh bird's beak (€pT-dvtanth-g« maTTtinms ssp.
maTifoama )
San Diego mesa mint (Poaugvim abramsii)
Unnamed Phacelia (Pnacelia argil targa )
Wright's fishhook cactus (Srlegocacttra wrigfatiae)
Uinta basin bookless cactus (Selggocaetus glancns)
Chapman rhododendron (BnotlmteTHiTTm cnapmanii.)
Concerning the endangered plant species, OES assumed that
the "...herbicide is toxic to any of the listed species with
which it may come in contact. Therefore the use of the herbicide
in an area inhabited by listed plants would be expected to des-
troy those plants."
The FWS concluded that jeopardy could be avoided to listed
species if "reasonable and prudent alternatives" would be fol-
lowed. To avoid jeopardy to the Bed Hills salamander (Py
hgbrirntl) it was recommended that studies be provided which
demonstrate that closely related sa Inlander a are not detrimentally
affected by Metolachlor or that spraying be prohibited on certain
sections of the track. A list of counties where the railroad
lines and the salamander's habitat coincide was included in the
consultation.
The recommendations to avoid jeopardy to the plants were
similiar to the salamander recommendations. A study of similiar
plants and a prohibition of spraying in the plants habitat were-
recommended. A list of locations was included.
FWS also concluded that no endangered or threatened aquatic
species were found along the railroad rights-of-way. They there-
fore determined that "...the recommendation of a SO foot layoff
distance from lakes, rivers, streams, or any other body of water
for the proposed label is not necessary for the protection of
endangered or threatened species."
The EEB, in a memorandum concerning a Label Improvement
Program for all herbicides used on railroad rights-of-way dated
40
-------
November 19, 1981, made recommendations to BD as to what
restrictions should be made on the herbicide labels. The program
had been initiated at the time the Metolachlor label change were
being contemplated and was to include consideration of other
competitive products used on railroad rights-of-way. The label
changes were to be statements occuring under the heading endan-
gered species. One set of restrictions stated "Do not apply along
the following sections of track " and then was followed by a list
of counties where such prohibition was to take place. This list
was identical to the Bed Hills salamander (?-. trebrirnti) habitat
list provided in in the consultation.
The other restrictions were to contain the application of
the herbicide by requiring a boom device and directing the appli-
cation downward. The restricted areas were included and this list
was nearly identical to the OES list of counties and rights-of-
way where spraying was to be prohibited so that plant species
would not be jeoparized.
BO accepted the label revisions to exclude buffer zones to
bodies of water on December 16, 1981. (label attached) Ho endan-
gered species considerations were included on the Metolachlor
label, or on subsequent labels, including the latest 1982
label.(label attached)
A confirmation of this omission was made in conversation
with the Product Manager (FM) resonsible for the product. The FM
said that the recommendations were probably excluded because it
was BD^s philosophy to avoid "...putting [too] much on the
label."
41
-------
Herbicide
For weed control on railroad
rights-of-way
Active Ingredient:
Metolachlor: 2-chloro-AM2 ethyt-
6*methylpnenyl)-fV«(2*inethoxy-i-
methylethyl) acetamide 86.4%
Inert Ingredients: 13.6%
Total: 100.0%
Onttack 8E contains 8 Ibs. active
ingredient per gallon.
Keep Out of Reach of Children.
Warning
See additional precautionary statements
at end of label.
EPAReg. No. 100-610
Control No. W A-.*
30 Gallons
U.S. Standard Measure
DIRECTIONS FOR USE AND CONDITIONS OF SALE ANO
WARRANTY
IMPORTANT. Reac i.ip ent.r* Directions lor Use and me
Conditions of Sal* and Warranty oeiore using inn product
Conditions of S»i» and Warranty
Tne Directions lor Us* c' tn.» sroeua reflect tne ooinian at
enoerts catea o« neia use ana tests Tne airemans are
ae''»vec :e ce re « ane snomd ee feiiowec carefully
Howwer it 11 i.~aassioie 10 eliminate an runs mnerentiv
assoc.aiea witn use o< tr»s D'oauet Crae miury meftective-
ness or one' unmtensee canseouences mav result oecausa
o> suen factors at oeame* conations presence oi otner
mate'iais or lie r-ann*. at use or aaoncaiion ai> ot wnicn are
oevona me control o* C:BA-GElGV or tne Seiiex An sucn rum
snan ee assumed By in* Buyer
CIBA-GEIGV warrants mat tni» product conforms to me
cnemtcai cescnot>on on me •ape* ane is reasonacw tit tor
me ourposes reie-reo to in me Directions tor Use suaiect
to tne mne'ent r.««s rete'red to aoove CIBA-GEIGY
makes no other express or implied warranty
of Fitness or Merchantability or any other
express or implied warranty. In no case shall
CIBA-GEIGY or the Seller be liable for con-
sequential, special, or indirect damages result-
ing from the use or handling of this product.
CIBA-GEIGV ana tne Sener otter mis oroaua ana me Buver
•na user acceot n suoiect to me loregomo Condition*
of Sal* and Warranty. wnicn may o* »ari*d only ov
agreement in wnnna j.gnea Ov a auiy auinorizea represent-
ativeotCISA-GElGY
Directions tor use
it is a violation of lederai law to use mis product m a manner
inconsistent witn us laoeimg
Ontrack 8E olus Atratol* SOW or Princep* BOW Tank Mis
Combination lor Railroad RightS'Ot-W*y.
use omy lor control of annual crass weeos or annual oroaa-
>ea! ana grass weeos on rauroad ngnis-oi-wav
Broadcast m* tana mixture of Omracn 8E oius Atratoi BOW or
P'inceo SOW iP-itceo «L or P'inceo Caiioer *90*i at rates 01
* BIS Oms 6-125 IPS respectively in sufficient «aie> lor
morougn grouna ana p:ant coverage to control eamvarograss
C'aograss aogcane 'an pamcuni giant fonaii «ocnia ntti*
Dariev oigweee ragweec nccut erome Russian imstie rve-
grass soranoietoc volunteer wneai wnd oats ana wiicniyass
Use me lower rates in m» rate ranae la* imnt weed miesiations
ana me nigner rates for neavier mtesiations
For Best results aooiv immeaiatei> C"or 10 weea eme'gence. _
Tne comamation ot Omracn 8E PIUS Atratoi SOW mav a"e> toad or feea Ov jio-aae a- 9 soasai
Oaen eumomg is orortc.tec Pesuciae sc-av rr.jn.-e o- rm-
saie mai cann'o* Be utec o- cnenica«y 'e:'pr»««ea <"Cu>o Be
e'soeseo o> m a lano*'1 ^aorokee 10' oes'-c.c*s or ouneo m a.
sate p.ace awav f:r" »aie* sjoaiies
This is a refn:as.e contain-- n tie co-ita ne>.« ta Be r*i neo oo
not rinj» witn anv maie'iai or mi'OCjCe an\ c*SHCiC9 oiner
man Ont>ac» 6£ sesca ane feiu'f fur cs^-i "e- ic a** a.-
monies CiSA-Gc'S> 'e1 ir>3 iaciii!1. i* me es—a-n*> is nc* tr
ot rff'.nea. i'o' ecui>a-«n'> a-.c c-iC2se c* '" j-
mcme»aior or unoim acs'Ovec is> pesuriotr eonia.ne'S o* s sia-e o* iccai c sacsa' =j
monties '0' doproveo a>:ernanve b'oceau'es sucn as ..mites
open ouinmg
This o*oauc! mav Be stored at temperatures oown to 33 oe-
giees oeiow 0' F
: Precautionary Statements
I Hexards to Human* ana Domestic Animals
I WARNING
The active ingredient meto'acmor mav cause s«m sensm-
1 2 at ion reactions m certain inaiviauais Vvea: pio:e:tiv«
Claming wniie nanaime or usmg mis O'ooue: Causes
• sum ana eve irmanoi* Oo not get ir eves cn sum
' o* on eioming May ee laial it mraieo Oo not O'same
sprav mist
Harmtui i' swanowea o' aosoroea mrouan me smr wasn
morougnty ane« naneung Avoid coniammanan of toac
First Aid- m ease ot contact immediately f jsn eves ana or
sum wiin pientv 01 wdte> tar at leas: 1= minuips Cal. a
pnysician Remove ana wasn contaminated ciomma setore
reuse
Envirenmental Hazards ..^
Keeo out of any oooy of water Oo not aooiy wna/e^TC'r is
iikeiy 10 occur Oa not contaminate water OvAi«nir= -al
' eouipment or disposal 01 wastes Oo noiABsAy r^Tf
• ureamer conamons tavor arm from areas trea/sa
Atratot* traoemaru of CIBA-GEIGY
Ontracx* traoemarn of ClBA-GElGY
US PaientNo 3.937 730 (metoiacnor) y
Prmceo* traaamaru ot CIBA-GEIGY to',
Aoricuiiu'ai Division
CUA-GElG ( Co L- anon
(.«e>niooro Nortn Caroim^ 27409
CPA 7C1.1
/
/C»
- •
'
GEIGY
39
-------
s"
For weed control on railroad vt&Z
rights-of-way tfJ^fVV- '
Active Ingredient:
Metolachlor:2-chloro-AI-(2-et
methylethyl) acetamide .'..':;»
86.4%
Inert Ingredients:
13.6%
Total: 100.0%
Ontraek 8E contains 8 Ibs. active
ingredient per gallon.
Keep Out of Reach of Children.
Warning
See additional precautionary statements
at end of label.
EPA Reg. No. 100-610
Control No.
30 Gallons
U.S. Standard Measure
DIRECTIONS KJH USE AMD CONDITIONS OP SALE AND
WARRANTY
IMPORTANT. Read me entire Directions for Use anrt the
Conditions at Sal* and Warranty Ba'o.-s using mis product
Condition* of Sal* and Warranty
The Directions tar Us* of this product reflect in* opinion of
experts oasad on field use and tests The directions are
believed to b* rehabi* and mould a* followed carefully.
However, it is impossible id eliminate ail nsks .nnerentiy
associated witn use of trw product. Crap mtury. melfecnve-
ness, or other uruniended consequences may result Because
of sucfi factors as weainer conditions, presence ol other
materials, or the manner of use or application ari ol wnicn are
Beyond m* control ol CIBA-GEIGY or m* Saner Ail sucn nans
snaU b* assumed by in*. Buyer.
C1BA-GEIGY warrants that ifns product conforms to m*
chemical dasenpnon on m* label and « reasonably fit for
tn* purooae* referred to M trw 04re«t»ona tar Us* subiect
to the mnerent nsks referred to above. CIBA-GEIGY
makes no other express or Implied warranty
of Fitness or Merchantability or any other
express or Implied warranty. In no case shall
CIBA-GEIGY or the Seller be liable tar con-
sequential, special, or Indirect damages result*
ing from the use or handling of this product.
CIBA-GEIQV and in* Seller otter this product and tn* Buyer
and uaer accept it. subiecl to in* foregoing Condition*
of Sal* and Warranty, whicn may b* varied only by
agreement « writing signed by a duly authorized r*pr*s*nt-
atrveofCiBA-G6ICV
Directions fa» Use ~"
a is a violation of federal law to use this product «t a manner
•KonststentwitnitsiaoeMig.
Omraefi IE plus Atratoi* MW or Prlncep* MW Tank Mta
ComMfiatwn tar Railroad Rlgnts-«f-Way.
Us* only for control of annual grass «oed*. or annual broad-
leaf and grass Meeds en railroad ngms-of-way
Broadcast the *ank miiture of Ontraek 8E plus Atralol BOW or
Pnncep SOW (Pnnceo *(. or Pnncap Cauoer* 901* at rates of 4
pts plus 8-12 5 !9s. resoectneiy. in$0-iOOgais of water par
acre»to control Barnyardgrass. craoerass. fall panteum giant
(oxtail, kocrna. unie oaney. pigweed, ragweed, npgut brome.
•^Russian thistle, ryegrass. sprangietop. volunteer wheat wild
Carats, and witcnqrass Use the lower rales in me rate range for
ugnt weed infestations and me nigner rates for heavier infesta-
tions. Use no more man 4 pis. of Omracx BE per acre m lank
mntures with Atratoi BOW or Pnncap
For best results, apply immediately pnor to weed emergence
Th* combination of Omrack BE phis Atratoi BOW may also o*
apphed after weeds emerge, but before they eiceed « .ncnes
rVacauftena: Do not us* near o*sirabi* trees, shrubs.
plants or mg/swnnouses. or miury may occur.
•When using Pnneep 4L or Prmceo Caliber 90. use equiv-
alent rat**. Qn« 10. ol 8flW equais 1 6 pis. Ol *L or 0 * ID
ol Caiiber 90.
Storage and Disposal
Do not contanmwM water, rood or tad by itorase or disposal
Open Humping is prohibited. Oo not reuse empty sontaineR?
Pesticide, spray mixture, or rmsaie mat carrot Oa uieo
according to iaea< instruction* must aa disposed of accord**
mg to federal, staia. or local procedures unoar ma ResourOB
Conservation and Recovery «•. Tnoie 'ins* iOr sauiva-enn
and oftec tor recycling or raconditioninq or jisoose at m *•
sanitary landfill or ay incinarauon if parmiitao ay wai* aaa
This product nay 9* stcred at temperatures »wn 10 30
degrees 3*iowi7F
Precautionary Statements
Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals
^ . ., WARNING
Th* acnva ingredient, marolaenlor. may causa s*in ser»s.n-
zaften raactions u* certain «tdnndueis Waar arotectivo
CMtnme. (covaraU* and giovwM wfm* nanowd or using ins
oreducL Causa* sun ard ev* irmanon. Oo not gat -n ayas.
on skin, or on coming May M Uti> >» innaiad Oo not
braam* soray mist. . "
Harmhii it svatiowad or aesoread m'0u«t m« win Waan
norauflMy after nandlmg. Avoid coniammanon et food.
r%st AM: In casa of contact immaoaiaiy Husri «v«s anovor
skin win QMnty ol tniar^Cad a pn»$ojn Ramot* *nd
waan comamnaiad doming oatara rauaa-
II innaiaoon occurs. *»• victim snouid aa ir.ov«d a 'rasn air
and madical attention snowd 9* sougnt
M sMllowad. contact your local Poison Control Caniar
hospital, or pnyswian irnmadiaiaiy » panant is jncsn-
sciows. mainiam braaming and naamaat (CP9. ear-
diopuimonarv rasusatanon). II paaam:* conscious .nouca
vomiting (syrup of ipecac* •> not avaiiaoie. stimuiai* aac< of
Oiroat vjitn Anger) Never give anytrung ay mouin (0 an un-
conscious person*! Note to PflyawUn: it swallowed mere
ta no specific tnndote inouc* emesis and'avage stamacn
Treat sympumancaiiyi The ose of an adueous siuny ol
activated cnarcoai isuclt as Nont A) and a saime camarnc
srwuM be considered I
Environmental Hasarda
Os> not apply dtreetly fjiany body of water Oo not aooiy
•nere runoff is bkeiy to occur Oo not contaminate water 3y
cleaning el equipment or disposal of wastes Oo not aop>y
wnen woatner conditions lavor dnn from areas treated
I
Atratoi* trademark ol CIBA-GEIGY
Omrack • trademark of CIBA-GElGY
US Patent No 3.937.730 (metotacnior)
Prmcep* trademark af CIBA-GElGV for umaz-ne
.-i/*' Onneon *
attorf
27419
COA70LIA
CIBA-GEIGY
-------
Herbicide
For weed control on railroad
rights-of-way
Active Ingredient:
Metolachlor: 2-chloro-iV-(2-ethyl-
6-methylphenyl)-iV-(2-methcxy-1-
methyletnyl) acetamide 86.4S0
Inert Ingredients; 13.6%
-Total: " ^
Ontrack 8E contains 8
ingredient per gallon./
Keep Out of R
Warning
Ses additional precautionary statements
at end of label.
EPA Reg No. IdC-SlO
5PG
aUS ****
30 Gallons
U.S. Standard Measure
•JSE ANO CONDITIONS OF SALE AND
Y/ *
of Children.
v.tKSANTV
--ar •-' »-• •• 0-ection* lo» Use a*S tr»t
* 3»i» *-s w»r-.ntj if--' _s -sin" r-oc»c'
Sail ane Warranty
"ri Directions tor U»e o* !in o'cou:: ret*ct me oomioP ol
use— =a»ec o" '•••; us* an; tests Tne o-eci>ons a-e oe-
•i-.e-vot re- «o-« a*c • ••ouifioeioiioweecaretuwr nowexe-
i: '*. >*T £!*:«•• 'i e '•" ~a*» a* "»»s innerefwv associated mm
USE c- !*•* o'oru:: Crs: -•«'» me'iesiwenes* o' e:ner unm-
I«-SM c-"l«-;jence; ma? ••k»r> Because o* sucn factors as
weasn*' csnoiiiO"! a'esence ot otr.er materials o- me manner
c1 us* o- asp'.ca.ic- a. r* *R>:> a-e oevons me control of
C 5—C>='Ci o: \r* £«••« *• SUCR fins snail ee assumed oy
*a>rarts 4na* tii« o-ofluc: contort! 10 mi
#'t1•;^ o»sc-i3'iO" or in* i4iv ans is ieasoiao>« fit tor me
'saiev ie-«-''es i: m Hit 0-ristiens tor Use suoi*ct to me
i»T»o ic »?ov* CIBA— GEIGY makes
no other express or implied warranty ot Fitness
or Merchantability or any other express or
'implied warranty. In no ease shall CIBA-GEIGY
or the Seller be liable lor eonseouential. spe-
cial. or indirect damages resulting from the
use or handling of this product. C.EA-GEIGY ana
trie Se-i«' otter ims o.'Mud ana me &uvf 913 use' acceo: it.
susiec1 to me toresa-**c Condition* o< Saie and Warranty.
*n.c-. rr.av af vanes on"", e« ac'eentnt ignts-ot.«>ay
a.-.--., ^-. :an. m,Iture o' O"t'BCk 8E DiuS AtratO' SOW
g -A»Jiff9» t'i-i:er 80V. iP-i-cer «. o> ^-meeo Cahoe**
*»; ° • -a,es o* * e:s oius t-H 5 ids 'esoecnvei* m 50-100
cais i »ai»- oe- ac'»to co^t'O' :a'i»a'ag:ajs craograss tai
tanijjrr c.an: tana! «g:- a < »>» eano> t sweea. ragweee
'i3?u- O'9-e R.ss.ai tnisne rtre'as! ssranoietcs volunteer
• nea* »uo cats an: wtrnc-asj cse 'ne iowe> rates in me
•a:e -ange to' n;r.* «e»e i."!s:ano"s ana tne i isner rate* to*
r>eavie' injestations uat -f T-e *nar * oti Cntraeii 6c oe(
acr« in ta^* mutcres •••••T^Qgy P'^ceo I
Fo' oest results acs't im-tes'ateiv one' ir »^»c emeroence
Tn» ecmomai'on e< Or-ack 8e on.s^»fli*ay a-sc a<
aae»e: arie' »»eas e*ne>g« BI>: seioreT^e. e»ceeo 6 mc^es
' f-e:n,uo"t Do not jse -ea' oes-'aa-e :r«es »"'usj
p si"4 or i"O'ee"npu59S or in u'v mavoicvc
•'•Vie'- us ^WSoTso. ermcer. <^ c- P> -tec Ca'^ee- 9C us
»:. .a •-• •a?Si"w-fls r 83w eeua-i ' t pis o1 «- c- C 5
d^raidjO*' Ca.ca- 9C
Storage and Disposal
C? nc- se^'f^'ta't •a'e- ne 15 sronis..*: DC
e«stese ts a. — »:.-e e
inc :? .*:» •-«• as: i-«
'»ae'i s:ai* e- i?ca s't
v* ,;•«-: R*ic»e-. *r- T-s-*'-se'r ta.. .»•*"! a-s
•c- -»:.i -if •«:•:• r- -r c-csc:v. r- .r a sar- .a-, '«ns-
t.c'B. f.'nft c- tf — •••s s< s-aie anc i>-:a- aytnorn.es
Tr ^ r-cc.1:: "-a* se s:s>ee a- -e—rs-at-ies eown 10 3C degrees
ce so C :
r*
-'z:e o- e-;rrsa
e~ss cs-'a -e-
cTe -»*saccstc
r s- ae::'e-'; tc
Precautionary Statements
Hazards 10 Kumans and Domestic Animala
WARNING
Tne active merec »— muc-ae-icr -na* sau»e s«"> sensi:
iition reactions <' ti-~a>' -ns t.c.ai* v.aa- r-atsenwe c otr*-
ing i co^arans anc a-3ves •'• * na's -; or usin; tms
proouc: Caj»e« «»- u"s •,..,« s?tio- C- r— -«. -^ ^ves
on 4.- o- or. c.c--.-.= ajBrmtuta wmaiec; Avoid ereairon;
rwrs» " »' -• ~ • • • • — — *- -
r'CTeS tTi'tuS" tne *«i" v.as*
'-e- -a.": -^ A«C 3 can:a-ii&:ion e' toad
Sfst A«e i^ cas* :• c^n'sc: — — n.a'» v ••.«-»««» an- pi
5.' «k — pn-1. :• »at» Ca a !->.•-* a- ae"iov* a-s
. »««•. cc— .-- -t »s ncin nc te'O'« -e-»* i' nr.a.a:o"o:
t JPS !•» • I:." .«"5-c i* TSSV*S :c «es~ ai-
a::en:.o- snouio oe saugni
1 I* s» allowed eon;ad< your IOC8< PO'Sor Control
: ricsana: o» pnysieiar immediately l< oat-em is
! scioua. maintain D-eairmg ane near-seat
is no saecidc annoote mouse enesis ane ia«age siomacn
i Treat symptomancaiiv1 Tne use ot an asueous siurry o'
I activated cnareoai 'sucn as Nan: Ai ane a saune catnartie
' snouidoeconsioeted.!
! Environmental Hazards
i Do not aooty directly tc any eoay o1 waie' Oo no> aoo'y
! w.nere runert is Imeiv to occur Oo not camammate water By
1 cleaning o: eauiamem or a.soosa1 c' wastes Do not aopiy
; wnen weatne* conomons tavor onrt from a-eas treated
Atrato'* t:ademam o< CIBA-GElGY
Cahae** trademark o' CIBA-GElGY
Ontraca* traaeiarhoi CIBA-GEIGY
US PaientNc 2937?3Cimetoia:nion
Princes' traeemarn o< C19A-GEIGY to- simazme
.; i982CiBA-GEiGYCarporauon
Agricultural Division
OBA-GEiGV Co'?oration
Gtaensoo'c Nort*. Carolina 27419
CGATOL1B
CIBA-GEIGY
-------
Stannary of EnTian^er CTJ Species CornyiTJET at togs for Tfadmet
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Thimet 20G, Rescue/ Phorate/ 0,0-diethyl s-[(ethlythio)
methyl] phosphorodithioate.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Insecticide for the con-
trol of a variety of insects on 18 crops. The new proposal would
increase the concentration of a previously registered product.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that the proposed registration would cause an
"...insignificant incremental risk to nonendangered, nontarget
organisms..." The proposal was viewed as potentially threatening
to endangered and/or threatened species because of "...demon-
strated field hazards associated with the proposed rates of
application of Phorate, and the demonstrated availability of
toxic granules on the soil surface..." Based on these con-
clusions, the registration was to be referred to OES for consult-
ation, (review dated 8/4/81)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to Office of Endangered Species on August 31, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional material and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusion and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
RD accepted the registration of Thimet on August 21, 1981
(the same date that consultation was initiated). One condition
for this registration was the revision of labeling to include any
modifications that would be reguired as a result of OES's review
(label included).
The FWS (FVS/OES EPA-81-10, January 22, 1982) determined
that the following species would be affected by the proposal:
masked bobwhite - (Cpllims virginiancs rltfanravi)
eskimo curlew
Attwater's greater prairie
chicken CTviummuchTM COPITIP
Aleutian Canada goose (Brant
whooping crane (GT-CT
Mississippi sandhill crane (€?
Kern primrose sphinx moth (Enprtxerpinna entgrje)
Alabama cavefish (SpepDiatyrfalnn* ponlstmi)
Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel (Sclnr-oa niggr cinereOT)
San Joaquin kit fox (Vnipe* ma erotic anrtira)
According to the review, the use of Thimet could affect
listed terestrial species by exposure through direct ingestion of
granules or indirectly through ingestion of invertebrates that
42
-------
have either died from contact with the pesticide oc have concen-
trations of the granules on theic surface. Listed aquatic species
could be exposed to the product from runoff of treated fields or
drift from aerial applications. It was noted that most endangered
species habitats do not occur near areas which would be treated,
however when they do, the runoff would be short-term and diluted.
The action was therefore deemed unlikely to jeopardize aquatic
endangered species. The only exception was the Alabama cavef ish
( Speoplatrnxinra POPiTBom). which was to receive special
consideration.
The FWS determined that the Attwater's greater prairie
chicken (T? COTJTJO attwateri) . the Aleutian Canada goose (fli
Sana *ten«i» iCTcocatgia ) . and the Kern primrose sphinx moth (%-
) would likely be jeopardized by the use of Thimet. To
avoid jeopardy, alternatives were recommended that included
limiting the applications of the product to certain times of the
year, in specific counties, for the protection of the Aleutian
Canada goose (ifa cana-dcmi* Igncopareia ) and prohibiting the use
in specific counties in the ranges of the other two jeopardized
species.
The FWS also determined that the proposal would not jeopar-
dize the continued existence of the following endangered species:
Mississippi sandhill crane (€- canaTtei«i» ptiita)
whooping crane (€1 ancrirata )
San Joaquin kit fox (Vs. marroti.* nrofrca)
eskimo curlew (!h bot calls)
Oelmarva peninsula fox squirrel (Scrnrim nicer
Alabama cavef ish ( Soeoplatr falnro ponl-soni)
masked bobwhite (Ci virginianm
So that EPA would be assisted in exercising their "authority
for the conservation" of these listed species, a number of recom-
mendations were provided. The use of Thimet was to be prohibited
in specific counties to protect the whooping crane (€3.
amgrreatia ) . the Delmarva peninsula fox squirrel (Stri/ar-a* PJCTT
cjnBisss.) , and the Alabama cavef ish ( SpewtatTrninTu pcmi-aoni) .
On March 12, 1982, the BD communicated to the registrant
that the OES recommendations would have to be incorporated into
the product label. These recommendations were taken word for word
from the biological opinion.
A meeting was held between representatives of EEB, BD, and
the registrant on March 30, 1982 (as reported in a April 2, 1982
EEB memorandum) to discuss label requirements. It was agreed that
the BD proposals of March 12 were "...too cumbersome for the
label and unfairly aingled-out [the registrant's] product in the
use patterns of concern." BD suggested that the current labeling
of Thimet be suspended until alternatives could be worked out
between OES and the registrant, with EEB serving as the modera-
tor.
On March 31, 1982, the EEB representative met with OES to
discuss the labeling concerns. OES responded favorably to label-
ing "negotiations" and expressed that BD had overreacted to their
biological opinion. They believed BD had been too restrictive .
with those species which were not considered in jeopardy, but had
43
-------
received recommendations for their conservation. OES believed it
wae possible to avoid label statements about the Kern primrose
sphinx moth (£-. enter-re) "...since a cooperative agreement could
be worked out with the state of California and the landowners..."
where the moth is found. Specific concerns for the Aleutian
Canada goose (fl- eam-den»i» legeopareia) and Attwater's greater
prairie chicken (T? CTmido a-ftwatefi) were to be re-evaluated
once new information "...on the timing of actual applications and
the actual pest distribution in specific counties identified in
the...biological opinion." The April 2, 1982 memorandum closed
with a statement made by a BD representative which expressed that
BD had not been "...consistent on its reporting of ES opinions to
industry nor on its ES label requirements/proposals with respect
to the ES situation in general."
No evidence exists that the label has been revised since
acceptance of Thimet's registration on August 21, 1981.
-------
(Illustration)
THIM£T« 20-C
soil and systesic insecticide
Active Ingredient:
"'Phcrat. (0,0-diethyl) S-l*ptoduet "ncil
. K«r Weight: Ib .
X\ •' / - f v
. — •
-------
-2-
PPECALTIONA.1Y STATET-tE.'iTS
HAZARDS TO HUMANS (A.N3 CCifZSTIC AN DIALS)
DANCER:
Career, fatal if swallowed, inhaled er absorbed through the skin. repaat2d
Lr.haijcisn or akin ccncsci aay, -without syripccrj. progressively tncraaje
susceptibility so poisoning.
Oo Sec Gez Tn Sves. On Skin. On Cloehina
Wear freshly laundered, long-sleeved work clashing daily. While transferring
fr.rs package ss equipment, vear 4 clean cap and gloves (rubber or cottan).
If costan gloves are used, they suss be laundered or discarded after each
day's use. Rubber gloves should be washed vich soap and waeer afcer each use.
no noc wear Che sums gloves for ochcr work. Ocssroy and replace gloves frequcncly,
In case of cor.cac:, i=ediacely remove concasinaced cloching and wash ski.i
ehorsughly wish soap and waser. Launder clashing before reuse. Wash ehoroughly
vlch soap and water before eating or ssokiag. Bathe ae Che end of Che work day
ar.d ehang? ovster cloehing.
