1
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
PC
Code:
058001
DP
Barcode:
D307568
September
29,
2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Azinphos­
methyl
Insecticide:
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Use
of
Azinphos­
methyl
on
Almonds,
Apples,
Blueberries
(
Low­
and
Highbush),
Brussels
Sprouts,
Cherries
(
Sweet
and
Tart),
Grapes,
Nursery
Stock,
Parsley,
Pears,
Pistachios,
and
Walnuts
IUPAC
Name:
O,
O­
dimethyl
S­[
4­
oxo­
1,2,3­
benzotriazin
3(
4H)­
yl)
methyl]
phosphoro­
dithioate
CAS
Registry
Number:
86­
50­
0
FROM:
Colleen
Flaherty,
Biologist
(
ERB
3)
RDavid
Jones,
Chemist
(
ERB
4)
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

THRU:
Daniel
Rieder,
Branch
Chief
(
ERB
3)
Elizabeth
Behl,
Branch
Chief
(
ERB
4)
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

TO:
Diane
Isbell,
Risk
Manager
(
RRB
2)
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7505C)

In
1999,
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
EFED)
assessed
the
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl,
an
organophosphate
insecticide,
on
a
variety
of
agricultural
uses.
EFED
concluded
that,
for
all
registered
uses,
azinphos
methyl
exceeded
acute
and
chronic
levels
of
concern
for
all
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals.
Mitigation
efforts
following
the
2001
Interim
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document
(
IRED)
resulted
in
the
time­
limited
re­
registration
of
several
uses
as
well
as
a
reduction
in
the
maximum
application
rates.
EFED
has
assessed
the
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
almonds,
brussels
sprouts,
apples,
low­
and
highbush
blueberries,
cherries
(
sweet
and
tart),
grapes,
nursery
stock,
parsley,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts,
taking
into
account
the
current
label
application
rates
and
mandatory
buffer
strips.
All
of
these
uses
pose
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals;
predicted
environmental
exposures
exceed
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds.
2
Table
of
Contents
I.
Executive
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
II.
Problem
Formulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
1.
Source
and
Intensity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
2.
Physical/
Chemical/
Fate
and
Transport
Properties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
4.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
B.
Assessment
Endpoints
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
1.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
2.
Ecological
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
C.
Analysis
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
1.
Measures
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
a.
Aquatic
Exposures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
b.
Terrestrial
Exposures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
2.
Measures
of
Effect
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
3.
Measures
of
Ecosystem
and
Receptor
Characteristics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
III.
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
A.
Use
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
B.
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
a.
Photolysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
b.
Metabolism
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
c.
Foliar
Degradation
and
Washoff
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
d.
Batch
Equilibrium/
Mobility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
e.
Bioaccumulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
f.
Field
Dissipation
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
g.
Field
Runoff
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
2.
Measures
of
Aquatic
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
b.
Aquatic
Exposure
Monitoring
and
Field
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
c.
Impaired
Waters 
Clean
Water
Act
Section
303(
d)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
3.
Measures
of
Terrestrial
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
a.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
1.
Aquatic
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
a.
Acute
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
b.
Chronic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
c.
Sublethal
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
3
d.
Field
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
2.
Terrestrial
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
a.
Acute
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
b.
Chronic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
c.
Sublethal
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
d.
Field
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
IV.
Risk
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
a.
Almonds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
b.
Apples
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
c.
Blueberries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
d.
Brussels
Sprouts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
e.
Cherries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
f.
Grapes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
g.
Nursery
Stock
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
h.
Parsley
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
77
i.
Pears
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
77
j.
Pistachios
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
k.
Walnuts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
83
a.
Apples
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
b.
Blueberries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
c.
Brussels
Sprouts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
88
d.
Cherries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
e.
Grapes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
f.
Nuts
(
Almonds,
Pistachios,
Walnuts)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
90
g.
Nursery
Crops
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
91
h.
Parsley
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
92
i.
Pears
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
93
C.
Assumptions,
Limitations,
Uncertainties,
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
94
1.
General
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
94
a.
Maximum
Use
Scenario
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
94
b.
Additive
and/
or
Synergistic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
94
2.
Terrestrial
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
b.
Routes
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
c.
Incidental
Releases
Associated
With
Use
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
d.
Residue
Levels
Selection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
4
e.
Dietary
Intake
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
3.
Effects
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
a.
Sublethal
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
b.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
Appendix
A
 
Aquatic
Exposure
Model
Input
File
Names
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
98
Appendix
B
 
Estimated
Exposures
and
Risk
Quotients
for
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
Appendix
C
 
Definitions
of
Levels
of
Concern
for
Risk
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
102
Appendix
D
 
Detailed
Terrestrial
Risk
Quotients
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
103
Appendix
E
 
Federally
Listed
Species
Associated
With
Assessed
Uses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
109
Appendix
F
 
Summary
of
Adverse
All
Known
Ecological
Incidents
Associated
With
Azinphos
methyl
Use
in
the
United
States
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
179
5
I.
Executive
Summary
This
ecological
risk
assessment
focuses
on
the
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
almonds,
apples,
blueberries
(
low­
and
highbush),
brussels
sprouts,
cherries,
grapes,
nursery
stock,
parsley,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts.
Current
label
application
rates
and
other
mitigation
efforts,
such
as
buffers,
were
taken
into
account
in
this
assessment.

Tier
2
surface
water
models
(
PRZM/
EXAMS)
were
employed
to
estimate
aquatic
concentrations
of
azinphos
methyl
based
on
the
maximum
label
application
rates.
A
terrestrial
exposure
model,
T­
REX
(
Version
1.1),
was
used
to
predict
dietary
residues
of
azinphos
methyl
for
birds
and
mammals.
Field
studies
and
ecological
monitoring
data
were
also
incorporated
into
this
risk
assessment
as
additional
lines
of
evidence.

Based
on
predicted
aquatic
exposures
and
available
ecotoxicity
data,
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
all
of
the
assessed
uses
poses
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
animals.
Acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
fish
and
invertebrates
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern.
Azinphos
methyl
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
thresholds,
resulting
in
individual
mortality
or
sublethal
effects
(
i.
e.
reduced
fecundity
and/
or
growth).
Aquatic
animals
that
survive
initial
(
peak)
exposures
may
be
vulnerable
to
sublethal
effects
on
normal
life
processes,
such
as
growth
and
reproduction.
Widespread
mortality
and/
or
reproductive
impairment
in
a
population
can
have
profound
ecological
consequences
(
i.
e.
trophic
cascade
effects,
shift
toward
less
sensitive
species,
reduced
biodiversity,
etc).
These
risk
conclusions
are
supported
by
an
extensive
history
of
adverse
aquatic
incidents.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
fish
and
invertebrates
that
inhabit
areas
where
these
crops
are
grown.

Birds
(
surrogate
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles)
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
dietary
residues
that
exceed
known
mortality
and
sublethal
(
i.
e.
reproduction,
growth)
effects
thresholds.
Based
on
high­
end
and
mean
predicted
terrestrial
exposures,
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern
for
herbivorous
and
insectivorous
birds
and
mammals
for
all
of
the
assessed
uses.
Although
risks
to
terrestrial
invertebrates
were
not
quantitatively
assessed,
it
is
expected
that
azinphos
methyl,
an
insecticide,
poses
risks
to
non­
target
(
beneficial)
insects.
Depending
on
the
magnitude
of
the
effects
on
individual
fitness,
higher­
level
ecological
impacts
are
possible.
Terrestrial
field/
pen
studies
and
several
terrestrial
incidents
support
these
risk
conclusions.
Further
risk
mitigation
measures
(
e.
g.
application
rate
reduction)
are
unlikely
to
significantly
alter
these
acute
and
chronic
terrestrial
risk
conclusions.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
terrestrialphase
amphibians,
and
terrestrial
invertebrates
that
inhabit
areas
where
these
crops
are
grown.
6
II.
Problem
Formulation
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
1.
Source
and
Intensity
In
1999,
the
EFED
assessed
the
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl,
an
organophosphate
insecticide,
on
a
variety
of
agricultural
uses.
Mitigation
efforts
following
the
2001
IRED
resulted
in
the
cancellation
(
with
a
phase­
out
period)
of
several
uses
and
time­
limited
re­
registration
of
several
uses.
This
risk
assessment
addresses
the
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl,
a
foliarly
applied
spray
that
controls
a
variety
of
insects
such
as
codling
moth,
boll
weevil,
and
plum
curculio,
on
a
variety
of
terrestrial
crops
and
ornamentals.
The
specific
azinphos
methyl
uses
that
were
assessed
are
almonds,
apples,
blueberries
(
low­
and
highbush),
brussels
sprouts,
cherries,
grapes,
nursery
stock,
parsley,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts.
Current
label
application
rates
and
other
mitigation
efforts,
such
as
buffers,
have
been
assessed.

2.
Physical/
Chemical/
Fate
and
Transport
Properties
Common
Name:
azinphos
methyl
Chemical
Name:
O,
O­
dimethyl
S­[
4­
oxo­
1,2,3­
benzotriazin
3(
4H)­
yl)
methyl]
phosphoro­
dithioate
CAS
Number:
86­
50­
0
PC
Code:
058001
Molecular
Formula:
C
10
H
12
N
3
O
3
PS
2
Class:
organophosphate
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
Molecular
Mass:
317.32
g
C
mol­
1
Physical
State:
white
to
beige
granular
material
Melting
Point:
67­
70
°
C
K
ow
:
543
Vapor
Pressure:
2.20
x
10­
7
torr
Solubility
in
Water:
25.10
mgCL­
1
at
25
°
C
Henry's
Law
Constant:
3.66
x
10­
9
m3
Cmol­
1
(
calculated)

Azinphos
methyl
(
Figure
1)
is
mobile
(
K
f
=
12­
27)
and
can
reach
surface
water
dissolved
in
runoff
but
not
likely
to
leach
to
ground
water
in
most
situations.
It
is
moderately
persistent
with
aerobic
soil
metabolism
DT
50
of
27
d.
It
degrades
rapidly
by
direct
aqueous
photolysis
(
T
1/
2
=
77
h),
but
rather
slowly
by
soil
photolysis
(
T
1/
2
=
180
d).
Hydrolysis
is
alkaline
catalyzed
and
is
fairly
rapid
at
high
pH,
on
the
order
of
several
days.
It
is
moderately
persistent
at
acid
and
neutral
pH.
There
is
some
uncertainty
in
the
assessment
of
the
hydrolysis
data
because
data
were
not
collected
below
30
°
C.
There
are
data
on
the
degradates
formed
through
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism,
but
no
usable
rate
data
is
available.
7
Figure
1.
Molecular
structure
of
azinphos
methyl.

Degradates
include
anthranilic
acid,
methyl
anthranilate,
azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog,
mercaptomethyl
benzazimide,
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide,
benzazamide,
and
bis­
methyl
benzazamide
sulfide,
and
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid.
The
processes
which
produced
each
degradate
are
listed
in
Table
3.3.
Because
of
the
limited
concentrations
of
the
identified
degradates
and
their
properties,
this
risk
assessment
has
been
based
solely
on
the
parent.
To
the
extent
toxic
degradates
were
present
but
not
considered,
the
risk
is
commensurately
increased.
However,
we
do
not
believe
this
to
be
a
major
limitation
of
this
assessment,
since
all
levels
of
concern
are
already
exceeded
and
we
have
high
confidence
that
impacts
are
occurring
from
the
incident
data.

A
second
source
of
uncertainty
in
the
fate
assessment
is
due
to
the
field
dissipation
studies.
The
two
guideline
studies
are
both
from
California
and
are
of
limited
quality
due
to
very
poor
recoveries
at
initiation
of
the
study.
In
addition,
these
studies
were
run
on
fairly
alkaline
soils
(
pH
=
6.9
­
8.7),
so
they
represent
locations
where
azinphos
methyl
would
be
expected
to
be
least
persistent.
Two
non­
guideline
studies
from
Georgia
and
Mississippi
suggest
that
DT
50
'
s
in
Southeast
may
be
relatively
short,
at
3
and
8
days
respectively.
However,
these
studies
only
sampled
the
top
inch
of
soil.

In
general,
the
laboratory
fate
data
for
parent
azinphos
methyl
provides
a
reasonable
level
of
confidence
for
the
risk
assessment.
In
contrast
to
most
other
pesticides,
there
is
a
fair
amount
(
7
values)
of
foliar
dissipation
data.
Additional
metabolism
data
would
increase
our
confidence
in
the
chronic
exposure
assessment
and
may
result
in
reduced
EEC
values.

3.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
Azinphos
methyl
is
an
organophosphate
insecticide
that
has
both
contact
and
stomach
action.
It
is
an
inhibitor
of
cholinesterase
activity
and
interferes
with
nervous
system
functioning.
Cholinesterase
inhibition
can
have
impacts
on
survivorship,
reproduction,
growth,
and
behavior
of
affected
animals.
8
4.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
Azinphos
methyl
is
currently
registered
only
for
eleven
crop
uses,
making
it
geographically
restricted
to
several
high
use
locations,
including
the
Shenandoah
and
Cumberland
Valleys,
central
Washington,
Central
Valley
of
California,
and
Michigan.
These
uses
are
almonds,
apples,
blueberries
(
low­
and
highbush),
brussels
sprouts,
cherries
(
sweet
and
tart),
grapes,
nursery
stock,
parsley,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts
(
Table
2.1).
National
maps
of
crop
distributions
are
available
for
almonds,
apples,
blueberries,
sweet
and
tart
cherries,
pears
and
walnuts
(
Figures
2
­
8).

Table
2.1
Overview
of
azinphos
methyl
usage
on
assessed
crops.

