Carbaryl, Carbofuran, and Methomyl - National Marine Fisheries ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 27. MCR Steelhead distribution. ........................................................................ 158 Figure 28. Northern California Steelhead distribution.. ................................................ 163 Figure 29. Puget Sound steelhead distribution. ............................................................. 166 Figure 30. SR Basin Steelhead distribution.. ................................................................. 169 Figure 31. S-CCC steelhead distribution.. ..................................................................... 173 Figure 32. Southern California steelhead distribution.. ................................................. 175 Figure 33. UCR Steelhead distribution.......................................................................... 179 Figure 34. UWR Steelhead distribution......................................................................... 183 Figure 35. Exposure analysis ......................................................................................... 268 Figure 36. Chemical structures of carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl. ...................... 268 Figure 37. Response analysis......................................................................................... 312 Figure 38. Schematic of the Risk Characterization Phase ............................................. 363 Figure 39. Carbaryl exposure concentrations and salmonid assessment endpoints’ effect concentrations in µg/L .................................................................................................... 366 Figure 40. Carbofuran exposure concentrations and salmonid assessment endpoints’ effect concentrations in µg/L .......................................................................................... 367 Figure 41. Methomyl exposure concentrations and salmonid assessment endpoints’ effect concentrations in µg/L .......................................................................................... 369 Figure 42. Percent AChE inhibition (A.) and percent mortality (B.) for salmonids expected from exposure to carbaryl (Cl), carbofuran (Cn), and methomyl (M) as separate constituents and as mixtures. .......................................................................................... 386 Figure 43. Probability plot for each pesticide showing the distribution of the geometric means of the EC50s for each aquatic invertebrate species. ............................................ 411 Figure 44. Percent change in lambda for Ocean-type Chinook salmon following 4 d, 21 d, and 60 d exposures to carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl. ...................................... 416 Figure 45. Percent change in lambda for Stream-type Chinook salmon following 4 d, 21 d, and 60 d exposures to carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl. ...................................... 417 Figure 46. Percent change in lambda for Coho salmon following 4 d, 21 d, and 60 d exposures to carbaryl, carbofuran, and methomyl.......................................................... 417 Figure 47. Percent change in lambda for sockeye salmon following 4 d, 21 d, and 60 d exposures to carbaryl, carbofuran, methomyl................................................................. 418 x
Table of Tables Table 1. Registered uses and application rates for carbaryl in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (EPA 2007) ............................................................................................ 26 Table 2. Registered uses and application rates for carbofuran in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (EPA 2004) .............................................................................. 31 Table 3. Examples of registered uses and application rates for methomyl in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (EPA 2007). .................................................................. 35 Table 4. Examples of salmonid lifestage assessment endpoints and measures ............... 52 Table 5. Listed Species and Critical Habitat (denoted by asterisk) in the Action Area .. 58 Table 6. CC Chinook salmon--preliminary population structure, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005). ......................................................... 65 Table 7. CV Chinook salmon--preliminary population structure, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005). ......................................................... 67 Table 8. LCR Chinook salmon - preliminary population structure, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005). ......................................................... 72 Table 9. UCR Chinook salmon - preliminary population structure, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005). ......................................................... 77 Table 10. Puget Sound Chinook salmon - preliminary population structure, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005).................................................... 82 Table 11. SR Spring/Summer Chinook salmon populations, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005). ........................................................................ 96 Table 12. UWR Chinook salmon populations, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005). .............................................................................................. 99 Table 13. Columbia River Chum salmon populations, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005). ...................................................................... 105 Table 14. Hood Canal summer-run Chum salmon populations, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005). ...................................................................... 110 Table 15. CCC Coho salmon populations, abundances, and hatchery contributions (Good, Waples et al. 2005). ............................................................................................ 118 xi
Page 1 and 2: Ms. Debbie Edwards Director, Office
Page 3 and 4: National Marine Fisheries Service E
Page 5 and 6: Snake River Spring/Summer-Run Chino
Page 7 and 8: Commercial, Recreational, and Subsi
Page 9 and 10: Critical Habitat Risk Hypotheses ba
Page 11: Table of Figures Figure 1. Stressor
Page 15 and 16: Table 31. Area of Land Use Categori
Page 17 and 18: Table 67. . Examples of published f
Page 19 and 20: Agency: Activities Considered: Nati
Page 21 and 22: This Opinion is based on NMFS’ re
Page 23 and 24: activities that may improve EPA’s
Page 25 and 26: affect but is not likely to adverse
Page 27 and 28: On November 13, 2008, EPA provided
Page 29 and 30: On January 21, 2009, the agencies a
Page 31 and 32: in California, Idaho, Oregon, and W
Page 33 and 34: On that same date, EPA e-mailed NMF
Page 35 and 36: After registering a pesticide, EPA
Page 37 and 38: isk assessment. With these and othe
Page 39 and 40: Typically, formulations are combine
Page 41 and 42: EPA also issued generic and product
Page 43 and 44: pecans, peppers, pistachios, plums,
Page 45 and 46: Use Site plants, woody plants CRP a
Page 47 and 48: are subject to a four year phase-ou
Page 49 and 50: Table 2. Registered uses and applic
Page 51 and 52: mildews and other fungal diseases.