3o Sot 3ra3She Oust
Wear a faca sas'x or eeher respiratory e^uip=ene vhile emptying bags of ?ri
-------
(red)
In case 'o* an emergency endangering life or
property involving this product, call collect, day
or night, Area Code 201 - S35-3100.
Ar •.•:•?.-•: .V..--';..-,c is JM antidote. Co.->ult your physician .iLjout obljtniii|- a .supiiiv al
l/l.C -.:<•- -i C.i -niillrrarn) taalots for emergency use. [I symptsmi .nclu-is L-I-.-rs-j v.s.rr.,
stc.T.j^n cri— .pi or ::gr.:r.ess in chest, dor.'t -*-jit !o- i p>ys.cYani but take two tablets a:
once. Re not ta»*e atrcpinc unless symptoms of poisoning ha-.e occurred. Anyone w.-.o ;us
been s;c* cncugn to have taken atropine must tie seen by a physician as soon as possible.
FIRST AID
If swallowed, drink one or two glasses of water and induce vomiting by touching back of
throat -M\ :r\ ting-r. Do not induce vomiting or give anything by mouth to an unconscious
person. Get medical attention.
If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration, preferably
.-to-.Tssuth. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen.
In co>».' vit C-g'.UCt, ;.TincpJi-t:!y flu»h eye* or »!
-------
DISCLAIMED
Zne label instructions for the use of this produce reflect the opir.iar. of exaerts ba,»ed
on field use and Cests. The directions are believed to be reliable and should bu
falJawed carefully. However, ic is impossible Co eliminate all risks inherently
associaeed with use of this produce. Crop injury, ineffectiveness or other unintended
consequences Ray result because of such factors as weather conditions, presence of
other materials, or che use or application of the product contrary to label instruction.
all of whiwh are beyond :he central of Agarics.-. Cy«r.4£id Ccspany. Ail suc.i ru^j j:^LL
be assumed by Che user.
Cva.-.-.:id -..ir rar.Cd only :.h.as rr.«i r.jtanal contair.id rcrjin canforr.s <:s c:.<:
cr.er.i-ai iescripticn on the laseL ind is reasonably fit for the use therein dc ;cr-.;-i-
•-hen used in accaci.ir.es with trie d^reccians for use. susject so :he :
Any dasages arising fraa a breach of this warranty shall be limited to direct da.-u
shall not include csnsequential ccssercial dasages such as loss of profits or values or
any other special or indirect dosages.
Ar:jrican Cyanasid Conpany makes no other express or ispiied warranty, including ar.y other
express or isplie-I warranty of FITiSSS or of MERCHANTABILITY .
(12 ?c. type) DIXiCTIOXS FOR USE
It is a viola tier, of Federal Lav: :o u
-------
16- 3""""^f7 of Endanger •ed Species Considerations for Sas CaTtrirfatgs
1. Product Hame/ Ccomon Name/ Chenieal Name
Gaa cartridges/ Sodium Nitrate/ unknown.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Predacide fumigant for
the control of coyotes.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB concurred with the registration of gas cartridges. Six
studies were considered necessary for completion of the registra-
tion, but "...[bjecause of the unique application techniques, the
already existing endangered species section of the label, and the
lack of exposure to nontargets when label directions are fol-
lowed..." , EEB did not feel that they would enhance a hazard
assessment. EEB recommended that the prexisting endangered spe-
cies section of the label be enlarged and that maps showing
"closed areas because of listed species" be enclosed with each
package. (Review dated 3/10/81)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on September 25,
1981.
5. Consultation Administration
Bequests for additional time and/or material were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA, October 30, 1981) considered language
changes for endangered species restrictions to be included on the
gas cartridge label. The Service had previously determined in a
biological opinion dated February 28, 1979, that gas cartridges
would not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species. This determination was reaffirmed.
The Service recommended slight modifications on the endan-
gered species section of the label.
45
-------
1T-. Snmaatv of Endaggetgn1 SneriCT CoroidegationB fm Bozol
1. Pcodnet Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Rozol Pocket gophee bait/ Chlorophacinone/ 2[(p-
chlorophenyDphenyacety 11-1-3.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Bodenticide for below
ground use to control burrowing pocket gophers in lawns, golf
courses, parks, rangeland and alfalfa fields.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB concluded that "...the proposal uses provide for a
significant increase in exposure and acute risks to nonearget
organisms." Their preliminary assessment was that "...secondary
tozicity will significantly affect mammalian and reptilian gopher
predator populations." The following list of endangered species
that might be affected by the use of Rozol was included in the
review (11/19/81)
red wolf
ocelot (Fetxa
jaguarundi (Fgiia vagtyoaroTmn'i ca-comi.tti)
black-footed ferret (Mnrtgta
Mexican gray wolf (€a-n±» IOTTO faai.i'eTi.)
San Joaquin kit fox (Vnt-ne« masfoti-a
salt marsh harvest mouse (Rei-tfaro^nnt omya
Motco Bay kangaroo rat
Florida panther
gray wolf (€anx»
grizzly bear (flnraa arrto-a
northern rocky mountain wolf (€ani-s
New Mexican ridge nosed snake (CtTrtalTta willar-di
eastern indigo snake f^f^'iafrfatni eoTal-a
Attwater's greater prairie
chicken (TvumHiim.fa.OT rapiTJo attwategi)
masked bobwhite quail (Coi-ima viyginiatiTre rl-dgwavl)
It was determined that a biological opinion would be neces-
sary for completion of the hazard assessment.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on November 18, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional material and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusion
The TVS (FWS/OES EPA-82-2, March 11,1982) review included
those species identified by EPA and the blunt-nosed leopard
lizard (Gamfaclia aiinn) and the California condor (Sviimunvus
californianna).
The FWS concluded that Chlorophacinone "...is likely to
46
-------
jeopardize the continued existence of only the black-footed
fetcet (Mwteta njgriws ) and the San Joaquin kit fox
marroti-B mntira ) . . . " To avoid jeopardy to the black-footed feecet
(M-. nigTlpe«). the FWS recommended that Chlorophacinone not be
used within pcaicie dog towns in the range of the black-footed
ferret without first contacting endangered species personnel.
To avoid jeopardy to the San Joaquin kit fox (¥7 matrroti?
nmtica ) . the pesticide "...should not be used within 1 mile of
active dens..." in 10 California counties, and prior to use, the
California Department of Fish and Game or the FWS Portland
regional office were to be contacted. A request was made that EPA
advise FWS in writing whether implementation of the alternatives
for the black-footed ferret (M? njgfrre») and the San Joaquin kit
fox (V-. marroti.? mntira) had occurred.
The label statement recommendations were conveyed to BD thru
EEB, and then became a prerequiste for the registration of the
product. BD accepted the registration of Bozol on August 18,
1982. (label attached)
47
-------
tWCAUTIQNARV STATEMENTS
HAZARD TO HUMANS ANp ..,
* .V DOMESTIC ANJMAi,S " : '
' '''tA CAUTION. '•'••'.• '
*(» away Ira* hurnaru, domoillc anlmalt, and
... tf iwtAowod or abtortud through akin, Ink
bsrM mayY»duf» Iho clotting ability ol lha
# and Bjnia;hU»aMUMj»i4AflM
r »igi»»Pit> •IHIIP»»I^ »M««II »»i •••«»"•»"•"»^"y
i.r onWjjTMlcalod hi bUhydmxcournarln
•Mtf|Q0vCa£. PWp^oll •* tlPfca^p|||yf J^Vyif ^r^
miyiiuMMi aW aMttlbccifnbln IkiMoV f'.r^t-'^-i'r i/» - *
W^*^rw^ •^^•Ww"»^w» "Wl f -4 »» IFi-U^.H'
„*.;-. ! • ti * *4.fc r .4fc»V \ • IJ
•••{•« i
. 4 pwliKt.il )o*c lo Itoh Md '
*i o^' (UMuna or^JMn
wotoflby
.«*
. ii'
M fM to Bw lt*n«i| CMtMNs C
. J
.. M, « MI*. MM »M Mnlto. Wo» b UM.
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
• • t NOT rONTAMINATCWATER. FQOO OH
I Hit W blOHAtt
DISPOSAL: '
(A*l cannot bo utad according lo label
muil b« dlipoMd of according |4
• ?•"• luf locycim-; or lacondllonlng,
.. w' r ft a MUII'M , Undid, or by (ncmwaUon
.!•••!• D« kUU aiui local auUionltai, >
u
•i.* .nUncv
Ol UM, «IOMflO.
i.ialarta! nol In 6tncl
k 4i«en haiawHh.
V /. .' «.- >lLy
POCKt-fitOi liullOAIT
Gb ; i
OH . v.l
II i. .. vi..i. .u.it .it I
USE:
law 10 MO UWA pr^v
uorlltltS
MUul u*llo ••<>! M.-IIIAI I.V IMPftEQNATID
dtf lilt lOMCANT •
fatal
I.
i*
...... 1.8
*"**
|iu. .1 I-.-1.1 ujjinei bdil U lacommandad lor UM
on i i A i .1 mi la pruba. Drop 1/2 cup ball Into Ilia
i .in .. kovei lha holo io Mgl^ will nol anUr
ii b ii. ..i ^y»icm. : • •;!/•'? '
ilalo rodanl control bullallnt lor
hahlli.
Kt.Ll' (t.U
Oi t.ii
CA»I
,• i
•r &
..i uEACH
: OilcN
I ION
Cu
M
O
o
«
i »
* •
N 1
: i
«•*.
•""" "T"V. • .ii . . .1 and ilalo
.jjuJrf- * ."ul portal
^ t r >!<•• <•»iia»linanlipor
I * • "f r.
linanli par burrow •yilarn* Bury daad /
M«.d Billed balTlaund on Mil aurlaco'.; •
i,. i uinlabi a contlanl ^upply ol ball In •
. <. *, -icm lor at long at Ihoro U ^ophor ;
ui. i.»l «pply ball on MMlacpagll, 1 "..
^kb. * ' t *'W
II
>ii i
CML »j.; />.• •'
i i. i
. - i S». INC.
irrs DIVISION
t >»•'.'
i —.
i . ..i Uia wrong wayi lo MM a proba lor
• u, licit aio ihown abawor ' §a luro lha
i. • .n-lii runway — nol In lha, {llofall M
. i.« bottom ol lha ninwty* V ,>, -::.
p
ft
i IN*
VK 'It
-------
SiHiifn^yy of Ennanggtgri Species Con'Si.TiBTatTpna TPT
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Temik 15-G, Temik 10-G/ Aldicarb, Temik/ 2-methyl-2
(methylthio)propionaldehyde-O-(methylcarbamoyDoxine.
2. Conditional Registration
Proposed conditional registration. Granular nematicide for
use on tomatoes, sorghum, and citrus.
3. Hazard Evaluation Branch (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that the use of Temik on additional crops
would "result in [a] significant increase in exposure, but not an
acute risk to non-endangered, non-target fish and wildlife." The
proposal was considered likely to cause "...a significant in-
crease in exposure and acute risk [Trmpancfaiia cuuido attwaterll"
( Review dated 2/20/82).
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on October 9, 1981.
5. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional material and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-82-1, January 22, 1982) concluded that
listed species would be precluded from adverse exposure with the
exception of the Attwater's greater prairie chicken (£5.
a-ttwatcri) and the San Joaquin kit fox (VntuCT macro-tr* nmtira).
The TVS determined that the. kit fox (Vi marrxyti^ mtrrica) would
not likely be jeopardized since the impact of the product on this
species was expected to be low. Because of the extensive use of
sorghum fields by prairie chickens and "the documented acute
toxicity of Aldicarb to avian species", the Service determined
that the Attwater's greater prairie chicken (T^ enplTJo atrtwateti)
would likely be jeopardized by the proposed action.
As a reasonable and prudent alternative, the Service recom-
mended that the use of Temik on sorghum be prohibited in 13
counties in Texas.
RD accepted the registration of Temik on April 20, 1982. The
label required that before using the product in the 13 counties
cited above, the applicator, "must determine that this species is
not located in or immediately adjacent to the area to be
treated."
48
-------
r
C
UNION
ARB1DE
UNION CARBIDE AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS COMPANY. INC.
I W. ALEXANDER DRIVE
P.O. BOX 12014
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27709
PRODUCT B9LHJET
RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE
TEMIK 15G Alnirarb Pesticide
EPA Reg. No. 264-330
Supplemental Labeling
For Control of Nematodes. Greenbugs and Chinch Bugs
On Sorghum
Crop & Time
of Application
Grain Sorghum
At Planting
Pests
Controlled
Nematodes
Greenbug And
Chinch Bug
Suppression
Pounds /Acre
TEMIK 15R
(Based on 36" Rows)
7
3.5 (Texas and
Oklahoma only)
7
Ounce'sTTOOO
Feet of Row
TEMIK 15G
7.5
4
7.5
Recommended
Application
Apply granules in
seed furrow and cover
with soil.
HRE-HARVEST AND GRAZING USE INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS:
• Do not make more than one application per year.
• Do not harvest within 90 days of application.
- Do not feed green forage to livestock.
[£NTAL HAZARDS: The Endangered Species Act protects Attwater's
Chicken irTtRg-Texas counties of Arkansas, Refugio, Goliad.Ausiiiw-Cotfffado, Galveston,
Harris, Vi c tori a , WaTl er , Wtw*oiu_Fprt Bend,_pjHittr-«nirSrazoria. Users must not apply
TEMIK to sorghum fields in this
For f urthfir-TnTormation , users should contact the regional U.S. I- ij>h"afHiJ(fild life Service
office (Endangered Species Specialist) or personnel of the State Fish and GamiPAgency.
IMPORTANT: Before using TEMIK 15R Aldicarb Pesticide, read and carefully observe the
precautionary statements and all other Information appearing on the product label. This
bulletin contains new and supplemental directions for use jof this product which may not
appear on the package label. Follow the directions
APR 2 0 13&
is, .
It.'...-
• o-
-------
4. You will submit production information (poyrdr produced)
for tfcotc products tor the fiscal year in which the ust s
on sorghum arc conditionally registered, in accordance
with Section 29 of FIFRA. The fiscal year begins October 1
and ends September 30.
«
The production information will be submitted to the
Agency no later than November 15, following the end
of the preceding fiscal year.
Zf the conditions of this amendment arc not complied with,
the registration will be subject to cancellation in accordance
with Section 6(e) of the Act.
Stamped copies of the labels are enclosed for your records.
Submit five copies of the revised final printed labeling for
each product incorporating the Endangered Species statement
listed below.
NOTICE: Under the Endangered Species Act, i t is A Federal
oficnsc to use any pcrticidc in & manner th?t results in
the dtath of a member of an endangered
This Act protects Attwatur1 Greater Prairie Chicken ir.
the Texas counties of Aransss, Austin, Brazoria, Colorado,
Calves ton, Goliad, Harris, Refugio and Victoria.
Prior to making application in these counties the user
must determine that this species is not located in or
immediately adjacent to the area to be treated.
Zf the user is in doubt whether or not the above named
endangered species nay be affected he should contact either
the regional U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service office
(Endangered Species Specialist) or personnel of the State
Fish and Game Office.
Sincerely,
Jay S. Ellenbcrger
Product Manager (12)
Znscciticidc-Rodenticide Branch
Registration Division (TS-767C)
-------
SUIIUIMTV of EintaTiggTgd Sirexngs Cumn.TJBrati.DTM for
(Registration Standard)
1. Active Ingredient/ Chemical Hame
Endosulfan/ 6,7,8.9,10,10-Hexachloro-l,5,5a,6,9f9a-
hexahydr0-6,9-methane-2,4,3-benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide.
2. Regulatory Action
Registration Standard. Endosulfan is used as a insecticide
and acaricide on 145 agricultural and ornamental crops. Endosul-
fan is a chlorinated hydrocarbon registered for both ground and
aerial application.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
Determination that "...the use of endosulfan as directed on
many of the registered labels, may affect the continued existence
of many endangered/ threatened species." EEB concluded, based on
the data examined for avian and aquatic species, that technical
Endosulfan is considered highly toxic to avian species, moderate-
ly to slightly toxic to upland game and waterfowl when adminis-
tered in subacute dietary tests, very highly toxic to freshwater
invertebrates, very highly toxic to coldwater and warmwater fish,
and very highly toxic to estuarine invertebrates and fish.
Hazards to terrestrial species were not fully assessed at the
time of the Standard's writing because of data gaps.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by the Hazard Evaluation Division, Ecological
Effects Branch, to the Fish and Wildlife(FWS) on February 4,
1982.
5. Consultation Administration
The consultation period was extended twice. The first
extended the process until July 12, 1982 "...because of the
complexity of the consultation.." and the difficulty in "...ob-
taining certain information in a timely fashion..." The second
extended the process until July 30, 1982 because new information
became available.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The Registration Standard for Endosulfan was completed on
9/18/81. Some four months later, the EEB reviewer responsible for
endosulfan informed the chief of EEB that the use patterns for
Endosulfan "...should be referred to OES for formal consultations
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The basis for his
determination was that "...endangered species risk criteria
[were] exceeded..." and there were "...numerous aquatic organism
kill reports in the endosulfan files." (memo dated January
22,1982 to EEB chief from section 3 wildlife biologist).
On February 4, 1982, a letter was sent from EEB to FWS
requesting that formal consulation be initiated. The Endosulfan
standard was published by EPA in April of 1982 and a jeopardy
opinion was received by EEB on August 2,1982.
49
-------
The EWS (FWS/OES EPA- 82-4, July 30, 1982) concluded Chat
"...the use of Endosulfan is likely to jeopardize listed fish.
listed mussels, listed insects, [the] Hawaiian hoacy bat
[la»iurTiB cineTCT* senotCTJ. Aleutian Canada goose [Brant a
le-oeopar'eia 1 . Attwater's greater prairie chicken
en-nido attwatcri). Pine Barrens tree frog
amtetaonj.il. Houston toad [Btrfo hoOTtpnemi* 1 . and the Santa Cruz
long-toed salamander [Ambv»ttma margOTJacfrltai cgoeeTml."
The FWS suggested that alternatives might be taken so that
jeopardy to individual species might be avoided. Generally, the
alternative cited for the above species consisted of one or more
of the following:
"1) Strictly prohibit the ground application of Endosulfan
within 200 yards of any aquatic habitat, and prohibit the aerial
application within 1/4 mile of any aquatic habitat to reduce the
amount of endosulfan which enters the aquatic environment.
2) Limit use rates of Endosulfan.
3) Avoid use in counties where listed species occur or at
times when listed species are present.
4) Obtain a list of the exact locations of the listed
fish/mussels and prohibit the use of endosulfan in those areas
through specific label restrictions.
5) In cooperation with the OES and the Cooperative Extension
service, develop specific safeguards at the local level which
will qualify as labeling under the FIFSA, thus avoiding specific
restrictions on national labels." The FWS recommended that the
n...EPA develop procedures to analyze the effects of pesticide
usage on listed species. Such procedures should include the
gathering of toxicity data on reptiles, amphibians, freshwater
mussels, and snails so that impacts to various groups of species
can be better evaluated."
Shortly after receiving the jeopardy opinion, the EEB endan-
gered species coordinator requested that a peer group comment on
the OES document. The report, dated 8/18/82, addressed the need
for clarification of issues concerning the jeopardy opinion and
the standard. The report stated that the points should be clari-
fied "...prior to sending the OES biological opinion to RD. ..".
The peer group questioned whether the Endosulfan jeopardy opinion
was intended for all use patterns, or whether limitations could
be applied to specific sites. Their concern centered on whether
there were any Endosulfan use patterns that posed a threat to
only some or none of the designated endangered species. In a
memorandum dated August 24, 1982, the reviewer responded to the
peer group by noting that the OES, in his opinion, had
clearly indicated use-specific concerns and that OES intended
jeopardy "..to apply to any use of Endosulfan which would be
within the specified distances of the habitats of concern." At
the same time, the reviewer pointed out that the six alternatives
cited by FWS gave the branch a considerably degree of flexibil-
ity. The sixth alternative, which suggested that EEB could come
up with their own alternatives, affords, in the words of the
reviewer, an "..open-ended approach to resolve some of the diffi-
cult endangered species issues.." The reviewer reasoned that
the endangered species problem would reoccur "...simply because
the specificity we're -used to dealing with on incremental risk
SO
-------
assessments and section 3*s ... is lacking in the generic pro-
jects." The reviewer went on to state that "..EPA's options with
Endosulfan, for purposes of the standard, range from no immediate
regulatory requirements..while we're in the process of filling
residue monitoring and non-target effects data gaps... to
developing use pattern limitations, site-specific (geographies)
restrictions, or "cluster approach'..."
The peer group recommended that EEB formulate a policy on
how to implement the conclusions drawn in the OES opinion. The
policy would address the feasibility of the alternatives recom-
mended in the opinion; it was noted that some were consistent
with the "cluster approach".
In a memorandum to the EEB endangered species coordinator,
dated December 9, 1982, the reviewer conveyed his concern that
the issues raised in the peer group report had not been resolved
and that "..[slince the agency [had] published the Endosulfan
standard with a reference to obtaining a biological opinion from
OES, [the reviewer felt] that the "Jeopardy" opinion thus ob-
tained could be a liability to the agency and EEB in its present
state (ie. in the active ingredient files, awaiting transmission
to BD)." The reviewer requested that a reinitiation of formal
consultation with OES be made to resolve the issues raised by the
peer group report.
The recommendations made by OES were put on hold because
they were considered by EEB to be unworkable and unreasonable.
This view, a reliance on the cluster approach to resolve such
problems, and the fact that the registration standard had already
been issued were used as the rationale for not sending the endan-
gered species information to RD. No further action was taken.
Endosulfan is still widely used, but watercress and forestry
uses have been deleted by the manufacturers from all the product
labels. A number of label revisions not related to endangered
species considerations were made in the registration standard,
but were lacking in the guidance package. It is therefore unlikely
that all of the registrants knew of the revision recommendations,
but a number of registrants submitted revised labeling which
incorporated these revisions from the Registration Standard.
51
-------
Summary of gitdan«eT«l Spgrfgg CoMTtteratiotta for 1686
lethal baits-) iflt»t of five eoMTritatitms involving 16863
1. Product Name/ Common Rame/ Chemical Name
1080/ Sodium nonofluocoacetate/ unknown.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed experimental program "...to assess the efficacy and
environmental hazards of single lethal dose 1080 baits as used
for coyote control in the Federal Cooperative Animal Damage
Control Program." The field tests were to occur in Texas,
Montana, and Idaho.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that the experimental program could pose a
hazard to several endangered species in the proposed test areas.
The following endangered species were considered "....at risk if
the proposed tests were conducted in their range:"
grizzly bear (gr-sm attrttra horrlpiii/B )
gray wolf (€aai» trams)
peregrine falcon (?alco
black-footed f err it (Mnstcta
northern swift fox ( Snipes vclox
ocelot (Feil-s
bald eagle (Haliagetna
EEB determined that a "may 'effect1* situation could be
avoided for the majority of these species if 1080 single lethal
dose baits would be prohibited in their known ranges.
EEB concluded that the proposed experimental program would
not "...significantly impact non-target species with the pos-
sible exception of endangered species." A final determination on
the impacts on endangered species was to be deferred until con-
sultation with the Office of Endangered Species was complete.
(Review dated 3/2/82)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on May 26, 1982.
5o Consultation Administration
Bequests for additional time and/or material vere not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-82-5, July 14, 1982) concluded that,
based on evidence that endangered species would not be affected,
a formal consultation would not be required. A list of counties
in the three states where the tests were to occur vas included.
52
-------
Smfangprgd Soeri.es Considerations for Corrpet
1. Prodoet Hame/ Common Home/ Chemical Name
Red copper special formula/ cuprous oxide/ unknown..
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed registration of copper-based anti-foul ing paint for
use in preventing the attachment of algae, freshwater sponges,
and invertebrate animals on concrete irrigation structures. The
request for registration was made by the Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of Interior.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that the proposed use pattern would "...re-
sult in limited exposure to non-target organisms outside of the
treatment areas...", but that the exposure to non-target organ-
isms in the canals and irrigation ditches would be unavoidable.
Since some food sources of fish would be the target organisms,
impact to fish was considered likely. Depletion of oxygen, as a
result of decomposing vegetable matter killed by the anti-foul ing
paint, was also determined to be potentially harmful to fish. It
was noted that many fish die-off a had been caused by Copper in
the past. EEB, through informal consultation, determined that the
following four species of endangered fish are found in the irri-
gation systems that would be treated:
Comanche Springs pupfish ' (Cvprinodon
Gila topminnow ( PoeeilloOTi» 01 oeriTJentaii« )
Pecos gambusia (Cam-fatrsia
woundf in (PiagpptBTTM
EEB indicated that, because of "...the proposed pattern and
the toxicity of copper to fish and fish food items..." a formal
consultation would be initiated.(review dated 7/21/82) A peer
group concurred with the request for consultation on 7/20/82.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to Office of Endangered Species on July 21,1982.
5. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional materials and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The Bureau of Reclamation addressed the endangered species
concerns in a September 29, 1982 letter to the registrant. The
Bureau believed that the "...exposure of an anti-fouling coating
applied to an irrigation canal water measurement structure would
create a very minimal hazard to any endangered species listed."
Each of the species cited in the EEB review was considered and
each was determined to be at little risk of exposure. Emphasis
was given to the point that the canals make "...generally very
poor habitats for fish. Also, since other pesticides are used to
53
-------
coateol plant growth ia canals and moat of the systems aee de-
vat eced in the winter, the small amount of copper paint used was
considered "...insignificant as compared to other hazards that
might affect endangered species."
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-82-7, October 21, 1982) included the
Moapa dace (Moana coriacea ) and the species cited by EEB for
consideration in the consultation. The FWS determined that the
registration of the toxicant would likely jeopardize the contin-
ued existence of the Comanche Springs pupfish (C; etggam). the
Moapa dace (Us. cottages) , and the Gila topminnow (£5. 03.
. It was determined that the other species would not
face this same threat. These conclusions were baaed on the
potential of harm due to reduced availability of food, reduced
amount of available cover, and the toxic effects of copper.
To avoid jeopardy, the FWS recommended label restrictions to
prohibit the use of the paint in those counties where the three
fish species live.
On November 5, 1982, a meeting was held to discuss data
requirements and endangered species considerations. Attending
this meeting were representives of RED, BO, the registrant, and
the Bureau of declamation. It was determined that the EEB review,
and subsequent OES biological opinion, had not correctly consid-
ered the proposed use pattern. The use was described as occurring
over a smaller section of the canal system and would therefore be
less detrimental to endangered species. The meeting led to recom-
mendations, made on November 19, 1982, to rewrite the label to
better define precise areas that would be painted, consider
waiver of data requirements, and to inform OES of EEB's misinter-
pretation of labeling and, "if deemed appropriate", to reinitiate
formal consultation.
In a January 6, 1983 memorandum to BD, EEB commented on the
registrant's submission of a revised label and additional sup-
porting documents. These materials confined the use of the pro-
duct to a very small area of the irrigation systems, but the
label did not limit the use to areas adjacent to flume gates as
addressed in the documents. Based on the OES biological opinion
and recommendations, EEB strongly recommended "...that the label
be revised to insure the protection of..." the affected endan-
gered species. This revision would satisfy EEB's concerns for
endangered species.
As of January 14, 1983, when the registration of the product
was accepted by RD, the endangered species statements did not
appear as part of the label directions, (label included) The
anti-fouling paint has never been used commercially.
54
-------
?• r-.-V-^-vr^
t. ~—~ ••- Ji.^.iis
.•z;^<*. *i ~— 4s^-L.A-iv£-!s- -*;a^w
i*--v -^ • •.- - <•**.-.«
r^'A^.^-E^''
i".-.- r.->* 5*-.^-"i=
•(»_ • •» " ~^^^ »»«>'
26.2
Ineri Ingredients 73.3
Active Ingredient
Cuprous Oxide
.o...--r -s
-:,y ...--'.M:* ^er.t Lns
1 GALLO
3.785 LITERS
OF REACH OF CHILDREN.
' WARNING!'SEE SIDE PANEL FOB
-------
USE DIRECT 10. VS
P 53 D L'CT D E 3C 3 1 F T 10 :«
Flure Red Copper An ti fouling pain: is rrjnufac tared as an an ci foul ing
en ooncrete irrigation structures and -.-cod and iron :"lur.e ^acoa. EC
.».cplied over old. soft or hard, anci-couLip.g paints that are in snruls.
-------
(continued from left hand panel)
DIRECTIONS FOR L;S£
I- is •• vi-jLatior. of Federal law to use tn-.s product in a r.ar.
ir.eo-.s: s «.-.= with its labeling. See back panel for USE
DIS?C£AL
Pesticide, scray r.ixtur.. or rinse water that car.not fc^u«d _
aescrsing to label instructions must oe disposod Ou a -c._..v,
-j -eierll or ajsffovei stite procedures ur-ar s-ot^-rf v. o.
«:he Resource Cor. -serva lion and Recovery Act.
.-„.,£,. -o- - Triple rinsa ior equivalent). Then offer :-3r ra-
cvc'iac or reconditioning, or puncture and dispose o-i- a
sanitary landfill, or by other approved state anc loca. pro^-.