Use
Geographic
Distribution
(
Potential
Use
Areas
for
Azinphos
Methyl)
Target
Pest(
s)

Almonds
CA
Navel
orange
worm,
peach
twig
borer
Apples
Across
the
U.
S.;
top­
producing
states
are
WA,
NY,
MI,
PA,
CA,
VA
Codling
moth,
oriental
fruit
moth,
plum
curculio,
apple
maggot,
apple
aphid,
rosy
apple
aphid,
woolly
apple
aphid,
San
Jose
scale
Blueberries
Low­
bush:
use
restricted
to
ME;
high­
bush:
north
central
(
MI,
IN),
east
(
NJ,
NY,
FL,
GA,
NC),
Pacific
northwest
(
OR,
WA)
Blueberry
maggot
Brussels
Sprouts
CA
Aphids,
cabbage
root
maggot
Cherries
Sweet:
top­
producing
states
are
WA,
OR,
CA,
MI
Tart:
top­
producing
states
are
MI,
WA,
OR,
UT
Sweet:
Plum
curculio,
cherry
fruit
fly,
Glassy­
winged
sharpshooter
Tart:
Plum
curculio,
cherry
fruit
fly,
blossom
weevil,
strawberry
sap
beetle
Grapes
CA
(
only
­
label
restriction)
Grape
berry
moth
Nursery
Stock
Across
the
U.
S.
Black
vine
weevil
Parsley
NJ
and
OH
(
only
­
label
restriction)
Carrot
root
weevil
Pears
Top­
producing
states
are
WA,
OR,
CA
Codling
moth,
grape
mealybug
Pistachios
Use
of
azinphos
methyl
is
restricted
to
pistachios
in
CA
and
AZ
Navel
orange
worm
Walnuts
CA
Codling
moth
9
Figure
2.
Total
Acres
of
Almonds:
2002.
(
Source:
USDA
2002
Census
of
Agriculture
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
research/
atlas02/;
accessed
26
July
05)
10
Figure
3.
Total
Acres
of
Apples:
2002.
(
Source:
USDA
2002
Census
of
Agriculture
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
research/
atlas02/;
accessed
26
July
05)
11
Figure
4.
Total
Acres
of
Tame
Blueberries:
2002.
(
Source:
USDA
2002
Census
of
Agriculture
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
research/
atlas02/;
accessed
26
July
05)
12
Figure
5.
Total
Acres
of
Sweet
Cherries:
2002.
(
Source:
USDA
2002
Census
of
Agriculture
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
research/
atlas02/;
accessed
26
July
05)
13
Figure
6.
Total
Acres
of
Tart
Cherries:
2002.
(
Source:
USDA
2002
Census
of
Agriculture
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
research/
atlas02/;
accessed
26
July
05)
14
Figure
7.
Total
Acres
of
Pears:
2002.
(
Source:
USDA
2002
Census
of
Agriculture
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
research/
atlas02/;
accessed
26
July
05)
15
Figure
8.
Total
Acres
of
Walnuts:
2002.
(
Source:
USDA
2002
Census
of
Agriculture
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
research/
atlas02/;
accessed
26
July
05)

B.
Assessment
Endpoints
1.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
Aquatic
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
include
water
bodies
adjacent
to,
or
downstream
from
the
treated
field
and
might
include
impounded
bodies
such
as
ponds,
lakes
and
reservoirs,
or
flowing
waterways
such
as
streams
or
rivers.
For
uses
in
coastal
areas,
aquatic
habitat
also
includes
marine
ecosystems,
including
estuaries.
For
tier
2
assessment
purposes,
risk
will
be
assessed
to
aquatic
animals
assumed
to
occur
in
small,
static
ponds
receiving
runoff
and
drift
from
treated
areas.
These
ponds
are
used
as
surrogates
for
a
number
of
small
vulnerable
waterbodies
that
occur
near
the
tops
of
watersheds
including
swamps,
bogs,
prairie
potholes,
vernal
pools,
playa
lakes,
and
first­
order
streams.
16
The
terrestrial
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
include
the
treated
area
and
areas
immediately
adjacent
to
the
treated
area
that
might
receive
drift
or
runoff,
and
might
include
other
cultivated
fields,
fencerows
and
hedgerows,
meadows,
fallow
fields
or
grasslands,
woodlands,
riparian
habitats
and
other
uncultivated
areas.
For
tier
1
assessment
purposes,
risk
will
be
assessed
to
terrestrial
animals
assumed
to
exclusively
occur
in
the
treated
area.

2.
Ecological
Effects
For
azinphos
methyl,
ecological
measures
of
effect
are
based
on
multiple
lines
of
evidence,
including
a
suite
of
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
as
well
as
field
studies
and
adverse
ecological
incidents.
Toxicity
data
and
the
resulting
measures
of
ecological
effect
selected
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
discussed
in
Section
III.
C.
A
summary
of
the
assessment
endpoints
and
measures
of
ecological
effect
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
azinphos
methyl
is
provided
in
Table
2.2.
Risks
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants
were
not
assessed
due
to
a
lack
of
phytotoxicity
data
for
azinphos
methyl;
however,
risks
to
plants
are
presumed
to
be
minimal
given
the
mode
of
action
(
cholinesterase
inhibition)
and
the
fact
that
aziphos
methyl
is
commonly
applied
to
foliage.

Table
2.2
Summary
of
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Endpoints
for
Azinphos
Methyl
Assessment
Endpoint
Effects
Measurement
Endpoint
1.
Survival,
reproduction
and
growth
of
birds
1a.
Oral
LD50
(
mallard
duck,
bobwhite
quail,
ring­
necked
pheasant,
chukar)
1b.
Dietary
LC50
(
mallard
duck;
bobwhite,
Japanese
quail;
ring­
necked
pheasant)
1c.
Reproductive
NOAEC,
LOAEC
(
bobwhite
quail,
mallard
duck)

2.
Survival,
reproduction
and
growth
of
mammals
2a.
Oral
LD50
(
lab
rat;
lab,
house,
deer
mouse;
gray­
tailed
vole)
2b.
Dietary
LC50
(
lab,
deer
mouse;
gray­
tailed
vole)
2c.
Reproductive
NOAEC,
LOAEC
(
lab
rat)

3.
Survival,
reproduction,
and
growth
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
3a.
LC50
(
coho,
Atlantic
salmon;
rainbow,
brown,
brook
trout;
goldfish;
carp;
fathead
minnow;
black
bullhead;
channel
catfish;
green,
bluegill
sunfish;
largemouth
bass;
black
crappie;
yellow
perch;
gold
orfe;
northern
pike)
3b.
Reproductive
NOAEC,
LOAEC
(
rainbow
trout)
3c.
LC50
(
Daphnia
magna,
Asellus
brevicaudus,
Procambarus
sp.,
Gammarus
fasciatus,
Palaemonetes
kadiakemsis,
Pteronarcys
californica)
3d.
Reproductive
NOAEC,
LOAEC
(
Daphnia
magna)

4.
Survival,
reproduction,
and
growth
of
saltwater
fish
and
invertebrates
4a.
LC50
(
sheepshead
minnow,
spot,
striped
mullet)
4b.
LC50
(
Eastern
oyster,
brown
shrimp,
blue
crab,
mysid
shrimp)

5.
Survival
of
amphibians
5a.
LC50
(
Fowler's
toad,
Western
chorus
frog)

6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insects
6a.
Contact
LD50
honeybee
acute
6b.
Foliar
residue
toxicity
to
honeybees
LC
50
=
Lethal
concentration
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
LD
50
=
Lethal
dose
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
NOAEC
=
No
observed
adverse
effect
level.
17
LOAEC
=
Lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level.

C.
Analysis
Plan
1.
Measures
of
Exposure
a.
Aquatic
Exposures
Exposure
can
be
estimated
from
monitoring
data
or
by
simulation
modeling.
In
this
assessment,
measures
of
exposure
for
azinphos
methyl
are
made
primarily
with
simulation
modeling,
which
are
supported
qualitatively
with
monitoring
data.
Exposure
models
used
for
this
assessment
include
the
suite
of
standard
exposure
models
commonly
used
in
pesticide
risk
assessments
(
EPA,
2004).
Generally,
aquatic
exposure
estimates
are
generated
from
EFED
models
and
incorporate
maximum
proposed
use
rates
and
empirically­
derived
fate
properties.
They
represent
the
environmental
concentration
that
would
be
expected
to
be
equaled
or
exceeded
once
every
ten
years
at
a
site
used
to
grow
the
a
specific
crop
that
is
more
vulnerable
than
90%
of
the
sites
in
the
country
which
are
used
for
that
crop.
The
pesticide
loading
from
a
10
hectare
field
drains
into
a
pond
that
has
an
area
of
1
hectare
and
is
2
meters
deep.
This
watershed
geometry
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
`
standard
pond.'
Further
details
of
the
exposure
models
are
discussed
in
Section
3.2
and
on
the
web
at
http://
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm.

b.
Terrestrial
Exposures
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
estimates
are
typically
calculated
for
bird
and
mammals,
which
are
surrogates
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles.
These
estimates
focus
on
potential
dietary
exposures
to
the
pesticide
active
ingredient
and
are
estimated
assuming
that
organisms
are
exposed
to
a
single
pesticide
residue
on
food
items
in
a
given
exposure
scenario.
Dietary
residues
will
be
modeled
for
mammals
and
birds
(
e.
g.,
vegetation,
insects,
seeds)
using
the
conceptual
approach
given
in
the
model
T­
REX
(
Version
1.12,
2004).

2.
Measures
of
Effect
Measures
of
effect
are
based
on
changes
in
the
attribute
of
an
entity
in
response
to
a
stressor
and
are
generally
based
on
the
results
of
a
toxicity
study,
although
monitoring
data
may
also
be
used
to
provide
supporting
lines
of
evidence
for
the
risk
characterization.
Examples
of
measures
of
acute
effects
(
e.
g.,
lethality)
include
an
oral
LD
50
for
birds
and
mammals
and
an
LC
50
for
fish
and
invertebrates.
Examples
of
measures
of
chronic
effects
include
the
reproductive
or
developmental
NOAEL
for
birds
and
mammals.
Table
4.1
summarizes
the
toxicity
endpoints
that
will
be
used
to
assess
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
all
of
the
assessed
uses.
This
risk
assessment
only
addresses
potential
risks
to
non­
target
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals;
given
the
low
phytotoxicity
of
azinphos
methyl,
risks
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants
are
presumed
to
be
minimal.
18
3.
Measures
of
Ecosystem
and
Receptor
Characteristics
The
model
that
will
be
used
to
predict
aquatic
exposures
is
the
tier
2
PRZM/
EXAMS
model
(
Appendix
A).
Aquatic
exposure
and
risks
will
be
estimated
qualitatively
for
parsley
and
nursery
stock.
The
tier
1
T­
REX
model
(
Appendix
B)
will
be
used
to
estimate
dietary
exposure
for
terrestrial
animals
for
all
of
the
assessed
uses.
Selected
ecosystems
used
in
exposure
modeling
are
intended
to
be
generally
representative
of
any
aquatic
or
terrestrial
ecosystem
associated
with
areas
where
azinphos
methyl
is
used.
For
aquatic
assessments,
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
in
both
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
environments
are
represented.
For
terrestrial
assessments,
three
different
size
classes
of
small
mammals
are
represented,
along
with
five
potential
foraging
categories
(
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects,
fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects,
and
seeds).
For
birds,
four
potential
foraging
categories
are
considered
(
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects,
and
fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects).

Results
of
the
exposure
and
toxicity
effects
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
non­
target
species.
For
the
assessment
of
azinphos
methyl
risks,
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
was
used
to
compare
exposure
and
measured
toxicity
values.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
divided
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values.
RQs
are
typically
calculated
using
the
most
sensitive
species
in
a
given
taxonomic
group;
in
this
case,
RQs
calculated
with
other
species
are
also
discussed
in
the
Risk
Description
(
Section
IV.
B).
RQs
are
compared
to
the
Agency's
pre­
determined
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs;
Appendix
C).
These
LOCs
are
the
Agency's
interpretive
policy
and
are
used
to
analyze
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
These
criteria
are
used
to
indicate
when
a
pesticide's
use
as
directed
on
the
label
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
nontarget
organisms.

III.
Analysis
A.
Use
Characterization
Application
rates
and
management
practices
for
each
of
the
assessed
uses
are
summarized
in
Table
3.1.
19
Table
3.1
Azinphos
methyl
application
rates
and
management
practices.

Crop
Max.
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Max.
No.
Apps.
Minimum
Interval
Buffer
Width
Method
(%
drift)

Almonds
1
2
1
NA
25
ft
air
blast
Apples
1
1.5
3
2
7
d
25
ft
air
blast
3
Blueberries
0.75
2
10
d
50
ft
aerial
Brussels
Sprouts
0.75
1
NA
25
ft
ground
spray
Cherries
1,4
(
Sweet)
0.75
2
14
d
25
ft
air
blast
Cherries
(
Tart)
0.75
2
14
d
25
ft
air
blast
Grapes
7
1.0
3
NS
25
ft
air
blast
Nursery
Stock
5
1
4
10
d
25
ft
air
blast
Parsley
6
0.5
3
NS
25
ft
ground
spray
Pears
1
1.5
2
7
d
25
ft
air
blast
2
Pistachios
1
2
1
NA
25
ft
air
blast
Walnuts
1
2
1
NA
25
ft
air
blast
*
For
all
simulations,
IPSCND,
the
disposition
of
foliar
pesticide
residues
on
foliage
at
harvest
was
set
to
1,
so
that
the
residues
are
applied
to
the
soil.
Note:
ground
boom
(
brussels
sprouts
­
4
feet
above
canopy
or
ground,
25
ft
buffer)
1)
No
dormant
application
allowed
2)
Last
application
of
1.0
lb
acre
­
1
as
seasonal
maximum
is
4
lb
acre
­
1
.
3)
Aerial
allowed
in
Idaho
4)
Several
azinphos
methyl
products
are
restricted
from
application
to
cherries
before
harvest
in
California
5)
The
ornamental
use
specifically
excludes
Christmas
trees.
6)
Application
to
parsley
is
limited
to
New
Jersey
and
Ohio
7)
Application
limited
to
California
B.
Exposure
Characterization
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
Azinphos
methyl
is
mobile
(
K
f
=
12­
27)
and
can
reach
surface
water
dissolved
in
runoff,
but
it
is
not
likely
to
leach
to
ground
water
in
most
situations.
It
is
moderately
persistent
with
aerobic
soil
metabolism
DT
50
of
27
d.
Azinphos
methyl
degrades
rapidly
by
direct
aqueous
photolysis
(
T
1/
2
=
77
h),
but
rather
slowly
by
soil
photolysis
(
T
1/
2
=
180
d).
Hydrolysis
is
alkaline
catalyzed
and
is
fairly
rapid
at
high
pH,
on
the
order
of
several
days.
It
is
moderately
persistent
at
acid
and
neutral
pH.
There
is
some
uncertainty
in
the
assessment
of
the
hydrolysis
data
because
data
were
not
collected
below
30
°
C.
There
are
data
on
the
degradates
formed
through
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism,
but
no
usable
rate
data
are
available.