Page 53 and 54: methomyl are 32.4 lb a.i./acre/year
Page 55 and 56: would not likely adversely affect C
Page 57 and 58: In the final steps of our analyses,
Page 59 and 60: Evidence Available for the Consulta
Page 61 and 62: sustaining in the natural environme
Page 63 and 64:
Stressors of the Action (see Figure
Page 65 and 66:
Species Risk Hypotheses We construc
Page 67 and 68:
habitats is then assessed. This por
Page 69 and 70:
The problem formulation phase as ar
Page 71 and 72:
Risk Characterization We follow the
Page 73 and 74:
the probability of risk. In the Ris
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 5. Map showing extent of inl
Page 77 and 78:
Opinion. Summaries of the status an
Page 79 and 80:
Chinook salmon are dependent on the
Page 81 and 82:
Eureka Figure 6. CC Chinook salmon
Page 83 and 84:
Table 6. CC Chinook salmon--prelimi
Page 85 and 86:
Table 7 identifies populations with
Page 87 and 88:
The CV drainage as a whole is estim
Page 89 and 90:
have greatly reduced or eliminated
Page 91 and 92:
Portland Salem Figure 9. LCR Chinoo
Page 93 and 94:
important life history type remains
Page 95 and 96:
Table 9. UCR Chinook salmon - preli
Page 97 and 98:
In the most recent five-year geomet
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 11. Puget Sound Chinook dist
Page 101 and 102:
Status and Trends Puget Sound Chino
Page 103 and 104:
flow, temperature, sediment load, w
Page 105 and 106:
San Francisco Figure 12. Sacramento
Page 107 and 108:
of historic spawning areas. Additio
Page 109 and 110:
Status and Trends SR fall-run Chino
Page 111 and 112:
Critical Habitat Critical habitat f
Page 113 and 114:
Portland Seattle Spokane Figure 14.
Page 115 and 116:
and five-year old fish, after two t
Page 117 and 118:
surface and ground water and degrad
Page 119 and 120:
Life History UWR Chinook salmon exh
Page 121 and 122:
Bay, California. Historically, chum
Page 123 and 124:
quality in the freshwater, estuarin
Page 125 and 126:
Life History Chum salmon return to
Page 127 and 128:
catastrophic events. Overall, the p
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 17. Hood Canal Summer-run Ch
Page 131 and 132:
improvements in 2000, with upward t
Page 133 and 134:
ground water and degrade water qual
Page 135 and 136:
San Francisco Figure 18. CCC Coho s
Page 137 and 138:
Information on the abundance and pr
Page 139 and 140:
Table 16 identifies populations wit
Page 141 and 142:
Life History Although run time vari
Page 143 and 144:
programs. The three major river sys
Page 145 and 146:
Data on population abundance and tr
Page 147 and 148:
Figure 21. Oregon Coast Coho salmon
Page 149 and 150:
Preliminary spawner survey data for
Page 151 and 152:
channels, backwaters, terrace tribu
Page 153 and 154:
Figure 22. Ozette Lake Sockeye salm
Page 155 and 156:
the 1997 status review due to resam
Page 157 and 158:
Seattle Portland Figure 23. SR Sock
Page 159 and 160:
Adult returns to Redfish Lake durin
Page 161 and 162:
esume migration in early spring to
Page 163 and 164:
Central California Coast Steelhead
Page 165 and 166:
Status and Trends The CCC steelhead
Page 167 and 168:
San Francisco Figure 25. California
Page 169 and 170:
and Jackson 1996; McEwan 2001). Ste
Page 171 and 172:
Olympia Portland Salem Figure 26. L
Page 173 and 174:
hatchery fish in naturally-spawning
Page 175 and 176:
species includes the only populatio
Page 177 and 178:
Life History Most MCR steelhead smo
Page 179 and 180:
Critical Habitat Critical habitat w
Page 181 and 182:
Eureka Figure 28. Northern Californ
Page 183 and 184:
may affect steelhead migration patt
Page 185 and 186:
Of the 21 populations in the Puget
Page 187 and 188:
Seattle Spokane Figure 30. SR Basin
Page 189 and 190:
and spawner estimates for the Tucan
Page 191 and 192:
San Jose Figure 31. S-CCC steelhead
Page 193 and 194:
Figure 32. Southern California stee
Page 195 and 196:
extinction,” with the remaining 1
Page 197 and 198:
Portland Figure 33. UCR Steelhead d
Page 199 and 200:
“low” for the Wenatchee and Met
Page 201 and 202:
Figure 34. UWR Steelhead distributi
Page 203 and 204:
Molalla/Pudding, Yamhill, Tualatin,
Page 205 and 206:
Natural Mortality Factors Available
Page 207 and 208:
Marine Mammal Predation Marine mamm
Page 209 and 210:
downstream of Bonneville Dam. Socke
Page 211 and 212:
Oceanographic Features and Climatic
Page 213 and 214:
coincides with relatively poor ocea
Page 215 and 216:
from streams in watersheds with agr
Page 217 and 218:
chemicals used has decreased (Table
Page 219 and 220:
California, Idaho, Oregon, and Wash
Page 221 and 222:
to disease, decrease the ability of
Page 223 and 224:
characterized by emergent aquatic p
Page 225 and 226:
subregions and accounting units for
Page 227 and 228:
Region USGS Subregion Central Calif
Page 229 and 230:
Table 31. Area of Land Use Categori
Page 231 and 232:
Table 33. Land uses and population
Page 233 and 234:
(Table 34). See species ESU/DPS map
Page 235 and 236:
undeveloped sites in the Santa Ana
Page 237 and 238:
and grazing. Dams and water diversi
Page 239 and 240:
Artificial Propagation Anadromous f
Page 241 and 242:
water resources is handled by Calif
Page 243 and 244:
containers at time of use. • Cond
Page 245 and 246:
Table 36. Area of land use categori
Page 247 and 248:
Columbia River Basin The most notab
Page 249 and 250:
Ranching practices have led to incr
Page 251 and 252:
17% of mainstem Yakima River sample
Page 253 and 254:
detected in samples from all sites,
Page 255 and 256:
Whitney 1979). Similarly, over one
Page 257 and 258:
nation’s silver output has come f
Page 259 and 260:
(USBR 1998 in (FCRPS 2008); providi
Page 261 and 262:
The States of Oregon and Wasington
Page 263 and 264:
Columbia River chum salmon are not
Page 265 and 266:
including brown and brook trout, At
Page 267 and 268:
density residential with some agric
Page 269 and 270:
Although urban areas occupy only 2%
Page 271 and 272:
Habitat Modification Much of the re
Page 273 and 274:
Table 42. Pollutants of Concern in
Page 275 and 276:
the 1950s. The vast majority of the
Page 277 and 278:
pugettensis). An NPDES permit is re
Page 279 and 280:
Habitat loss through wetland fills
Page 281 and 282:
afted and moved to market or downst
Page 283 and 284:
Oregon is in the process of develop
Page 285 and 286:
Effects of the Proposed Action The
Page 287 and 288:
Carbaryl dissipates in the environm
Page 289 and 290:
high water solubility, low Kow, and
Page 291 and 292:
Table 46. Environmental fate charac
Page 293 and 294:
Species General Life History Descri
Page 295 and 296:
Table 48. Examples of registered us
Page 297 and 298:
Table 49. PRZM-EXAMS exposure estim
Page 299 and 300:
estimate do not represent the highe
Page 301 and 302:
BE provides a peak EEC of 5.5 μg/L
Page 303 and 304:
alcoves, channel edge sloughs, over
Page 305 and 306:
Carbaryl can also be applied at 8 l
Page 307 and 308:
habitat had a downwind width of 10
Page 309 and 310:
Depth of aquatic habitat (meters) B
Page 311 and 312:
monitored in California, Idaho, Ore
Page 313 and 314:
5.2 μg/L for carbofuran, 0.0150 -
Page 315 and 316:
Summary information for carbaryl, c
Page 317 and 318:
after flooding (Nicosia, Carr et al
Page 319 and 320:
pesticide concentrations in the dis
Page 321 and 322:
flowing water habitats, it is not s
Page 323 and 324:
egistered products that contain mor
Page 325 and 326:
potential ingredients in tank mixtu
Page 327 and 328:
low maximum application rate. Howev
Page 329 and 330:
occupy shoreline habitats of only a
Page 331 and 332:
vertebrates and invertebrates (Walk
Page 333 and 334:
Temperature and toxicity We found n
Page 335 and 336:
exposure concentrations. Moreover,
Page 337 and 338:
Summary of Toxicity Information Pre
Page 339 and 340:
at several times during an experime
Page 341 and 342:
Table 64. Assessment endpoint toxic
Page 343 and 344:
fish, number of eggs per mature fem
Page 345 and 346:
varigatus), an estuarine species, b
Page 347 and 348:
included a NOAEC of 9.8 μg/L and a
Page 349 and 350:
730 μg/L for D. magna (freshwater
Page 351 and 352:
TEP) are contained in Appendix D-1.