390-
E.P.A. REG. MO.
S.P.A. EST. NO.
-------
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DGi'-'-ESTIC ANIMALS
MASKING
Causes eye irritation. Harmful if absorbed through skin.
Avoid contact with skin, eyes or clothing. Wear orocectivo
clothing such as gloves, long-sleeved cotcon shirt, long par.1:.-),
and hat. May be fatal if swallowed or inhaled. So r.cc"
breathe sanding dust, vapor or spray mist. While s=r:-.yi.-.T
or sanding any flume surf-ace, wear a ma3'< or respirator jointly
aj3cj3ved by the Mining Enforce.r.e.it and Safety Ad-Tinistra- :cr.
...... 'Ir'i'cne National Ins.ti.tut-3 foe Cscuc-ational Safet/ a-il H-»j'.th.
! * I .?j.~;"^ caneaatinatad clothing 2.-.-.: vajh b-afcr-a ;-:---j-l. :•:. •
« chofsughly with sea? an-i water after hindling.
e •
> •
... ii
to*gvalloved; Drink promptly a lar^e quantity of :?._!'<, ^77
V(T«^-3' gelatin solution or, if these ara not availae !-:, ir.r.k
-^Sr* quantities of water. Avoid alcohol. Get Te::.:»'.
*t**«lr. eyes: Flush with plenty of water.
.^-••r.sicn.
cc a
If on skin; Wash with plenty of soap and vats;. S&- r.eiical
attention.
If inhaled; Remove victim to fresh air. If hoc breaching,
give artificial respiration, preferably mouth- to-south. Gee
medical attention.
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
"This material is toxic to fish. Do not. apply directly to water
by cleaning of equipment or disposal of wastes. Do not allow
chips and dust generated during paint removal to enter water.
Dispose of paint debris in an approved landfill."
PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL HAZARD
COMBUSTIBLE! Do not use or stare near heat or open flame
*•
/
(continued en ri-hc nand panel)
-------
2Z~. Summary of Endangered Specie* Consider atlotra for Teimtfainron
(second of two consultations on Tebuthiucon)
1. Product Name/ Connura Name/ Chemical Name
Gcaslan 20P, Gcaslan 10P, Gcaslan 40P/ Tebuthiucon/ H-tS-
(l,l-dimethylethyl)-l,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N'-dimethylucea.
2. Begulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Herbicide use for the
control of woody plant species on rangeland in the southwest. The
proposal would expand the use to include 17 additional states.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB concluded that terrestrial and aquatic animal endangered
and threatened species would not be affected* but that some plant
species "...could be unreasonably threatened by use of tebuthiu-
ron." A list of species that would be threatened was included, as
well aa label recommendations to avoid their jeopardy.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division. (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Fish and Wildlife Service on September 23, 1982.
So Consultation Administration
Bequests for additional material and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusion* and Environmental Protection Agency
B espouse
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-81-4B, November 17, 1982) determined
the use of tebuthiuron "...will have no effect on aquatic or
terrestrial animal species..." and would not change any findings
of the previous tebuthiuron opinion (FWS/OES EPA-81-A, July 13,
1982). The expanded use of the product would likely jeopardize
the continued existence of the following additional endangered
species :
.
Uinta Basin bookless cactus (SrierireactOT gta-ntma)
Mesa Verde cactus (81
spineless hedgehog cactua ( ggfai-Ttorergt
Phacella formwoia
Idaho and Oregon
MacFarlene's four o'clock (MirafciiM marfartanei)
North and South CaroiitB
bunched arrowhead (Sagittar-ia fa»cicniata )
Tennessee purple cone flower (Eefaltiarea
purple-spined hedgehog eaetus(gchJTOcarma eagetmamrii var.
voc pur BUS
55
-------
Uinta Basin bookless cactus (ScicrocartTO
spineless hedgehog cactus (ggh-rpoeervm trlgiocfrrdiatrra vac >
THBTTICT)
weight fishhook cactus (STrietoeatrtCT wtightiae)
The Secvice suggested that as a reasonable and prudent
alternative. "Tebuthiuron should not be applied in the specific
habitats where these plant species are known to occur without
first contacting the Fish and Wildlife Service."
The BD accepted the registration of Tebuthiuron for 17
additional states on July 22, 1982. The label statements did not
include endangered species considerations.
On January 10, 1983, EEB suggested label modifications to
include endangered species concerns. These changes included
specific counties where the species are found.
The label was modified to remove dairy cow grazing and "
feeding restrictions by BD on August 11, 1983. None of the
changes included endangered species considerations, (labels in-
cluded)
56
-------
. .. «M«*»B»»e
Directions lor Use ».•... .M.^
Wood
CRAStAN IOP
PlHHldl FwACIt
wood, mmU EntUHy Confcoll;*
,• . ,.,.!.>.../.!.«. i*Jill»«J •«•»•—« •"-*"'
W»di ConUoNtd
GHASLANJW.
SCNHlMlC N*flW
OBASIANJOP
'pouoJtfMAi.it
,.,; „ ..„i...<.....«« .*i.i..«»^«.«»--•>"• .-•.•-"«>•-?••*•«'—•'•—•
...... « ., „. I. .« *r4 .....*« I .» •«. >«A H .*•! « »•*» «-•• " • "• .
„,, IJ... 4 «N IW —M l.«*»-• -»* «-«•«• >•*< "••—•" w...«*(•« *.«•»•«*M».*->
. •..- ).... k. I » •" •••"*• •*•*«•*
.. . *L, J-, -.. •.»«.«« «-»— •* »- U«A*^»-»« •—••»- ••-• —
^
mic«um»«»M. HAIIMtNII
TO HMMM* *M> DOHMIIC
CAM IOM
TM
Net Weigh! SO Pounds
For Control of Brush on
Rangeland in Arizona, Arkansas,
Colorado, Idaho, Kansas,
Missouri, Montana, New Mexico,
Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming
Active Ingredient:
lebulhiuron: W-|5 (1.1 -dimethylethyl)-.1.3.4-
thiadiazol 2-yl)-rV.A/'-dimethylurea
|IK;I| Ingredients
Contains 5 pounds active ingredient per 50 pc
•Grastan'—Hie registered trademark lor
I'lodur.ls letiuthiuron
CAUTION: Keep out ol reach ol children.
See back panel lor additional caution statements
ACCEPTED'
100JUL221982
u8ffe91fiJ i ud«i-l luiaclici '*.
(JQfltPaOo. and Radonlicid. . el
legislated uud«t,
EPA Rug. No. '
(NMMNMMHIM KAIAHO
§TOHArf AND DISPOSAL
MK* p». l»«* » fc -
! fc. ,«. ,k. * . ..«
. k«.*l - * XI *« .
Elanco Products Company
A Division of Eli Lilly and Company
Indianapolis, IN 46285, U.S.A.
U'ARcy Mo HM-115
-------
TM
Net Weight 50 Pounds
For Control of Brush on Rangeland in
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho,
Kansas,Missouri,Montana, New Mexico,
Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon,Texas,
Utah, Washington and Wyoming
Active Ingredient
tefcutniuron: A/-(5-{1.1 -dimethyrfetnylH .3.4-
thiadiazoi-2-yl j-/V,/V-cimetnyiurea *C C*r
Inert Ingredients: 6C.O°.s
Contains 20 pounds active ingredient per 50 pound bag
*Graslan"—the registered trademark for Elanco
Products tebuthiuron
CAUTION: Keep out of reach of children.
See back panel for additional caution statements.
ACCEPTED
AUG 1 11983
Und«t m« Federal InMctfcid*.
Fuagiad^ and Rodnticid* Act
o» am»od«d, lot th«
XPRM-5174
Eianco Products Company
A Division of Eli Lilly and Company
Indianapolis, IN 46285, U.S.A.
EPA Reg. No. 1471-119
-------
v~-f^-'- tZ~ —i. r- *. :-eca a-. •• T .. .- r- . ••• : -- 2- ••:„•••
••i'-p's- •.-•«.••••»••« iias•'•p*;r.»ri'y:. T «• : ir: •* ••• -i re c- j/»'
E'.s'»- &r~wvje is jr it* *«««•• moms a'te'ars *a" .- i-'-irs •—*».xw.
s>n;ic acoucauon c norm*.* enucmw H» seveta y«.a-s
a».i.-a. c:- c..-.
a' :•• -
GRASL>N«OPTBvcausesnomimurv 10eefvaoee-auei nmur,ennia-crashesoacsoccj- .(»• M>evcar.
be nwienaed Ov aDpwno wne« Brasses are aoma.-.: Fnraee grass o-oojcuon usua-y increases as o>us--- ci-r.oe1 ion A -eejcea
However increawa grass oroouciien s aao aeoenoeni on aaeauaie ram-ai. ano a soune range manajemeit piograr-
Areas ireateo won GRASLAN 4QP >Rav ee overseea»s COPSUR »(xw nca: Ranee Managemeru £aec.*^i o- ener
soeciaui to> oeians on auoao« soeoes seeang rates inrung ana lenuiaiion programt
Appttcalion Rain.
GRASLAN40Prsi
1 tor coraroi of me lonowmg soeoes at unaesvaDia woooy pants at r e racateo range o* aaa-caion
GRASLAN 40P snouM Oe awed at lower oosages wtnm me reeomrnenaea rate range on coarse tntunM sci« ana al nigner
oosageswiimn me raie range on meoan ano ime ienureosoa» or wneniraaungoeep-rooieapianis. Loaer raatacanoeuieownen
paniai control • oeauea
Woody Ptann Controlled
GMASLAM 40P
Peuna Per Acre
2i-5
4-tO
CB«S»N «o«" vtowe or eat. «e set e> •«•>>
auras •• fw «a«»M
r«e >i«at en cam* imvea
owe ieom
exe e> ngxet
Wooay Plants Panaliy ConuoUad
tin
Cnenv Boca
Ouunuuu f uwmng Coma raroj
Mo«xv BunenM
CJ>M
Cwanun*
CRASLAN 40P
?S-IO
5-10
Oe net eopkr «em oien » _
GMSLM40P • not rei
i GMASLAN «OP *> ereas mei i
i»«
mmenoeo tor cerwei ol persimmon, prauy pear, or cnoiia cactus.
Do not aooiy GRASLAN 4OP on tieM cropo. near desirable trees or snruDs. or areas mtowmen me* roots may extend, or n locations
wnere me cnetracai may oe wasned n contact wim me* roots as mpjry or oeam may occur
Do not apply GRASLAN 40P under aondnons wncn wiu cause pe*ei move mem to nontarget areas euretg appkcatcn
Do not cut toiago grass Mr hay tram GRASLAN-treated areas tor iwe ieeie-aner apoticanon forte year
Bum aiu» laujtiig \uai ums muiiue ut mmuina ua> imn OITASLAH ueaieeaieej ier iwu yceia ener aepneenen '^
Apely GRASLAN 4QP only once per year
GRASLAN 40P may senousty miure oesmw forage legumes sucn as lespedeza or clover
Tharougnty dean an traces of GRASLAN *OP from aooucaiion eauamem alter use Residues cleaned from aoofccaiion eawoment
snouH not oe emptied on areas wnere »iey w* come into coraact w*n me roots 01 oesaaaie vees. snruDs. ptarns. or water source
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS •
HAZARD TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS
CAUTION
(set wan siun. eyes ordottwx) in case ol contact Ikon wim water
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
or streams. Da not comenunaie water oy cieaneig of equvment or dooosal at
Harmful»
Keep em ol lanes, ponds.
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
Do not contaminate water, food. feed, oiner pesticides, lennuer or seees Pes'ctde or rnsate irx.1 ca vot be
used or cnemicairy reprocessed snoutd Oe disposed ol n a landfill aeproved lor pesticides or Ouned in a sale
place away horn water supplies and destraoie vegetation Dispose of empty container in an «onerator or
landfdl approved for pesticide containers, or bury in a safe place away from oeswanie veneuiOT Consut
federal, state or local disposal amnonties for aopreveo alternative oroceoures sudi a* hnubtd open tximtfy
Tne manutaourer manes no warranties, empress or
en me laaet An statements maoe concerning ma praauci appiy oniy wnen used as oracteo
ngimsproouciornuse wtuntrnaidtayenaJiejetjnucn
-------
23-. Stannary of Endangered Species Considerations for Gas
Cartridges
-------
San Joaquin kit fox (£L
Utah pcaieie dog (€5. oarvirtem)
blunt-nosed leopard
lizacd (Gameiia sittrs)
desert tortoise (CiypfaggTis attawizli.)
It was determined that "...no action was required relative
to the Morro Bay kangaroo rats (PraoTiomyg hgermani npgTW«ta)
and the salt marsh harvest aouae (8~ tavi.Tgntri'S ) .
The exclusions described in the September 23, 1982 EEB
letter to FWS were considered adequate in avoiding jeopardy to
the above listed species. These endangered species considerations
vere incorporated into the label language. An example of the
label statements is provided.
58
-------
(Front Panel)
DCXOL
GOPHER
GASSER(R)
GAS GOPHERS HOLES
GROUND SQUIRRELS
Active Ingredients:
Potassium Nitrate 45.0% KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
Sulphur 45.0% WARNING
Carbon 8.0% See Back Panel for Additional
Dextrin 2.0% Precautionary Statements
Total: 100.0%
Net Weight 4.5 oz.
j COSrME.VTS
•» ETA Letter Dated:
AUG8 1984
Under the Federal ln;*c!!etde.
Funjfiad*. and KoH<*n:icid« Art
ea amrrwitvi. for |j.t. tffUP,^e
I u-kK-r EJ'A Ke,:. No.
BEST DOCUMENT
-------
(Back Panel)
DEXOL GOPHER GASSER(R)
DEXOL GOPHER GASSER(R) provides quick, reliable, effective
control o£ pockec gopners and moles in lawr.s, golf courses,
gardens; ground squirrels.on lawns, golf courses and rangelands
The toxic gas produced by DEXOL GOPHER .GASSER(R) will
penetrate the lair and exterminate the pests. DEXOL GOPHER
GASSER(R) will not control tree squirrels.
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
HAZARDS TO HUMANS & DOMESTIC ANIMALS
WARNING
After ignition, cartridge produces toxic gasses. Fumes
may be harmful if inhaled.
STATEMENT OF PRACTICAL TREATMENT
If inhaled and person has poison symptoms (headache, nausea,
dizziness, and weakness), transfer victim to fresh air.
Have victim lie down and keep warm. If respiration is ad-
equate, recovery will be rapid. If breathing has stopped
used artificial respiration. If available, pure oxygen should
be given. CALL PHYSICIAN IMMEDIATELY.
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
This product is highly toxic to wildlife. Check all burrows
for signs of nontargets. If present, do not treat burrows.
See enclosed "Endangered Species Considerations" insert.
CHEMICAL HAZARDS
Once ignited by the fuse, this cartridge will burn vigorously
until completely spent and is capable of causing severe burns
to exposed skin and clothes, and of igniting dry grass,
leaves and other combustible materials.
STORAGE & DISPOSAL
Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal.
STORAGE; Store in cool, dry place away from fire/ heat and
direct sunlight.
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL; To dispose of unused cartridges, soak in
water, crush and bury at least 6" in loose soil.
CONTAINER DISPOSAL; Place in trash collection.
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a
manner inconsistent with its labeling.
SEE INSERT FOR COMPLETE DIRECTIONS FOR USE, USE RESTRICTIONS
AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSIDERATION
ETA Reg. No. 192-49-AA EPA Est. No. 192-CA-l
Manufactured by
DEXOL INDUSTRIES Made in Taiwan Torrance, CA. 9CS01
BEST DOCUMENT AW./.2LE
-------
(Labeling Insert)
DEXOL GOPHER GASSER (R)
READ ALL PRECAUTIONS ON BACK SIDE OF PACKAGE BEFORE
USING THIS PRODUCT.
DIRECTIONS FOR USE
It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in
a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
USE RESTRICTIONS; Only use inside of burrows and never
inside of buildings.
POCKET GOPHERS and MOLES;
Burrow Preparation - In order for gas producing cartridges
to be effective on the pest species, a sufficierit~concentra-
tion of gas over a period of time must be retained in the
burrow system. Damp soil tends to retain toxic gasses with-
in a burrow system better than does dry soil, and hence may
increase the degree of control.
Pocket gophers and moles produce different types of burrows.
Both, however, dig their most used runways (burrows) at a
deeper level than the shallow runways (burrows) used for
feeding purposes, which may not be reused on a regular basis,
if at all. Short lateral runways connecting the deeper
burrows with the surface of the ground may also be used for
only short periods when soil is being excavated from runways.
It is natural for pocket gophers and moles to plug the lateral
runways and feeding runways with soil. Such soil plugs pre-
clude the toxic gasses from reaching the animal.
For best results with any toxic gas, it must be released in
the deeper, more frequently used runways and in a sufficient
number of locations within the burrow system to assure that
a lethal concentration of gas reaches the pest animal.
Locating the main runway necessitates the use of a sharpened
broom handle or metal probe which can be pushed perpendicularly
into the soil somewhere midway between two fresh earth mounds.
Connecting runways between mounds generally can be found at
depths of 8 to 12 inches below the soil surface and are de-
tectable by the sudden give felt on the probe because of the
lack of soil friction as it enters the runway.
With the main runway located, a shovel or trowel may be used
to dig down the runway and clear away the loose soil.
Burrow Treatment
Before Lighting~Fuse; .insure that cartridge will pass aasily
into opening and make sure that enough material is on hand
to close burrows.
BEST
-------
(Insert Copy Cont'd)
Hold a DEXOL GOPHER GASSER(R) cartridge away from your
body and light the fuse (minimum fuse burn time is 5 seconds) .
DO NOT 'INHALE THE TOXIC FUMES. Mien lit, carefully insert
the cartridge, fuse-end first, into one side of the open
runway.
Immediately plug the opening with a board or a shovelful
of sod, tamp tightly with soil to prevent gasses from es-
caping. If smoke is seen escaping from other holes, plug
them firmly with soil.
After the first cartridge has burned to completion (approx-
imately 5 minutes), from 1 to 3 additional cartridges should
be used following the same procedures as previously described
but in different portions of the burrow system. Generally,
cartridges need not be inserted closer than 8 feet apart.
Should fresh mounds reappear after approximately 5 days,
the gassing process should be repeated. New animals fre-
quently take over vacant burrow systems.
GROUND SQUIRRELS: Collect plenty of dirt and other material
for closing burrow openings. Treat each burrow opening by
lighting fuse (minimum fuse burn time is 5 seconds) and
inserting cartridge fuse end first into hole. (Make sure
hole is large enough for easy insertion before lighting fuse).
Cover hole immediately, taking'care not to smother cartridge
with loose dirt. Immediately cover all other openings from
which gas excapes. Proceed to the next closest burrow and
treat as above.
STORAGE & DISPOSAL
Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal.
STORAGE; Store in cool, dry place away from fire, heat and
direct sunlight.
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL; To dispose of unused cartridges, soak in
water, crush and b::ry at least 6" in loose soil.
CONTAINER DISPOSAL; Place in trash collection.
Endangered Species Considerations;
1. Black-Footed Ferret; Do not use this product in the range
of the Black-Footed Ferret. Contact the nearest U;S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Office (Endangered Species Specialist:
before the product is used. The will arrange for a suivey
of the proposed use site.
2.' Utah Prairie Dog; Do not use this product in the range of
the Utah Prairie dog, which occurs only in Utah.
BEST DOCUMENT AVAILABLE
-------
(Insert Copy Cont'd)
3. San Joaouin Kit Fox; This pesticide should not be used
within 1 mile of active dens of the San Joaquin Kit Fox
in the following California counties: Kern, Kings,
Fresno, San luis Obispo, Merced, Monterey, Santa Barbara,
Ventura, Tulare, and San Benito. Prior to use, contact
the California Department of Fish and Game for recommend-
ations .
4. Blunti-Nosed Leonard Lizard; This pesticide should not
be used in the range of the Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard
• in the following California Counties: Kern, Fresno,
Kings, Madera, Merced and Tulare. Prior to use, contact
the California Department of Fish and Game for recommend-
ations . • "...
5. Eastern Indigo Snake; Do not use this product in the
range of the Eastern Indigo Snake in the following states:
Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
6. Desert Tortoise; This pesticide should not be used in
the critical habitate of the Beaver Dam slope population
of the Desert Tortoise in Utah. This comprises an area
extending from the southwest facing slope of the Beaver
Dam Mountains, across Highway 91, west along the Arizona
border and 10 miles to the Nevada border.
BEST DOCUMENT AVAILABLE
-------
(Wrap-around copy on individual cartridges)
IMPORTANT: SEE PRECAUTIONARY
STATEMENTS ON BACK OF PACKAGE
AND FOLLOW ENTIRE DIRECTIONS
FOR USE ON ENCLOSED INSERT
BEFORE USING.
WARNING: After ignition.
cartridge produces toxic
gasses. • Fumes may be harmful
if inhaled.
NET WT. 3/4 oz.
MADE IN T AIWA IN
DEXOL INDUSTRIES
Torrance, California 90501
BEST DOCUMENT AVAILABLE
DEXOL
GOPHER GASSER
AID TO RODENT CONTROL
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF
CHILDREN
WARNING
Active Ingredients:
Potassium Nitrate ... '45.0%
Sulphur 45.0%
Carbon • 8.0%
Dextrin 2.0%
Totals 100.0%
^ - ~ ~ ^
EPA Reg. No.
-------
xAjj_ STUHITHITV of EndamteTed 3pe
-------
cumulation of Lindane in the environment; and to the insufficient
data and the uncectainity as to the fate of Lindane in the south
Florida ecosystem." Since the effects of Lindane ace potentially
long lasting, "...the FWS strongly opposes the use of this chemi-
cal on sugarcane in south Florida." Two "reasonable and prudent"
alternatives were offered so that the species would not be jeo-
pardized. The first recommendation was to conduct studies "...to
determine the direct and indirect effect of Lindane on [the]
species using surrogate species, and their primary food items..."
The second alternative waa a recommendation to use "...a chemical
compound that would not present a serious hazard to these
species."
An "additional conservation recommendation" was made con-
cerning the wood stork (Mvrtgfia amBT-rea-na). This species is
under status review for listing as an endangered species and,
while not protected under the Act as such, the FWS stated that
they "... would appreciate any efforts [EPA] might make to avoid
adversely impacting them." This species was later added to the
list in March of 1984.
On June 30,1983, a telegram was sent from EPA to the re-
gistrant to report the findings of the biological opinion. The
two alternatives cited in the opinion were addressed in the
telegraph. No further action was taken.
60
-------
ConsTtteratTorrs for Bant
1. Product Name/ Coomon Hame/ Chemical Name
Bant/ Niflucidide/ n-(2-amino-3-nitro-5-(trifluoromethyl)
phenylO-2,2,3,3,-tetca fluoropcopanamide.
2. Regulatory Action
Propoaed registration (full). Insecticide uae in non-crop
areas to control the imported red fire ant.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
Concluded that the proposed use would provide "for potential
hazards to several terrestrial endangered species." EEB stated
that until the Office of Endangered Species opinion was received
they would not "know how many species may be jeopardized, to what
extent, nor what types of mitigating measures need to be taken to
protect them..." EEB did state that it would be likely that the
use of Bant would be prohibited in the areas where the species
occurred.
The following terrestrial endangered species were listed as
occur ing within the range of the imported fire ant infestation:
gray bat (Myoti's
Indiana bat (Mvoti-s
Florida panther (Fell's etmcolnr corgi)
eastern cougar (Fgti.« eoncolor cottenar)
whooping crane (Grta amcr-reapa )
Eskimo curlew (Nnaeni'm borgati«)
brown pelican (PelecaTxmi
Mississippi sandhill crane (Grtcs eana-dgnsi's
American peregrine falcon (Fat-eo per^grinm amatum)
Florida everglade kite (Rpstrnanres Bocia'bilTB
red-cockaded woodpecker (PlceiTtes faor-ealis)
Kirtland's warbler (Pendroica fcirtlandii)
Bachman's warbler (yernlvora bacnmanil)
Attwater's greater prairie chicken (Tygpamichp* ctmido attwateri)
Cape Sable sparrow ^""nr*Pf»a Tnyr^tTTT miraMti» )
Dusky seaside sparrow ^""flT^Tt™
Houston toad (£s£p. faoCTtonen»i«)
Red Hills salamander (PhaBO«nathga h-nfar-icfati)
Of the above list, the following species were considered to
be potentially affected and were included in a consulation re-
quest:
Eskimo curlew (!h boreal !•»)
Kirtland's warbler (fte
Backman's warbler (Vs faacfananii)
Attwater's greater prairie (T^ eupido attwatcri)
Cape Sable sparrow (A-;
Houston toad (£L
Bed Hills salamander (Pr hufarirhti)
Dusky seaside sparrow (A- maritima nigT
Review dated 11/2/82.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division, (Ecological Effects
61
-------
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on November 22, 1982.
Another consulation relative to the first consultation was made
on March 16, 1983 to "...respectively request a reconsideration
of the Febuary 2, 1983 biological opinion."
S. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional material and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
In a January 20,1983 letter to RD, the registrant requested
withdrawal of the Bant application since they were discontinuing
all research and development efforts on the product.
The FWS consultation (EPA-83-1, February 2, 1983) reviewed
"those species listed by EEB as potentially affected, excluding
the dusky seaside sparrow (.Ar. matitim njgreacBna). since it is
no longer found in the wild, and the Eskimo curlew(jfc. faor-eatl-a).
but including the Mississippi sandhill crane (€3. catm-denai-B
prrila) and the red-cockaded woodpecker (Pi faor'eati.a). The consul-
tation also reviewed the effect of Bant on the critical habitat
of the Cape Sable seasice sparrow (Av "TVJfiTra miraMlla). the
Mississippi sandhill crane (€- cana-dettyta orrtla). and the Houston
toad (Bv faDT»txmen«la). The FWS concluded that the use of Bant
would be "likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
Houston toad [B-. hoqatonenala 1 and the Attwater's greater
prairie chicken [Ts ccnritlo attwaterxl and could "result
in the destruction or adverse modification of Houston toad Cfl"
howtoncOTia1 critical habitat." The FWS stated that the other
species cited in the consultation would not be affected by the
use of Bant nor would it "result in the destruction or adverse
modification of Cape Sable seaside sparrow [Ay "yirttfl1"*
mira-billa 1 or Mississippi sandhill crane [fc canaTterola pniial
critical habitat.
So that jeopardy might be avoided and "to aid the EPA" label
statements were "suggested". The statements expressed that "Bant
should not be applied in the specific habitats where these species
are known to occur without first contacting the [FWS] ." FWS
mentioned that the EPA might want to use the recommendations
concerning Bant on a trial basis with county extension agents.
This was made in reference to discussions concerning the use of
these agents to disseminate information about "the use of pesti-
cides and their impacts on listed species."
In a peer group memo to the chief of EEB, two points of
contention concerning the February 2,1983 consultation were
made. The first point was that a prediction of how many treated
ants it would take to kill a small bird was determined to be
suspect. The peer group suggested, after confirming the error
with the reviewer, that the changes in the review and the opinion
should be made. This error, and change, was duely noted by FWS in
a subsequent consultation latter (EPA-83-1, amendment).
The second point raised by the memo was a request for "more
information on the OES decision that the Bed Hills salamander
[fri fa-ttbri-efatTl is not in jeopardy. They further stated that.the
FWS "...rationale on this species could be incorporated into our
files to improve future reviews or, if found unconvincing, could
62
-------
be formally questioned "(peer group nemo, 3/4/83). The consulta-
tion request letter, Match 16, 1983, conveyed the ant error to
OES, but did not mention questions concerning the Bed Hills
salamander (P-. jmfaricnti).
A second request for consultation was made to OES
on March 16, 1983 to convey that errors were found in the EEB
review and to ask if such findings might varrent a reconsidera-
tion of the biological opinion. In their reply (April 5,1983),
the FWS stated that the corrected information sent by EEB would
not alter the jeopardy determination. The correction was made in
the analysis of the biological opinion.
63
-------
26% SoBsaarT of SintatngBfgd Spgeiga ConsITJBTatmita for 1666
lethal bait-a-) {sercnd of five etmartltatloCT involving 1686-)
lo Product Home/ Coomon Name/ Chenical Hame
1080/ Sodium monofluoroacetate/ unknown.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed amendment to experimental use permit to allow an
increase of 1080 in baits:from 3.0 to 5.0 mg and six additional
counties as potential testing areas.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB expressed that the lack of pertinent information and
adequate toxicity data could hamper an assessment of impacts to
non-target organisms. EEB found it reasonable that increases in
the concentration of 1080 would increase potential hazard to some
species, but believed that the absence of the data and informa-
tion would preclude an adequate evaluation. However, the impacts
of 1080 on non-target species were considered insignificant be-
cause the test sites were relatively small in acreage, (review
dated 3/22/83)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Efects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on January 31, 1983.
So Consultation Administration
Bequests for additional time and/or material were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Bespouse
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-82-5B, March 21, 1983) concluded that
endangered species would not be affected by the proposed changes
in the experimental use permit. Formal consultation was not
required.