Degradates
include
anthranilic
acid,
methyl
anthranilate,
azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog,
mercaptomethyl
benzazimide,
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide,
benzazamide,
and
bis­
methyl
20
benzazamide
sulfide,
and
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid.
The
processes
which
produced
each
degradate
are
listed
in
Table
3.3.
Because
of
the
limited
concentrations
of
the
identified
degradates
and
their
properties,
this
risk
assessment
has
been
based
solely
on
the
parent.
To
the
extent
that
toxic
degradates
were
present
but
not
considered,
the
risk
is
commensurately
increased.
However,
we
do
not
believe
this
to
be
a
major
limitation
of
this
assessment,
since
all
levels
of
concern
are
already
exceeded,
and
adverse
ecological
incident
provide
addition
support
of
the
risk
conclusions.
Furthermore,
none
of
the
degradates
that
are
produced
by
metabolic
pathways,
which
are
the
primary
routes
of
degradation
for
azinphos
methyl,
are
present
at
any
time
at
concentrations
greater
than
10%
of
the
nominal
starting
concentration
of
the
parent,
so
they
would
not
be
expected
to
contribute
substantially
to
the
total
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
in
the
environment.

A
second
source
of
uncertainty
in
the
fate
assessment
is
due
to
the
field
dissipation
studies.
The
two
guideline
studies
are
both
from
California
and
are
of
limited
quality
due
to
very
poor
recoveries
at
initiation
of
the
study.
In
addition,
these
studies
were
run
on
fairly
alkaline
soils
(
pH
=
6.9
­
8.7),
so
they
represent
locations
where
azinphos
methyl
is
somewhat
less
persistent.
Two
non­
guideline
studies
from
Georgia
and
Mississippi
suggest
that
DT
50
'
s
in
the
Southeast
may
be
relatively
short,
at
3
and
8
days,
respectively.
However,
these
studies
only
sampled
the
top
inch
of
soil.

In
general,
the
laboratory
fate
data
for
parent
azinphos
methyl
provides
a
reasonable
level
of
confidence
for
the
risk
assessment.
In
contrast
to
most
other
pesticides,
there
is
a
fair
amount
(
7
values)
of
foliar
dissipation
data.
Additional
metabolism
data
would
increase
our
confidence
in
the
chronic
exposure
assessment
and
may
result
in
reduced
EEC
values.

An
hydrolysis
study
(
MRID
40297001)
was
conducted
at
three
pH's
(
4,
7,
and
9)
and
two
temperatures
(
30
°
C
and
40
°
C).
This
study
was
acceptable
for
regulatory
purposes.
Note
that
the
standard
guideline
hydrolysis
study
is
conducted
at
pH's
5,
7,
and
9
and
at
a
single
temperature
of
25
°
C.
Starting
concentrations
of
1
mg
L­
1
and
10
mg
L­
1
were
tested
for
each
set
of
conditions
for
a
total
of
12
test
systems.
Rate
constants
were
the
same
regardless
of
the
starting
concentration
as
would
be
expected
if
a
first
order
degradation
model
holds
true.
The
rate
constants
were
estimated
using
linear
regression
of
log­
transformed
data.
The
corresponding
half­
lives
as
a
function
of
pH
and
temperature
are
listed
in
Table
3.2.
The
Arrhenius
equation
was
used
to
correct
for
the
temperature
and
estimate
half­
lives
at
for
pH
5,
7,
and
9
by
extrapolation
from
the
higher
temperature
data.
These
25
°
C
half
lives
are
38
d,
37
d,
and
6.9
d
respectively.

Table
3.2
Half­
life
(
in
days)
of
azinphos
methyl
as
function
of
pH
and
temperature.

Temperature
pH
4
pH
7
pH
9
30
C
49
26
3.7
40
C
23
13
1.8
21
Several
degradates
were
found
at
concentrations
greater
than
10%
of
the
parent
(
Table
3.3).
In
general,
starting
concentration
and
temperature
did
not
appear
to
affect
the
amount
of
each
degradate
that
was
found
after
30
days.
Mercaptomethyl
benzazimide
was
found
at
4.9%
to
10.4%
after
30
days
in
pH
7,
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide
and
benzazimide,
which
were
measured
as
single
analyte,
were
found
after
30
days
at
8.1%
to
12.2%
at
pH
4,
6.0
to
14.2%
at
pH
7,
and
32.4
to
38.9%
at
pH
9.
as
a
single
anthranilic
acid,
was
identified
a
concentration
above
10%
of
the
applied
parent.
Anthranilic
acid
was
found
at
between
18.1
and
22.8%
of
the
parent
a
30
days
in
the
pH
9
test
systems.
An
unidentified
degradate
which
was
possibly
an
ester
of
was
found
in
the
pH
9
test
systems
at
7.4%
to
14.5%.
Bis­
methyl
benzazamide
sulfide
was
also
found
at
concentration
less
than
10%
of
the
applied
radioactivity.

a.
Photolysis
Azinphos
methyl
degrades
by
photolysis
on
both
soil
and
in
water.
In
the
aqueous
photolysis
experiment
(
MRID
40297001)
conducted
at
pH
4.35
and
30
°
C,
a
direct
photolysis
half­
life
of
76.7
hours
was
estimated
from
the
first
order
rate
constant
calculated
using
linear
regression
on
log­
transformed
data.
Note
that
while
the
standard
guidance
is
for
the
study
to
be
conducted
at
25
°
C
the
data
was
found
to
acceptable
for
regulatory
use
as
photolysis
is
usually
relatively
insensitive
to
temperature.
The
experiment
was
run
in
January
in
Kansas
City
with
natural
sunlight
over
87
hours.
Two
major
degradates
were
identified,
benzazimide
and
anthranilic
acid.
In
this
experiment,
each
`
degradate'
actually
is
a
complex
of
two
degradates
that
could
not
be
separately
identified
by
the
analytical
procedure
used
in
the
study.
The
benzazimide
complex
consisted
of
benzazimide
and
(
1N)­
methoxybenzazimide
while
the
anthranilic
acid
complex
consisted
of
anthranilic
acid
and
methyl
anthranilate
ester.
Benzazimide
complex
represented
39.1%
of
the
radiolabeled
residues
at
the
end
of
the
experiment,
the
anthranilic
acid
complex
reached
7.2%
of
the
radiolabeled
residues
at
the
end
of
experiment.

In
a
soil
photolysis
experiment
(
MRID
40297002)
done
with
natural
sunlight
in
January
through
April
in
Kansas
City,
Missouri,
the
photolysis
half­
life
corrected
for
the
dark
control
was
180
d.
The
data
from
this
study
is
acceptable
for
regulatory
use.
The
soil
was
an
unidentified
sandy
loam
from
Stanley,
Kansas
with
a
pH
of
5.1.
The
half­
life
was
estimated
from
rate
constants
calculated
by
linear
regression
on
log­
transformed
data.
Eighty­
nine
per
cent
of
the
initial
radioactivity
remained
after
31
d
in
the
dark
control
where
as
79%
was
present
in
the
irradiated
test
system.
The
soil
used
was
an
unidentified
sandy
loam.
No
specific
degradates
were
identified
and
none
exceeded
4%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
at
any
point
during
the
experiment.

b.
Metabolism
There
is
one
submitted
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study
for
azinphos
methyl
(
MRID
29900).
The
study
was
conducted
on
an
unidentified
sandy
loam
soil.
Ten
measurements
were
made
over
the
course
of
1
year.
The
DT
50
was
27
d
and
the
DT
90
was
146
d
as
estimated
by
exponential
22
interpolation.
The
reaction
does
not
appear
to
follow
first­
order
kinetics,
hence
a
half­
life
estimate
is
inappropriate.
However,
since
the
current
environmental
fate
models
require
first
order
rate
constant,
an
estimate
was
generated
using
non­
linear
regression
on
the
untransformed
data.
This
method
often
provides
estimates
that
better
describe
the
data
when
there
is
significant
lack
of
fit
of
the
first
order
model,
as
is
the
case
here.
The
half­
life
estimate
generated
using
this
method
was
32
d.
No
single
identified
metabolite
was
found
at
greater
than
10%
of
the
applied
radioactivity;
the
oxygen
analog
of
azinphos
methyl
(
azinphos
methyl
oxon)
peaked
at
5.3%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
186
d
after
application.
Four
benzazamide
metabolites,
namely
mercaptomethyl
benzazimide,
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide,
benzazamide,
and
bis­
methyl
benzazamide
sulfide,
were
reported
as
a
single
analyte,
with
a
maximum
of
12%
of
the
applied
occurring
at
120
d.
Only
4.1
%
of
residues
were
trapped
as
volatiles
in
a
NaOH
trap;
this
is
likely
to
have
been
CO
2
.
Seventy­
two
per
cent
of
the
radioactivity
was
in
unidentified
soil
bound
residues
at
the
end
of
the
experiment.

A
single
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
was
submitted
(
MRID
29900).
This
study
was
found
to
be
acceptable
for
regulatory
use.
In
this
study,
the
soil
was
incubated
aerobically
for
30
d,
prior
to
flooding
and
purging
with
nitrogen.
Three
samples
were
collected
and
analyzed
over
the
subsequent
60
d
duration
of
the
study.
Forty
four
percent
of
the
applied
radioactivity
was
present
at
the
initiation
of
anaerobic
conditions
and
24%
was
present
as
azinphos
methyl
at
the
completion
of
the
study
60
d
later.
No
DT
50
was
estimated
as
the
less
than
50%
of
the
parent
that
was
present
at
the
initiation
of
anaerobic
conditions
was
degraded
during
the
course
of
the
study.
The
data
was
fit
to
a
first
order
degradation
model
using
linear
regression
of
log­
transformed
data,
resulting
in
a
half­
life
estimate
of
66
d.
The
confidence
in
this
estimate
is
low
since
it
is
based
on
only
three
measurements.
No
single
metabolite
was
present
at
greater
than
10%
of
the
application
rate.
At
the
conclusion
of
the
study,
50%
of
the
radioactivity
was
present
as
unidentified
soil
bound
residues.

A
single
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
study
was
submitted
(
MRID
44411801).
This
study
was
found
to
provide
supplemental
data
on
the
degradates,
but
not
to
be
fully
acceptable.
The
study
is
not
upgradeable.
Eight
or
nine
degradates
of
azinphos
methyl
were
found
in
the
two
systems:
des­
methyl
azinphos
methyl,
des­
methyl
azinphos
methyl
S­
methyl
isomer,
methyl
benzazimide,
methylsulfinyl
methyl
benzazimide,
methylsulfonyl
methyl
benzazimide,
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid,
methylthiomethyl
benzazimide,
and
either/
or
hydroxy­
methyl
benzazimide/
benzazimide.
The
last
two
degradates
were
not
resolved
by
the
chromatography.
Only
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid
occurred
at
greater
than
10%
(
11.4%)
of
the
nominal
concentration.
The
study
could
not
be
used
to
establish
the
rate
of
azinphos
methyl
degradation
under
aerobic
aquatic
conditions.
23
Table
3.3
Degradates
found
in
azinphos
methyl
studies.

Degradate
Soil
Photolysis
Aqueous
Photolysis
Hydrolysis
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
des­
methyl
azinphos
methyl
X
des­
methyl
azinphos
methyl
S­
methyl
isomer
X
anthranilic
acid
X
X
methyl
anthranilate
X
benzazimide
X
X
X
X
azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog
X
X
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide
X
X
X
X
mercaptomethyl
benzazimide
X
X
bis­
methyl
benzazamide
sulfide
X
X
methyl
benzazimide
X
methylsulfinyl
methyl
benzazimide
X
methylsulfonyl
methyl
benzazimide
X
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid
X
methylthiomethyl
benzazimide
X
c.
Foliar
Degradation
and
Washoff
A
major
route
of
dissipation
for
azinphos
methyl
is
foliar
degradation
and
washoff.
There
are
seven
measurements
available
for
foliar
degradation
of
azinphos
methyl
(
Table
3.4),
six
from
the
open
literature
and
one
from
a
study
submitted
by
the
registrant.
Note
that
there
are
currently
no
requirements
nor
guidance
for
the
conduct
for
foliar
degradation
and
washoff
studies.
The
study
by
the
registrant
was
conducted
concurrently
with
a
runoff
study
at
Benoit,
Mississippi
(
Coody
1992).
The
mean
dissipation
half
life
over
these
studies
was
7.2
d.
The
background
variability
among
studies
is
fairly
high,
F
=
4.9
d.
Note
that
most
of
these
studies
are
field
studies,
24
so
they
may
include
washoff.
Note
also
that
there
is
some
evidence
(
see
Jones,
D190581.
McDowell,
1984)
that
foliar
dissipation
is
not
a
first
order
process,
so
the
half
lives
used
in
this
calculation
may
not
accurately
reflect
the
true
degradation
process
on
foliar
surfaces
for
azinphos
methyl.
There
were
no
degradate
data
in
these
studies.

One
washoff
estimate
was
available
for
azinphos
methyl
(
Gunther
et
al,
1977).
This
study
showed
that
60%
of
the
azinphos
methyl
of
leaf
surfaces
washed
of
with
0.33
cm
of
simulated
rainfall.
This
would
correspond
to
a
first
order
washoff
rate
constant
of
0.937
cm­
1.
A
description
of
the
method
of
estimating
the
washoff
rate
constant
is
in
Jones,
1998.

Table
3.4
Foliar
dissipation
half­
lives
for
azinphos
methyl.