Page 353 and 354:
the uncertainties related to experi
Page 355 and 356:
capacity (Little and Finger 1990).
Page 357 and 358:
consumed relative to unexposed fish
Page 359 and 360:
24 hr exposure (Zinkl, Shea et al.
Page 361 and 362:
We located studies that measured ol
Page 363 and 364:
endpoints of salmonids remains a re
Page 365 and 366:
items (Courtemanch and Gibbs 1980;
Page 367 and 368:
single pulse of chlorpyrifos was in
Page 369 and 370:
Table 65. Study designs and results
Page 371 and 372:
Chemical Taxa/species Assessment me
Page 373 and 374:
Chemical Taxa/species carbofuran ca
Page 375 and 376:
Chemical Taxa/species carbofuran ca
Page 377 and 378:
macroinvertebrate community did not
Page 379 and 380:
Jardine, MacLatchy et al. 2005; Luo
Page 381 and 382:
Risk Characterization In this secti
Page 383 and 384:
survival appears to be the most sen
Page 385 and 386:
factor in the degree of toxicity of
Page 387 and 388:
Figure 41. Methomyl exposure concen
Page 389 and 390:
Table 67. . Examples of published f
Page 391 and 392:
Additionally, the macroinvertebrate
Page 393 and 394:
Measured Concentrations in Willapa
Page 395 and 396:
up to 100 m off the carbaryl applic
Page 397 and 398:
average initial concentration from
Page 399 and 400:
• Unrelated (0): Conclusive evide
Page 401 and 402:
the fish to determine the cause of
Page 403 and 404:
Dose-addition assumes the cumulativ
Page 405 and 406:
Table 73. Predicted AChE inhibition
Page 407 and 408:
habitats during aerial applications
Page 409 and 410:
The second line of evidence is whet
Page 411 and 412:
D. Impair swimming which leads to r
Page 413 and 414:
F. Exposure to mixtures of carbaryl
Page 415 and 416:
used surfactant/adjuvant mixed with
Page 417 and 418:
In a second modeling exercise, we t
Page 419 and 420:
Carbaryl’s thresholds for the fou
Page 421 and 422:
Table 75. Modeled output for Stream
Page 423 and 424:
Table 77. Modeled output for Sockey
Page 425 and 426:
The likelihood of scenarios 2 and 3
Page 427 and 428:
The three insecticides are highly t
Page 429 and 430:
A. B. C. Figure 43. Probability plo
Page 431 and 432:
elatively low survival EC50 values
Page 433 and 434:
dominated by agricultural or urban
Page 435 and 436:
Figure 45. Percent change in lambda
Page 437 and 438:
Table 80. Multiple application scen
Page 439 and 440:
Because olfaction plays an importan
Page 441 and 442:
expect co-occurrence of the three i
Page 443 and 444:
support one or more lifestages. For
Page 445 and 446:
We attempted to compare expected co
Page 447 and 448:
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effec
Page 449 and 450:
entry into freshwater systems. Carb
Page 451 and 452:
Integration and Synthesis The Integ
Page 453 and 454:
carbofuran applications could cause
Page 455 and 456:
The Status of Listed Resources and
Page 457 and 458:
also exposed to poor water quality
Page 459 and 460:
Given the life history of LCR Chino
Page 461 and 462:
Chinook salmon. Furthermore, there
Page 463 and 464:
all three a.i.s are expected to be
Page 465 and 466:
completing migration to the Pacific
Page 467 and 468:
The major threats to this ESU ident
Page 469 and 470:
Land use data indicate that the Col
Page 471 and 472:
Central California Coast Coho Salmo
Page 473 and 474:
Pesticide use and detections in LCR
Page 475 and 476:
effects. In several streams, one or
Page 477 and 478:
ESU is evergreen forest. Between 19
Page 479 and 480:
miles where agricultural crops are
Page 481 and 482:
The Status of Listed Resources and
Page 483 and 484:
carbofuran application to potatoes,
Page 485 and 486:
The major threats to this DPS ident
Page 487 and 488:
lowland areas (below 1,000 ft eleva
Page 489 and 490:
consequences and subsequent populat
Page 491 and 492:
and surface waters within the heavi
Page 493 and 494:
1994). Most juvenile steelhead spen
Page 495 and 496:
salmon, Northern California steelhe
Page 497 and 498:
natural cover such as submerged and
Page 499 and 500:
The precise change in the conservat
Page 501 and 502:
coho salmon, LCR coho salmon, South
Page 503 and 504:
Table 81. Jeopardy and Non-Jeopardy
Page 505 and 506:
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives
Page 507 and 508:
The RPA is comprised of six require
Page 509 and 510:
Table 83. Mandatory pesticide no ap
Page 511 and 512:
items will die from these exposures
Page 513 and 514:
action will attain this level in th
Page 515 and 516:
proposed action. Therefore, inciden
Page 517 and 518:
1. Minimize the amount and extent o
Page 519 and 520:
met within the next 15 years, then
Page 521 and 522:
Arunachalam, S., K. Jeyalakshmi, et
Page 523 and 524:
Bortleson, G. C. and J. C. Ebbert (
Page 525 and 526:
CDFG (1995). "Letter dated 30 March
Page 527 and 528:
Davies, P. E. and L. S. J. Cook (19
Page 529 and 530:
FCRPS (2008). "Endangered Species A
Page 531 and 532:
Haggerty, M. J., A. C. Ritchie, et
Page 533 and 534:
IEPSPWT (1999). "Monitoring, assess
Page 535 and 536:
government from 1896 to 1945." Repo
Page 537 and 538:
Matthews, G. M. and R. S. Waples (1
Page 539 and 540:
NMFS (2004). Five-year integrated p
Page 541 and 542:
PSAT (2004). "State of the Sound 20
Page 543 and 544:
Schroder, S. L. (1977). "Assessment
Page 545 and 546:
Tufts, D. F. (1990). "Control of bu
Page 547 and 548:
Williams, A. K. and C. R. Sova (196
Page 549 and 550:
Introduction To assess the potentia
Page 551 and 552:
ocean-type and stream-type Chinook
Page 553 and 554:
incorporates empirical data when av
Page 555 and 556:
given a percentile value of 50 (i.e
Page 557 and 558:
species-appropriate growth period (
Page 559 and 560:
For Figure 3C, an exposure pulse wo
Page 561 and 562:
the n x n square matrix (A) by assi
Page 563 and 564:
spawn (Pess et al. 2002). Survival
Page 565 and 566:
distributed survival and reproducti
Page 567 and 568:
Figure 1: Life-History Graphs and T
Page 569 and 570:
Table 1. List of values used for co
Page 571 and 572:
Table 4. Matrix transition element
Page 573 and 574:
Figure 2. 555
Page 575 and 576:
Figure 4. 557
Page 577 and 578:
Brewer, S.K., Little, E.E., DeLonay
Page 579 and 580:
Higgs, D.A., MacDonald, J.S., Levin
Page 581 and 582:
Morgan, M.J., and Kiceniuk, J.W. 19
Page 583 and 584:
Scholz, N.L., Truelove, N.K., Frenc
Page 585 and 586:
Appendix 2. Species and Population
Page 587 and 588:
Chinook Salmon (continued) ESU Popu
Page 589 and 590:
Chum Salmon ESU Population λ - H=0
Page 591 and 592:
Coho Salmon (continued) ESU Populat
Page 593 and 594:
Steelhead (continued) DPS Populatio
Page 595 and 596:
Appendix 3: Abbreviations 7-DADMax
Page 597 and 598:
FQPA Food Quality Protection Act ft
Page 599 and 600:
PPE Personal Protection Equipment P
Page 601 and 602:
Appendix 4: Glossary 303(d) waters
Page 603 and 604:
Salmon fall to head upriver to its
Page 605 and 606:
Main channel The stream channel tha
Page 607 and 608:
Smolt A juvenile salmon or steelhea
Page 609:
WQS “A water quality standard def
show all

Carbaryl, Carbofuran, and Methomyl - National Marine Fisheries ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?