-------
~ Summary of fiTtdan^^Tyd SUCCTBS CopSTTtefatipna for ifl66 \ toxic
-------
northern cocky mountain
wolf (Cam.* inpoi JTTieapfn» )
The Service concluded that* due to the small size of the
teat program and the frequency of monitoring, "...few individuals
of any of the three endangered species are expected to come into
contact with punctured collars or poisoned animals." Based on the
distribution and feeding habits of the above three species, none
would be jeopardized by the issuance of the experimental use
permit. Since negative impacts could occur to these species if
1080 collars were used in their ranges, restrictions were sug-
gested for conducting the tests. These included restricting the
area and time that the tests were to be conducted in the habitat
of the bald eagle (Hi IgococgpfaatTra ) and northern mountain wolf
(€5. 1-cwia) and contacting FWS personnel before conducting tests
in the habitat of the black-footed ferret (Ms
EEB, in a review dated 4/24/84, concluded that the tests
would not significantly impact nontarget organisms provided cer-
tain restrictions be imposed. These restrictions included those
recommended by the Service and others that prohibited the tests
in specific counties.
66
-------
S-ommaTT of Endangered Speriea Considerationa for
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Oust weed killer/ Sulfometucon Methyl/ Methyl 2-1[[[4,6-
dimethyl-2pyrimidinyl)amino] -catbony1] sulfonyl] benzoate.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Herbicide foe general
weed control on noncropland areas and for weed control for ber-
mudagrass release in noncropland areas. An additional use for
weed control in drainage ditch banks was made at a later date.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
While reviewing the proposal for use on noncropland areas,
EEB determined that "...[biased on available toxicity data and
application rate information, an acute hazard to endan-
gered/threatened animal species* if exposed, could not be pre-
dicted." On the other hand, endangered/threatened plant species
"...would be expected to be as susceptible to the herbicide as
the target species." The following list of endangered and threat-
ened species that could be adversly affected by the use of herbi-
cides was included in the review:
Species eeenrlng near rign-t»-of-way
Brady pincushion cactus
mesa verde cactus
dwarf bear-poppy
Phacelia
bunched arrowhead
Contra Costa wallflower
Solano grass
salt march bird's beak
San Diego mesa mint
Wright's fishhook cactus
Uinta Basin bookless cactus
Chapman rhododendron bookless
cactus
8-pg-ei.gs that arc ao-natT'c or grown near water
bra-dti)
( 8ci«ocartn« nreiae-ver-dae)
(Arctunecon h-onri.li.-B) .
(Pharella argxllarea )
(Sagittaria
var
(e-r-cnttia mneropata)
(Cot Uv laatfam ataTTLtiinm ssp.
cfaapnam-x)
bunched arrowhead
Truckee barberry
San Diego mesa mint
Solano grass
Salt marsh bird's beak
Furbish louswort
Texas wild-rice
Tobusch fishhook cactus
Knowlton cactus
Macfarlane's four o'clock
(Saaittarla faadrrriata)
aennei)
a far auBBTX )
67
-------
green pitcher plant
oggonnlia)
The review noted that label statements to "...mitigate ha-
zard to federally-listed endangered/threatened species found in
or near railroad righta-of-vay..." vas being evaluated by EEB and
BD. This review vas considered applicable to the use of Oust. EEB
was not able to determine if a formal consultation would be
necessary, (review dated 11/12/81)
EEB considered a conditional registration of drainage ditch
banks in a review dated 4/22/83. The Branch concluded that the
use of Oust would have potentially adverse effects to endangered
and threatened'plant species. The previous 1/12/81 review was
cited, as well as, a OES biological opinion for railroad rights-
of-way as evidence of the potential harm, (see Metalochlor sum-
mary) A formal consultation with OES was to be initiated "...to
determine the extent of potential hazard (and ways to mitigate
such potential hazard) for the noneropland use of Oust, including
ditch ditch banks."
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to Office of Endangered Species on Hay 2, 1983.
5. Consultaton Administration
Bequests for additional time and/ or material were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The registration of Oust for noneropland uses was accepted
by BD on February 8, 1982. (label included) Since this acceptance
was made prior to the consultation initiation, endangered species
concerns were not addressed in the labeling statementa.
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-83-5, June 30, 1983) determined that
the use of Oust could jeopardize 25 plant species and the criti-
cal habitats of-four plant species in 38 counties of 14 states.
The FWS considered the following species as being jeopardized:
Brady pinchusion cactus
Mesa Verde cactus
Peebles Havajo cactus
Wright fishhook cactus
Kuenzler hedgehog cactus
Lloyd's hedgehog cactus
Sneed pinchusion cactus
Chapman rhododendron
Bydberg milk-vetch
Harper's beauty
dwarf bear-poppy
Macfariane's four-o'clock
northern wild monkshood
gypsun wild buckwheat
Texas poppy-mallow
hairy rattleweed
(Sciegocactna masa B** v wdae )
var
(81
(Si ilwdil)
( CuTTPbantfaa
(B fapdorie-adTtm
oetlamra )
i.'B flava)
var
C AT ctouig'coTi hiarfiTT'8 J
\2£fi£X£S& ^CjV^J2Q£3C(SaJlV^/
(CaHltfaog acairriu»cnia )
ararfamfcra )
68
-------
Malheur wire* lettuce ( S tgpnanomcr ia
phacelia (Phacella
bunched arrowhead (Saglttarla f asricutata )
San Diego mesa mint (Pogograe afrraarail)
Solano grass (eTr-ottia anrrooata)
salt marsh bird's beak ( Cor-drianthTn maritimcs ssp.
maTtimrn )
Uinta Basin bookless cactus (Srlcrpcactna gjaqcns)
Contra Costa wallflower (STTainmm capita-torn var.
anggatat1™ )
Antioch Dunes evening-primrose (de-notfaera deltoide* ssp.
faoggli.il.)
The FWS determined that exposure to Oust would cause morta-
lity in the above plants and "[blecause of the limited population
size of many of these plant species, a local spraying program
could virtually destroy the entire species."
It was suggested that a reasonable and prudent alternative
would be prohibition of the use of Oust on specified rights-of-
way within 38 counties of 14 states.
The OES opinion was transmitted to BD on July 12, 1983. In
an accompaning memorandum, EEB noted that "...alternatives for
protection of the cited endangered/ threatened plants will likely
apply to all herbicides..." that would be used on sites where
endangered plant species occur.
As of July 30, 1984, the registration of the product for use
in drainage ditches was awaiting "scientific review and evalua-
tion" and the label statements for previously approved uses still
lacked any mention of endangered species concerns.
69
-------
Oust
WEED KILLER
DRY FLOWABLE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT:
Methyl 2- [ [ [ [ (4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl) aminol-
carbony1]aminoj sulfonyllbenzoate 75*
INERT INGREDIENTS 25%
U.'S. Patent. Pending EPA Est 352-WV-l
KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS
HAZARDS TO HUMANS
CAUTION: MAY IRRITATE EYES, NOSE
THROAT, AND SKIN
Avoid breathing dust or spray mist. Avoid contact with skin,
eyes, and" clothing. If in eyes, immediately flush with
plenty of water and get medical attention. If on skin.
innediately flush with plenty of water and get medical
attention if irritation persists.
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Do not apply directly to wetlands or any body of water. Do -
not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal
of wastes.
NET 32 OUNCES
I. L •• MM • I
I.
.NOTICE OF WARRANTY.
Du Pont warrants that this product conforms to the chemical description
on the label thereof and is reasonably fit for purposes stated on such
label only when used in accordance with directions under normal use
conditions. It is impossible to eliminate all risks Inherently assoc-
iated with use of this product. Ineffectiveness or other unintended
consequences may result because of such factors as weather conditions,
presence of other materials, or the manner of use or application, all
of which are beyond the control of Du Pont. In no case shall Du Pont
be liable for consequential, special or indirect damages resulting
from the use or handling of this product. All such risks shall be
assumed by the Buyer. DU PONT MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE NOR ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTY EXCEPT AS STATED ABOVE.
-------
SomnaTT of Enuangergri SperlCT €ot»iTteratTpn« fct 1666
{fourth of five coTUtrttatioTrs mvulving i,6667
1. Pcodnet Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Same
1080/ Sodium monof luocoaeetate/ unknown.
2. Begulatory Action
Bequest by the Nebraska National Forest and the Bock Moun-
tain Forest and Bange Experiment Station for an experimental use
permit to evaluate the efficacy of 1080 in grain bait for the
control of black-footed prairie dogs. The proposed study was to
occur in southwestern South Dakota.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that two endangered species, the black-footed
ferret (Mnatcia Tri.gTi-pe») and northern swift fox (Vntre's vetox
facbe-a). could be impacted from the proposed study. These impacts
would be caused by secondary poisoning and would occur only if
the range of the two species overlapped with the proposed test
sites. The use of pre-control surveys to avoid impacts was
considered as a viable option, (review dated 7/25/83)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on July 29, 1983.
5. Consultation Administration
Bequests for additional time and/or material were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
B espouse
The FWS (FWS/OES August 23, 1983) considered that only the
black-footed ferret (Mi irLgri/Dg* ) should be considered in a
biological opinion since the northern swift fox (Js. veto* hs&SS.)
is listed for Canada and not in the United states. The Service
determined that the proposed study would not likely jeopardize
the continued existence of the black-footed ferret («fe marl-pe^).
This determination was based on the remoteness of hazards occur-
ing since the study area was very small and intensive ferret
surveys were to be conducted . As means of conservation, the
Service suggested conducting spotlight ferret surveys and other
survey techniques and removing dead carcasses from the test area.
70
-------
3(K Stannary of Endangered SperlCT Considerations fpr C6A-i2££3
1. Product Hame/ Coomoa Name/ Chemical Name
CSA-12223/ none/ 0-(s-chloro)-l-[methylethyl]-lH-l,2,4-
triazol-3-yl)0,0-diethyl-phosphorothioate.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Insecticide use to con-
trol grubs on golf courses and commercial turf farms.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that 40 endangered species would be found in
or near turf. EEB was unable to verify if the use of the product
would occur in areas where endangered species are found. Since
endangered species triggers were exceeded, the product was con-
sidered capable of adverse effects. A consultation was to be
requested.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to Office of Endangered Species on November 10,1983.
5. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional material and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusion and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-84-1, January 10, 1984) determined
that, based on the information available, endangered species
would not be significantly exposing to the product. The Service
therefore concluded that the use of CGA-12223 would not jeopar-
dize the continued existence of any listed species or modify any
designated critical habitat.
71
-------
~ Summary of Ewta ngitT wi SjyesJSE. COTMT derations for Sum?
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chenical Name
Sonar/ Flucidone/ l-methyl-3-phenyl-5-3-(trifluoromethyl)
pheny l-4-( lH)-pycidinone .
2. Regulatory Action
Conditional registration for direct application of the
product to any freshwater area. Sonar is to be uaed in fresh
water ponds, lakes, reservoirs* drainage canals, irrigation ca-
nals, and rivers to kill a broad spectrum of aquatic vegetation.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effect* Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Specie*
EEB concluded (review dated 9/24/82) that the use of Sonar
would have "...the potential for serious acute and chronic ef-
fects to aquatic organisms in ponds, lakes and reservoirs.." The
data also suggested a "...restricted use classification of the
product." It was determined that the product's use would not
affect any federally listed endangered/threatened plant species.
Sonar could, on the other hand, pose a "potential hazard" for
fish. Based on conversations with OES staff, the following list of
endangered/threatened fish was determined to be potentially at
risk if exposed to "...an aquatic application of a chemical to
ponds, lakes, and reserviors."
Fahranagat bonytail (61ta rtyottata
Alabama eavef ish (SgetwtatTt nitres
bonytail chub (G?
Moapa dace (Meaoa coriacca)
fountain darter (Ethgoatoma fonticola)
Okaloosa darter (E^ ofcaleoaae)
Big Bend gambusia (gaarfanaia eaiggi)
Clear Creek gambusia (61 factgrocfai-r)
Pecos gambusia (€T nnoitia)
pahrump killifish (EmoctflcnthTa latoa)
Comanche Springs pupfish (CvpTlnonon
Leon springs pupf ish (£3. faov^ma)
Owens Biver pupfish (Cs gatttT
Warm Springs pupf ish (fij. nejas
unarmoured threespine stickleback (€a«tgtr»»teq»
gila topminnow (gogeillppaia occldentatla)
Lahontan cutthroat trout (Salmo elaTici hgpshagl)
Borax lake chub (€lla
The fish triggers were also said to "indicate hazard to
amphibians." The endangered Houston toad (Bqfo honatTitigttsi'a ) and
the Saota Cruz long-toed salamander (*nri>y«*pTO
were cited as examples. It was determined that aquatic
invertebrates would not be exposed to the product. Although
consultation with OES was to be initiated, EEB delayed the pro-
cess because the registrant was making label modifications, in-
formal consultation was occur ing and another, more extensive,
72
-------
review was to be conducted.
In a second review dated 11/7/83, EEB again concluded that
"...available data support a restricted use classification..."
for Sonar. The EEB review cited four endangered plant species,
bunched arrowhead (Sagirtaria fasrlrrrtata). San Diego mesa mint
(Pogogyne a-brawii). Solano grass (efcnttia mrerpnata). Texas
wild-rice (Zlzania tcmpa). that are found in areas where Sonar
might be used. The conclusions concerning endangered animal spe-
cies were drawn from the adverse effects to non-target organisms
section (104.2) of the review. Very broadly and not relating
specifically to endangered species, mammals and avian species
were not considered affected by Sonar, while aquatic species were
considered sensitive to its use. Invertebrate species inhabiting
shallow areas in ponds were most likly to "...receive the worst
effects."Both fish and invertebrates "...could be impacted..." in
lakes, canals, and rivers. In the endangered species considera-
tions section (104.3) of the review lethal concentrations to
aquatic species were used to "...exemplify the potential acute
toxicity to endangered/threatened freshwater aquatic organisms
should populations be exposed..." It was noted that the fish data
indicated hazards from toxic effects to amphibians. The Houston
toad (flufo howtone-CTi's) and the long-toed salamander (amfrvBttma
marcptfactvi'm crtreeum) were considered as being potentially af-
fected. It was also noted that "...[i]n addition to toxic effects
incurred from use of Sonar, effects of habitat manipulation
(vegetative changes, etc.) from herbicidal action may also have
to be considered in a consulation with the Office of Endangered
Species." Review dated 11/7/83.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on November 16,1983.
5. Consulation Administration
Bequests for additional materials and/or time were not made.
6. Consolation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-84-2. February 21, 1984) concluded that
the proposed use of Sonar would likely "...jeopardize the con-
tinued existence of all listed U.S. freshwater aquatic species
including plants, fishes, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates
(principally mussels) and is likely to destroy or adversely
modify all aquatic designated critical habitat."
The FWS recommended, as an alternative to preclude jeopardy.
"...that the use of this product be excluded from the habitat of
all listed freshwater aquatic species.
In a memorandum to the Begistation Division dated February
29, 1984, EEB, while conferring with the OES staff, decided that
the use of Sonar and other similiar products would be considered
by the cluster approach. Until such action was finalized, EEB
requested additional labeling "...to ensure that listed species
are not exposed to ... Sonar products." The proposed addition is
as follows: "This product is toxic to all federally protected
endangered/threatened aquatic species. The use of this product
73
-------
must be excluded from the habitat of all listed freshwater aqua-
tie species. Contact your local U.S. fish and Wildlife Service
representatives (endangered species specialists) to ensure that
there are no listed aquatic species in the areas of proposed
treatment."
In addressing additions to the Sonar label, the FM responsi-
ble for Sonar (note to EEB endangered species coordinator dated
May 31, 1984) stated that BO was "...attempting to compromise
between OES recommendations and [the registrant's] concern that
Sonar not be singled out unfairly compared with [other] re-
gistered aquatic herbicides. In a March 29,1984 memorandum to
EEB, BO stated that they would require the following label state-
ment on Sonar:
"Follow directions carefully so as to minimize adverse ef-
fects on non-target organisms. Consult your state fish and game
agency or the FHS if you have questions concerning aquatic re-
sources in your area."
As of August 21, 1984, the registration of Sonar was pending
on the completion of a number of toxicology tests by the regis-
trant.
74
-------
SjamnaTV of EnrJaiigg^gd Spcrics CaMl-deTatioTts for Smtrin
1* Product Bane/ Conmoa Hame/ Chemical Name
Endcin/ Hexadcin, Mendcin/ l,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloco-6,7-
epozy-l,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-l,4-endo-5,8-
dimethanonaphthalene.
2. Regulatory Action
Evaluation of use patterns on cotton, small grains, sugar-
cane, apple orchards, conifer seed, and bird roosts/perches,
Insecticide use for control of pesticides, rodents, and birds.
Only a small percentage of U.S. crops are now treated with En-
drin.
3* Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
Endrin had been scrutinized for endangered species problems
in the past. EEB had considered proceeding with a registration
standard for Endrin, but reconsidered when the product was to be
pulled from the market. Prior to this decision, EEB requested
that the Office of Endangered Species initiate a biological
opinion to review the impacts of Endrin on endangered species.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on February 6, 1984.
5. Consultation Administration
The FWS requested an extension of 30 days.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-84-4, June 22, 1984) determined that
the product's use on sugarcane could have potentially adverse
affects on the Everglade kite (Boytrfaamcs Bociafrili* ntumbaus)
and the wood stork (MvuLetla aaterlrata).
The former species was believed to be threatened by a reduc-
tion of its sole food item and /or secondary poisoning. Because
of this possibility, the Service concluded that the kite would
likely be jeopardized by the use of Endrin. Jeopardy could be
precluded if additional information was to "...be developed which
demonstrates that..." Endrin residues in the environment are not
sufficient enough to cause mortality to apple snails, and not
high enough in apple snails to cause secondary poisoning to the
kite.
The Service was unable to determine whether the wood stork
(Ma. amerirana) would be jeopardized by the use of Endrin. The
Service did, however, "emphasize" their concern regarding the use
of endrin and "the potential for adverse impacts on the wood
stork.!'
The Service also reaffirmed a previously done biological
opinion (October 12, cluster review) that stated that the use of
Endrin on small grains would likely jeopardized the following
species:
75
-------
attwater's greater praicie chicken (TngpatmchTn enpitio atrtwateri)
Aleutian Canada goose (flfanta eanadeusla t eucppar-ela )
slackvater darter (Ethgt»toma bo-srhnn»i)
voundf in (PlatttmtetTO argg-nti wimmi )
Alabama lamp pearly mussel t
Appalachian monkey-face pearly mussel (Qm-drata
Cumberland monkey- face pearly mussel (fis. I
birdwing pearly mussel (epurarfilla eaclata )
green— blossom pearly mussel (EnioMagma tociiluua
turgid-blossom pearly mussel (E~ tgrgltitrla)
tan riffle shell (£L qalfcerl)
pale lilliput pearly mussel (To«ota«ma grllndg-ei
fine-rayed pigtoe (Ftraconaia cnneotCT)
shiny pigtoe (fi. etigaTiana )
Cumberland bean pearly mussel (Vi*lo«a tra-balia)
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (SSSSSSSOSi ea^-ifornlr-a» diapor-pfa-ox )
Delta green ground beetle (gla-nht-na
Kern primrose sphinx moth (BOOT t>«gg ainua
The resonable and prudent alternatives to preclude jeopardy
for these species remained unchanged from the October 12, 1983
biological opinion. These alternatives recommended prohibiting
the use of pesticides within the range, and within a buffer zone
around each range, of the above species.
The Service also determined that no- listed species would be
jeopardized by the use of Endrin on cotton (west of interstate
highway 35), apple orchards, conifer seeds, and bird perches.
Aa of this writing, EPA is still attempting to cancel the
uses of Endrin.
76
-------
33-. Summary of EntfangeTBti SperJCT Crreai'degatiops fpt Dirofot
(special review)
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Acarin, Cat box, Decofol, Kelthane, Mibol, Mitigan/ Dicofol/
l,l-bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloro-ethanol.
2. Regulatory Action
Special review (Bebut table Presumption Against Registration)
of the pesticide Dicofol. The product is registered as a miticide
for use on cotton, citrus, and a variety of other crops.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
As part of a program to review all pesticide active in-
gredients registered before January 1, 1977, a guidance package
for the reregistration of products containing Dicofol was
published on December 30, 1983. Some of the determinations that
were cited in the package are as follows:
1) that risk criterion (40 CFR 162.11) regarding an adverse
wildlife effort had been met by certain uses of Dicofol and that
a special review would therefore be initiated,
2) that new registrations for Dicofol products intended for
outdoor use would not be issued,
3) existing registration would have to be supported by
submission of additional data by the registrants,
and
4) existing registrations would have to be supported by
submission of data regarding the composition of the product,
particularly the concentration of DDTr contaminants.
The agency determined that the risk criterion for unreason-
able adverse effects was met because the product is contaminanted
with DDTr "...at levels which have unreasonable adverse effects
on the environment."
In a position document (PD 2/3/84) describing regulatory
actions to reduce potential adverse effects, the agency made
aaaessments as to the impacts of Dicofol on a number of endan-
gered species.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to Office of Endangered Species on March 28, 1984.
5. Consultation Administration
Bequests for additional time and/or material were not made.
6* Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-84-7, August 13, 1984) considered that
the continued use of Dicofol could potentially affect the fol-
lowing species:
American peregrine falcon (Patrn peTwrlgm atmfnm)
Artie peregrine falcon (£L perggginti»
bald eagle (Haliaegtro lettcoeecfaattM )
California condor (Svmmuavpii cailfprnianns )
77
-------
brown pelican (Pgt^eatna
wood stock (Mreteria amgrlrana )
The FWS determined that the use of Kel thane would be
"...likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the two
listed peregrine falcons" (F- peT«tri.no» a-natnm) and (F-
perggTiiiCT tTOKJTi.q» ) . Since DDTr contaminants would always be
present at different levels in Kel thane* the FWS concluded that
"...there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives." The Ser-
vice recommended that the product should be cancelled for all
uses.
It was further determined that the continued use of Dicofol
would not likely jeopardize the bald eagle (S~ leTreocepfaatTra ) .
brown pelican (gv ocri-dentatl-a ) . California condor (€T
calif og nian» ) . or wood stork (its amerreana ) . Although a jeopardy
opinion was not warranted for these species* the service "...re-
mained opposed to adding significant amounts of DDT to the en-
vironment since this is the single most destructive pesticide to
avian species."
The status of Dicofol is still pending.
78
-------
S nii^j, SS, SgdaTBEPTwi Swavn €onm Jfet atiTnn for
1. Product Same/ Common Hame/ Cbeaical Hame
Octhene 75 S/ Orthene, Acephate/ Acephate (0,S-
Dimethylacetylphosphoramidothioate.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration for uae against thrips on
nacadamia nut trees. The proposal was later determined to be a
state registration.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat
(Lasittr-as cinergna aemotna) occurs in the vicinity of macadamia
orchards. The use of Orthene could threaten the bats "...with
both risk of acute toxicity and chronic hazard." These risks
could result from "inhalation of acephate, dermal exposure* and
ingestion of contaminated insects." Based on this information EEB
concluded that the proposed use "may effect" the Hawaiian hoary
bat (fa. crnetwra semotns). A formal consultation with OES was to
be initiated, (review 5/21/84)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on May 18, 1984.
5. Consultation Administration
Bequests for additional material and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusion and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (August 22, 1984) concluded that "...the action of
registering Orthene and , therefore, permitting its use as a
pesticide in macadamia nut orchards in the state of Hawaii.•• is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Hawaiian
hoary bat [L^ ciranerM »emotn»1." The following stipulations
regarding the use of Orthene were given as "reasonable and pru-
dent alternatives":
"1. To decrease the chances of bats coming into direct con-
tact with the Orthene spray, spraying from the ground should be
conducted at night, when bats would least likely be found roost-
ing in macadamia nut trees. Spraying from the air should be timed
to pose as little threat to flying bats as possible. It may be
advisable to spray from the air during the day.
2. Attempts to scare bats from the orchards prior to spray-
ing should be made. ;
3. Applicators should be advised to cease spraying when bats
are observed in the macadamia nut trees until the animals have
been flushed.
4. The product label should have a prominent warning regard-
ing its toxicity to bats and other wildlife with admonitions on
use in the presence of these animals."
The biological opinion also included the following "terms
and conditions" on incidental taking; those actions incidental to.
79
-------
and not intended by the use of Octhene:
"lo The EPA shall incorporate as pact of the registration
and/ oc labelling the stipulation that if any individual of any
of the listed species discussed in this opinion is killed as a
ceault of the use of Octhene, the applicator, the orchard owner,
oe othec pecson involved with the occhacd oc the spraying shall
require that the causative action of such taking cease immediate-
ly, and that the EPA shall then re-initiate formal consultation
and/or seek authorization under Section 10(a)l(B) peioc to pro-
ceeding with the action.
[2.1 All listed species which ace injured oc killed as a
result of the subject action shall be retrieved and shall be
turned over to this service at our Honolulu addrea-s ...oc to the
State of Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife in Hilo, Hawaii
immediately. ..-
[3.1 If EPA learns of bats killed as a cesult of Octhene
use, you shall immediately pcepace a wcitten cepoct which shall
include the date, location , and circumstances surrounding the
taking and the disposition of the individual(s) taken." A FWS
address and phone number wece included.
In a September 12, 1984 memorandum to BO, EEB proposed
modifications on each of the OES alternatives would not "...ad-
equately protect the endangered bat from the pesticide."
Each stipulation was criticized foe not adequately minimizing the
thceat to the bat. EEB found that the stipulations could lead to
the bats' exposure to the pesticide and, because the bats would
be forced to expend energy if disturbed, could make them less
tolecant to natural forces. EEB suggested that Octhene "...be
prohibited in the presence of the bat." They also strongly recom-
mended that , if Octhene was permitted, "...that application be
restricted to certified applicators and day spraying only, with
mandatory intensive searches for bats prioc to spraying and
mandatory subsequent flushing of all bats prior to application of
Jrthene. If bats remain in the area, then Octhene may not be
applied."
The BD, in a September 25, 1984 letter, informed the regis-
trant of the consultation findings and recommended, since the use
involved the state of Hawaii only, that a state (section 24(c))
registration be pursued. A label restriction was made that close-
ly mimicked the EEB recommendation to restrict the application to
certified applicators, require flushing, and not apply the pro-
duct if bats were present. The registration of the product has
not been pursued by the state of Hawaii. No further action was
taken.
80
-------
STBBinaTV of EnTfangered SperJCT Gonartteratiotts for Prairie flog
1. Toxicants
strychnine
compound 1080
gas cartridge
magnesium phosphide
aluminum phosphide
2. Regulatory Action
Reevaluation of hazards posed to the black-footed ferret
(Mnstcta nigtipca) from the use of pesticides that control
prairie dogs.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
While preparing for hearings on the secondary impacts of
strychnine on the black-footed ferret (Ifc marines). EEB raised
concern about discrepancies in the opinions on prairie dog toxi-
cants. This concern centered on whether a ferret survey would
adequately safeguard the species and on OES's inconsistent stance
on the matter. Since the circumstances had changed from the time
the opinions were made and new information was availablet EEB was
to request a new biological opinion to reevaluate the hazards to
the ferret.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Fish and Wildlife Service on May 31, 1984.
5. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional time and/or material were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-84-9, November 9, 1984) determined that
verification of the presence of ferrets was possible and that
such a survey could adequately protect the species if conducted
"strictly in accordance with currently approved methods." It was
also determined that if ferrets were present when any of the
prairie dog toxicants were used, primary and secondary poisoning
could occur. The Service therefore concluded that the use of any
of the considered toxicants could jeopardize the continued exis-
tence of the black-footed ferret (M? uteri-res)
As a reasonable and prudent alternative* the Service recom-
mended conducting a precontrol survey to ensure ferrets were not
in areas that were to be treated.
81
-------
3o~ 31 iiuiiiHtv or EnoatttBt cri gfiSSXSS. Co nsTTtet atTOtn for
1. Product Name/ Common Name/ Chemical Name
Volid/ Brodifacoum/ unknown.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Rodenticide use to con-
trol pine and meadow mice in apple orchards in nine states.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species -
EEB was concerned about the toxieity of the product to both
non-target, non-endangered and endangered species. EEB determined
that "...if endangered mammals and/or avian species occur in
proximity to or would feed or scavenge in an orchard, then we
concluded that any endangered species that would utilize an apple
orchard area could come in contact with the product. The exposure
could occur at any time of the year and could occur as a primary
or secondary impact.
4e Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on June 7, 1984.
5. Consultation Administration
The FWS (August 28, 1984) requested field test results to
assess the potential primary and secondary affects of Brodifacoum
on listed species.
60 Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (November 2, 1984) determined that the only endan-
gered species that "...might be affected in treated areas [was]
the peregrine falcon (Palro •DeTwrrintM)." Although the Service
determined that secondary poisoning might occur, this possibility
was considered remote because falcon nesting aeries are not found
in "apple country", bait placement occurs when falcons are ab-
sent, and migration routes are not near apple growing regions.
Based on the above facts, the Service concluded that the "...re-
gistration of Volid [would] not jeopardize the continued exis-
tence of the peregrine falcon
82
-------
37% Summary of Endangered Sperics Consideration* for Tilt
1. Product Hame/ Common Name/ Chemical Hame
Tilt/ Tilt/ l-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-l,3-
diozalin-2-yl-methyl]-lH-l,2,4-triazole.