Half­
life
(
days)
Source
1.6
Hoskins,
1961
7.9
Hoskins,
1961
5.2
Hoskins,
1961
7.4
Pree
et
al.,
1976
9.8
Pree
et
al.,
1976
16.0
Winterlin
et
al.,
1974
2.56
MRID
425167­
02
d.
Batch
Equilibrium/
Mobility
Soil
water
partition
coefficients
were
estimated
from
batch
equilibrium
studies
for
three
unidentified
soils
(
MRID
42959702).
K
f
values
for
adsorption
varied
from
7
to
17
and
varied
from
12
to
28
for
desorption
(
Table
3.5).
In
all
cases
1/
n
values
were
less
than
1,
indicating
that
the
adsorption/
desorption
isotherms
are
not
linear.
Binding
of
azinphos
methyl
to
soil
was
not
significantly
correlated
to
soil
organic
carbon
content
(
R2
=
51%).
These
values
suggest
that
azinphos
methyl
should
not
be
particularly
mobile
by
leaching
but
should
be
relatively
mobile
to
surface
waters
in
the
dissolved
form
in
runoff.
An
aged
soil
column
leaching
study
(
MRID
00029887)
confirmed
the
low
mobility
by
leaching
of
azinphos
methyl
and
its
degradates:
90%
of
the
radioactivity
was
in
the
top
5
cm
of
the
column
after
leaching
with
35.5
cm
of
water
over
45
d.
The
soil
material
was
aged
for
28
d
and
then
dried
before
being
packed
into
the
column.
A
total
of
4.4%
of
the
radioactivity
leached
from
the
bottom
of
the
30.5
cm
column.
25
Table
3.5
Fruendlich
Adsorption
and
Desorption
constants
for
azinphos
methyl
on
four
soils.

Soil
Texture
%
Organic
Carbon
Kf
for
adsorption
1/
n
for
adsorption
Kf
for
desorption
1/
n
for
adsorption
sandy
loam
1.6
7.6
0.83
12.3
0.86
silt
loam
2.9
16.8
0.82
27.5
0.94
silty
clay
0.3
9.8
0.93
12.3
0.95
e.
Bioaccumulation
A
bioaccumulation
study
is
not
required
as
the
K
ow
is
less
than
1000.
The
K
ow
of
azinphos
methyl
is
543.

f.
Field
Dissipation
Studies
Four
terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies
are
available
for
azinphos
methyl.
Two
additional
field
dissipation
studies
have
been
submitted
are
currently
in
review.
The
first
two
were
submitted
to
satisfy
the
terrestrial
field
dissipation
guideline.
The
second
two
were
submitted
in
conjunction
with
runoff
studies.
They
provide
supporting
information
on
the
dissipation
of
azinphos
methyl
under
some
conditions
but
do
not
satisfy
the
guideline
requirement.
The
first
two
(
MRID
42647901)
were
conducted
in
California
on
alfalfa
fields.
There
were
no
uncropped
plots
at
either
site.
One
of
the
studies
was
conducted
at
Watsonville,
California
on
a
Salinas
silt
loam
where
azinphos
methyl
was
applied
in
July.
The
pH
of
the
soil
at
this
site
ranged
from
6.9
to
8.0.
We
would
expect
azinphos
methyl
to
degrade
more
rapidly
under
these
pH
conditions
when
compared
to
most
agricultural
fields
where
the
pH
is
acid
to
neutral.
The
duration
of
the
experiment
was
60
days.
There
were
two
plots,
one
receiving
one
application
of
3
lb
acre­
1,
and
the
other
receiving
two
applications
7
days
apart
at
the
same
rate.
Parent
azinphos
methyl
degraded
with
a
DT
50
of
9
days
(
estimated
by
exponential
interpolation)
from
the
upper
6
inches
of
soil
in
the
single
application
plot.
The
DT
50
was
bracketed
by
7
and
14
days
after
the
second
application
in
the
two
application
plot.
Azinphos
methyl
was
only
detected
in
one
sample
below
6
inches
after
28
days
in
the
single
application
plot.
Only
one
degradate,
azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog,
was
analyzed,
but
was
not
detected.
The
quantitation
limit
for
both
parent
and
degradate
was
0.01
mgCkg­
1.
A
total
of
12.9
inches
of
rain
plus
irrigation
was
applied
to
the
plots
during
the
course
of
the
study.
However,
no
evapotranspiration
data
was
supplied
so
it
is
not
possible
to
assess
leaching
with
the
data
provided.
The
value
of
this
study
is
limited,
because
the
recovery
at
time
0
was
only
55%
and
there
was
no
uncropped
plot.

The
same
experimental
setup
was
used
at
the
Fresno
site.
Applications
were
made
in
May.
The
soil
here
was
a
Hesperia
fine
sandy
loam.
The
pH
of
the
soil
at
this
site
ranged
from
7.6
to
8.7.
As
with
the
previous
study,
we
would
expect
azinphos
methyl
to
degrade
more
rapidly
under
pH
conditions
such
as
this
as
compared
to
most
other
agricultural
fields
where
the
pH
is
acid
to
neutral.
The
experiment
was
conducted
for
60
days.
The
DT
50
,
estimated
by
exponential
26
interpolation
was
two
days
in
the
single
application
plot,
and
bracketed
by
7
and
14
days
in
the
2
application
plot.
No
azinphos
methyl
was
detected
below
the
top
6
inches.
Azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog
was
detected
once
in
the
top
layer
at
the
quantitation
limit
of
0.01
mgCkg­
1.
A
total
of
16.2
inches
of
rainfall
and
irrigation
were
applied
to
the
plots
during
the
study,
but
as
in
the
previous
study,
no
evapotranspiration
data
was
collected
so
leaching
at
the
site
cannot
be
assessed.
The
recovery
of
azinphos
methyl
at
time
zero
was
60%
and
there
was
no
uncropped
plot,
limiting
the
utility
of
this
study.

The
two
other
field
dissipation
studies
were
conducted
in
conjunction
with
runoff
studies
in
cotton
fields
in
Colquitt
County,
Georgia
(
MRID
425167­
02)
and
Benoit,
Mississippi
(
MRID
425167­
01).
They
provide
marginal
data,
as
no
samples
were
collected
at
zero
time,
no
samples
were
collected
below
the
top
inch,
and
degradates
were
not
analyzed.
The
soils
at
the
Colquitt
County
site
were
an
Alapaha
sandy
loam,
a
Carnegie
sandy
loam,
a
Tifton
loamy
sand,
and
a
Tifton
sandy
loam.
The
soils
at
the
Benoit
site
were
dominantly
a
Bosket
very
fine
sandy
loam
with
smaller
amounts
of
Dubbs
very
sandy
loam.
A
single
application
of
0.25
lbCacre­
1
was
made
to
the
Colquitt
County
site
on
August
7
and
to
the
Benoit
site
on
August
22.
The
DT
50
at
the
Colquitt
County
site
was
3
d,
and
8.2
d
at
the
Benoit
site.
It
is
possible
that
these
dissipation
rates
include
a
substantial
amount
of
leaching
as
the
sampling
depth
was
so
shallow.

g.
Field
Runoff
Studies
Two
runoff
studies
were
conducted
to
measure
pesticide
runoff
under
field
conditions.
These
studies
provide
supplemental
information
on
runoff
potential
of
azinphos
methyl.
These
studies
were
voluntarily
submitted
by
the
registrant.
There
is
currently
no
requirement
nor
guidance
for
conducting
field
runoff
studies.
The
studies
were
conducted
in
Colquitt
County,
Georgia
(
MRID
425167­
02)
and
Benoit,
Mississippi
(
MRID
425167­
01)
in
cotton
fields.

At
the
Mississippi
site,
a
total
of
14.9
g
of
azinphos
methyl
ran
off
the
5.2
acre
plot
in
a
storm
of
3.08
inches
on
August
9,
1989.
Approximately
31.5%
of
the
precipitation
ran
off
the
plot
during
the
rainfall
event.
Although
the
study
was
otherwise
well­
conducted,
the
method
used
to
confirm
the
application
rate
(
collection
of
the
spray
on
cards
placed
in
the
field
during
application)
was
only
able
to
collect
~
20%
of
nominal
application
rate.
It
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
make
accurate
assessments
of
the
fate
of
the
pesticide
when
the
amount
and
distribution
of
the
pesticide
immediately
following
application
cannot
be
determined.
We
can
therefore
only
say
that
the
percent
of
azinphos
methyl
that
ran
off
the
field
was
between
0.9%
(
based
on
spray
tank
calibration
of
the
nominal
application
rate)
and
3.5%
(
based
on
the
spray
card
recovery).
It
is
more
likely
to
be
the
former
of
these
values
as
the
pesticide
mass
on
the
spray
cards
are
not
reflective
of
the
application
rate
due
to
interception
from
adjacent
foliage.

The
rainfall
event
represented
a
storm
with
a
one
in
seven
year
return
frequency
during
the
summer
in
this
part
of
Mississippi.
The
return
frequency
of
the
runoff
event
is
somewhat
less
than
that
for
the
precipitation
event,
as
the
soil
was
fairly
dry
due
to
lack
of
precipitation
in
the
week
prior
to
the
runoff
event.
Furthermore,
because
this
study
was
conducted
later
in
the
season
than
27
when
most
azinphos
methyl
is
applied,
the
canopy
was
more
closed
than
would
usually
be
the
case.
The
site
represents
what
appears
to
be
a
fairly
typical
site
for
cotton
culture.
However,
data
was
not
provided
that
would
allow
a
more
precise
estimate
of
how
likely
the
site
was
to
produce
adverse
aquatic
exposures,
as
compared
to
other
cotton
agricultural
sites.

To
summarize
the
results
from
Mississippi,
the
runoff
event
in
the
study
represents
a
less
than
one
in
seven
year
event
on
a
typical
site.
It
generated
between
0.9%
and
3.5%
of
the
applied
azinphos
methyl
in
the
runoff,
with
the
value
more
likely
to
be
close
to
the
0.9%
value.

At
the
Colquitt
County,
Georgia
site,
the
field
occupied
49
acres
of
a
50
acre
watershed
and
drained
into
a
3.5
acre
pond.
Nine
acres
of
the
field
was
separated
from
the
rest
of
the
field
with
a
berm.
This
isolated
area
was
used
to
quantify
the
runoff
and
the
azinphos
methyl
in
it.
Eight
applications
of
azinphos
methyl
were
made
at
three
day
intervals
starting
on
August
1.

A
total
of
13.3
g
of
azinphos
methyl
ran
off
the
9
acre
portion
of
the
field
in
four
storms
which
occurred
on
August
8
(
32
mm),
August
26
(
61
mm),
August
31
(
37
mm),
and
October
1
(
33
mm).
These
produced
3.6
g,
8.3
g,
1.3
g
and
0.0012
g
of
azinphos
methyl
in
the
runoff,
respectively.
The
method
used
to
confirm
the
application
rate
(
collection
of
the
spray
on
cards
placed
in
the
field
during
application)
showed
about
75%
of
nominal
application
rate
was
reaching
the
study
site
on
average.
A
second
method
of
confirmation,
using
the
tank
calibration
data,
along
with
measurements
of
the
azinphos
methyl
in
the
spray
solution
gave
a
separate
estimate
of
the
application
rate.
This
method
generally
gave
higher
estimates
than
the
spray
cards.
It
is
more
likely
that
the
tank
calibration
method
is
the
more
accurate
of
these
estimates,
as
the
pesticide
mass
on
the
spray
cards
may
not
be
reflective
of
the
application
rate
due
to
interception
from
adjacent
foliage.
The
percent
runoff
was
calculated
both
by
using
the
application
estimate
based
on
the
tank
calibration
measurements
and
upon
the
amount
found
on
the
spray
cards.
The
percent
azinphos
methyl
in
runoff
ranged
from
1.7
x
10­
4
to
0.17%
using
the
tank
calibration
data
and
from
2.2
x10­
4
to
0.26%
based
on
the
spray
cards.
The
total
applied
that
ran
off
was
0.18%
by
the
tank
calibration
method
and
0.24%
by
the
spray
card
method.
Measurements
of
the
sediment
transported
from
the
9
acre
study
area
ranged
from
22
kg
due
to
the
October
31
runoff
event
to
2,200
kg
for
the
August
26
event.
The
concentration
of
azinphos
methyl
on
the
sediment
was
not
determined.
The
mean
azinphos
methyl
concentration
in
the
pond
was
about
2
and
3
:
g
C
L­
1.
However,
the
variance
among
the
measurements
in
the
pond
was
very
high
in
the
first
few
days
after
the
runoff
event
as
the
pond
did
not
yet
appear
to
be
well
mixed.
so
the
uncertainty
is
higher
than
would
normally
be
the
case.

Data
were
not
provided
on
the
return
frequency
of
the
runoff
events.
Some
anecdotal
information
(
a
tornado
occurred
nearby)
was
provided
on
the
return
frequency
of
the
August
26
storm,
indicating
that
storms
of
that
intensity
(
61
mm
in
30
to
40
min)
were
relatively
rare
in
that
area.
However,
given
the
soil
was
likely
to
have
been
fairly
dry
before
the
event,
it
is
likely
that
the
runoff
event
(
as
opposed
to
the
storm
event)
was
not
particularly
severe.
Furthermore,
because
this
study
was
conducted
later
in
the
season
than
when
most
azinphos
methyl
is
applied,
the
canopy
was
more
closed
than
would
usually
be
the
case.
The
site
represents
what
appears
to
28
be
a
fairly
typical
site
for
cotton
culture
in
Georgia,
but
data
was
not
provided
that
would
allow
a
more
precise
estimate
of
how
likely
the
site
was
to
produce
adverse
aquatic
exposures,
as
compared
to
other
cotton
agricultural
sites.
It
should
be
noted
that
a
fish
kill
of
500
to
1000
fish
occurred
in
the
pond
adjacent
to
the
site
two
days
following
the
August
26
storm.

To
summarize
the
results
from
Georgia,
four
runoff
events
occurred
in
the
study
that
moved
less
than
0.3%
of
the
applied
pesticide
in
runoff,
but
the
relative
frequency
of
the
events
and
the
relative
severity
of
the
site
cannot
be
determined
with
the
data
provided.

2.
Measures
of
Aquatic
Exposure
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
For
tier
2
surface­
water
assessments,
two
models
are
used
in
tandem.
PRZM
simulates
fate
and
transport
on
the
agricultural
field.
The
version
of
PRZM
(
Carsel
et
al.,
1998)
used
was
PRZM
3.12
beta,
dated
May
24,
2001.
The
water
body
is
simulated
with
EXAMS
version
2.98,
dated
July
18,
2002
(
Burns,
1997).
Tier
2
simulations
are
run
for
multiple
(
usually
30)
years
and
the
reported
EECs
are
the
concentrations
that
are
expected
once
every
ten
years
based
on
the
thirty
years
of
daily
values
generated
by
the
simulation.
PRZM
and
EXAMS
were
run
using
the
PE4
shell,
dated
May
14,
2003,
which
also
summarizes
the
output.
Spray
drift
was
simulated
using
the
AgDrift
model
version
2.01
dated
May
24,
2001.

Chemistry
Input
Parameters
Azinphos
methyl
is
an
organophosphate
insecticide
used
on
a
wide
variety
of
food
and
non­
food
crops.
Azinphos
methyl
environmental
fate
data
used
for
generating
model
parameters
are
listed
in
Table
3.6.
The
input
parameters
for
PRZM
and
EXAMS
are
in
Table
3.7.
Descriptions
of
special
considerations
used
to
select
environmental
fate
parameters
or
to
generate
modeling
input
values
are
described
below.

Hydrolysis.
As
noted
above,
measurements
of
the
hydrolysis
rates
were
made
at
30
°
C
and
40
°
C
rather
than
the
standard
25
°
C.
The
Arrhenius
Rate
Law
was
used
to
calculate
the
degradation
rate
by
hydrolysis
at
25
°
C
for
use
EXAMS.

Soil
and
Aquatic
Metabolism.
Only
one
anaerobic
and
one
aerobic
soil
metabolism
value
was
available
for
azinphos
methyl.
No
aquatic
metabolism
data
are
currently
available.
Current
policy
for
generating
input
parameters
for
PRZM
3
when
only
one
value
is
available
is
to
multiply
the
half­
life
by
three
resulting
in
a
PRZM
input
parameter
for
aerobic
soil
degradation
of
95.3
d.
In
previous
modeling
for
azinphos
methyl,
the
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
value
was
used
as
input
to
PRZM
representing
the
degradation
rate
in
the
sub­
surface
horizons.
For
this
set
of
simulations,
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
was
used
for
all
depths.
This
will
have
no
effect
on
the
EECs.

Since
no
aquatic
metabolism
data
was
available,
current
policy
is
to
use
the
value
of
the
29
corresponding
half­
life
for
aerobic
soil
metabolism
and
multiply
that
value
by
2
to
represent
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism.
This
is
done
as
there
is
usually
some
correspondence
between
soil
and
aquatic
metabolism
rates
and
in
the
absence
of
aquatic
data
this
is
judged
to
be
a
reasonable
conservative
surrogate.
The
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
input
parameters
was
multiplies
by
2
again
to
estimate
the
degradation
rate
in
the
pond
sediment.
The
resulting
half
lives
for
aerobic
and
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
are
190.8
and
381.6
d
respectively.
In
practice
these
values
are
of
little
importance
as
the
degradation
in
the
water
column
will
be
dominated
by
hydrolysis.

Soil
Water
Partition
Coefficients.
In
previous
modeling,
a
K
oc
value
based
on
K
f
'
s
was
used
in
the
simulations.
The
method
for
generating
soil­
water
partition
coefficient
input
values
has
changed
substantially
from
this
in
the
new
simulations.
In
selecting
a
value
for
the
soil­
water
partition
coefficient
to
use
in
the
simulations,
four
issues
needed
to
be
considered.
First,
adsorption
and
desorption
isotherms
are
not
equal,
so
it
must
be
decided
whether
to
use
the
adsorption
or
desorption
isotherm.
Current
policy
is
to
use
the
desorption
values
in
PRZM
because
the
dominant
process
during
a
runoff
event
is
desorption
and
to
use
the
adsorption
isotherm
in
EXAMS
as
that
it
is
the
dominant
process
in
the
pond.
Secondly,
the
data
for
each
of
the
three
soils
(
both
adsorption
and
desorption
processes)
were
fitted
to
a
Fruendlich
isotherm
and
the
1/
n
or
"
curvature"
term
in
the
equation
was
significantly
different
than
1,
indicating
that
concentration
adsorbed
to
soil
was
curvilinearly
related
to
concentration
in
solution.
Unfortunately,
PRZM
and
EXAMS
only
have
a
linear
(
K
d
)
partition
model
for
handling
soil­
water
partitioning
of
pesticides.
For
the
desorption
isotherm,
this
was
handled
by
calculating
the
partitioning
between
soil
and
water
at
the
maximum
concentration
it
would
be
expected
to
occur
in
each
media.
While
this
method
does
not
give
the
most
accurate
soil­
water
partitioning
of
the
pesticide
over
the
range
of
the
isotherm,
it
should
be
most
accurate
at
near
application
rate,
where
the
greatest
portion
of
the
runoff
occurs.
For
the
calculated
desorption
K
d
'
s
for
PRZM
2,
the
soil
concentration
of
17.2
:
g
@

kg­
soil­
1
was
used,
which
corresponds
to
the
concentration
resulting
from
the
application
rate
being
mixed
into
the
top
1
cm
of
soil.
The
soil
water
was
content
was
assumed
to
be
0.35
cm3­
H
2
O
@

cm­
3­
soil
and
the
bulk
density
of
the
soil
was
assumed
to
be
1.3
kg
@

L­
1.
The
partitioning
under
these
conditions
was
used
to
calculate
a
K
d
appropriate
for
this
soil
content.
Note
that
for
each
soil,
four
different
desorption
experiments
were
done
and
Fruendlich
parameters
were
given
for
each
separate
experiment.
The
average
of
the
four
sets
of
parameters
was
used
to
calculate
a
single
K
d
for
the
soil
at
the
application
rate
rather
than
four
different
K
d
'
s
being
calculated
and
then
averaged.

Finally,
a
Pearson's
Correlation
Analysis
of
the
of
the
calculated
K
d
with
organic
carbon
content
was
used
to
calculate
a
K
oc
.
for
neither
adsorption
nor
desorption
was
there
a
significant
correlation
between
the
calculated
K
d
'
s
and
organic
carbon
content,
so
the
K
d
value
for
the
silty
clay
soil,
8.414
L
@

kg­
1
for
desorption
and
7.55
L
@

kg­
1
for
adsorption
was
used.
Finally
it
should
be
noted
that
the
concentrations
in
the
soil­
water
partitioning
study
are
only
about
1
tenth
the
concentration
of
pesticide
that
could
be
found
in
the
soil
at
the
application
rate.
Hence,
we
are
extrapolating
considerably
beyond
the
range
of
the
experimental
data
for
calculating
the
EEC
and
this
usually
results
in
substantial
error.
30
Foliar
Washoff
and
Degradation.
Foliar
dissipation
is
an
important
process
for
estimating
the
EEC
of
azinphos
methyl.
Data
for
foliar
washoff
of
azinphos
methyl
(
Gunther
et
al.,
1977)
is
not
presented
in
a
manner
that
is
most
amenable
to
direct
use
in
PRZM
2.
The
value
available
for
foliar
washoff
is
60%
of
the
amount
applied
washed
off
in
the
first
0.33
cm
of
rainfall.
The
PRZM
foliar
washoff
parameter,
FEXTRC,
is
the
amount
of
pesticide
washed
off
in
1
cm
of
rainfall,
expressed
as
a
fraction.
There
is
some
indication
(
McDowell
et
al.,
1984)
that
a
hyperbolic
model
(
1/[
a+
bt])
best
predicts
the
concentration
profile
with
washing
volume
of
methyl
parathion,
a
similar
compound,
in
washoff,
but
integration
of
the
regression
equations
failed
to
provide
meaningful
estimates
of
the
percent
washed
off
in
1
cm
of
rainfall
(
Values
calculated
exceeded
the
initial
concentration).
To
obtain
a
meaningful,
if
not
particularly
accurate
or
precise
estimate
of
foliar
washoff,
the
following
assumptions
were
made:
first,
that
washoff
rate
was
proportional
to
the
amount
on
the
leaf
(
i.
e.
d[
AM]/
dV
=
­
k[
AM],
where
[
AM]
is
the
azinphos
methyl
concentration
on
the
leaf,
V
is
the
volume
of
runoff
expressed
as
cm
of
precipitation
and
k
is
the
washoff
rate
constant).
The
exponential
removal
model
which
was
selected
for
the
first
assumption
was
chosen
over
a
linear
model
as
there
is
some
indications
that
an
exponential
model
better
described
the
structure
of
the
data.
Based
on
the
first
assumption,
the
equation
describing
the
washoff
fraction
as
a
function
of
the
precipitation
amount,
V,
in
1
cm
is:

where
W
is
the
fraction
remaining
on
the
foliage.
The
40%
remained
after
0.33
cm
of
precipitation
allows
to
calculate
a
point
estimate
of
k
as
2.78.
Using
this
value
for
k,
the
fraction
washed
off
(
1­
W)
with
1
cm
of
rainfall
is
0.937.

For
foliar
degradation,
7
foliar
half­
lives
measurements
are
available
(
Lindquist
and
Krueger,
1975;
Hoskins,
1962;
Pree
et
al.,
1976;
Winterlin
et
al.,
1974,
McDowell
et
al,
1984).
Assuming
these
values
are
distributed
normally,
the
value
which
represents
the
one
tail
upper
90%
confidence
limit
of
the
mean
is
9.8
d.
31
Table
3.6
Environmental
fate
parameters
for
azinphos
methyl.

Fate
Parameter
Value
Source
Molecular
Mass
317.32
g
@

mol­
1
EFGWB
One­
Liner
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Rate
Constant
2.17
x
10­
2
d­
1
MRID
29900
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Rate
Constant
1.04x10­
2
d­
1
MRID
29900
K
d
7.6
L
@

kg­
soil­
1
(
sandy
loam)
MRID
42959702
Solubility
25.10
mg
@

L­
1
EFGWB
One­
Liner
Vapor
Pressure
2.2x10­
7
torr
EFGWB
One­
Liner
Acidic
Hydrolysis
Rate
Constant
4.78
L
@(
mol­
H+)­
1
@

d­
1
EFGWB
One­
Liner
Neutral
Hydrolysis
Constant
7.83x10­
4
d­
1
Wilkes
et
al.,
1979
Alkaline
Hydrolysis
Constant
82
L@(
mol­
OH+)­
1
@

d­
1
Wilkes
et
al.,
1979
Aqueous
Photolysis
Constant
0.217
d­
1
MRID
40297001
Washoff
Fraction
0.937
Gunther
et
al.,
1977
Foliar
Degradation
Half­
life
9.8
d
see
text
Table
3.7
Chemistry
input
parameters
for
tier
2
(
PRZM
&
EXAMS)
simulation
of
azinphos
methyl.
Source
data
is
in
Table
3.6.

Input
Parameter
Value
Justification
Quality
Molecular
weight
317.32
g
mol­
1
calculated
excellent
Solubility
25.10
mg@
L­
1
measured
very
good
Hydrolysis
39.4
(
pH
5)
37.5
(
pH
7)
6.6
(
pH
9)
adjusted
for
temperature
excellent
Photolysis
3.19
d
measured
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
95.4
d
single
value
x
3
fair
Water
Column
Metabolism
190.8
d
aerobic
soil
x
2
poor
Sediment
Metabolism
381.6
d
water
column
x
2
poor
Foliar
Degradation
9.8
d
UCB90
on
7
values
good
Foliar
Washoff
Coefficient
0.937
cm­
1
point
estimate
from
1
study
fair
Henry's
Law
Constant
3.66
x
10­
6
L
atm
mol­
1
estimated
from
solubility
and
vapor
pressure
poor
Vapor
Pressure
2.2
x
10­
7
torr
good
Soil
Water
Partition
Coefficient
(
Kd)
7.6
L
@

kg­
soil­
1
lowest
non­
sand
Kd
good
32
Modeling
Scenarios
Aquatic
exposures
were
quantitatively
estimated
for
all
of
assessed
uses
except
nursery
stock
and
parsley,
which
were
qualitatively
assessed
because
there
are
currently
no
approved
PRZM
scenarios
or
adequate
surrogates
for
these
uses.
Quantitative
exposures
were
estimated
using
scenarios
that
represent
high
exposure
sites
for
azinphos
methyl
use.
Each
of
these
sites
represents
a
10
hectare
field
that
drains
into
a
1­
hectare
pond
that
is
2
meters
deep
and
has
no
outlet.
Exposure
estimates
generated
using
the
standard
pond
are
intended
to
represent
a
wide
variety
of
vulnerable
water
bodies
that
occur
at
the
top
of
watersheds
including
prairie
pot
holes,
playa
lakes,
wetlands,
vernal
pools,
man­
made
and
natural
ponds,
and
intermittent
and
first­
order
streams.
As
a
group,
there
are
factors
that
make
these
water
bodies
more
or
less
vulnerable
than
the
standard
surrogate
pond.
Static
water
bodies
that
have
larger
ratios
of
drainage
area
to
water
body
volume
would
be
expected
to
have
higher
peak
EECs
than
the
standard
pond.
These
water
bodies
will
be
either
shallower
or
have
large
drainage
areas
(
or
both).
Shallow
water
bodies
tend
to
have
limited
additional
storage
capacity,
and
thus,
tend
to
overflow
and
carry
pesticide
in
the
discharge
whereas
the
standard
pond
has
no
discharge.
As
watershed
size
increases
beyond
10
hectares,
at
some
point,
it
becomes
unlikely
that
the
entire
watershed
is
planted
to
a
single
crop,
which
is
all
treated
with
the
pesticide.
Headwater
streams
can
also
have
peak
concentrations
higher
than
the
standard
pond,
but
they
tend
to
persist
for
only
short
periods
of
time
and
are
then
carried
downstream.

Metadata
for
the
scenarios
is
documented
in
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model
Field
and
Orchard
Crop
Scenario
Metadata,
dated
December
24,
2004
(
EFED,
2004).
Table
3.8
summaries
the
PRZM
scenarios
used
to
assess
exposure
from
azinphos
methyl.