2. Regulatory Action
Proposed conditional registration. Fungicide use on pecans
for the control of certain diseases.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Specie*
EEB determined that "numerous aquatic endangered species
occur in areas in which pecans are grown." The branch therefore
considered that the use of Tilt could result in an unreasonable
hazard to aquatic endangered and threatened species (review dated
3/21/84). After more extensive study, EEB concluded that the
proposal would provide for a "...minimal hazard to non-endangered,
nontaeget organisms, but does provide for potentially serious
hazards to endangered species of freshwater mussels." A formal
consultation was "anticipated". (EEB memorandum to BO dated July
31, 1984)
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division, (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Fish and Wildlife Service on July 31, 1984.
5.. Consultation Administration
The consultation was diverted to the endangered 'species
field station in Asheville, North Carolina. Bequests for
additional material and/or time were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FWS/OES, November 20, 1984) concluded that the
registration of Tilt would likely jeopardize the following endan-
gered mussels:
Alabama lamp pearly mussel (Lam-Paul's
birdving pearly mussel (Conradi-lla eaciata )
Cumberland monkey face pearly mussel (Quadr-ala internredia )
fat pocketbook (Potamlina
fine-rayed pigtoe (Fnsronaia
orange-footed pearly mussel (gi-ctfatyoayns
pale lilliput pearly mussel (TrmrtaTOa crii
pink mucket pearly mussel (is orfricniata)
rough pigtoe (Picurofeema pjgnnm)
shiny pigtoe (Fwconaia eqgaTiana )
white wartyback pearly mussel (Ptgtfaoba«q»
The FWS recommended that, as a reasonable and prudent alter-
native, the use of Tilt be prohibited in areas in which endan-
gered mussels occur. A list of these areas was provided. The
FWS also recommended the prohibition of the product's use in
areas where candidate species are located. These candidate
83
-------
species were undec status review at the time and included
PlCTtobema cnffcm. Pr marrhatli. £3, taltiantm. frna-drqia
atacea. and Eoopfrtawaa renita.
According to a April 8, 1985 letter from BD to the regis-
trant, final action on the registration of Tilt for use on pea-
cans was awaiting completion of a risk assessment.
84
-------
3c*j Summary of Eirda mtergd Species CoTMi'deratipira for i666
de»e bait-) Ifjftfa of five consultatJPTO involving 16663
1. Product Name/ Canaan Kane/ Chemical Name
1080/ Sodium monofluoroacetate/ unknown.
2. Regulatory Action
Request by the Denver Wildlife Research Center for an exten-
sion of an EUP involving the efficacy and environmental hazards
of single lethal dose 1080 baits. This request would modify the
permit by increasing the area of the original Idaho site from
59,000 to 145,000 acres and by adding a new site in Utah. The
site in Montana would remain the sane.
3. Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects Branch) Action
Concerning Endangered Species
EEB determined that a consultation was necessary since
slight modifications were to be made and more counties were to be
added.
4. Consultation Initiation
Initiated by Hazard Evaluation Division (Ecological Effects
Branch) to the Office of Endangered Species on November 6, 1984.
5. Consultation Administration
Requests for additional time and/or material were not made.
6. Consultation Conclusions and Environmental Protection Agency
Response
The FWS (FA/SE/EPA-informal) concluded that if the condi-
tions described by EEB were "all adhered to, including finding
and picking up carcasses," a "no effect" situation would exist.
The Service therefore determined that a formal consultation would
not be required.
85
-------
deccion B
"Ui2a
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE **- °
r
Dumber 3065.1 (Revised) Date Issued:
Revises «?3065.1 dated 3/17/80
PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES
DURING PESTICIDE REGISTRATION ACTIVITIES
PURPOSE;
The purpose of this document is to prescribe procedures for addressing endangered or
threatened (listed) species considerations during Registration Division(RD) and Hazard
Evaluation Division (HED) activities and for soliciting formal consultation requests
with the Office of Endangered Species, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior (referred to as OES) and the National Marine Fisheries Services, Department of
Commerce (referred to as NMFS), as mandated by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public
Lav 93-250; U.S.C.1531-1543).
SCOPE:
This procedure applies to all regulatory activities conducted under FIF1A by the
Registration and Hazard Evaluation Division^.'including, but not limited to:
«. Registration of pesticides and related amendments under Section 3.
b. Experimental use permits under Section 5.
e. Emergency exemptions under Section 18.
d. Special local need state registrations under Section 24(c).
data (to be supplied by the registrant) necessary to make the risk assessment are the
same data used to make the risk assessments for non-target organisms. There are no
additional data requirements specific to listed species.
BACKGROUND;
A. Definitions
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (the Art) defines the term endangered soeeies as,
"say species vhich is in danger of extinction throughout all or a signricant portion of
i£j range", while the term "threatened soeeies" means, "any species which is likely to
b«eome an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
for^'.an of its range." A listed species means "any species of fish, wildlife, or plant
=shich is designated as endangered or threatened under the Act". As required by regulation,
Sfcis list is published in the Federal Register. Critical habitat refers to "any air,
land, or water area (exclusive of those existing man-naae structures or settlements not
aacessary to the recovery and survival of a listed species), the loss of which would
appreciably decrease the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a listed species or
a distinct segment of its population".
-------
B. Act Interpretation
The Act has as one of its stated purposes the conservation
of ecosystems and habitats upon which endangered and
threatened species depend for their existence. It is
further stated that it is the policy of the Congress
that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to
conserve endangered and threatened species and utilize
their authorities to further the purpose of the Act.
Section 7 of the Act directs all Federal departments and
agencies to ensure that actions authorized, carried out,
or funded by thea do not jeopardize the continued existence
of any endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of habitat which is
determined to be critical to these species.
•Joir.t regulations by the OES and the ITMFS (50 CFR, Chapter
rr , Pare 402) describe procedures for implementing Section
7 of the Act. These regulations were published in the
Federal Register January 4, 1978. (43 FR, 870). New
regulations' incorporating subsequent amendments to the
Act are expected to be proposed in the near future.
C. Act Interpretation Relevant to the Pesticide Program . • ,
Highlights of the regulation relevant to the Regwtr-at-icr?
Dlviaiun include the following:
1. Informal consultation with field offices and other
sources is authorized, but does not substitute for
formal consultation.
2. If it is determined that listed species or their
habitats will not be affected by a regulatory action,
no consultation is required unless recommended by OES
or HMFS. The establishment of criteria for this
determination will be made by.HEO.
3. If it is determined that a problem may exist, RED must
submit to the Director or his designee of either OES or
NMFS a formal request for consultation, accompanied by
supporting data. The purpose of the consultation is to
identify problem areas where proposed programs would be
in conflict with listed species or their habitat. This
early warning process would enable OPP to modify its
programs or activities to eliminate possible adverse
action.
-------
S. If there is insufficient information to assess the
impact, OES or NMFS may ask for more information and,
by mutual consent, extend the consultation period.
RED will promptly inform the respective PM of any
extension of time agreed upon.
6. If any program modifications or new information
relevant to the activity are submitted (such as a
resubmission), RD/HED is obligated to reopen the
consultation.
7. The consultation process is one of seeking advice or
information only. OES and NMFS have no veto,power
over Agency actions. RED, v»ithin the—Of-fice—of
Pesticide-Programs- (OPP) is obliged to consult, and
having done so, determines the appropriate regulatory
action. The action taken should be consistent with the
Congressional intent, that is, that agencies shall seek
to conserve endangered or threatened species.
8. Consultation and supporting data releasable to the
public under FOI procedures, and the biological
opinion containing non-confidential material are a
matter of public record.
9. OPP, OES and/or NMFS may develop joint regulations
relative to the Agency's specific programs; if this
is done, these regulations would supersede those
published by OES and NMFS on January 4, 1978.
Because the Ecological Effects Branch (EEB) of HED has the
'responsibility to assess the impact of pesticidal
applications upon non-target organisms including endangered
or threatened species, it is appropriate that this Branch
serve as the liaison with OES and NMFS. The decision as
to which agency to contact depends on the species and/or
environmental situation in question. Generally, marine
organisms and related habitat are under NMFS' jurisdiction
while fresh water and terrestrial organisms and related
habitat are under OES' jurisdiction. Most of our actions
will generally fall under the OES1 jurisdiction.
-------
PROCEDURE;
A. Registration Division (RD)
1. Registrations Under Section 3 of FIFRA
Certain of the Section 3 applications for registrations
will require a listed species risk assessment. New chemicals
intended for outdoor use will require reviews by EEB, HED.
As part of the EEB disciplinary review, each application for
registration of a new chemical for outdoor use will be
screened for possible effects on listed species. New
chemicals intended for indoor use will not require..an EEB
review.
All new uses of previously registered products will not
automatically receive a listed species review. However,
most new uses (outdoor) will be routed to EEB for review.
.During the evaluation the Product Manager will consider
the use patterns when deciding if the new use requires an
incremental risk assessment from HED. The incremental
risk review assessment by EEB will include an assessment
of risk to listed species.
The "me too" and supplemental registration (distributors)
and the "me-too" minor changes amendments to product
registration will rarely require a listed species review.
These types of registrations are not expected to result in
adverse effects to listed species because the risks from
the above actions should be no greater than risks posed by
currently registered products. However, there are certain
pesticides and use patterns that- should be considered as
exceptions. Minor changes in products intended for use as
mosquito larvicides, aquatic herbicides, piscicides or for
forest uses should have an assessment of risk to listed
species. Included in the list would be minor formulation
changes for pesticides aerially applied to forests and all
product minor changes for rodent (non-domestic uses) and
predator control.
-------
In order Co ease identification of ainor produce changes, RD and HED will
develop a screening process co establish criteria for determining product/uses
requiring listed species review.
2. Experimental Use Pennies
All experimental use permits (EUPs) for new chemicals will require a
review by EE3. As pare of chat review, EEB will oake the necessary
risk assessment for listed species. EUPs for the purposes of gathering
data co support an additional use(s) for a previously registered pesticide
will be screened by the Produce Manager to determine if the application
needs to be reviewed by EE3. As a rule of thumb, any application the
Produce Manager decides would require an ecological effeccs assessment
will also require an assessment for listed species.
3. Requests for Emergency Exemotions
Evaluations of emergency requests for specific exemptions will proceed
expedieiously following currently prescribed guidelines. Included in
this evaluation are concerns for whether the emergency request will
iapacs adversely on listed species. Moreover, the states are obliged
to include information on listed species as part of their submission.
•
Following its initial review, the Emergency Response Team will determine
whether an ESB review is required. Generally these requests for review
would be for use patterns which have not previously been reviewed by EZS.
However, because of the emergency nature of this program which may sometimes
require an immediate response (e.g. crisis situation), HED will be expected
CO give priority considerations to these types of requests. It is
anticipated that these types of situations will be the exception rather
Chan the rule.
4. Special Local Need (SLK)
All SLN registration requests are reviewed by the Product Managers to
determine if the registration poses a potential threat to a listed
•pecies. RD expects the states to be informed of this requirement and,
therefore, should have submitted appropriate data with which to make this
type of review. A screening process to identify the types of SLNs for
review may be developed jointly by RD and HED in conjunction with the
screening activities under NO. 1 above.
Hazard Evaluation Division (HEP)
The four types of registration requests are submitted to EE3t each with its own
dace for completion of Che evaluation. The Experimental Use Permits and SLN requests
have statutory deadlines of 120 days and 90 days, respectively, and therefore, must
have reviews completed within the assigned RD due dates. Emergency exemption requests
aust also be handled within a very short time frame, and thus, che need for BED co
expedite-its decision on these actions as quickly as possible.
-------
The EEB has developed a step-by-step procedure for evaluating
pesticidal hazard to listed species. This procedure is essentially
similar whether addressing Section 3, 5 or 18, or 24(c) actions.
(A flowchart depicting this procedure is found on page ? of this
SOP). //
Incorporated into each EEB review format is a section entitled
•Endangered Species Considerations". EEB maintains reference
materials for use by reviewers in researching information on listed
species. These materials include the following:
1. OES Federal Register Notices on the status of endangered species.
2. General information on listed species.
3. Recovery team progress reports.
4. Recovery plans (as they are completed for the various species).
5. Endangered species technical bulletins.
6. 'Distribution maps for many endangered species.
7. Federally listed species by State.
8. Liaison Conservation Directory for Endangered and Threatened
Species.
9. Atlantic Coast Ecological InventVory (31 maps).
10. Pacific Coast Ecological Inventory (30 maps).
In addition to reviewing published documents on listed species,
EEB reviewers make direct contact with key persons in the field
regarding the status of a particular species, the likelihood of
pesticidal exposure and other pertinent information. These contacts
may be personnel with state fish and game or agriculture departments.
Federal Fish & Wildlife programs, U.S. Department of Agriculutre,
county agents, university or other private researchers. The name of
the individuals contacted and their affiliation is incorporated into
the review. Reviewers collect information from as many sources as
seem practicable (including the applicant) to assist in making a
hazard assessment statement relative-to any impact the pesticidal
use may have upon a listed species.
On page p the flow chart and explanation has been modified to show
the steps involved within the EEB in addressing listed species
concerns. Use of this chart enables reviewers to "screen out" those
use patterns that do not present a hazard to listed species. The
scheme is structured 'so that decisions concerning hazards to a
particular species for the most obvious no-hazard use patterns can
-------
be made quickly without a lot of justification. The more difficult
use patterns must undergo further scrutiny. Use of this flow chart
employs two major considerations in determining whether or not a
proposed use poses any hazard to a listed species. They are: (1)
whether or not the species is likely to be exposed to the chemical
and (2) whether or not such exposure will have any effect on the
organism or its environment. In order for a hazard to exist, both
criteria must be satisfied simultaneously as one without the other
does not constitute a hazardous situation.
C. Governmental Liaision
In the process of making a registration review, EED may make
telephone contacts with OCS or NMFS staff to solicit information
on species distribution, and status. This contact constitutes
•informal consultation*. If there is a "no effect" determination,
this/Nis incorporated into the EEB/HED review.
When, in the judgment of a Branch reviewer and his supervisors
there may be pesticiclal impact upon a listed species, a
request for formal consultation and a copy of the completed
EEB review, [whether a Section 3, 5, IS or 24 (c)I, will be
transmitted to the appropriate agency. Upon receipt of a
formal request for consultation, OES or NMFS will proceed
through the consultation process and issue a biological opinion
within 90 days unless an extension of time is agreed upon.
Initiation of the formal consultation will include the following
steps:
1. When an EEB reviewer has, w_ith_the .EEB Peer .Group Concurrence^
determined that a pesticide proposed for use in any
regulatory action will pose a hazard to a listed species,
with his Section Head and Endangered Species Coordinator,
he/she prepares a_t_r_ansmi±Jial_letter formally, requesting
consultation.rfor"the Branch Chi'efr.s^g.TarLagure'. A copy
of this letter is sent to tne product Manager in RD informing
him of this action.
2. Such consultation will be sought by EEB as early as possible
in the review process, and to that end. Product Managers are
to provide EEB reviewers with necessary data and information
in a timely manner to avoid undue delays. OES and NMFS
are authorized 90 days for review: this 90-day clock would
'start on the date of'receipt and acknowledgement of the
request for consultation. After consultation is initiated,
EEB is expected to renegotiate with RD (via Process
Coordination Branch) a new completion date for the EEB
review.
3. The letter will be directed normally to the OES or NMFS
in Washington, D.C., for activities spanning the entire
Onited States or which overlap OES or NMFS regional
lines. For limited scope programs, such as Section IS
exemptions or SLN actions, the request shall be directed
to the appropriate FWS or Department of Commerce region
-------
-3-
by HEO after mutual agreement with the OES or HMFS/
Washington, O.C. (/hen regional offices of FUS or MMFS are
formally consulted, copies of any correspondence shall be
sent to the respective Washington, O.C. office.
4. When a request for formal consultation is imminent, EEB
reviewers should alert Product Managers in RO. This is
especially true for emergency exemption requests.
Each request to OES or NMFS will contain the following types of
information:
1. A formal request paragraph.
2. A brief indication of the particular hazard of concern—•
pesticide, toxicity, use pattern, etc.
3. An indication of the supporting data which acco.naany the
request. If confidential information must be inclaced,
procedures estalbished in the OPP Security Manual must be
followed.
4. A list of the particular endangered or threatened species
which the RD or BED believes may be affected. If lengthy,
the list may be appended to the letter, rather than included
in the body of the letter.
•5. Ariy specific considerations or problems which RO or HEO
believes should be addressed in the consultation process.
6. Names of EEB personnel to contact in case there are questions.
The EE3 reviewer shall provide as much information as possible to
the OES or NMFS, including acute and chronic toxicity da-ta,
chemistry and environmental chemistry studies relating to bio-
accumulation, persistence, and degradation of the pesticide
residue profiles and/or estimated environmental concentration,
and any other studies deemed to be relevant to their review.
All data must be carefully screened by EEB to ensure that
confidential data, if necessary to the review, are clearly marked.
If not necessary, the data should not be forwarded. Note: Without
specific indication to the contrary, all data become part of the
administrative record, and, as such, are available for public
inspection.
After signature, EEB forwards copies of the memorandum to the RO
Product Manager for the record. EEB shall retain a copy and
will maintain adequate files and records to track future responses
by OES or NMFS.
-------
The consultation package (letter and supporting data) shall be
forwarded to OC2 or !1MFS by EED who will also notifiy respective
personnel by phone of the forwarding consultation request.
D. Post-Consultation Activities in RD and HEP
Within 90 days after receipt, the OES or MMFS will send
EEB, a biological opinion concerning the impact, if any,
of the pesticide on the listed species. The EEB reviewer
and Peer Group will consider the findings of the opinion.
•Further consultation" may be necessary to clarify*statements
within the opinion. If the opinion indicates no jeopardy
to the species from use of the pesticides, the reviewer
will proceed with the normal review of the application and
subsequent notification to the RD Product Manager. OES
and NMFS will forward copies of biological opinions to
respective regional offices so that Endangered Species
Specialists in the field are fully appraised of actions
taken.
Once RD receives the RED review which indicates that a listed
species nay be jeopardized by the use of the pesticide, a
number of regulatory options are available to the Product
Manager:
1. Geographical, timing, frequency, or other labeling restrictions
may be imposed on the registration, EUP, or emergency exemption,
In the case of SLN registrations, disapproval of the
registration may be recommended, and if so, the state
should be notified immediately by telephone.
2. Classification as a Restricted Use Pesticide.
•
3. Initiation of an RPAR procedure. If this is the choice,
the Product Manager will refer the product as an RFAR
candidate and will attach a copy of the consultation opinion
with ESB's recommendation establishing the basis for RPAR.
This avoids duplication of effort by SPRD personnel who
•will not have to refer the action for formal consultation
again.
If further information is required which is not available within
RD files, or has not been submitted by the applicant, the
application shall be considered deficient. Based on the HED
review, the Product Manager will notify the registrant or
applicant of the need for additional data and, when received,
shall submit the additional information to HED for another
review. The process proceeds as previously described.
If additional information bearing on the previous action is
submitted to the Agency, via Section 6(a)(2) requirements or
in a subsequent application for regulatory action, these
procedures must be followed when reopening the consultation
process.
-------
EVftLtlATING RISK TO QOttGERED/THREATENED* SPECIES FROM PESTICIDE
REGISTBATICN ACTTC*5
(See attached wrie&en explanation for each step)
STEP 1
Identification of eoxicity of
sticide to non-target spades
STEP 2
Screen for Toxic if/
estimated environmental concentration
(EEC) exceed the "no-effect" cutoff points
for listed species?**
Exposure of Soeciesi
Is it probable for any listed
species to be exposed- bo pro~
jected lethal concentrations?!
Threat to Haoitacl
Is it probable for designated
•critical habitat" to be des-
troyed or adversely modified?
consultation v*ith OES/*MESasneeded—
I No Hazard
Extent of Hazardl
{No Hazard!
Formal consultation with OES/NMFS required to determine extent of hazard}
STEP
Precautionary Laoelinol
Can labeling prevent facality to members of listed spacies?
YES-
6b
Label Reconmencaticnsj
By following laoeling there
would not lifcely be a hazard
to listed sceeies
(Non-labeling alternat3.ves
*also referred bo as listed species
** l/5th the lowest mammalian acute oral LDio or LCJ.Q; 1/5th the lowest avian
subacute dietary LCiQ or LD^g; l/10th the lowest aquatic acute LC]_Q. Where
or LD^o are not available, l/10th the manmalian ££50 or ££50, l/10th the avian
or LDso or l/20th the aquatic
-------
RO shall supply HEO (EEB) a copy of the final finished labeling
for products which have jeopardy opinions to one or more listed
species.
E. IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of this procedure is effective immediately.
P. FUTURE MODIFICATIONS
In the event that some aspect of this procedure is in need
of modification, this document may be adjusted at anytime
by the Registration Division upon mutual agreemnt between
the implementors and the Registration Division.
-------
Steo 1
•
Identification of toxicity of pesticide to nontarqet species
From test data submitted or referenced by the registrant, the
toxicploqical imoact. If any upon nontarget species Is determined.
Extrapolations are made from the results of basic required fish
and wildlife studies and other validated test data .
Step 2
Screen for toxicity
Tne question Is asked, " will the estimated environmental concentrations
(EEC) exceed the 'no-effect' cutoff points for listed species? "
Likelihood of hazard
Fisn and wildlife are constantly being exposed to "tany natjrally
occurring compounds that would cause mortality or ecological
disturbance if. present at high enough concentrations. Therefore, even
though the chemical Is toxic to* the organism and there Is the likeli-
hood of exposure to the organism, sufficient concentrations of the
pesticide must be available to constitute a hazard. The obvious
question: "How does one go about determining what is a sufficient
concentration?"
Since It Is Impossible to obtain LCso or LSgo data for listed species, we
oust assume that the sensitivity of these species Is similar to that of
Indicator organisms used in current test protocols. Although this may or
may not be the case, it would seem appropriate, when using these data for
assessing hazard to listed species, that some "safety factor" be built
Into the evaluation process. Since even the loss of one individual of
listed species may be unacceptable, some might argue that all hazard
evaluations should be based on LCi (i.e., lethal concentration required
to kill one percent of the population). However, due to the difficulty
In actually determining an LCj, it is proposed that the more reliable
LCio be used. The following risk criteria for establishing "no-effect"
cut off points would be:
1. Mammals - Occurs as a residue Immediately foil awl na application in
or on the feed of a mammalian listed species likely to ..be exposed
to such feed in amounts equivalent to the averaqe riaily intake of
said species, at levels less than '1/5 the acute oral LOiQ, or (.CIQ,
measured in mammalian test animals as specified in the Registration
Guidelines.
2. Birds - Occurs as a residue immediately following application in or on
the feed of an avian listed species likely to be exposed to such feed
In amounts equivalent to the average daily intake of said species, at
levels less than 1/5 the subacute dietary L.CIQ or LOjo measured in
avian test animals as specified In the Registration Guidelines.
-------
3. Aauatic Oraanisms - Results In a maximum calculated concentration
in (a) or (bj below of less than 1/10 the acute 1C \Q for aquatic
organisms likely to be exposed as measured In test animals specified
In the Registration Guidelines:
(a) following direct application to a 6-Inch layer of water or;
(b) In the habitat(s) of concern (habitats of listed species).
4. Chronic Effects - There are no known reproductive or other chronic
effects to indicator species at levels expected 1n the~habit"at'(s) of
concern.
Step 3a
Exposure of species
If the answer to 2 above 1s "yes", proceed to step 3a Exposure of Species
where the question 1s asked, "Is it possible for any listed species to oe
exposed to projected lethal concentrations?" A search is made of Branch
records and other available sources of Information to identify listed
species within proposed treatment areas. Branch reviewers may informally
consult with OES and other persons knowledgeable of current listed species
dlstrlbuation. Based on the criteria indicated In Step 2, a determination
1s made whether or not that use of the pesticide product, as proposed, may
affect any listed species.
If the answer to Step 2 above 1s. "no", proceed to Step 3b - Threat to Habitat,
and answer the question, "Is it possible for designated critical habitat to
be.destroyed or adversely modified?" Again, as needed, informal consultation
may be made with OES and other pertinent sources to solicit the most current
Information on critical habitat. If there is a "No" answer to the questions
asked In Steps 3a and 3b, a "No hazard" determination Is made.
Step 4
Extent of Hazard
If ".Yes" 1s answered to Steps 3a or 3b,.then a formal consultation, as
required within the Endangered Species Act, 1s Initiated by EEB. This
consists of a letter of request to the Chief, Office of Endangered Species,
accompanied by a copy of the Branch review of the pesticide product and
other supporting documentation (i.e., wildlife, fish kills attributable
to use of the pesticide).
OES or NMFS, upon acknowledgement of the consultation request, prepares a
written "biological opinion" within 90-days. They may request clarification
or more data to facilitate the preparation of the written opinion. On
occasions they may request an extension of time beyond the 90 days.
-------
Their written opinions summarize the nature of the request (pesticide
toxicological properties, use patterns, listed species considered
and listed species for which there is a jeopardy and no jeopardy
opinion.
Step 5
-at
Precautionary Labeling
When there is a jeopardy opinion the question 1s asked, "Can labeling
prevent fatality to members of listed species?". If "Yes" proceed
to Step 6a - Label Recommendations with appropriate labeling to avert
jeopardy to the species identified within the "biological opinion".
[f "No", non-labeling alternatives .nust be investigated. These Include,
but are not limited to, the following: clarification of the reasonable
and prudent alternatives with OES, Involvement of the registrant to seek
means to avert exposure of listed species (which may suggest an alteration
In the use pattern, restriction of the pesticide to specific sites only
and/or use by certified applicators only), suggest field studies to demon-
strate safe usage at prescribed label rates exposing species most repre-
sentative of listed species of concern, refer for RPAR.
-------
Section C
Summary of endangered species considerat ions for cluster review
Summary of Endangered Species Consideration* for the Corn Cluster Review
1. Description of Ecological Effects Branch Review
The EEB considered the following pesticides that are used on
field corn:
Selected pesticides used or proposed for use on field corn -
those exceeding a listed species trigger. *
Keltbane
Propachor
Methoxychlor
Dinoseb
EPN
Fhorate
Diazinon
Carbophenothion
Piperonyl Butoxide
Endosulfan
Propargite
Mancozeb
Disyston
Dimethoate
Ethoprop
Methyl Parathion
Ethyl Parathion
Trichlorfon
Ethion
Pyrethrin
Toxaphene
Terbufos
Phosdrin
Dasanit
Trifluralin
Dyfonate
Carbaryl
Malathion
Guthion
Chlorpyrifos
Rotenone
Carbofuran
Oxyfluorfen
Oftanol
* These chemicals exceeded I/10th the mammalian LD50 or LC50,
I/10th the avian LD50 or LC50, or I/20th aquatic LDSOor LC50. For
granular pesticides« the trigger for avian species is the number
of granules required to reach I/10th LD50. However, these trig-
gers are not considered serious if the number of granules re-
quired to reach 1/10 LD50 is more than an avian species would
conceivably ingest.
Pesticides registered on field corn - chemicals with low-order
toxicity or exposure.
BBC
Dicamba
2-4-D
Busan
Vernam
Trichlorfon
2-phenyIpheno1
Cube resins
Cryolite
Diallate
Atrazine
Chloropicrin
Alachlor
Mesurol
Metribuzin
Bentazon
Metolachlor
Lindane
Chloramben
Diuron
CDEC
Butylate
Metasystox-R
Paraquat
Avitrol
Sulfur
Thiram
Simazine
Captafol
Benomyl
Metribuzin
Glyphosate
Bifenox
Isofenphos
Dalapo
1-3-Dichloropropene
Linuron
EPTC
Maleic hydrazide
Imidan
Hexachlorobenzene
Alkyl dimethyl benzyl
ammonium Chloride
Sulfaquinoxaline
Ametryn
Captan
Me thorny1
Cyanazine
Mesurol
Ethioate
Pendimethalin
Pesticides registered on field corn - chemicals with little or no
information.
-------
Ethanol Haneb Calcium acsenate
Zineb CDAA Tcichloebenzyl chloride
Copper ammoniun Sabadilla alkaloida
Cyclohexanone Buconace copper salts
Alkanolamine TrieChanolamina Tetcasodium ethylenediamine
tetracetate
essential oils Acetic acid Isopropanol
Metaldehyde Bufencaeb N-Octyl bicycloheptene
dicarboximide
Pine oil Byanodine Halazone
Chloebromucon Cyprazine Landrin
2-Benzyl-4-chlorophenol
4-chlor-2-phenyIpheno1
6-chloco-2-phenylphenol
4-tert-amyIphenol
4-chlor o-2-cyclopenty 1
N, N-Bis ( 2-hydc oxyethy 1) lauc amide
Teethanolamine dodecylbenzene sulfonate
EEB determined that listed mammals, insects, and reptiles
would not be exposed to pesticides used on corn. Listed plants
were found to be unaffected by theic use since they are not
associated with cultivated areas. A number of avian and mo 11 us can.
species and one amphibian were found to have a "may affect"
status.
The consultation on this cluster was initiated on December
2, 1982.