Table
3.8
Scenarios
used
to
represent
crops
for
PRZM/
EXAMS
modeling
of
azinphos
methyl
uses.

Crop
Location
Soil
Weather
Almonds
San
Joaquin
Co.,
CA
Manteca
fine
sandy
loam
Sacramento,
CA
Apples,
Eastern
Lancaster
Co,
PA
Elioak
silt
loam
Allentown,
PA
Apples,
Western
Marion
Co,
OR
Cornelius
silt
loam
Portland,
OR
Blueberries
Van
Buren
Co,
MI
Pipestone
Muskegon,
MI
Brussels
sprouts
Monterey
Co.,
CA
Placentia
sandy
loam
Santa
Maria,
CA
Cherries
Leelanau
Co.,
MI
Kewaunee
silt
loam
Traverse
City,
MI
Grapes
Central
Valley,
CA
San
Joaquin
loam
Fresno,
CA
Pears
Marion
Co,
OR
Cornelius
silt
loam
Portland,
OR
Pistachios
San
Joaquin
Co.,
CA
Manteca
fine
sandy
loam
Sacramento,
CA
Walnuts
San
Joaquin
Co.,
CA
Manteca
fine
sandy
loam
Sacramento,
CA
1
http://
www.
ipmcenters.
org/
cropprofiles/
docs/
miblueberries.
html
33
Almonds.
The
standard
California
almond
scenario
was
chosen
to
represent
almonds
on
a
national
basis.
Virtually
the
entire
commercial
almond
crop
is
grown
in
California.
Aquatic
exposures
were
estimated
for
irrigated
and
unirrigated
almond
operations.

Apples.
The
standard
Pennsylvania
apple
scenario
was
chosen
to
represent
apples
on
a
vulnerable
site
on
a
national
basis.
It
is
expected
EECs
generated
using
this
site
will
be
protective
of
apples
on
a
national
basis.
Because
there
is
an
aerial
use
pattern
allowed
in
Idaho,
and
because
of
potential
risks
to
endangered
salmonids
in
the
Pacific
Northwest,
apples
was
also
simulated
using
the
OR
apple
scenario
to
represent
use
in
this
region.
Aquatic
exposures
were
estimated
for
irrigated
and
unirrigated
apple
orchards.

Blueberries.
An
aquatic
exposure
scenario
for
Van
Buren
county
Michigan
was
developed
specifically
for
this
assessment
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
highbush
blueberries.
Michigan
ranks
1st
among
states
for
cultivated
blueberry
production
with
16,733
acres
harvested,
and
Van
Buren
county
has
37%
of
Michigan
blueberry
acreage
with
6560
acres
in
production1.
According
to
the
USDA
crop
profiles,
azinphos
methyl
was
used
on
77%
of
blueberries
in
Michigan
in
1997.
Aquatic
exposures
were
estimated
for
irrigated
and
unirrigated
highbush
blueberry
operations.

The
Michigan
highbush
blueberry
scenario
is
a
reasonable
surrogate
for
lowbush
blueberries.
Maine
is
the
largest
producer
of
lowbush
blueberries
in
the
United
States
and
accounts
for
about
98%
of
all
wild
blueberry
production.
Wild
blueberries
are
grown
on
fields
that
have
been
developed
from
native
plants
that
occur
naturally
in
the
under
story
of
the
forest.
Similar
to
the
highbush
varieties,
lowbush
blueberries
are
grown
on
well­
drained
sandy
soils
with
high
organic
matter
content
(
usually
hydrologic
group
B).
Since
these
sites
are
likely
to
be
welldrained
and
not
susceptible
to
high
runoff
conditions
and
since
aerial
applications
are
common,
spray
drift
will
most
likely
be
the
major
route
of
off­
site
transport
to
nearby
water
bodies
of
ecological
concern.
Since
spray
drift
is
not
dependent
on
precipitation,
similar
spray
drift
conditions
to
those
modeled
in
the
Michigan
blueberry
scenario
can
be
expected
for
Maine's
lowbush
blueberry
sites.
With
the
same
application
rates,
application
methods
and
spray
drift
conditions,
EECs
for
lowbush
blueberries
are
expected
to
be
similar
to
those
that
were
predicted
using
the
Michigan
blueberry
scenario.

Brussels
sprouts.
The
standard
California
lettuce
scenario
was
used
to
simulating
azinphos
methyl
application
to
brussels
sprouts.
This
scenario
is
based
in
coastal
California
and
serves
as
a
good
general
scenario
for
vegetable
crops
which
are
grown
in
that
region.
This
scenario
was
used
to
represent
brussels
sprouts
on
a
national
basis
as
over
90%
of
commercial
brussels
sprouts
are
grown
in
California.

Cherries.
The
Michigan
cherry
scenario
represents
a
cherry
cultivation
site
that
is
especially
vulnerable
to
azinphos
methyl
loading
into
adjacent
surface
waters.
For
the
purposes
of
this
34
assessment,
no
distinction
was
made
between
sweet
and
tart
cherries.

Grapes.
The
California
grape
scenario
was
used
to
simulate
azinphos
methyl
use
on
grapes.

This
scenario
was
chosen
as
the
label
restricts
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
to
grapes
grown
in
California.

Nursery
Stock.
Aquatic
exposures
for
nursery
stock
were
estimated
qualitatively.
Maximum
label
application
rates
on
nursery
stock
are
1
lbs
ai/
A
with
a
maximum
of
4
applications
per
year
for
a
maximum
annual
rate
of
4
lbs
ai/
A/
yr.
This
is
equal
to
the
highest
seasonal
rate
of
all
assessed
uses
and
is
the
same
maximum
rate
allowed
on
apples.
Applications
to
nursery
stock
are
made
by
air
blast
sprayers.
Nursery
stock
sites,
consisting
of
seedlings
grown
in
containers,
have
no
geographic
limitations
and
can
consist
of
any
soil
type
and
any
hydrologic
conditions,
even
those
prone
to
extreme
runoff.
Due
to
the
high
annual
application
rate
and
limitless
geographic
use
area,
it
is
possible
that
exposures
resulting
from
azinphos
methyl
use
on
nursery
stock
could
be
higher
than
those
predicted
quantitatively
in
this
assessment.
This
would
depend
on
rainfall
relative
to
applications
and
site
susceptibility
to
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift
conditions.

Parsley.
Aquatic
exposures
for
parsley
were
estimated
qualitatively.
Parsley
is
grown
predominantly
in
muck
soils,
particularly
in
Ohio.
Muck
soils
tend
to
have
high
organic
matter
content,
high
water
holding
capacity
and
are
generally
hydrologic
group
A/
D.
Assuming
the
drainage
is
well­
maintained,
these
soils
are
not
expected
to
be
highly
vulnerable
to
runoff.
Application
to
parsley
is
made
by
ground
spray
applications,
which
generally
result
in
less
spray
drift
than
aerial
and
air
blast
applications.
Maximum
annual
application
rates
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
parsley
is
1.5
lbs
ai/
A/
yr,
which
is
the
same
annual
rate
as
blueberries
and
cherries.
Assuming
parsley
is
grown
on
well­
drained
soils
and
since
the
annual
application
rate
is
the
same
as
blueberries
and
cherries,
and
since
ground
spray
applications
generally
result
in
less
spray
drift
than
aerial
and
air
blast
application,
estimated
exposures
predicted
for
blueberries
and
cherries
are
expected
to
be
protective
for
parsley.

Pistachios.
The
California
almond
scenario
was
used
as
a
surrogate
scenario
for
pistachios
as
both
are
nut
crops
which
are
dominantly
grown
in
the
Central
Valley
of
California.

Walnuts.
The
California
almond
scenario
was
used
as
a
surrogate
scenario
for
walnuts
as
both
are
nut
crops
which
are
dominantly
grown
in
the
Central
Valley
of
California.

Management
Practices
Spray
Drift.
Current
policy
(
EFED,
2002)
is
to
model
spray
drift
with
a
set
fraction
of
the
application
rate
reaching
the
pond
for
each
application.
This
is
5%
for
aerial
application
and
1%
for
ground
sprays.
(
Note
that
in
the
previous
modeling
for
azinphos
methyl,
spray
drift
from
spray
blast
application
was
simulated
using
3%
drift,
but
a
separate
air
blast
drift
value
was
removed
from
the
current
guidance).
In
this
simulation,
spray
blast
was
assumed
to
be
a
ground
spray.
While
this
is
standard
drift
policy,
this
approach
does
not
allow
the
consideration
of
the
35
mitigation
possible
with
a
spray
drift
buffer.

The
AgDrift
model
was
used
to
assess
various
buffer
widths.
For
aerial
applications,
the
tier
2
aerial
mode
was
used.
Aerial
application
was
simulated
assuming
the
aircraft
was
an
Air
Tractor
AT­
401.
Standard
weather
and
application
parameters
used
for
these
simulations
are
in
Table
3.9.
Other
parameters,
which
can
varied
with
the
management
practices
defined
on
the
label,
are
described
below,
along
with
the
management
practices
for
western
apples
and
blueberries,
where
aerial
applications
are
allowed.

Table
3.9
Standard
spray
drift
scenario
input
parameters
for
AgDrift.

Parameter
Value
Aircraft
Air
Tractor
AT­
401
Boom
length
(
fraction
of
wing
length
76.3%

Swath
Width
(
fixed)
60
ft.

Flight
lines
20
Relative
Humidity
50%

Flux
Plane
0
ft
There
are
a
number
of
input
parameters
in
AgDrift
tier
2
aerial
mode
which
can
be
varied
to
reflect
management
practices
on
the
label
(
Table
3.10).
The
azinphos
methyl
labels
restrict
application
height
over
the
canopy
to
10
ft,
so
the
`
boom
height'
parameter
was
set
to
this
value.
Droplet
size
distribution
was
set
to
`
fine
to
medium'
as
the
label
indicates
that
medium
spray
should
be
used.
The
non­
volatile
and
active
rates
were
set
to
the
maximum
application
rate
for
blueberries
(
0.75
lb/
acre)
because
azinphos
methyl
may
be
applied
aerially
to
this
crop.
The
spray
volume
was
set
to
a
default
value
of
2
gal/
acre
as
no
spray
volume
limitation
was
indicated
on
the
label.
A
maximum
wind
speed
of
10
mph
is
specified
so
this
value
was
used
in
the
simulation.
Finally,
the
carrier
type
was
set
to
water
to
reflect
common
practice
for
the
pesticide.
A
buffer
strip
of
50
feet
was
evaluated
for
western
apples
and
blueberries.
The
modeled
spray
drift
from
AgDrift
for
the
50­
foot
buffer
was
9.2%.
In
comparison,
an
AgDRIFT
simulation
with
no
buffer
strip
results
in
estimated
spray
drift
of
21.8%.

Table
3.10
Label
Spray
Drift
Management
practice
for
aerial
application
of
azinphos
methyl
Application
height
above
canopy
(
boom
height)
10
ft.

Swath
displacement
(
fraction
of
swath)
0
ft
Droplet
Size
Distribution
fine
to
medium
Non­
volatile
rate
0.75
lb/
acre
Active
Rate
0.75
lb/
acre
Spray
Volume
2
gal/
acre
Carrier
Type
Water
Wind
Speed
10
mph
36
For
air
blast
applications,
buffer
strips
were
modeled
with
AgDrift
in
tier
1
Orchard
Airblast
mode.
A
sparse
orchard
was
modeled,
and
the
output
value
for
the
loading
into
the
standard
pond
was
tripled
in
order
to
reflect
the
upper
95%
confidence
bound
on
the
drift.
The
only
management
practice
that
was
varied
was
the
buffer
strip
width.
A
buffer
strip
of
25
ft
was
evaluated,
which
is
consistent
with
label
requirements
for
almonds,
apples,
brussels
sprouts,
cherries,
grapes,
pears,
pistachios
and
walnuts.
The
modeled
spray
drift
from
AgDrift
for
the
25
ft
buffer
was
4.5%.
In
comparison,
an
AgDRIFT
simulation
with
no
buffer
strip
results
in
estimated
spray
drift
of
12.5%.

For
ground
spray
applications,
buffer
strips
were
modeled
with
AgDrift
in
tier
1
Ground
Spray
mode.
The
boom
height
was
assumed
to
be
high
(
1.3
m),
the
droplet
size
modeled
was
ASEA
fine
to
very
fine
and
the
90th
percentile
data
was
used.
A
buffer
strip
of
25
ft
was
evaluated,
consistent
with
label
requirements
for
brussels
sprouts
and
parsley.
The
modeled
spray
drift
from
AgDrift
for
the
25
ft
buffer
was
2.7%.
In
comparison,
an
AgDRIFT
simulation
with
no
buffer
strip
results
in
estimated
spray
drift
of
6.2%.

Crop­
Specific
Application
Parameters
Almonds.
Almond
bloom
extends
from
mid­
February
to
late
March
in
California
(
Bryant,
2002;
Connell,
1999).
An
application
of
azinphos
methyl
is
recommended
post­
bloom
for
control
of
peach
twig
borer,
although
it
is
more
frequently
applied
mid­
season
for
control
of
the
navel
orange
worm.
Control
of
peach
twig
borer
aids
with
control
of
navel
orange
worm
as
the
latter
accesses
the
nut
through
the
holes
in
the
hull
left
by
the
peach
twig
borer.
A
March
15
application
date
was
chosen
to
represent
a
post­
bloom
application.
Since
there
is
more
rain
in
March
than
in
mid­
summer
in
the
Central
Valley
of
California,
this
scenario
is
adequately
protective.

Apples.
The
first
application
date
was
selected
to
reflect
application
at
petal
fall
to
protect
against
plum
curculio.
The
application
method
on
apples
is
restricted
to
spray
blast
except
in
Idaho
where
aerial
application
is
allowed.
The
western
(
Oregon)
apple
scenario
was
simulated
with
aerial
application
to
represent
this
use
pattern
in
Idaho.

Blueberries.
A
primary
pest
for
highbush
blueberry
in
the
north
central
region
is
cranberry
fruitworm.
Control
of
cranberry
fruitworm
begins
prior
to
complete
petal
fall
and
continues
for
7­
8
weeks
(
Jess
et
al.,
1999).
Michigan
blueberries
bloom
from
late
April
through
May.
Assuming
a
week
long
bloom,
a
first
application
date
of
May
20
was
chosen
to
represent
the
initiation
of
fruit
set
following
bloom
for
the
majority
of
varieties
grown
in
Michigan.

Brussels
sprouts.
Azinphos
methyl
is
applied
to
brussels
sprouts
at
transplant.
Brussels
sprouts
are
generally
planted
in
greenhouses
in
January
through
May
and
then
transplanted
into
field
50
to
60
days
later
(
Sances,
1999).
An
application
date
of
February
19
was
chosen,
representing
a
January
2
planting
date
with
application
at
transplant
50
days
after
planting.
Some
labels
(
e.
g.
264­
733,
Guthion
Solupak
50%
Wettable
Powder
in
Water
Soluble
Packets)
specify
that
the
37
product
should
be
incorporated
to
2
inches
or
sprayed
into
the
furrow
during
application
at
planting.
Other
labels
(
e.
g.
Gowan
Azinphos­
M
50
WSB)
do
not
require
incorporation
or
spray
into
the
furrow.
For
this
assessment,
a
broadcast
spray
onto
the
surface
was
made
since
this
practice
is
allowed
on
at
least
some
of
the
labels.

Fields
in
coastal
California
tend
to
be
multi­
cropped
(
i.
e.
multiple
crops
are
grown
each
season
in
a
single
field).
In
most
cases,
different
crops
will
be
grown
in
rotation
throughout
the
growing
season
in
order
to
minimize
the
build
up
of
disease
and
pest
pressure.
Other
crops
that
might
be
grown
in
rotation
with
brussels
sprouts
include
lettuce,
strawberries,
and
broccoli.
Since
azinphos
methyl
is
not
registered
for
crops
that
might
be
grown
in
these
rotations,
simulating
a
single
crop
of
brussels
sprouts
per
season
should
provide
a
reasonable
estimate
of
the
exposure
to
aquatic
life
from
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
in
these
agricultural
systems.

Cherries.
Tart
cherries
bloom
in
late
April
and
early
May
in
Michigan.
Azinphos
methyl
is
applied
in
the
post­
bloom
period
to
control
plum
curculio.
A
first
application
date
of
May
5
was
chosen
to
represent
azinphos
methyl
application
to
control
this
pest.

Grapes.
Applications
can
be
made
10
days
post­
bloom
for
control
of
the
omnivorous
leafroller
and
the
grape
leaffolder.
The
first
application
was
made
on
June
25
to
simulate
an
application
for
control
of
these
pests.
The
minimum
application
interval
was
not
specified
on
the
label;
thus,
a
conservative
default
interval
of
3
days
was
assumed.
Grapes
in
California
are
virtually
all
irrigated.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
State
of
California
no
longer
recommends
azinphos
methyl
for
control
of
these
pests.

Pears.
Pears
bloom
in
early
May
in
Oregon
and
Washington
and
a
post­
bloom
application
for
the
control
of
plum
curculio
was
applied
on
May
15
to
simulate
an
application
to
control
this
pest.

Pistachios.
Azinphos
methyl
is
applied
to
pistachio
to
control
navel
orangeworm.
This
pest
becomes
a
problem
after
nutfill
which
ends
in
July
(
Mosz,
2002).
The
azinphos
methyl
application
was
made
on
August
1
to
control
the
pest.

Walnuts.
An
application
of
azinphos
methyl
is
recommended
for
codling
moth
control
postbloom
(
Ramos,
2002).
Early
season
applications
are
more
likely
to
result
in
loading
to
surface
waters
than
those
in
the
late
spring
or
summer
due
to
higher
rainfall
and
runoff
events.
Walnuts
bloom
in
late
March
to
mid­
April
(
Mosz,
2002),
so
the
application
date
was
set
to
April
15
for
a
post­
bloom
application.

Table
3.11
summarizes
the
crop­
specific
management
practices
for
all
of
the
assessed
uses
of
azinphos
methyl
that
were
used
for
modeling,
including
application
rates,
number
of
applications
per
year,
application
intervals,
buffer
widths
and
resulting
spray
drift
values
modeled
from
AgDRIFT,
and
the
first
application
date
for
each
crop.
In
addition
to
using
the
spray
drift
values
predicted
by
AgDRIFT
for
the
various
uses,
default
spray
drift
values
of
5%
for
aerial
applications
and
1%
for
ground
and
airblast
applications
were
also
modeled
for
each
crop.
For
38
apples,
an
additional
no
drift
and
100%
application
efficiency
scenario
was
modeled.
In
practice,
it
is
not
possible
to
completely
stop
spray
drift
from
air
blast
and
aerial
applications,
but
this
provides
an
idea
of
the
relative
potential
risk
reduction
that
can
be
gained
from
spray
drift
mitigation.

Table
3.11
Model
inputs
for
maximum
label
management
practices
for
uses
of
azinphos
methyl
Crop
App.
Rate
(
lb/
A)
Maximum
#
Apps.
Minimum
App.
Interval
Buffer
Width
App.
Method
(%
drift)
App.
Date
Apples,
eastern
1.5
3
7
d
25
ft
air
blast
(
4.5)
May
1
Apples,
western
1.5
3
7
d
50
ft
aerial
(
9.2)
May
1
Almonds
2
1
NA
25
ft
air
blast
(
4.5)
March
15
Blueberries
0.75
2
10
d
50
ft
aerial
(
9.2)
May
20
Brussels
sprouts
0.75
1
NA
NA
ground
spray
(
2.7)
Feb
19
Cherries
0.75
2
14
d
25
ft
air
blast
(
4.5)
May
5
Grapes
1
3
NS
25
ft
air
blast
(
4.5%)
June
25
Nursery
Stock
1
4
10
d
25
ft
air
blast
(
4.5)
N/
A*

Parsley
0.5
3
NS
25
ft
ground
spray
(
2.7)
N/
A*

Pears
1.5
2
7
d
25
ft
air
blast
(
4.5)
May
15
Pistachios
2
1
NA
25
ft
air
blast
(
4.5)
August
1
Walnuts
2
1
NA
25
ft
air
blast
(
1.5)
April
1
Note:
For
all
simulations,
IPSCND,
the
disposition
of
foliar
pesticide
residues
on
foliage
at
harvest
was
set
to
1
so
that
the
residues
are
applied
to
the
soil.
*
Aquatic
exposure
was
estimated
qualitatively
for
this
crop.

The
aquatic
EECs
for
the
various
scenarios
and
application
practices
are
listed
in
Table
3.12.
Estimated
aquatic
exposures
are
highest
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
apples.
The
highest
exposure
(
19
:
g/
L)
is
associated
with
aerial
applications
to
apples
in
the
west
(
OR).
The
next
highest
exposures
are
associated
with
air
blast
applications
to
Eastern
(
PA)
apples.
39
Table
3.12
Aquatic
EECs
(:
g/
L)
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
various
agricultural
crops.

Crop
Model
Scenario
Peak
4
Day
Mean
21
Day
Mean
60
Day
Mean
90
Day
Mean
State
Application
Method
Buffer
(
feet)
Drift
(%)
Irrigation
Almonds
CA
air
blast
25
4.5
N
7.5
7.0
6.1
4.1
3.0
CA
air
blast
­­
1
N
5.1
4.8
3.8
2.4
1.8
CA
air
blast
25
4.5
Y
7.5
7.0
6.1
4.1
3.1
Apples
PA
air
blast
25
4.5
N
15.1
14.1
11.6
8.5
6.7
PA
air
blast
­­
1
N
9.7
9.1
7.2
5.1
4.1
PA
­­
­­
0
N
8.9
8.3
6.6
4.7
1.2
OR
aerial
50
9.2
N
19.4
18.1
15.2
10.6
8.2
OR
aerial
­­
5
N
10.9
10.2
8.8
6.2
4.8
OR
aerial
50
9.2
Y
6.9
6.5
4.4
3.6
1.1
OR
air
blast
25
4.5
N
9.9
9.4
8.0
5.7
4.4
OR
air
blast
­­
1
N
3.9
3.7
3.0
2.0
1.5
OR
­­
­­
0
N
2.3
2.2
1.8
1.0
0.83
Blueberries
MI
aerial
50
9.2
N
6.9
6.4
5.4
3.8
2.9
MI
aerial
­­
5
N
4.4
4.1
3.4
2.4
1.8
MI
aerial
50
9.2
Y
6.9
6.4
5.3
3.9
3.0
MI
aerial
­­
5
Y
4.4
4.1
3.3
2.4
1.9
MI
air
blast
25
4.5
Y
6.8
6.3
5.8
4.0
3.1
MI
air
blast
­­
1
Y
4.8
4.4
4.1
2.9
2.2
MI
air
blast
25
4.5
N
4.2
3.9
3.2
2.2
1.7
MI
air
blast
­­
1
N
2.3
2.1
1.6
1.0
0.83
Brussels
sprouts
CA
ground
25
2.7
N
4.8
4.5
3.9
2.8
2.3
CA
ground
­­
1
N
4.5
4.2
3.7
2.7
2.1
Cherries
MI
air
blast
25
4.5
N
5.3
5.1
4.1
3.1
2.7
MI
air
blast
­­
1
N
3.8
3.5
2.7
1.6
1.3
MI
­­
­­
0
N
3.7
3.5
2.7
1.9
1.5
Grapes
CA
air
blast
25
4.5
N
6.8
6.4
5.0
3.2
2.4
CA
air
blast
­­
1
N
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.72
0.55
CA
air
blast
25
4.5
Y
6.8
6.4
5.0
3.2
2.4
Pears
OR
air
blast
25
4.5
N
6.8
6.4
5.4
3.6
2.8
OR
air
blast
­­
1
N
2.1
2.0
1.6
1.1
0.85
Pistachios
CA
air
blast
25
4.5
N
5.0
4.7
3.6
2.2
1.7
CA
air
blast
­­
1
N
1.1
1.0
0.82
0.51
0.38
Walnuts
CA
air
blast
25
4.5
N
5.8
5.4
4.7
3.0
2.2
CA
air
blast
­­
1
N
3.2
3.0
2.3
1.6
1.3
b.
Aquatic
Exposure
Monitoring
and
Field
Data
Ebbert
and
Embry
(
2002)
assessed
the
occurrence,
distribution,
and
transport
of
pesticides
40
in
surface
waters
in
the
Yakima
River
Basin,
Washington.
Data
were
collected
during
1999 
2000
as
part
of
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
National
Water­
Quality
Assessment
(
NAWQA)
Program.
Samples
were
collected
at
34
sites
located
throughout
the
basin.
Twenty
pesticides
were
detected
during
the
study,
and
azinphos
methyl
was
the
most
widely
detected
insecticide,
with
64
detections
out
of
98
samples
(
65%).
Sites
with
the
highest
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
70%)
azinphos
methyl
detection
rates
were
associated
with
drainage
basins
in
which
azinphos
methyl
was
applied
only
to
apples
(
Table
3.13).
The
maximum
detected
concentration
of
azinphos
methyl
was
0.523
:
g/
L.
(
This
concentration
was
qualitatively
identified
and
reported
as
an
estimate
(
Zaugg
et
al.,
1995)).

Table
3.13
Estimates
of
azinphos
methyl
usage
and
detection
in
select
Washington
surface
waters
in
1999
Location
Pounds
Applied
Detection
(%)
Primary
Uses
Kittitas
Valley
6700
Yes
(%
not
specified)
Apples
(
89%),
other
tree
fruits
(
10%),
potatoes
(
1%)

Moxee
Drainage
Basin
18,500
72
Apples
(
100%)

Granger
Drainage
Basin
4900
79
Apples
(
100%)

Yakima
River
Basin
294,600
50
Apples
(
88%),
pears
(
7%),
cherries
(
4%)

c.
Impaired
Waters 
Clean
Water
Act
Section
303(
d)

Section
303(
d)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
establishes
a
process
for
states
to
identify
waters
within
its
boundaries
where
implementing
technology­
based
controls
are
inadequate
to
achieve
water
quality
standards.
There
are
five
water
bodies
that
listed
as
impaired
under
Section
303(
d)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
contamination
(
Table
3.14).

Table
3.14
Impaired
water
bodies
linked
to
azinphos
methyl
contamination
State
Waterbody
Name
Cycle
CA
Colusa
Basin
Drain
(
Central
Valley)
2002
CA
Orestimba
Creek 
above
Kilburn
Road
(
Central
Valley)
2002
CA
Orestimba
Creek 
below
Kilburn
Road
(
Central
Valley)
2002
OR
Neal
Creek
2002
WA
Mission
Creek
1998
3.
Measures
of
Terrestrial
Exposure
a.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Modeling
The
EFED
terrestrial
exposure
model,
T­
REX
(
Version
1.1,
dated
February
24,
2005),
is
used
to
estimate
exposures
and
risks
to
avian
and
mammalian
species.
This
model
was
used
to
41
assess
the
dietary
residues
of
azinphos
methyl
for
all
of
the
assessed
uses.
Input
values
on
avian
and
mammalian
toxicity
as
well
as
chemical
application
and
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
data
are
required
to
run
the
model.
The
model
generates
estimated
exposure
concentrations
(
EECs)
and
calculates
risk
quotients
(
RQs).
Specifically,
the
model
provides
estimates
of
upper
bound
and
mean
concentrations
of
chemical
residues
on
the
surfaces
of
different
food
items
that
may
be
sources
of
dietary
exposure
to
avian,
mammalian,
reptilian,
or
terrestrial­
phase
amphibian
receptors.
The
surface
residue
concentration
(
ppm)
is
estimated
by
multiplying
the
application
rate
(
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre)
by
a
value
specific
to
each
food
item.
These
values
(
termed
the
Hoerger­
Kenaga
estimates)
along
with
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
methodology
implemented
by
T­
REX,
are
presented
in
Appendix
B.
Model
inputs
are
provided
in
Table
3.15.