2. Consultation Conclusion
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-83-2, May 18,1983) determined that the
use of certain pesticides on corn "would likely jeopardize the
continued existence of the following species":
peregrine falcon (Falco pct«trinT«)
The FWS concluded that the use of Kelthane, or any other
product with high levels of a DDT compound, would likely affect
this species. The opinion reflected the extensive documentation
of reproductive failure in raptors caused by DDT and its princi-
pal metabolites. It was noted that Kelthane in corn alone would
not necessarly create a jeopardy situation; however because it is
used on other crops a cumulative effect might result and the
species could be threatened. So that jeopardy could be avoided,
the Service recommended that Kelthane should be manufactured to
eliminate the DOT component or a substitute should be used.
Attwater's greater prairie chicken (Tvmoauuutras cupydo attwaterl)
Corn fields are used by this species between May and Septem-
ber for foraging and cover. These birds were considered to be
"potentially exposed" to granular and liquid pesticides during
this period. Although the range of the chicken overlaps corn
areas in only two counties, these areas represent 41 percent of
the total population. As a reasonable and prudent alternative,
the Service recommended that pesticides that are toxic to avian
species should not be used within 1/4 mile of the range of the
Attwater's greater prairie chicken (T-. ca-piTto attwatgfi) in the
-------
two counties mentioned above.
Aleutian Canada goose (Branta *
Poisoning of this species could occur as a result of ingest-
ing contaminated insects, browsing of emerging corn plants, or
picking up concentrated pesticide granules. To avoid jeopardy,
the TVS recommended that the use of non-granular formulations be
prohibited between August 30 and mid-May in portions of Califor-
nia and Oregon. A recommendation was made that granular formula-
tions should be prohibited totally in the closure areas cited in
the opinion.
Everglade kite (Bwtrhamia soria'bilTB pj-onroeiia)
The principal threat to the kite from the use of pesticides
on corn would be the possible reduction of their main food sup-
ply, the apple snail. The Service recommended that aerial appli-
cations of "implicated pesticides" be eliminated or that a buffer
zone of 1/4 mile between aerially treated areas and areas drain-
ing into the known habitat be provided, and/or prohibit ground
application of "implicated pesticides" closer than 100 yards from
known habitats.
slackwater darter (Etneoafoma fatyycfaimgi)
This fish is threatened with "degradation of surface and
ground water caused by the intrusion of toxins, pesticides, and
fertilizers, as well as in industrial and domestic wastes..."
Farming is the principal industry surrounding the darter's habi-
tat. The. event of a small chemical spill could be devasting for a
breeding population since breeding habitat is so limited. The
Service recommended that aerial application be eliminated or
provide a buffer zone of 1/4 mile, and/or prohibit use of "impli-
cated pesticides" by ground application closer then 100 yards
from aquatic habitats of this species.
Alabama lamp pearly mussel (Lam-pallia vireareiia)
Appalachian monkey-face pearly mussel (Onadrnia gparaa)
Cumberland monkey-face pearly mussel (fis. j.ntgnredi.a)
dromedary pearly mussel (Pronroa dromaa)
birdwing pearly mussel (Conratlilla eaclata)
green—blossom pearly mussel (EpioMaama •enrnioaa gnfaemamimi)
turgid-blossom pearly mussel (Et tnrgithrla)
tan riffle shell (&-. waiter!)
pale lilliput pearly mussel (Troplaama evU-ndrgiia)
fine-rayed pigtoe (Fusrptiaia enagoiTta)
shiny pigtoe (F. e^faorriana)
Cumberland bean pearly mussel (Villpaa tratalia)
The major concern regarding the impact of pesticides on
mussels was focused on the toxic affect on the larval glochidia
and on-host fish. Larval mussels attach themselves to the surface
of a host fish shortly after being released from the adult female
mussel. Since many of the pesticides used on corn are toxic to
fish and/or aquatic invertebrate species, the potential exists
for these pesticides to be a detriment to either the larval forms
or boat fish. To avoid jeopardy, the Service recommended, regard-
-------
ing implicated pesticides* elimination of aecial application oc
to provide a buffer zone of 1/4 mile around aquatic habitat.
and/or prohibit the use of ground application closer than 100
yards from the habitat. It was suggested that studies be
initiated to "...produce data regarding the toxicity of certain
pesticides to freshwater mussels and on actual EEC values in the
habitat of Cumber landian mussels."
woundf in (PlagpnterTia
Fifty percent of the woundf in (P*; argg-ntiTrtinnis ) population
is found in areas where irrigation water is returned to the
river. One serious threat then, is contamination of this water
with pesticides toxic to fish. Since corn is grown in close
proximity to woundf in habitat, there is the potential of exposure
to pesticides that are used on corn. Jeopardy to this fish would
be precluded if those chemicals toxic to fish were not used
"...in the Virgin River drainage 40 miles either side of the
Virgin Narrows..."
valley elderberry Longhorn beetle (Dg»mnrgT-Q« califcr-nlr-m
One of two beetles found in agricultural areas, this
insect is only susceptible during its adult stage from late April
to mid-Hay. The Service recommended restricting the use of
insecticides during this time with special precautions to be
taken to protect the elderberry tree, in which it spends moat of
its life.
delta green ground beetle (Blanhrna
Since part of this beetle's habitat has been converted to
agriculture, pesticides use is a serious threat to the species.
The Service recommended prohibition of "any pesticide toxic to
carabid insects" within Solano county, California.
Solano grass (Orrtittla arncTo-na-ta )
This species could be threatened by herbicides use, either
from aerial spraying or runoff. The greatest danger was from
those chemicals that hinder germination. As a precaution to guard
against jeopardy, the Service recommended that the use of any
herbicide toxic to graminoides should be prohibited within sec-
tions of Solano county, California.
The FTO considered that for the following species, there
would be "some degree of adverse impact" , but that it was not
serious enough to jeopardize their existence:
gray bat (Mvoti-s gTl-»e«een«)
Indiana bat (Mvoti-s aodall-s )
The threat to these bats is ingesting insects which have
been exposed to pesticides. Since many insects are consumed in a
feeding period, the potential for bioaccumulation is high. It was
noted in the opinion that "[decent studies have documented
mortality and probable population decline in gray bats
resulting from routine pesticide usage." The Service
suggested a moni taring program be established to test for the top
-------
eight insecticides in bat guano.
whooping crane (Gttra amcricana )
The Service determined that "...[w]hile a number of corn
pesticides are know to be toxic to birds, it is not believed that
they are likely to cause any significant adverse effect on whoop-
ing ccanes (G~. amerlrata ) .
Cape Sable seaside sparrow t j*«T*THLza marltima mi.Tafrill-8 )
The principal threat to these species from pesticides is
contamination of their food sources. Unless land use patterns and
agricultural and water manangement patterns change radically, this
threat is considered unlikely since most of the impact of pesti-
cides are dampened by the buffering effects of wetlands.
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gamtelia
The Service determined that pest control in agricultural
areas would be detrimental to populations of this species. The
most serious threat would come from a reduction in its food
source or ingestion of poisoned prey. The use of pesticides in
the range of the lizard was considered insufficient grounds "to
support jeopardy", even though adverse impacts could occur.
pine barrens treef rog (Hvia attdeTwnii)
The contamination of prey insect species and water quality
degradation of tadpole habitat were cited as the principal
threats to the species as a result of pesticide use on corn. The
Service recommended that pesticides known to be hazardous to
aquatic organisms "...be used only after consultation with a
county extension agent who will recommend their use concerning
location, form, and rate to prevent aquatic contamination in
watersheds within..." the habitat of the treef rog.
Houston toad (flirfo hopstoTiBn'sia )
This species was considered not likely to come in contact
with corn pesticides.
Colorado River squawfish ( PtTcnocfaeil CT iTrei-aa)
This species was considered unlikely to be seriously harmed
because contamination would be quickly diluted and the species is
relatively widespread.
Alabama cavef ish ( SpgT>plafycfai.tm» potriLwiri.)
The opinion cited that the one threat to the species would be
be groundwater contamination as a result of pesticides pollution.
So that the species would be conserved, the Service recommended
that "pesticides toxic to fish should not be used with in the
watershed affecting key cave."
slender chub (H-ybo-pgl-a canni)
spotf in chub (H-. monarna )
Bayou darter (Etheoytcma rufarim)
yellowfish madtom (Notnr-os
snail darter (Pgrrl-na tanaai)
-------
These species ace threatened by a numbec of factors, some of
which are related to pesticide use. So that the conservation of
these species would be furthered* the Service recommended that
aerial application of "implicated pesticides" be eliminated or a
buffer zone of 1/4 mile be provided between aerially treated
areas and the aquatic habitat of these species, and/or prohibit
the use of "implicated pesticides" by ground application closer
than 100 yards from their habitats.
salt marsh bird's beak (Cor-dviantfaTia marltlnma sap.
evening-primrose (Qenotneta dei.toi.Tieg ssp. faowellli)
The habitat of these two species is close to corn growing
areas and therefore "both may be vulnerable to the use of corn
pesticides." However, since the habitat buffers the species from
most harm, the impact from pesticides was considered negligible.
The accumulated effect of , many different pesticides was con-
sidered a potentially harmful impact. The Service recommended
contacting county extension agents regarding the use of pesti-
cides in or near the habitat of these plant species.
On November 2, 1983, a letter was sent from OES to EBB to
address modifications of some of the conclusions in the corn
cluster biological opinion. These changes were that 1) the ef-
fects of DDT in Kel thane would be determined on a case-by-case
basis instead of considering contamination levels of less than
one percent as insignificant, 2)the area where pesticide use was
to be restricted to protect the Aleutian Canada goose
IgoetypaTeia) was greatly reduced, and 3)the buffer
zones prescribed for aerial application and ground application
were reduced to 100 yards and 20 yards respectively.
-------
»«• PI. T of ETrdaTittBTgu SneTi.'gB Cmi^TxieTatipus for thje
Review im cuttDTn sovfaeatK sprgfaum. ajj^ smaH gfaiTts
barlev. oat's-; atni *
1. Description of Ecological Effects Branch Review
The EEB review of each of these crop clusters
was done individually, and then considered together
as one consultation.
cotton
The EEB considered the following pesticides that are used on
cotton:
Selected pesticides used or proposed for use on field cotton -
those exceeding a listed species trigger. *
Kelthane
Haled
Dinoseb
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Dipterex
Ethion
DEF
Methonyl
Fenamiphos
Permethrin
Payoff
Disulfoton
Diaethoate
Endrin
Carbaryl
Malathion
Azinphos methyl
Chloropyrifos
Toxaphene
Aldicarb
Diflubenzuron
Curacron
Dasanit
Trifluralin
EPN
Phorate
Diazinon
Car bophenothion
Imidan
Captan
Methidathion
Pydrin
Thiodicarb
Pesticides registered on field cotton - chemicals with low order
toxicity or exposure.
arsenic acid
Cacodylic acid
MS MA
EBDC
Sodiim dalapon
Dichloran
Ferbam
Diuron
Diphenamid
Eptao
Demeton
Azodrin
Pipeconyl butoxide
Pyretheins
Botenone
Tetradifon
Prometryn
Chlocothalonil
Xylene
Carbofuran
Acephate
Lindane
Sodium cacodylate
EBDC
Chloropropham
1,3-Dichloropropene
Perthane
Dicrotophos
Linuron
Dioxathion
Giberellic acid
Metasystox-R
Chlodimeform
Aluminum phosphide
Ritrapyrin
Cryolite
Thiram
Chloropicrin
Dichlorvos
Carboxin
Bladex
Glyphosate
Fumazone
DSKA
Maneb
Chioroneb
1,2-Dich1or opropene
Dexon
Floumeturon
Busan 30
Endothal
1-Naphthaleneactic acid
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Paraquat dichloride
methyl isothiocyanate
Sulfur
Atrazine
Captafol
Terrazole
Alachlor
Dinitramine
Oryzalin
-------
Dipropetryn
Perfluidone
Metolachlor
Lucetape
Hexa decanal
2,11-Hexadecanal
2,7-Hexadecanal
Noeflucazon
Pendimethalin
Moepiquat chloride
Metalaxyl
Tetcadecaoal
2,9-Tetcadecanal
2,9-Hexadecanal
Methazole
Fluchloralin
Morpafos
Gossyplure HF
Methyl alpha-eleoateaeate
bctadecatcienoic acid
2,11-Hexadecanal
Fluazifop-butyl
Pesticides registered on field cotton - chc
information.
licals with little oc no
Lanstan
Zineb
Dibutyl phthalate
cottonseed oil
Norea
Ethylene
Hydrocyanic acid
Morpholine
Kerosene
Folez
Dacthal
MAMA.
Copper(metallic)
Chlorobenzilate
Butonate
Planavin
Ethylene dibrooide
Methyl bromide
Morpholine
Sodium chocate
Sulfucic acid
Bacillus thuringiensis
4-chloro-3,5-xylenol
Aromatic petroleum distillate
Heavy aromatic naphtha
Alkanol amine dinoseb
Ethylene glycol bis
Indole-3-butyric acid
Methylated nahthalenes
zylene range aromatic solvent
Zinc 2-pryidinethiol 1- oxide
Magnesium phosphide
Butralin
Monosodiun 2,2'-methylenebis (3,4,6-trichlorophenate)
Methylated aromatic petroleum derivatives
2-methyl-l-naphthaleneacetic acid
2-nethyl-l-naphthaleneacetamide
H-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide
Chlordimeform hydrochloride
Petroleum distillate
Polypropylene glycol
cube resins other than rotenone
soybean
The EEB considered the following pesticides that are used on
soybeans:
Pesticides registered on soybeans - those exceeding a listed
species trigger.*
Propachlor
Disyston
Haled
Trifluralin
EPN
Phorate
Diazinon
Guthion
Toxaphene
Propergite
Topsin
Thiodicarb
Cuprous Oxide
Dasanit
Dimethoate
Dinoseb
Methyl Parathion
Parathion
Trichlorfon
Chlorpyrifos
Me thorny1
Aldicarb
Dimilin
Basic Copper sulfate
Methoxychlor
Dicrotophos
Ethoprop
Carbaryl
Malathion
Carbophenothion
Endosulfan
Carbofuran
i cur
Fluchloralin
Pesticides registered on soybeans - chemicals with low or'der
-------
toricity oc exposure.
Lindane Maneb 1,3-Dichlocopcopene
Zineb Coppec sulfate Chlocoxuron
Chloconeb Sodium dalapon Sodium chlocamben
Oiquat di bromide Fee bam Diucon
Linucon Diphenemid CDEC
Vecnam PCNB Thiabendazole
Aluminum phosphide Paraquat bia Hezachlotobenzene
Sulfur Diallate Ihiram
Captan Chloropierin Chlorothalonil
DDVP Terrazole Xylene
Carboxin Alachlor Benomyl
Metribuzin Acephate Roundup
Oryzalin Bifenox Horflurazon
Metolachlor Hoelon Pendimethalin
Oxyfluorfen Mefluidide Sodium acifluorfen
laopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl) earbamate
2-Chloro-N-isopropylacetani1ide
Alkanolamine 2,4-dichlorpbenoxyacetate
Sodium N-1-naphthylphthalamate
Hypophoaphoroua 2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole
Pesticides registered on soybeans -chemicals with little or no
information.
Chevron 100 Barban streptomycin sulfate
Copper (metallic) Copper hydroxide Copper (ammonia complex)
Dibutylphthalate Magnesium dalapon Copper ammonium carbonate
Korea Sodium dinoseb Bacillus thuringiensis
Planavin Ethylene Heavy aromatic naphtha
Ethylene dibromide Methyl bromide Ammonium chlocamben
Paraquat bis Kerosene Piperonyl butoxide
Cube resins sodium chlorate Methylated naphthalines
Daethai Fluorodifen 4-Chloro-3,5-xylenol
Chlorbromuron Butralin Triethanolamine dinoseb
Magneium phosphide Cytokinins Alkanolamine dionseb
Aromatic petroleum derivative aolvent
Dimethylamine 2,3,5-triiodobenzoate
H.N Diallyl-2-chloroacetamide
Dimethylamine 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) butyrate
Copper from cuprous and cuprous oxide
Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons
sorghum
The EEB considered the following pesticides that are used
on sorghum:
Selected pesticides used or proposed for use on sorghum - those
exceeding a listed species trigger. *
Propachlor Diayston Dasanit
Diaethoate Trifluralin Fonofos
M. Parathion Carbaryl Phorate
Parathion Demeton Diazinon
-------
Carbophenothion
Toxapbene
Aldieacb
Bifenox
Ethion
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Tecbufoa
Chorpyrifoa
Cacbofuran
Methidathion
Pesticidea registered on socghum - chenicala with low or dee
toxicity or exposure.
Lindane
Phoadcia
aodium MCPA
Oiquat dibeooide
Fenaminosulf
Linuc on
Metasystox B
Mancozeb
Soditm dalapon
2,4-D
Methoxychlor
Diuron
Heptacbloc
Hezachloeobenzene
aluoinum phoaphide Piperonyl butoxide
Niteapycin iotenone
Propionic acid Thieam
Tecbuttyn Captan
Captafol Terrazole
laobutycic acid Glyphoaate
Metolachloc
Pentaeh1oe onitr obenzene
Zineb
Magnesium dalapon
aalta and estera of 2,4-D
1f 3-Dichloropeopene
Dime thylamine decamba
Malathion
Paeaquae
Pyrethrine
Sulfue
Propazine
Chloeopicein
Methorny1
Ammonium isobytyeate
Pesticides cegisteeed
information.
on aocghum - chemicals with little oe no
Chevron 100
Polyram
Coppee carbonate
Magnesium dalapon
Fee bam
ethylene
Acetic acid
Methyl bromide
Mineral oil
Silicon dioxide
Sulfur
Bensoie
Caebon disulfide
Dibutyl phehalate
Sodium dicamba
Busan
Noeea
aodium diacetate
Keeoaene
Cube resins
Sodium chlorate
Sulfue dioxide
Penta ne
Bacillus thueingiensia
Heavy aromatic naphtha
Ca'rbon tetrachloeide
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride
Formaldehyde
laopropanol
Methylated naphthalenea
Phenyl mercuric acetate
Calcium cyanide
aulfuric acid
4-Chloeo-3,5-xylenol
Zylene
Magneaium Phosphide
Aromatic petroleum derivative solvent
H,N-Dially1-2-chloroacetamide
Sodium dimethyl dithiocarbamate
Sodium-2-mer captobenzothiazole
Aliphatic petroleum hydeocaebons
Zylene range aromatic solvent
small grains
The EBB considered the following pesticides that ace used on
small grains (wheat, barley, oats, and rye).
Selected pesticides used on small grains - those exceeding a
listed species trigger.*
Trifluralin
Dinoaeb
2,4-Ddsooetyl ester)
10
-------
Endcin
Photate
Guthion
Toxaphene
Carbaryl
Malathion
Tcichlocfon
Carbofuran
Methyl Parathion
Pacathion
Endosulfan
Disyston
Pesticides registered on small grains - chc
toxicity or exposure.
licals with low order
Lindane
Dithane
Meticam
Copper sulfate
Dicamba
2,4-D
Methoxychlor
Linuron
Busan
Formaldehyde
PCNB
Pyrethrins
Nitrapyrin
Propionic acid
Atrazine
Captan
Pentane
Avenge
Metribuzin
Trans-1,2, Bis(propylsulfonyl) ethene
Nabam
Ma neb
Phosdrin
Sodiun dalapon
Sodium dicamba
MCPP
Ferbam
Diuron
Butonate
Acetic acid
Diazinon
Piperonyl butoxide
Sulfur
Triallate
Terbutryn
Terrazole
Cyanazine
Boelon
Basic Copper Sulfate
Zineb
Copper carbonate
1,3- dichloroprbpene
Dime thylamine dicamba
MCPA
SDDC
Bromozynil Butyrate
Ethylene dichloride
Sodium diacetate
Thiabendazole
Hexachlorobenzene
Paraquat dichloride
Thiram
Chloropicrin
Carboxin
Glyphosate
Chiorsulfuron
Pesticides registered on small grains - chemicals with little or
no information.
Benzoic acid Carbon disulfide
Barban Chloroform
Copper (metallic) Copper hydroxide
Dine thy lamine MCPP Cottonseed oil
Methylene chloride Hydrocyanic acid
Methyl bromide
Propylene glycol
Sodium hydroxide
Ottaeept
Chlorbromuron
Cytokinins
Kerosene
Aluminum phosphide
Sulfur dioxide
Xylene
Isobutyric acid
Methyl aromatic
derivative solvent
Bascillus thuringiensis
Carbon tetrachloride
Dibutyl phthalate
Ethylene dibromide
Metaldehyde
Methyl naphthalenes
Silicon dioxide
Sulfuric acid
Zylene range aromatic solvent
Magnesium phosphide
Heavy aromatic naphtha
Aromatic petrolet
Aromatic petroleum distillate
Sodium 2-mercaptobenzothiazolate
Alliphatic petroleum hydrocarbons
* These chemicals exceeded I/10th the mammalian LD50 or LCSO,
I/10th the avian LD50 or LCSO, or I/20th aquatic LDSOor LCSO. For
granular pesticides, the trigger for avian species is the number
of granules required to reach I/10th LD50. However, these trig-
gers are not considered serious if the number of granules re-
quired to reach 1/10 LDSO is more than an avian species vould
conceivably ingest.
EEB determined that listed mammal8, insects, and reptiles
11
-------
would not be exposed to pesticides used on cotton. 107 beans,
sorghum, and snail geaias. Listed plants were found to be un-
affected by their use since they ace not associated with cult-
ivated areas. A number of avian and molluscan species and two
amphibians were found to have a "may affect" status.
The consultation of each crop was initiated on the following
dates:
cotton - January 26, 1983
soybean - February 28, 1983
sorghum - June 1, 1983
small grains - June 10, 1983
2. Consultation Conclusion
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-83-3, October 12,1983) determined "that
the use of certain pesticides on cotton, soybeans, sorghum, and
small grains (wheat, barley, oats, and rye) "would likely jeopardize
the continued existence of the following species":
peregrine falcon (Fai.ro peregrinta )
The FWS concluded that the use of Kelthane, or any other
product with high levels of a DDT compound, would likely affect
this species. The opinion reflected the extensive documentation
of reproductive failure in raptors caused by DOT and its princi-
pal metabolites. It was noted that Kelthane in cotton alone would
not necessarly create a jeopardy situation; however because it is
used on other crops a cumulative effect might result and the
species could be threatened. So that jeopardy could be avoided,
the Service recommended that Kelthane should be manufactured to
eliminate the DDT component or a substitute should be used.
Attwater's greater prairie chicken (Tnmannrtm« en-pi-do attwateri.)
The Service determined that all of the considered crops are
grown within the range of this species. "Soybeans fields are
utilized primarily from July through September, sorghum from
February through August, and wheat and barley from October
through March. Cotton fields are not utilized to any significant
degree." As reasonable and prudent alternatives, the Service
recommended that pesticides that are toxic to avian species
should not be used within 1/4 mile of the range of the Attwater's
greater prairie chicken (Tt cmi-do attwateri) in the two counties
mentioned above.
Aleutian Canada goose (flratrta ea-na-deirai-a
Poisoning of this species could occur as a result of ingest-
ing contaminated insects, browsing on emerging green wheat and
barley plants, or picking up concentrated pesticide granules. To
avoid jeopardy, the FWS recommended that the use of non-granular
formulations be prohibited between August 30 and mid-May in
portions of the Central Valley. A recommendation was made that
granular formulations should be prohibited totally in those same
areas. The exposure of granular phorate in wheat and barley was
considered of particular concern.
12
-------
slackwater dactec (Sthgoatoma
This fish is threatened with "degradation of surface and
ground water caused by the intrusion of toxins, pesticides, and
fertilizers, as well as in industrial and domestic wastes..."
Fanning is the principal industry surrounding the darter's habi-
tat, with wheat, soybeans, and cotton being important in the
area. A minor amount of sorghum is also grown. . The event of a
small chemical spill could be devasting for a breeding population
since breeding habitat is so limited. The Service recommended
that aerial application be eliminated or provide a buffer zone of
100 yards, and/or prohibit use of "implicated pesticides" by
ground application closer than 20 yards from aquatic habitats of
this species.
Alabama lamp pearly mussel (LaBrpaiiia
Appalachian monkey-face pearly mussel (Qua'dmta marm )
Cumberland monkey-face pearly mussel (Qj_ intermedia)
dromedary pearly mussel (Promna rfrcmaa)
birdwing pearly mussel (Conrantijta eaetata )
green-blossom pearly mussel (Epiobtaama tomioaa gnbgrnaroim)
turgid-blossom pearly mussel (Ev
tan riffle shell (£2. waiter!)
pale lilliput pearly mussel (Toxolaama
fine-rayed pigtoe (Fnaconaia caneoiira)
shiny pigtoe (fi. gogarlana )
Cumberland bean pearly mussel (Vrliosa trafailis )
The major focus regarding the impact of pesticides on
mussels was on the toxic affect on the larval glochidia and
on host fish. Larval mussels attach themselves to the surface of
a host fish shortly after being released from the adult female
mussel. Since many of the pesticides used are toxic to
fish and/or aquatic invertebrate species, the potential exists
for these pesticides to be a detriment to either the larval forms
or host fish. To avoid jeopardy, the Service recommended, regard-
ing implicated pesticides, elimination of aerial application or
to provide a buffer zone of 100 yards around aquatic habitat,
and/or prohibit the use of ground application closer than 20
yards from the habitat. It was suggested that studies be
initiated to "...produce data regarding the toxicity of certain
pesticides to freshwater mussels and on actual EEC values in the
habitat of Cumber landian mussels."
woundf in (PlagopteTtta atggBtiaainnia )
Fifty percent of the woundf in (Pi aTge-ntiaaintna ) population
is found in areas where irrigation water is returned to the
river. One serious threat then, is contamination of this water
with pesticides toxic to fish. Since sorghum and small grains are grown
in close proximity to woundf in habitat, there is the potential of
exposure to pesticides that are used on corn. Jeopardy to this fish
would be precluded if those chemicals toxic to fish were not used
"...in the Virgin River drainage 40 miles either side of the
Virgin Narrows..."
valley elderberry Longhorn beetle (PgBmoccTna
J
13
-------
As one of two beetles found in agricultural areas, this
insect is only susceptible during its adult stage feom late April
to mid-Kay. The Service recommended restricting the use of
insecticides during this time with special precautions to be
taken to protect the elderberry tree, in which it spends most of
its life.
delta green ground beetle (ElapfaTTni
Since part of this beetle's habitat has been converted to
agriculture, pesticide use is a serious threat to the species.
The Service recommended prohibition of "any pesticide toxic to
carabid insects" within Solano county, California.
Kern Primrose sphinx Moth (EnnrTrseTyiTnia
The FWS determined that the lacvae of this species could be
threatened if pesticides use on small grains croplands
contaminated their host plant. Herbicides retarding the growth of
the host plant and insecticides causing mortality of pupae was
also considered a serious threat. To avoid jeopardy, the Service
recommended that small grain pesticides be prohibited within 100
yards of the habitat of this species.
Solano grass (Ortrottia inner mm ta)
This species could be threatened by herbicides use, either
from aerial spraying or runoff. The greatest danger was from
those chemicals that hinder germination. As a precaution to guard
against jeopardy, the Service recommended that the use of any
herbicide toxic to graminoidea should be prohibited within sec-
tions of Solano county, California.
The FWS considered that for the following species, there
would be "some degree of adverse impact" , but that it was not
serious enough to jeopardize their existence:
gray bat (Mvoti-a grr»e«reTO)
Indiana bat (Myoti* aoxfalla)
The threat to these bats is from ingesting insects which have
been exposed to pesticides. Since many insects are consumed in a
feeding period, the potential for bioaccumulation is high. It waa
noted in the opinion that "[decent studies have documented
mortality and probable population decline in gray bats
resulting from routine pesticide usage." The Service
suggested a monitering program be established to test for the top
eight insecticides in bat guano.
whooping crane CSr-aa ametlra-na )
The Service determined that "... . [wjhile a number
pesticides are known to be toxic to birds, it is not believed that
they are likely to cause any significant adverse effect on whoop-
ing cranes (Gj. amcrlrana ) .
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gamtetla
The Service determined that pest control in agricultural
areas would be detrimental to populations of this species. The
14
-------
most serious threat would come from a reduction in its food
source or ingestion of poisoned prey. The use of pesticides in
the range of the lizard was considered insufficient grounds "to
support jeopardy", even though adverse impacts could occur.
pine barrens treefrog (Hvia
The contamination of prey insect species and water quality
degradation of tadpole habitat were cited as the principal
threats to the species as a result of pesticide use on corn. The
Service recommended that pesticides known to be hazardous to
aquatic organisms "...be used only after consultation with a
county extension agent who will recommend their use concerning
location, form, and rate to prevent aquatic contamination in
watersheds within..." the habitat of the treefrog.
Colorado River squawfish (PtTgfaorfagitqa ITO.TM)
This species was considered unlikely to be seriously harmed
because contamination would be quickly diluted and the species is
relatively widespread.
Alabama cavef ish ( Spcopia-tyrfaintra ponl-roni)
The opinion cited that the one threat to the species would
be groundwater contamination as a result of pesticides pollution.
So that the species would be conserved, the Service recommended
that "pesticides toxic to fish should not be used with in the
watershed affecting key cave."
slender chub (Hrbop^i-s cantri.)
Bayou darter (EtfaeMtpma rubtuni)
yellowfish madtom (Notnr-na flavi-piimi» )
snail darter (Fercim tamai)
These species are threatened by a number of factors, some of
which are related to pesticide use. So that the conservation of
these species would be furthered, the Service recommended that
aerial application of "implicated pesticides" be eliminated or a
buffer zone of 100 yards be provided between aerially treated
areas and the aquatic habitat of these species, and/or prohibit
the use of "implicated pesticides" by ground application closer
than 20 yards from their habitats.
15
-------
pi. Endangered Sperlea eoTOi-dBTatimM for_ t&e. Forest
Beview
1. Description of Ecological Effects Branch Beviev
The EEB considered the following pesticides that ace used on
forest areas:
Selected pesticides registered for forestry use that exceed a
avian listed species trigger. *
Matacil
Methyl Parathion
Trichlocfon
Acephate
Fenitrothion
Selected pesticides registered for forestry use that exceed a
aquatic listed species trigger.*
2,4-DP
Matacil
Methyl Parathion
Carbaryl
Trichlocfon
Fenitrothion
Diflubenzucon
Selected pesticides registered for forestry use that exceed a
plant listed species trigger.*
Amitrol
Picloran
Ammonium Sulfamate
Cacodylic acid
Dichlobenil
Dalapon
2,4-DP
Mylone
Diphenamid
EPTC
Paraquat
Atrazine
Simazine
Glyphosate
Fosamine ammonium
Hexazinone
* These chemicals exceeded I/10th the mammalian LD50 or LC50,
I/10th the avian LD50 or LC50. or I/20th aquatic L050 or LCSO.
For granular pesticides, the trigger for avian species is the
number of granules required to reach I/10th LD50. However, these
triggers are not considered serious if the number of granules
required to reach I/10th LD50 is more that an avian species would
conceivably ingest.
16
-------
Pesticides registered foe forestry use with low ocdec toxicity
oe exposure.
Amitcol
Piclocam
Ammoniun Sulfamate
Bacillus thuringiensis
Borax
Cacodylic acid
Sodium arsenit
MS MA
Dalapon
2,4-D
Methoxychlor
Mylone
diphenamid
Mexacar bate
1-Naphthalene acetic acid
Paraquat
Piperonil butoxide
Pyrethrias
Sodium cyanide
Sulfue
Atrazine
Simazine
Chloropierin
Benomyl
Glyphosate
Fosamine Ammonium
Hexazinone
Polyhedral
Polyhedral
Displalure
Triclopyr
(E) + (2)-9-dodecenyl acetate
Chlorphacinone
Diphacinone
inclusion bodies HPV
inclusion bodies of N. sertifer
Pesticides registered for forestry use with little or no informa-
tion.
Aromatic petroleum derivative solvent
Chevron
Benzene hexachloride
Cresylic acid, coal tar acids
Cyclohexanone
Dichlobenil
Dibutyl phthalate
1,2-di ch 1 or opr opa ne
Ziram, cyclohexylamine complex
Methyl bromide
Kerosene
Mineral oil
Aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbon
Pyridine
4-chlor o-3,5-xylenol
Xylene
Xylene range aromatic solvent
Asulam
EEB determined that a number of endangered fish, mo Husks,
birds, and plants could be potentially affected by the use of
pesticides in forest regions.
The consultation on this cluster was initiated on March 9,
1984.
2. Consultation Conclusions
The FWS (FWS/OES EPA-84-6, October 25, 1984) determined that
the use of certain pesticides on forest areas would likely jeo-
pardize the "continued existence of the following species and
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat if such use occurs within or adjacent to the
17
-------
occupied cange of these species.":
Kit t land' s warbler (flenriTtri.ga fciTfiandii)
red-cockaded woodpecker (Plgoitte» faorgatla )
These two avian species were the only endangered birds with
"significant potential for exposure. " As a reasonable and prudent
alternative to preclude jeopardy, the Service recommended that
those chemical a which exceeded the aviain triggers should not be
used within the habitat of these species.
Apache trout (Salmo a-uarhe)
Gila trout ($?„ eiiae)
greenback cutthroat trout (§5. etarfci stomiaa )
Lahontan cutthroat trout (Si ciagfcL hemhawl)
little keen golden trout (81 aanafeonita
Paiute cutthroat trout (8- ctatfti
bonytail chub (fiila elema)
humpback chub (65. cnrtia)
spotf in chub (Hybo-paia moaarha)
slender chub (H- eafani)
leopard darter (Pereita patttfaggim )
Maryland darter (gtfacostoma seliafe)
Okalossa darter (Si oteaiooaag )
slackwater darter ( Er. faoyctmmri)
snail darter (PeT-eim tatiaai)
yellowfin madtom (Not-ortia f lavl-nl-nni's )
scioto madtom (N-. ttantmairi.)
Colorado river squawf ish ( Ptvchocfaeil'o»
The use of those chemicals which exceeded the aquatic trig
gers were considered likely to jeopardize the above species.
These chemicals "...would adversely affect the fishes directly
and/or destroy their invertebrates prey species." So that jeop-
ardy would be precluded, the Service recommended that those
chemicals mentioned above "...not be used within or adjacent to
the habitat of these fish species."
Chittenango ovate amber snail (Sirecinea
flat-spined three-toothed snail
Iowa Pleistocene snail (Pi/rena mareiltrtoefci )
noonday snail (Mgsoifam eiarfci nantaha-ia)
painted snake coiled forest snail (Anq-BiT»ricTa picta)
Virginia fringed mountain snail (Pulvuyiiingga vJ
Alabama lamp pearly mussel (laayalii-a
Appalachian monkey face pearly mussel (froa-drnia
birdwing pearly mussel (€onra'dT'iiia cadata )
Cumberland bean pearly mussel (VitlTysa trafalla)
Cumberland monkey face pearly mussel (.§3. rntgrme tH.a )
Curtis^ pearly mussel (Epioirlaama florgntina
dromedary pearly mussel (SrtmTM drtmca)
green-blossom pearly mussel (E~ torttioaa
Higgin's eye pearly mussel (Lam-M-til-a
orange-footed pearly mussel (MBtfaofaaa-oa
.pale lilliput pearly mussel (To«olaama crllndrgtia)
18
-------
pink mucket pearly mussel (1» orMmiata)
tubeccled-blossom pearly mussel (81 tomto»a trpr-niosa )
white cat's pav pearly mussel (fc stricata delirata)
white wactyback pearly mussel
yellow-blossom pearly mussel (fc fiwentiTia f lot^ntiia )
fine-rayed pigtoe (Fnsronaia ecnctriTia)
rough pigtoe (PlenTO-fagTa plcnam)
shiny pigtoe (F- edgariam )
fat pocketbook (Potamlfna cacaac)
tan rif fleshell (Ei waltetl)
These mollusks were considered likely to be jeopardized by
those chemicals exceeding the aquatic triggers. As a reasonable
and prudent alternative to preclude jeopardy, the indicated chem-
icals should not be used within or adjacent to the habitat of the
above mollusks.
chapman rhododendrin (H nottottetnirTm ctaapmanil)
hairy rattleweed (flapci-Bia
persistent trillium (Triill-pm
green pitcher plant (SaTtarroia
Virginia round-leaf birch (fletoia cfaer)
small wheeled pogonia (l»otrla
no them wild monkshood (AronitTim
Furbish lousewort (PettiCTiaTla fnrbJTBfaiare)
Florida tocreya (?)
mountain golden heather (Hc'daonia montatn)
These plant species would likely be jeopardized by those
chemicals exceeding plant triggers. As a reasonable and prudent
alternative, the Service recommended that these chemicals not be
used within or adjacent to the habitat of the above plant spe-
cies.
The Service also recommended that the forest herbicides not
be used in the habitat of the Flagstaff pennyroyal. This species
was proposed for listing as a threatened species on June 29,1983.
19
-------
of Endangered Specie? Cottyider at±pr» for tfa^
Tj5f_ Mo so into LatvT.cs.TJB
1. Description of Ecological Effects Branch Beviev
The EEB considered the following pesticides that ace used as
mosquito lacvicide:
Pesticides used as mosquito lacvicides which exceed an endangeeed
species trigger.
Methoxychlor
Naled
O-ethyl-o-(p-nitrophenyl) phenylphosphonothioate (EPH)
Fenthion
Methyl pa rath ion
Ethyl parathion
Malathion
Temephos
Chlorpyrifos
Methoprene
Pesticides used as mosquito lacvicide a which exceed a
fish/aquatic invertebrate trigger.
Methoxychlor
Naled
EPN
Fenthion
Methyl parathion
Ethyl parathion
Malthion
Temephos
Chlorpyeifos
Pyrethrins
Methoprene
Pesticides used as mosquito larvicide which exceeds an avian
dietary trigger.
Methoxychlor
Naled
EPN
Fenthion
Methyl parathion
Ethyl parathion
Malathion
Temephos
Chlorpyrifos
Pyrethrins
Methoprene
Pesticides used as mosquito larvicides with low toxicity or
exposure.
Allethrin
20
-------
Lindane
Facaeichlocobenzene
2,2-Dichlocovinyl dimethyl phosphate
Remethcin
Pesticides used as mosquito lacvicides with little oe no
information.
d-Trans-allethrin
6-Butoxy-6*-thiocyano diethyl ethec
6-Thiocyanoethyl esters of mixed fatty acids
2-Butoxyethanol
Ccesylic acid
Coal tar neutral oils
Sodium oleate
Dinethrin
Isobomyl thiocyanoacetate
Bacillus thuringensis
Aromatic petroleum derivative solvent
chevron 100
Heavy aromatic naphtha
Methylated napthalines
N-octyl biyclobeptene dicarboxiaide
l-l'-Methylenedi-2-naphthol monosodiun salt of squaxin
Orthodichlorobenzene
bentachlorobenzene
Keresene
Mineral oil
aliphatic petroleum hydrocarbon
Phenol
Biperonyl butoxide ether
Tetrachloroethylene
Isooctyl phenoxy polyethoxy ethanol
soap
4-Chloco3,5-eylenol
Xylene
Xylene range aromatic solvent
Tect-alkyl amine (100Z c!8-c22)
Propoxon
The EEB determined that the uae of mosquito larvicide would
involve "...extensive acreage and varied types of habitat..." and
that "...many endangered species could be exposed to [this type
of pesticide]." Since several mosquito lacvicides are toxic to
wildlife, EEB concluded that their use "...could cause adverse
effects to endangered invertebrates, fish, mammal, and/or birds."
The consultation was initiated on March 9, 1984.
2. Consultation Conclusion
The FtfS (FWS/OES EPA-84-5, October 25, 1984) determined
"...that the use of certain mosquito larvicide [would] likely..."
jeopardize the continued existence of the following listed
species and result in the destruction or adverse modifications of
designated critical habitat:
21
-------
gray bat (MvtTS
Indiana bat (Jjs. aonaii-s)
Hawaiian hoacy bat (Lag-rona cinergna aentrtn«)
Ozack big-eared bat (Plgrofna townsendii
Virginia big-eaced bat (F; towmenall
The Service determined that these bat species would be
jeopardized by the use of aosquito lacvicide. The critical habi-
tat of the Virginia big-eared bat (£L towrtrenrii.! virginianna )
and the Indiana bat (M-. soTJalia ) was considered likely to be
adversely modified by the use of mosquito larvieide. The prin-
ciple hazards for these bats are active poisoning due to con-
sumption of affected insects and decreasing food supplies. The
Service was unable to delineate areas where these pesticides
should not be used since they "...are already registered and many
have been in use for a long time, and because bats have broad
geographical distribution." Aa a prudent and reasonable alterna-
tive, the FWS recommended establishing a monitering program to
ascertain if bats are being affected by those products listed as
exceeding the endangered species triggers.
salt marsh harvest mouse (g eitnTPTtenttmyg
This species would likely be jeopardized by the use of
Fenthion and Ethyl pa rath ion. The only alternative was to avoid
the usage of these two chemicals within its habitat.
Havaiian coot (gnllea amcr-irana alai)
Hawaiian stilt fH1"HTffT?r~ ilTgntt«m» fcimtfaem)
Hawaiian duck (Anaa wwiUlana )
Hawaiian gallinule (CallT-mtig entogmma
Marianas mallard (Ana« onataigta)
light-footed clapper
rail (Rait TII tlggiroytgi's
California clapper rail (R- itynglttystrl'a
Yuma clapper rail (g~
Aleutian Canada goose (Brant a eana-denai's
Mississippi sandhill
crane (St-na eana denai» ontla)
whooping crane (6-s amer-iraTia )
Everglade kite (go^ttfaamna sociatili-s
California least tern (Sterna antitlartm browni)
These avian species were considered threatened by Fenthion,
Methyl pa rath ion, and temephos. The Service determined that the
critical habitat of the Mississippi sandhill crane (€- canaTtemriv
whooping crane (fe amefiram ) . and the Everglade kite (g~
ptTmte-oa ) woudl likely be adversly modified by the use
of these three chemicals. These findings were based on tozicity
to avian species and destruction of aquatic prey species. As a
reasonable and prudent alternative, the Service recommended that
these chemicals should not be used in or near the aquatic habitat
of these species.
Alabama cavef ish ( SpeotriafrcciTma
Mohave tui chub (6iia fat-color
slender chub (HTOOOTTI cafam)
spotf in chub (H-s monarfaa)
22
-------
( R falitirfa th YB ovcrAin
(R- o«rtit-CT thermal xa)
(Moaca eorlarea )
( Etfagpat oma r ubt urn)
(Pgrrina pantherina )
(Pgrrina tana»i)
5. nscfaalg)
(61
ash meadows speckled
dace
kendall warm springs
dace
Moapa dace
bayou dace
foutain darter
leopard darter
Maryland darter
Okaloosa darter
slackwater darter
snail darter
watercress darter
big bend gambusia
clear creek gambusia
amiatad gambusia
Pecos gambusia
San Marcos gambusia
Pahrunp killifish
Scioto madtom
yellowfish madtom
ash meadows amargosa
pupf ish (CvurliKKlon nevmteuitia
Comanche springs pupf ish (Cj.
devel's hole pupfish
Leon springs pupfish
Owens river pupfish
warm springs pupfish
unarmored threespine
stickleback
gila topminnow
woundfin
(Ci nofaiii-B )
( Eametrirfatfay* tato» )
(Nofar-n« ttaotmani)
(Ci
(€» berimn)
(Ci
(PtagopteTTO argettti uaiiuus )
These fish species would be affected by those chemicals
listed as exceeding fish/aquatic invertebrates triggers. This
threat would be mainly from the loss of food sources upon which
the fish depend. To avoid jeopardy, the Service recommended
prohibiting the use of these products in the habitat of the above
fish species.
Al
ibama lamp pearly mussel (tamralll^ vireseen»)
Appalachian monkeyface
pearly mussel
birdwing pearly mussel
Cumberland bean pearly musse
Curtis' pearly mussel
dromedary pearly mussel
green-blossom pearly mussel
Biggin's pearly mussel
Nicklin's pearly mussel
orange-footed pearly mussel
pale lilliput pearly mussel
pink mucket pearly mussel
Tampico pearly mussel
tubercled-blossom pearly
(Ctynrattitla cactata)
/ «1 ^.J. — «- 9 ^j —-•
VCpTPPTa iilUU TTUL HTHCTTg
(Jta
tortrlpsa )
E£. falggJ.Tl«i)
(Megalpnaiaa nirfctlneana)
cotypBT^anna )
23
-------
mussel (Si. troc-nlo»a tonripsa)
turgid-blossom pearly aussel (£5. fnr«.Thita )
white cat's paw pearly miiaaalCg^ sxrt-eata deiicata)
white vartyback pearly mussel (HfiXhBJzassS.
yellow-blossom pearly mussel (£5. •far-entitia fiofentita )
f ine-cayed pigtoe
rough pigtoe
shiny pigtoe
fat pocketback (gptamllTta
tan riffle shell (&L
hay's spring amphipod ( Sfy»otTomq«
Madison cave isopod (Antro-tana lisa.)
Soccorro isopod (TngnaoOTfaaCToma
Kentucky cave shrimp (?)
The above species would likely be jeopardized by the use of
those chemicals that exceeded the trigger for aquatic inverte-
brates. As a reasonable and prudent alternative, these chemicals
should not be used in the habitat of the above species.
24
-------
Section 0
Summaries of pesticide poisoning incidents involving endangered species
PESTICIDE POISONING INCIDENT REPORT
GRAY BAT
DATE OF INCIDENT: 23 June, 1980
14 July, 1981
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Hunter Cave, Boone County, Missouri
Devil's Icebox Cave, Boone County, Missouri
SPECIES: Gray Bat (Mvjp£u. gri«Me«.M)
STATUS: Endangered
PESTICIDE: Dieldrin, Heptachlor
Summary of Incidents
In 1980 and 1981, six endangered gray bats were poisoned
by the pesticide dieldrin (Clark et al. 1983). Following
analysis for organochlorine residues, researchers reported
that the lowest concentration of this insecticide in the
brains of the six bats exceeded the minimum lethal level
observed in experimentally poisoned laboratory rats, dogs
and shrews. Four of the six dead bats also contained
brain levels of the pesticide heptachlor epoxide in excess
of the minimum lethal level which has been measured
experimentally in birds.
Three of the six poisoned' bats were found in June, 1980 in
Hunter Cave. These bats Were part of a group of 18 dead
individuals found on the cave floor. Hunter Cave was
revisited in July, 1981. No mortality was observed.
The second group of bats was collected on July 14, 1981
from a group of twenty-four dead gray bats in Devil's
Icebox Cave Twenty-five decomposed bats had been found in
the cave in September, 1980. Due to their state of decay
none were collected for analysis.
While it is certain that the bats died from dieldrin
poisoning, it is more difficult to determine the source of
exposure. Clark et al. C1983) hypothesized that the bats
were exposed to a heavily contaminated feeding site after
a change in feeding localaty. Devil's Icebox Cave is a
substantial distance (120 km) from a third cave where bat
mortality from dieldrin poisoning had occurred in 1976-78
(Fleming et al. 1983). Since travel between bat colonies
is exceedingly rare, the authors concluded that the
sources of contamination are geographically distinct.
Further, based on the distance between caves where diel-
drin poisoning occurred, dieldrin contamination may exist
-------
across larger areas than was previously believed (Clark
et al. 1983).
Use of aldrin and heptachlor in Missouri
Clark et al. (1983) theorize that aldrin and heptachlor
were the sources of observed dieldrin residues. Aldrin
(dieldrin's parent compound), was applied to Missouri
cornfields to control cutworms until 1974 when EPA sus-
pended registrations for most uses and prohibited further
production of aldrin and dieldrin. This action resulted
from EPA's determination that aldrin and dieldrin posed a
cancer risk to humans; environmental effects of these
pesticides were given little atten-tion in the suspension
proceedings. The sale and use of existing stocks of these-
pesticides was, however, permitted.
With the suspension of aldrin's registration, the state of
Missouri recommended heptachlor as a substitute. Al-
though EPA acted in 1978 to cancel most registrations of
this pesticide, its use was "phased out" in Missouri.
Heptachlor use stopped throughout the state in 1981 (Clark
et al. 1983). There is no evidence that EPA considered the
risks to bats in association with this action or in
association with the three-year lag in cessation of hepta-
chlor use.
All uses of aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor have now been
cancelled with the exception of subsurface ground inser-
tion for termite control (EPA 1985).
Previous accounts of pesticide residues in bats
According to Clark (1981), the first bat deaths directly
attributable to chemical contaminants in the environment
occurred in 1949 and 1950 (Benton 1951, Dalquest 1953)
when DDT was applied directly to bats or their roosts.
Surveys which measured residues of organochlorines in
free-living bats were conducted throughout the 1970's, and
provided strong evidence that bat populations may exper-
ience major mortality due to organochlorine insecticides.
Exposure could come about through agricultural application
of such insecticides or through the food chain (Geluso et
al. 1976, Clark et al. 1978).
In addition to the 1980 and 1981 poisonings, gray bat
mortalities due to dieldrin poisoning have been reported
in Franklin County, Missouri in 1976, 1977 and 1978 (Clark
et al. 1983). Estimated numbers of bats in the affected
colonies totaled 1800 in 1976 and 1978. No bats were
found in these caves in 1979.
Relative vulnerability of bats to organochlorines
Organochlorines are highly soluble in fat and are quickly
-------
taken up by this substance shortly after entering the
bloodstream. If the animal is in good condition with fat
reserves, and pesticides are not consumed in abnormally
large amounts, pesticide levels which might be lethal to
individuals with low body fat can be metabolized.
When fat is metabolized during periods of increased ac-
tivity, residues concentrate remaining amounts of this
substance. The level of fat in the brain, however, is
independent of changes in body fat and remains stable as
body fat is changing. During periods of stress when body
fat is decreasing, residues may. build to lethal levels in
the brain. Also, the affinity of these substances for fat
results in heavy pesticide excretions in the milk of
mammals. Organochlorine residues are thus passed through
to the young (Clark 1981).
Bats do not seen to be extraordinarily more sensitive
to pesticides than do other mammals, as was once thought
(Clark 1981). However, the life history of these mammals
may make them vulnerable to organochlorines. For in-
stance, bats encounter more of these pesticides through
the food chain than do herbivores. Because these animals
are active at night, and some pesticide-application re-
gulations permit spraying only at night, bats may be
exposed to greater levels of pesticides. High metabolic
rates and energy output demand that bats consume compara-
tively more food for their body size and weight than do
other animals. Bats are at further risk because of the
regular periods of build up of body fat and relatively
rapid depletion of fat reserves during migration, or slow
but extreme depletion during hibernation. Since the young
are nourished with milk, their exposure is increased.
Further, the bat's long life span and low reproductive
rate not only increase exposure but prevent rapid recovery
of depleted populations (Clark 1981).
It is not as yet known what effects pesticides may be
having on the reproductive capacity of bats, acoustic
behavior or hibernation metabolism. Devastating effects
on these aspects of bat physiology are certainly possible
(Clark 1981), and thus could impede or prevent the re-
covery of the gray bat.
Lack of responsive action by EPA
Although production of dieldren was prohibited by EPA in
1974 with the exception of some minor uses, dieldren has
been implicated in gray bat mortality in 1976, 1977, 1980
and 1981, up to seven years after cancellation of major
uses of this pesticide. Potentially dangerous concentra-
tions of heptachlor, the pesticide which was used in place
of dieldrin in Missouri until 1981, have been found in
gray bats (Clark et al. 1983). There is no evidence that
EPA knew of these mortalities prior to the publication of
-------
scientific articles on this subject or, once aware of the
problem, investigated the manner in which bats were ex-
posed to these pesticides after their cancellation.,
LITERATURE CITED
Benton, A.B. 1951. Effects on wildlife of DDT used for
control of Dutch Elm Disease. J. Wildl. Manage.
15(1):20-27.
Clark, D.R., R.K. LaVal, and D.M. Svineford. 1978.
Dieldrin- induced mortality in an endangered species, the
gray bat (MTOCJB grMCMBtra). Science. 199(4335):1357-
1359.
Clark, Donald R. 1981. Bats and Environmental Contam-
inants: A Review. U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report-Wildlife
Ho. 235. Washington, D.C. 27pp.
Clark, Donald R., Richard L. Clawson, and Charles J.
Stafford. 1983. Gray bats killed by dieldrin at two
additional Missouri cavea: aquatic nacroinvertebrates
found dead. Bull. Envir. Contam. Toxicol. 30:214-
218.
Dalquest, W.W. 1953. Mammals of the Mexican state of San
Luis Fotosi. Louisiana State Univ. Studies, Biol. Sci.
Serv. 1. 233pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Suspended,
cancelled and restricted pesticides. Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Sub. Compliance Monitoring. Washington, DoC.
29pp.
Fleming, W. James, and Donald R. Clark. 1983. Organo-
chlorine pesticides and PCSa: a continuing problem for
the 1980s. Trana. N. Amer. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf.
48:186-199.
Geluso, K.H., J.S. Altenbach, and D.B. Wilson. 1976. Bat
mortality: pesticide poisoning and migratory stress.
Science. 194(4261):184-186.
-------
PESTICIDE POISONING INCIDENT REPORT
BALD EAGLE
DATE OF INCIDENT: 20 March 1984
3 April 1984
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Section 12, Washington Township, Jackson
County, Iowa
SPECIES: Bald Eagle (
STATUS: Endangered
PESTICIDE: Fenthion
Suomary of Incident
A dead eagle was found on March 20, 1984 on a farm in
north central Section 12, Washington Township. On
April 3, 1984, four dead eagles vere found under a known
roost tree on a farm in the northwest corner of Section
12, Washington Township, Jackson County, Iowa. According
to the FWS, these five bald eagles were poisoned by the
pesticide fenthion.
These poisonings were the result of ingestion of a pig
which had been treated with fenthion. This pesticide is
registered for use on swine for the control of ectopara-
sites. The treated pig had been discarded in a field
frequented by eagles sometime after its treatment and
subsequent death due to unknown causes. Pig remains were
found alongside the four eagles and also in each of the
eagle stomachs, (per. comm. from Walter Kocal, FWS region
3)
The five eagles that died from exposure to fenthion ex-
hibited inhibition of cholinesterase activity ranging from
80 to 92 percent (x - 87). A 50-percent inhibition in
cholinesterase activity in the brain is considered to be
indicative of potentially lethal exposure to an anti-
cholinesterase agent. Fenthion was found in the stomach
contents of all five eagles (FWS analytical report- dated
May 25, 1984).
Current status of fenthion
.Fenthion is not a restricted use pesticide; it can be
purchased and used by the general public. Precautionary
statements on the label state that "(t)his product is
toxic to fish, birds, and other wildlife. Keep out of
lakes, streams, or ponds. Do not contaminate water by
cleaning of equipment, or disposal of wastes. Apply this
-------
product only as specified on this label."
Further label precautions prohibit treatment of sick, con-
valescent or stressed animals and treatment of swine
within 14 days prior to slaughter.
Conclusions
There is no evidence that EPA investigated the poisoning
incidents. Since the fatality of an endangered species is
one criterion for triggering the Special Review process,
the death of the eagles should have triggered a review of
Fenthion. At the same time, the agency should have ini-
tiated a consultation with the OES.
-------
PESTICIDE POISONING INCIDENT REPORT
CALIFORNIA CONDOR
DATE OF INCIDENT: Carcass found November 23, 1984
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Snedden Ranch, Kern County, California
SPECIES: California Condor (Gvuiuuftvus californianna)
STATUS: Endangered
PESTICIDE: Sodium Cyanide
Summary of Incident
On November 23, 1984, a dead juvenile female condor was
found on the Snedden Ranch, Kern County, in Southern
California (letter of Associate Director of the FWS, Jan-
uary 31, 1984). The body was located 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile
from a discharged M-44, a spring-loaded coyote control
device designed to discharge sodium cyanide into the
mouth*
The body was sent to the Office of the County Veterinarian
at the San Diego County Operations Center for analysis.
An additional examination was conducted at the San Diego
Zoo. The carcass was examined for the presence of yellow
flourescent particles derived from yellow tracerite, a
component of the H-44. These particles were observed in
samples from the condor's mouth and from the tongue-
larynx-hyoid bone complex.
The Service has concluded that the condor was killed by
the H-44. Placement of the H-44 in condor range was in
violation of use restrictions on this device.
Changes in M-44 Use in California
While investigating the cause of death and any potential
hazards of M-44 to condors, the Fish and Wildlife Service
removed all such devices from the ranch where the condor
was found. The Service now requires that M-44's be placed
at ground level under materials to decrease their visi-
bility to condors, that all carcasses of animals killed by
M-44's be removed from condor range, and that M-44's be
deployed singly to reduce the possibility of condor expo-
sure.
-------
Conclusions
The use of M-44s in condor range is in direct conflict
with one of the use restrictions for this device
as established by EPA:
The M-44 device shall not be used in areas where
threatened or endangered species might be adversely af-
fected (EPA Registration No. 6704-75, May 21, 1976).
There is no evidence that the Environmental Protection
Agency investigated the circumstances in the condor's
death, nor reevaluated the use restrictions of M-44 use
for which they are responsible. EPA was involved in
subsequent consultations to reexamine M-44 use within
condor range.
-------
PESTICIDE POISONING INCIDENT REPORT
BROWN PELICAN
DATE OF INCIDENT: 1982, 1983,1984
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Teresa Lagoon, Puerto Rico
SPECIES: Brovn Pelican (Peigeattcs occidental!*)
STATUS: Endangered
PESTICIDE: Lindane, Diazinone (suspect)
Sunary of Incidents
A preliminary diagnosis of seven brown pelicans undertaken
in June, 1982, revealed that five of the birds may have
died from consunption of toxic chemicals (letter to Ague-
tin Valido, from Richard Stroud. 10 June 1982). Diazanon
or tozaphene were suspect in one of the birds. In a second
1982 incident, three brown pelicans were preliminarily
diagnosed as having ingested toxic chemicals which result-
ed in their death (National Wildlife Health Laboratory -
Necropsy Report. 26 Nov. 1982). All of the pelicans were
collected from a golf course in Teresa Lagoon, Hunaeao,
Puerto Rico, on 16 November 1982. The 3 birds were part
of a group of 23 pelicans found dead or dying from 8
November to 16 November. Egrets and blue herons were also
found dying in the same area.
The deaths occurred following application of the insecti-
cides diazinone and lindane. A period of rain the morning
after treatment may have concentrated the pesticides in
the water of the lagoon. There are records of past
spills of heavy metals and pesticides in this area (Tele-
phone report. Don Schulles. 17 Nov. 1982).
In 1983, six pelicans were found dead in the same area as
the 1982 mortalities (NWHL Contact Report. Don Schulles.
6 June 1983).
An estimated seventy to one hundred pelicans were found
sick or dead in the same area from late March to early
July, 1984 (memo from Felix Lopez of 31 July, 1984). Most
of the birds were juveniles.
Discussion
A firm conclusion as to the cause or causes of death of
the pelicans is difficult to draw, since the available
-------
evidence IB in part circiaistantial. However, pesticides
should not be ruled out as a factor in the die-off.
Two of the three pelicans comprising the second 1982
group tested positive for type C botulism, (Letter of
Richard Stroud, Director, PWRC. 17 Jan 1983). Since there
is some evidence that botulism toxin is an anti-cholines-
terase (Letter of Richard Stroud, Laboratory Diagnos-
tician, NWHL. 5 Sept 1984), the use of cholinesterase
inhibition as an indicator of pesticide contamination is
weakened. The conclusion as to the cause of death is
therefore uncertain.
Conelusioaa
The Enviroanental Protection Agency investigated other
problems of contamination on the island of Puerto Rico,
and knew of the pelican mortalities. Despite this, there
was no investigative or remedial action by EPA.
-------
PESTICIDE POISONING INCIDENT REPORT
MANATEE
DATE OF INCIDENT: Poisoning potential exists
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Throughout range of manatee in U.S.
SPECIES: West Indian Manatee (Trirtaecfairs manatn*)
SJATUS: Endangered
PESTICIDE: Komeen (copper salts)
Summary of Potential Risk
Copper concentrations have been detected in livers of the
West Indian manatee. Affected individuals were found in
areas of high copper herbicide use (O'Shea et al. 1984).
These concentrations were at levels which have been as-
sociated with toxic effects in some domestic animals and,
in some cases, exceeded all previously reported con-
centrations found in any species of wild mammals from
free-ranging populations.
Tissue samples were obtained from dead manatees found
throughout Florida from October 1977 through January 1981
(O'Shea et al. 1984) While concentrations of copper in
other wild mammals generally exhibit narrower ranges and
relatively low variation, copper concentrations in the
livers of manatees were found to be variable. Maximum
concentrations in other wild mammals have been well below
those of Florida manatees. According to O'Shea et al.
(1984), there is some evidence that manatees may be inef-
ficient in maintaining copper homeostasis concurrent with
a dietary excess of this element; this could produce toxic
effects (Denton et al. 1980).
Use and impact of copper herbicides on Florida manatees
Copper is used in Florida to control aquatic weeds. Due
to its high toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates,
copper is usually applied at concentrations of 1.0 parts
per million or less. Even at these levels, fish and
invertebrate mortality can occur (NAS 1977).
Aquatic vegetation takes up very high amounts of copper
during weed control operations (O'Shea 1983). Laboratory
and field studies have shown that vegetation commonly
eaten by manatees can contain up to SOOOppm of copper for
two to three weeks before plant dealth and disintegration.
-------
Such effects have been measured in Florida folloving ap-
proved treatment methods.
The use of copper as a means of aquatic weed control could
therefore have harmful effects on this endangered species
(O'Shea 1984). For instance, when the capacity of the
liver to store and excrete copper is exceeded, gross
liver damage occurs. In one to several days following
maximum copper metabolism by the liver, large amounts of
copper are released into the bloodstream, hemolysis of.
erythroucytes occurs and death ensues.
Repeated treatments of aquatic vegetation, particularly
during the winter months when manatees are experiencing
elevated levels of stress, prolong the potential for
chronic exposure (O'Shea 1983). This researcher has
stated that "it is prudent to suggest that less toxic and
less persistent alternative herbicides be used for control
of aquatic weeds in areas of high manatee population
density."
Conclusions
Despite references to possible herbicide impacts in the
recovery plan for this species, and in light of evidence
that copper herbicides may be impacting this endangered
mammal, there is no evidence that the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has taken steps to investigate the use of
copper herbicides in manatee range.
LITERATURE CITED
Oenton, G.R.W. , H. Harsh, G.E. Heinsohn, and C. Bur don-
Jones. 1980. The unusual metal status of the Dugong
dngo-ng. Mar . Biol . 57 : 201-219 .
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Medical and biologic
effects of environmental pollutants: copper. M.A.S.,
Washington, D.C. 115pp.
O'Shea, T.J. 1983. A review of three aquatic herbicides
in relation to their potential hazards to the endangered
West Indian manatee (Tricfaeefana ma^yy^- Memo of 16
June to Biologist, Sirenia Project, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Denver Wildl. Res. Center,
Gainesville, FL. 15pp.
O'Shea, T.J., J.F. Moore, and H. I. Kochman. 1984. Con-
taminant concentrations in manatees in Florida. J.
12
-------
Wildl. Manage. 48(3):741-748.
Button, D.L., L.W. Weidon and R.D. Blackburn. 1970. Ef-
fect of diquat on uptake of copper in aquatic plants.
Weed Science 18:703-707.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. West Indian
manatee recovery plan. Washington, D.C. 33pp.
13
-------
Table 1. Sumnary of QPP/GES Case-by-case Endangered Species Consultation from 198O through 1984
PRODUCT
REGULATORY
ACTION
CONSULTATION
INITIATED
CONSULTATION
RESULTS
REASONABLE 6
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
ADOPTED PROCEDURAL
EEB/RD COMPLIANCE
Matacil
conditional
registration
4/8O
jeopardy tot
Chitteango ovate
snail
- exclude metacil from
critical watershed; or
- provide additional
data
?/no
yes
Lasso
label
amendment
8/8O no jeopardy
notes not in compliance because registration was completed before consultation
no
Zinc label
Phosphide amendment
9/8O jeopardy tot - prohibit use in habitat
salt marsh harvest mouse yes/yes yes
Morro Bay kangaroo rat
Utah prairie dog
Puerto Rican plain pigeon
yellow shouldered blackbird
Attwaters greater prairie
chicken (AGPC)
Aleutian Canada goose
Whooping crane
Laysan finch
Nihoa finch
notes the FWS determined later that the two finches were not jeopardized by this action
Furadan conditional 1/81
registration
jeopardy tot
AGPC
Aleutian Canada goose
Kern primrose sphinx moth
- prohibit use in
habitat
yes/yes
yes
PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCES indicates when the registration actions followed the standard operating procedures
-------
-2-
RBGU1ATORY
PRODUCT ACTION
CONSULTATION CONSULTATION
INITIATED RESULTS
REASONABLE & ADOPTED PROCEDURAL
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES EEB/RD COMPLIANCE
Chlor- conditional 7/fiO
pyrifos registration
jeopardy to HO
species
-restrict application yes/no no
method
-buffer zones
-geographic restrictions
notes not in compliance because registration was accepted before completion of consultation
Chlor- conditional 1/82
pyrifos registration
jeopardy to 38
species
- restrict application ?/no
method
- buffer zones
- geographic restrictions
no
reconcnendatons were not included on label.
Bolero
notes not
Lontrel
Graslan/
Tebuth-
iuron
notes not
conditional
registration
in compliance
conditional
registration
conditional
registration
in compliance
12/8O jeopardy to 8
fat pocket pearly
mussel
- do not issue
action
- further testing
- no emergency exmp.
yes/no
no
because OES recommendations were not included on label
2/81 no jeopardy
2/81 jeopardy to:
19 plant species
because registration was accepted
- none
- EPA insisted on
strong label
language
— geographic
restrictions
- more data
action
not granted
because of
label gaps
yes/no
yes
no
before oomplet ion of consultation
Sumithicn conditional 3/81
registration' '
no jeopardy
- restricted use yes/yes
- geographic limits
yes
-------
-3-
PRQDUCT
REGULATORY
ACTION
CONSULTATION
INITIATED
CONSULTATION
RESULTS
REASONABLE $
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
ADOPTED PROCEDURAL
EEB/RD COMPLIANCE
Mg conditional 4/81
Phosphide registration
jeopardy tot
black-footed ferret
eastern indigo snake
San Joaquin kit fox
Utah prairie dog
blunt nosed leopard
lizzard
desert tortoise
- geographic limits
- pre-application
survey for ferrets
yes/yes yes
Zinc Registration 5/81
Phosphide Standard
jeopardy tos
salt marsh harvest
labeling to remain
the same
yes/yes yes
mouse
Morro Bay kangaroo rat
Utah prairie dog
Puerto Rican plain
pigeon
yellow-shouldered blackbird
AGPC
Aleutian Canada goose
whooping crane
Velpar conditional 2/82 not completed
registration
Product has
never been
used comner-
cially
notes Not in compliance because registration accepted without a consultation
no
Aluminum conditional 7/81
Phosphide registration
jeopardy tos
same as Mg Phosphide
same as Mg Phosphide
yes/yes yes
-------
PRODUCT
REGULATORY
ACTION
CONSUTLATION
INITIATED
CONSULTATION
RESULTS
REASONABLE &
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
ADOPTED PROCEDURAL
EEB/RD COMPLIANCE
Metola- conditional 8/8O
chlor registration
jeopardy tot
9 plant species and
red hills salamander
- additional studies yes/no
- buffer zone
- geographic restrictions
notei not in compliance because endangered species considerations were absent from label
Phorate conditional 8/81
registration
jeopardy tot
AGPC
Aleutian Canada goose
Kern primrose sphinx moth
- seasonal restrictions yes/no
- geographic restrictions
note i not in compliance because endangered species considerations were absent from label
no
no
Sodium conditional 1O/81
Nitrate registration
no jeopardy
- restrictions from
previous biological
opinion
yes/yes yes
Chlorpha- conditional 11/81
cinone registration
(Rozol)
jeopardy tot
black-footed ferret
San Joaquin kit fox
- critical habitat yes/yes
restrictions
yes
Temik conditional 1O/81
registration
jeopardy tos
AGPC
- critical habitat yes/yes
restrictions
yes
Endo- registration 2/82
sulfan standard
jeopardy tos
listed insects
Hawaiian hoary bat
Aleutian Canada goose
AGPC
Pine Barrens tree frog
Houston toad
Santa Cruz long-
toed salamander
listed fis>» and mussels
- limit use rates
- geographic limits
no action
taken pending
completion
of cluster
approach
no
notes not in compliance because the reqistratioji. jandard v\ras completed! "nsfors tfv= ri
-------
REGULATORY
PRODUCT ACTION
CONSULTATION CONSULTATION
INITIATED RESULTS
REASONABLE & ADOPTED PROCEDURAL
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES EEB/RD COMPLIANCE
1O8O experimental 5/82
use permit
no jeopardy
yes
cuprous
oxide
conditional 7/82
registration
jeopardy toi
Comanche Springs
pupfish
Moapa dace
Gila topninnow
- restrict use in
critical habitats
yes/no
notes not in compliance because endangered species considerations were not included on label
Graslan conditional 9/82
Tebuth- registration
iuron
jeopardy tot
11 plant species
- contact FHS before
applying in critical
habitat
yes/no
notes not in compliance because endangered species considerations were not included on label
no
no
Gas label review 9/82
Cartridges
jeopardy toi
black footed ferret
eastern indigo snake
San Joaquin kit fox
Utah prairie dog
blunt-nosed leopard lizzard
desert tortoise
- geographic
restrictions
yes/yes yes
Lindane
emergency 10/82
exemption
use
Nifluridid/ registration 11/82
Bant
jeopardy toi
Florida panther
bald eagle
Everglade kite
jeopardy toi
AGPC
Houston to*<]
- further testing exemption
- use of alternative request
chemicals withdrawn
- geographic registration
restrictions wltWtvwn
yes
yes
-------
PRODUCT
108O
1080
Oust
notes not
1080
CGA.-
12223
Fluridone/
Sonar
Endrin
REGULATORY
ACTION
expermental
use permit
experimental
use (toxic
collar)
conditional
registration
in compliance
experimental
use
conditional
registration
conditional
registration
evaluation
of use
patterns
CONSULTATION CONSULTATION
INITIATED RESULTS
1/83
11/83
5/83
because
7/83
11/83
11/83
2/84
no jeopardy
no jeopardy
jeopardy tos
25 plant species
registration accepted before
no jeopardy
no jeopardy
jeopardy tos
all listed U.S.
aquatic species
jeopardy tos
19 species
REASONABLE & ADOPTED PROCEDURAL
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES EEB/RD COMPLIANCE
restrict use in yes/no
plant habitats
completion of consultation
- exclude use in all registra-
habitats of listed. . . tion pending
species
- prohibit use of product
endrin within critical cancelled
habitat plus buffer
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
zone
-------
-7-
PRODUCT
Dioofbl
REGULATORY CONSULTATION CONSULTATION
ACTION INITIATED RESULTS
special 3/84
review
jeopardy toi
peregrin falcon
REASONABLE & ADOPTED PROCEDURAL
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES EEB/RD COMPLIANCE
- no reasonable and pending
prudent alternatives
available
yes
- cancellation
recommended for all uses.
notes to be in compliance product should be cancelled or a new consultation must be initiated if product
modifications are made.
Acephate/ conditional 5/84
Orthene registration
jeopardy tot
Hawaiian hoary bat
Tilt conditional 7/84
registration
- night spraying
- scare bats from
orchard
- label warning
- do not use if
bats are present
jeopardy tot
11 mussel species
- geographic
restrictions
yes/yes
yes
Prairie
Dog
toxicants
Brodi-
facon/
Volid
reevaluation 5/84
of secondary
~~ •""••""••••• j
impacts
conditional 6/84
registration
jeopardy toi - prior to use ?
black footed ferret check for ferrets
no jeopardy
yes
yes
pending
yes
1080
single
lethal
dose
baits
experimental 11/84
use permit
no formal consultation
required
yes
-------
Table 2. Results of Cluster Analysis Consultations
PRODUCT
REGULATORY
ACTION
CONSULTATION
INITIATED
CONSULTATION
RESULTS
REASONABLE &
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
Carbofenothion
Carbofuran
Carbaryl
Chlorpyrifos
Dasanit
Diazinon
Dimethoate
Dinoseb
Disyston
Dyfonate
EPN
Endosulfan
Ethion
Ethoprop
Ethyl parathion
Guthion
Kel thane
Malathion
Mancozeb
Methoxychlor
Methyl Parathion
Phorate
Phosdrin
Piperonyl Butoxide
Propargite
Propachlor
Pyrethrln
Oftanol
Oxyfluofen
Rotenone
Terbufos
Toxaphene
Trifluralin
Trichlorofon
corn cluster
analysis
December 1982
jeopardy opinions:
o peregrine falcon
o Attwaters Greater
Prairie Chicken
o Aleutian Canada
goose
o Everglade kite
o woundfin
o solano grass
cancel Kelthane
geographic limits
- geographic limits on Granular
prohibit use of non-Granular
during Aug and May in portions
of CA and OR
- eliminate aerial application
- prohibit ground application
closer than 20 yards to habitat
o slackwater darter -
o 12 mussel species
eliminate aerial application w/n
buffer zone
limit ground application
buffer zone limitations
require more data
restrict use in Virginia
drainage 40 miles either side
of Virginia narrows
- prohibit herbicide use in habitat
o valley elderberry - restrict use in habitat
grass beetle during April to mid-May
o Delta green ground - restrict use in Solano Co.
beetle
-------
Results of Cluster Analysis Consultation
Cotton, Soybeans, Sorghum, and small grains (wheat, barley, oates, rye)
PRODUCT
REGULATORY
ACTION
CONSULTATION
INITIATED
cotton
Aldicarb
Azinphohos m.
Captan
Carbaryl
soybeans
sorghum
Carbophenothion
Chlorpyrifos
Curacron
Desanit
Diflubenzuron
Dinoseb
Diptirex
Dimethoate
Disulfoton
Endrin
BPN
Ethion
Fenamphos
Imidan
Kelthane
Malathion
Methidathion
Methomyl
M. parathion
Naled
Parathion
Payoff
Phorate
Pydrin
Thiodicarb
Toxaphene
Trifluralin
Aldicarb Aldicarb
Basic Copper Atrazine
Sulfa te Bi fenox
Carbaryl Carbaryl
small grains
2,4D
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Dinoseb
and
Carbofenothion
Carbofuran
Chlorpyrifos
Cuprous Oxide
Dasanit
Diazinion
Dicrotophos
Dimethoate
Dimilln
Dinoseb
Disyston
Endosulfan
EPN
Ethoprop
Fluchloralin
Guthion
Malathion
Methonyl
Methoxychlor
Naled
Parathion
Propachlor
Propargite
Terbufos
Thiodicarb
Tops in
Toxaphene
Trichlorfon
Trifluralin
Carbofenothion
Carbofuran
Chlorpyrifos
Cyanazine
Dasanit
Demeton
Diazinon
Dimethoate
Disyston
Ethion
Fonophos
Methidathion
M. Parathion
Parathion
Phorate
Propachlor
Terbufos
Toxaphene
Trifluralin
Disyston
Endosulfan
Endrin
Guthion
Malathion
M. Parathion
Parathion
Phorate
Toxaphene
Trichlorfon
cluster analysis
for cotton, soy
beans, sorghum
small grains
cotton/Jan 1983
soybeans/Feb 1983
sorghum/June 1983
small grains/June 1983
-------
RESULTS OF
CONSULTATION
Cotton, Soybeans, Sorghum, and small grains
(cont.)
REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
Jeopardy to:
o peregrine falcon
o AGPC
o Aleutian Canada goose
o woundfin
o 12 freshwater mussels
o Solano grass
- cancel Kelthane
- Pesticides toxic to avian
species should not be used
within 1/4 mile of AGPC range
- not concerned about cotton
- Ngs prohibited in range Sept.
through mid-May
- totally prohibit Gs
- particular concern about
phorate's use on wheat and
barley
- prohibit pesticides use in
areas that drain into
Virginia narrows
- eliminate aerial application
of implicated pesticides in
mussel habitat
- restrict ground application
in and around aquatic habitat
- prohibit herbicides toxic to
Solano grass in Solano Co.
-------
Cotton, Soybeans, Sorghum and Small Grains Cluster Analysis
(cont.)
RESULTS OF
CONSULTATION'
REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
o valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
o Delta green ground beetle
o Kern primrose sphinx moth
o slackwater darter
restrict pesticides use in
habitat during late April to
mid-May
restrict implicated pesticides
in Solano Co.
small grain pesticides should
be prohibited within 10O yards
of the habitat of this species
eliminate aerial application
or provide a buffer zone;
prohibit ground application
closer than 20 yards from
aquatic habitat of species
-------
Forestry Cluster Analysis Consultation
PESTICIDE
CONSULTATION
INITIATED
RESULTS
REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
Acephate
Fenitrothion
Matacil
N. Parathion
Trichlorfon
1984
jeopardy to:
kirtland's warbler
redcockaded woodpecker
- chemicals should not
be used in habitats
of these species
Carbaryl
Diflubenzuron
Fenitrothion
N. Parathion
Naticil
Trichlorofon
2,4D
1984
jeopardy to:
Apache trout
Gila trout
greenback cutthroat trout
Lahontan cutthroat
little kern golden trout
Paiute cutthroat
bonytail chub
humpback chub
spotfin chub
slender chub
leopard darter
Maryland darter
Okalossa darter
slackwater darter
snail darter
yellowfin madtom
scioto madtom
Colorado River squawfish
Chittenango ovate amber snail
flat-spined three-toothed snail
Iowa Pleistocene snail
noonday snail
painted snake coiled forest snail
Virginia fringed mountain snail
- chemicals should not
used wihtin or
adjacent to critical
habitats of these
species
-------
Forestry Cluster Analysis Consultation
(cont.)
PESTICIDE
CONSULTATION
INITIATED
RESULTS
REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
Alabama lamp pearly mussel
Applachian monkeyface
pearly mussel
birdwing pearly mussel
Cumberland monkeyface
pearly mussel
Curtis pearly mussel
dromedary pearly mussel
green-blossom pearly mussel
Higgins eye pearly mussel
orange-footed pearly mussel
pale llllput pearly mussel
pink mucket pearly mussel
tubercled-blossoro pearly mussel
white cat's paw pearly mussel
white wartyback pearly mussel
yellow-blossom pearly mussel
fine-rayed pigtoe
rough pigtoe
shiny pigtoe
fat pocketbook
tan rlffleshell
2,4D
Amitrol
Ammonium sulfate
Atrazine
Cacodylic acid
Dalapon
Dichlorbenil
Diphenamid
EPTC
Fosamine
Glyphosate
Hexazinone
Mylone
Paraquat
PJchloram
jeopardy to:
chapman rhododendrin
hairy rattleweed
persistent trillium
green pitcher plant
Virginia round-leaf birch
small whorled pogonia
northern wild monkshod
Furbish lousewort
Florida Torreya
mountain golden heather
- Implicated pesticides should not be
used within or adjacent
to the habitats of these species
-------
Results of Mosquito Larvicide Cluster Consultation
PESTICIDE
CONSULTATION
INITIATED
RESULTS
REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
Chlorpyrifos
E. Parathion
EPN
Penthion
Malathion
Methylparathion
Methoprene
Methoxyclor
Haled
Temephos
1984
jeopardy to:
gray bay
Indiana bat
Hawaiian hoary bat
Ozark big-eared bat
Virginia big-eared bat
- establish monitoring
program to ascertain
if bats are actually
being affected by
these products
Fenthion
E. Parathion
jeopardy to:
salt marsh harvest mouse
- avoid use of these
two chemicals within
the habitat of these
species
Fenthion
M. Parathion
Temephos
jeopardy to:
Hawaiian coot
Hawaiian stilt
Hawaiian duck
Hawaiian gallinide
Marianas mallard
light-footed clapper rail
California clapper rail
Yuma clapper rail
Aleutian Canada goose
Mississippi sandhill crane
whooping crane
Everglade kite
California least tern
-------
PESTICIDE
CONSULTATION
INITIATED
RESULTS
REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES
Chlorpyrifos
EPN
Ethyl parathion
Methyl parathion
Methoprene
Methoxychlor
M. Parathion
pyrethrins
Haled
Temephos
jeopardy to:
Alabama cavefish
Mohave tui chub
slender chub
spotfin chub
Ash Meadow speckled
dace
Kendall Warm Springs dace
Moapa dace
bayou darter
fountain darter
leopard darter
Maryland darter
Okaloosa darter
snail darter
watercress darter
Big Bend gambusia
Amistad gambusia
Pecos gambusia
Clear Creek gambusia
San Marcos gambusia
Pahrump illifish
Scioto madtom
yellowfish madtom
Ashmeadow Amargosa pupfish
Comanche Springs pupfish
Devils Hole pupfish
Leon Springs pupfish
Ownes River pupfish
Warmsprings pupfish
unarmored threespine
stickleback
Gila topminnow
slackwater darter
(oont.)
Alabama lamp pearly mussel
Applachian monkeyface pearly mussel
birdwing pearly mussel
Cumberland bean pearly mussel
Curtis' pearly mussel
dromedary pearly mussel
green-blossom pearly mussel
Higgin's pearly mussel
Nicklin's pearly mussel
orange-footed pearly mussel
pale lilliput pearly mussel
pink mucket pearly mussel
Tampico pearly mussel
tubercled-blossom pearly mussel
turgid-blossom pearly mussel
white cat's paw pearly mussel
white wartyback pearly mussel
yellow-blossom pearly mussel
fine-rayed pigtoe
rough pigtoe
shiny pigtoe
fat pocketbook
tan riffle shell
hay's spring amphipod
Madison cave isopod
Soccorro isopod
Kentucky cave shrimp
-------
Cluster Reviews
The following chart summarizes which pesticide products were considered likely
to jeopardize or affect an endangered species when used on the specified crop
PESTICIDE SMALL MOSQUITO
PRODUCTS CORN COTTON SOYBEANS SORGHUM GRAINS FORESTRY LARVACIDE
Acephate xxx
Aldicarb xxxxxxxxx
Amitrolexxx
Ammonium Sulfatexxx
Atazlne xxx xxx xxx
Azinophosxxx
Bifenox xxx xxx
Cacodylic acid xxx
Captanxxx
Carbaryl xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx
Carbofenothion xxx xxxxxx
Carbofuran xxx xxx xxx
Chlorpyrifos xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Cucuran xxx
Cyanazinexxxxxx
DEP
Dalapon xxx
Dasanit >cxx xxx xxx xxx
-------
PESTICIDE SMALL MOSQUITO
PRODUCTS CORN COTTON SOYBEANS SORGHUM GRAINS FORESTRY LARVACIDE
DBFXXX
Diazinon xxxxxxxxxxxx
Demeton xxx xxx
Dlchlorbenil xxx
DiflubenzuronJHQC xioc
Dimethoate xxx xxx xxxxxx
Dinoseb xxx xxx xxx
Diphenamid xxx
bipterexxxx
Disyston xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Dyfonatexxx
EPN iiocx xxx
EPTC ioot
Endosulfan xxx xxx
Endrin xxx x>H(
Ethion xxx xxx iooc xxx
Etho'prop xitx
E.parathion xxx xioi xxx xxx
Fenamphos iunc
-------
PESTICIDE SMALL MOSQUITO
PRODUCTS CORN COTTON SOYBEANS SORGHUM GRAINS FORESTRY LARVACIDE
Fenthion xxx xxx
Ponophos xxx xxx
Pbsamin xxx
Glyphosatexxx
Guthlonxxxxxx
Mexazlnone ' • ' 'xxx
Imidan xxx
Kelthanexxxxxx
Malathion xxx xxx xxx xxx
Mancozebxxx
Matacll iocx
Methidathion iocxicxx Scxx
Methonyl icxx
Methoprenexxx
Methoxyolor xxx Jooc
M. parathion JOHC xxx xxx JHHC iocx icxx
tMylone xxx
Naled xxx xxx
Paraquat: iocx
-------
PESTICIDS SMALL MOSQUITO
PRODUCTS CORN COTTON SOYBEANS SORGHUM GRAINS FORESTRY LARVACIDE
Payoff xxx
i
Pethrin xxx —-------------—----———————————.
Phoratexxxxxxxxxxxx
Phosdrin xxx
Pichloram xxx
Plpernyl butoxidexxx
Propargltexxx
Propachlor xxxxxxxxx
Pydrin xxx
Pyrethrin xxx
Oftanolxxx
Oxyflurofen xxx
Rotenone xxx
Simazine xxx
Temephosxxx
Terbufosxxxxxxxxx
Thiodicarbxxx
Toxaphene xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Trichlorophon icxx icxx xxx
Trifluralin xxx xxx xxx xxx
2,4D xxxxxx
-------
Summary o£ cluster review pesticides that were considered Jin jeopardy opinions
o Total number of pesticides contained in jeopardy opinions covered
under the cluster analysis = 77
o Pesticides contained in 4 or more jeopardy opinions covered under
the cluster approach - 12
carbaryl ethyl parathion
chlorpyrifos methyl parathion
dasanit phorate
diazinion malathion
dimethoate toxaphene
disyston trifluralon
o Pesticides contained in 3 jeopardy opinions covered under the
cluster analysis = 8
aldicarb dinosib
atrazine methidathion
carbophenothion propachlor
carbofuran terbufos
o Pesticides contained in 2 jeopardy opinions covered under the
cluster analysis = 14
bifinox fenthion
cyanazine fonophos
demeton guthion
d i flubenzuron kelthane
EPM methoxychlor
endosulfan naled
endrin 2,4D
o Pesticides contained in one jeopardy opinions = 43
-------
Table 3: Summary of Pesticide Poisoning Incidents Involving Endangered Species
INCIDENT
PESTICIDE
INVOLVED
CONSULTATION
INITIATED
CONCLUSIONS
Pesticide poisoning
death of grey bats
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
EPA was aware of
poisonings; did not
respond with
consultation
poisonings occurred after
cancellation
Pesticide poisoning
fatality to 5 bald
eagles from secondary
poisoning from eating
a poisoned pig in
March and April 1984
Fenthion
No evidence that
EPA was aware of
poisonings; should
have initiated
consultation for
use on swine
Special review should have
been triggered
Deaths of Brown
Pelicans in Terasa
Lagoon, Puerto Rico
in 1983, 1983, 1984
approximately 100
birds died
Diazinion or
Toxaphone
implicated
no consultation
Initiated
EPA was aware of the problem,
but did not investigate or
take remedial action
Poisoning potential
exists throughout
the range of the
Manatee in the U.S.
Recovery plans
indicate that Cu
herbicides may be
affecting this species
EPA has not investigated
Cu herbicides in this area
Death of California
Condor Nov. 23, 1984
in Kern County, CA
Sodium Cyanide
M-44 spring loaded
coyote control
device
EPA was involved
in subsequent con-
sultation to re-examine
M-44 use within the
condor range
Poisoning resulted from an
illegal use; no evidence
that EPA investigated the
incident or that the use
restrictions of the M-44
device were re-evaluated
------- |