Table
3.15
T­
REX
model
inputs
for
azinphos
methyl;
Half­
life
was
assumed
to
be
9.8
days
for
all
uses
Use
Application
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Minimum
Application
Interval
(
Days)
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Year
Apples
1.5
7
3
Blueberries
0.75
10
2
Brussels
Sprouts
0.75
N/
A
1
Cherries
0.75
14
2
Grapes
1
14*
3
Nursery
Stock
1
10
4
Nuts
(
Almonds,
Pistachios,
Walnuts)
2
N/
A
1
Parsley
0.5
7*
3
Pears
1.5
7
2
*
Assumed;
minimum
application
interval
is
not
specified
on
the
label
EECs
on
food
items
may
be
compared
directly
with
dietary
toxicity
data
or
converted
to
an
oral
dose,
as
is
done
for
small
mammals.
For
mammals,
the
residue
concentration
is
converted
to
daily
oral
dose
based
on
the
fraction
of
body
weight
consumed
daily
as
estimated
through
mammalian
allometric
relationships.
The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
azinphos
methyl
uses
upper
bound
predicted
residues
as
the
measure
of
exposure.
Predicted
upper­
bound
residues
of
azinphos
methyl
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
application
are
displayed
in
Figure
9.
42
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Apples
Blueberries
Brussels
Sprouts
Grapes
Cherries
Nursery
Stock
Nuts
Parsley
Pears
Maximum
Terrestrial
EEC
(
ppm)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
Plants,
Small
Insects
Fruits,
Pods,
Seeds,
Large
Insects
Figure
9.
Maximum
(
upper­
bound)
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
azinphos
methyl
application
to
a
variety
of
agricultural
crops.

The
application
rate
for
apples
is
the
highest
of
all
assessed
uses;
thus,
the
dietary
residues
associated
with
apples
are
the
highest.
It
should
be
emphasized
that
apples
were
modeled
using
an
application
rate
of
3
applications
7
days
apart
at
1.5
lbs.
a.
i./
A
(
a
total
of
4.5
lbs.
a.
i./
A
per
year).
Since
the
label
specifies
a
maximum
of
4
lbs.
a.
i./
A
per
year,
these
dietary
residues
are
slightly
overestimated.
The
next
highest
exposures
are
associated
the
use
on
pears,
which
has
an
application
rate
of
2
applications
7
days
apart
at
1.5
lbs.
a.
i./
A.
If
the
T­
REX
model
was
capable
of
modeling
the
actual
labeled
rate
for
apples
(
i.
e.
first
2
applications
at
1.5
lbs.
a.
i./
A
followed
by
a
third
application
at
1.0
lbs.
a.
i./
A),
the
estimated
dietary
exposures
would
be
higher
than
those
estimated
for
pears.

This
terrestrial
exposure
model
assumes
that
exposure
is
a
direct
function
of
the
application
rate
and
that
non­
target,
small
mammals
are
not
likely
to
reduce
pesticide
exposure
by
moving
out
of
the
contaminated
area.
Wang
et
al.
(
1999)
tested
this
assumption
by
placing
graytailed
voles
into
enclosures
planted
with
a
mixture
of
pasture
grasses
and
applying
1.5
kg
a.
i/
ha
(
1.34
lbs
a.
i./
A)
azinphos
methyl
(
Guthion
®
2S)
in
three
treatments:
full
spray
(
100%
of
habitat
sprayed),
half
spray
(
50%
habitat
sprayed
with
azinphos
methyl;
50%
sprayed
with
water),
and
control
(
100%
habitat
sprayed
with
water).
Forty­
four
female
and
three
male
voles
were
tracked
before
and
after
azinphos
methyl
applications
using
radio
telemetry.
Following
treatment,
none
of
the
47
voles
moved
out
of
their
established
home
ranges
or
from
contaminated
to
uncontaminated
areas.
Home
range
size
and
daily
movement
patterns
were
not
significantly
affected
by
azinphos
methyl
treatment.
Given
access
to
uncontaminated
habitat,
gray­
tailed
voles
did
not
move
away
43
from
contaminated
habitat
to
avoid
azinphos
methyl
exposure.
For
this
ecological
risk
assessment,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
is
directly
related
to
the
application
rate
of
azinphos
methyl.

C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
Aquatic
and
terrestrial
effects
characterization
for
azinphos
methyl
is
based
on
registrantsubmitted
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
studies
for
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
as
well
as
toxicity
information
from
the
open
literature,
field
studies,
and
adverse
ecological
incidents.
Toxicity
testing
reported
in
this
section
does
not
represent
all
species
of
birds,
mammals,
or
aquatic
organisms.
Only
a
few
surrogate
species
for
both
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
and
bird
species
in
the
United
States.
For
mammals,
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
the
Norway
rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Testing
for
reptiles
and
amphibians
is
not
required,
but
in
this
case,
aquatic
amphibian
toxicity
data
are
available.
Terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants
were
not
assessed;
azinphos
methyl
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
plants
and
poses
minimal
risks
to
plants.

In
general,
OPP
uses
categories
of
acute
toxicity
ranging
from
"
practically
nontoxic"
to
"
very
highly
toxic"
for
aquatic
organisms
(
based
on
LD
50,
LC
50,
and
EC
50
values),
terrestrial
mammals
(
based
on
LD
50
values),
avian
species
(
based
on
LC
50
and
LD
50
values),
and
non­
target
insects
(
based
on
LD
50
values
for
honey
bees)
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2001).

In
addition
to
data
submitted
in
support
of
registration,
several
studies
from
peer­
reviewed
journals
have
been
reviewed
and
incorporated
into
this
assessment.
EPA
did
not
evaluate
all
data
that
appear
on
the
ECOTOX
database
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ecotox).
Given
the
vast
amount
of
literature
on
the
ecological
effects
of
azinphos
methyl
and
the
redundant
nature
of
much
of
that
data,
EFED
selected
for
full
review
those
studies
that
appeared
to
be
the
most
salient.

1.
Aquatic
Effects
Characterization
Relevant
acute
data
are
derived
from
standardized
toxicity
tests
with
lethality
as
the
primary
endpoint.
The
intent
of
acute
tests
with
aquatic
animals
is
to
statistically
derive
a
median
effect
level
for
lethality
(
LC
50
).
Based
on
this
endpoint,
toxicity
categories
can
be
assigned
(
Table
3.16).

Table
3.16
Qualitative
descriptors
for
categories
of
aquatic
animal
acute
toxicity
(
US
EPA,
2001)

LC50
Toxicity
Category
<
0.1
mg/
L
Very
highly
toxic
0.1­
1
mg/
L
Highly
toxic
1
­
10
mg/
L
Moderately
toxic
10
­
100
mg/
L
Slightly
toxic
>
100
mg/
L
Practically
non­
toxic
44
Laboratory
and
field
tests
have
revealed
that
azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
a
variety
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
Azinphos
methyl
has
been
implicated
in
over
130
reported
adverse
aquatic
incidents
(
i.
e.
fish
kills).
The
most
sensitive
freshwater
fish,
the
northern
pike,
has
an
LC
50
of
0.36
:
g/
L,
and
the
most
sensitive
estuarine/
marine
fish
has
an
LC
50
of
2.7
:
g/
L.
For
aquatic
invertebrates,
the
most
sensitive
freshwater
invertebrate,
the
scud
(
Gammarus
fasciatus),
has
an
LC
50
(
mortality)
of
0.16
:
g/
L,
and
the
most
sensitive
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate,
the
mysid
shrimp,
has
an
LC
50
(
mortality)
of
0.21
:
g/
L.
These
endpoints
will
be
used
to
calculate
risk
quotients
for
aquatic
organisms
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl.

a.
Acute
Effects
Freshwater
Fish
There
is
a
wealth
of
acute
toxicity
data
for
freshwater
fish.
These
data
indicate
that
technical­
grade
azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
most
fishes,
including
salmonids
(
Table
3.17).
A
static
acute
toxicity
test
(
MRID
40098001)
revealed
that
the
northern
pike
appears
to
be
the
most
sensitive
fish
species,
with
an
LC
50
of
0.36
(
0.27­
0.48)
:
g/
L.
Catfish
and
bullheads
appear
to
be
somewhat
less
sensitive
than
the
other
species
tested.
For
some
species,
multiple
tests
were
conducted
at
various
temperatures
and
pH,
and
the
toxicity
range
is
provided.
45
Table
3.17
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
fish.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(:
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
Northern
pike
Esox
lucius
TGAI
93
0.36a
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Brook
trout
Salvelinus
fontinalis
TGAI
93
1.2
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Atlantic
salmon
Salmo
salar
TGAI
93
1.8­
18
(
5
tests)
a
2.1­
3.6
(
7
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Yellow
perch
Perca
flavescens
TGAI
93
2.4­
40
(
13
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Unspecified
Degradate
10­
33
(
days
0­
21)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Rainbow
trout
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
TGAI
93
2.9­
7.1
(
4
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
00158231
Guthion
50WP
8.8
(
4.4
a.
i)
very
highly
toxic
EPA
Reg.
No.
3125193
22
Guthion
2S
27.5
(
6.2
a.
i.)
very
highly
toxic
00066046
Black
crappie
Pomoxis
nigromaculatus
TGAI
93
3
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Coho
salmon
Oncorhynchus
kisutch
TGAI
93
3.2­
6.1
(
4
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Brown
trout
Salmo
trutta
TGAI
93
3.5­
6.6
(
6
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Bluegill
sunfish
Lepomis
macrochirus
TGAI
93
4.1­
34
(
7
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
22
Guthion
2S
40.4
(
8.8
a.
i.)
very
highly
toxic
00066046
Largemouth
bass
Micropterus
salmoides
TGAI
93
4.8
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Green
sunfish
Lepomis
cyanellus
TGAI
93
52
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Golden
orfe
Leuciscus
idus
melanotus
TGAI
93
120
highly
toxic
00067596
Fathead
minnow
Pimephales
promelas
TGAI
93
148­
293
(
2
tests)
highly
toxic
40098001
Carp
Cyprinus
carpio
TGAI
93
695
highly
toxic
40098001
Channel
catfish
Ictalarus
punctatus
TGAI
93
3290
moderately
toxic
40098001
Black
bullhead
Ictalurus
melas
TGAI
93
3500­
4810
(
3
tests)
moderately
toxic
40098001
a
Yolk­
sac
fry
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Estuarine/
marine
fish
appear
to
be
about
as
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl
as
their
46
freshwater
counterparts.
Acute
exposure
toxicity
data
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
Table
3.18).
The
most
sensitive
estuarine/
marine
fish,
the
sheepshead
minnow,
has
a
96­
hour
LC
50
for
technical
grade
azinphos
methyl
of
2.0
(
1.8­
2.2)
:
g
a.
i/
L
with
a
probit
slope
of
8.8.
This
flow­
through
toxicity
test
was
procured
from
the
open
literature
(
Morton
et
al.,
1997).
This
study
assessed
the
acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
the
sheepshead
minnow
at
the
following
nominal
(
measured)
treatments:
0
(
control),
0
(
solvent
control),
0.38
(
0.33)
0.75
(
0.78),
1.5
(
1.3),
3.0
(
2.8),
and
6.0
(
5.6)
:
g
a.
i/
L.
Recoveries
ranged
from
78
to
103%.
At
96
hours,
the
NOAEC
for
mortality
was
0.78
:
g
a.
i/
L.

A
study
with
the
formulated
product,
Guthion
2L
(
22%
active
ingredient)
reported
a
sheepshead
minnow
LC
50
of
1.86
(
1.51­
2.3)
:
g
a.
i/
L
with
a
probit
slope
of
5.0.
This
flowthrough
study
(
MRID
41202001)
assessed
the
acute
toxicity
of
Guthion
2L
to
the
sheepshead
minnow
at
mean­
measured
concentrations
of
0.235,
0.386,
0.703,
1.36,
and
3.14
:
g
a.
i/
L.
The
NOAEC
for
mortality
was
0.703
:
g
a.
i/
L.
Fish
exposed
to
the
highest
treatment
concentration
exhibited
lethargy
and
loss
of
equilibrium
after
24
hours,
and
fish
in
the
1.36
:
g
a.
i/
L
treatment
group
were
showed
the
same
sublethal
effects
after
48
hours.
For
both
groups,
these
effects
continued
until
mortality
occurred
or
test
termination.

Table
3.18
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
estuarine/
marine
fish.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(:
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Sheepshead
minnow
Cyprinodon
variegatus
98
2.0
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
Morton
et
al.
1997
88.8
2.7
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40380501
Guthion
2L
22.3
1.86
a.
i.
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
41202001
Striped
mullet
Mugil
cephalus
96
3.2a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40228401
Spot
Leiostomus
xanthurus
96
28a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40228401
a
48­
h
test
Amphibians
EFED
typically
uses
fish
toxicity
data
as
a
surrogate
for
amphibian
species.
In
this
case,
azinphos
methyl
toxicity
information
is
available
for
two
amphibian
species.
These
data
suggest
that
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
amphibians.
Based
on
these
studies
(
Table
3.19)
it
appears
that
amphibians
may
be
less
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl
than
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates;
nevertheless,
azinphos
methyl
is
still
categorized
as
highly
toxic
to
amphibians.
The
LC
50
for
the
most
sensitive
amphibian,
the
Fowlers
toad,
is
109
:
g
a.
i/
L,
which
is
approximately
three
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
that
of
the
most
sensitive
aquatic
invertebrate,
the
scud
(
Gammarus
fasciatus).
Sensitivity
differences
between
fish
and
amphibians
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
have
been
previously
observed.
Ferrari
et
al.
(
2004)
reported
that
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
are
approximately
three
orders
of
magnitude
more
sensitive
than
the
toad,
Bufo
47
arenarum.

Table
3.19
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
amphibians.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(:
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
Reference
Fowlers
toad
Bufo
fowleri
93
109
Highly
toxic
Supplemental
MRID
40098001
Western
chorus
frog
Pseudacris
triseriata
93
3200
Moderately
toxic
Supplemental
MRID
40098001
Argentine
Toad
Bufo
arenarum
99
10,440
Slightly
toxic
Supplemental
Ferrari
et
al.
2004
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Toxicity
studies
are
available
for
a
wide
range
of
freshwater
invertebrates.
The
most
sensitive
species
appears
to
be
a
common
amphipod,
the
scud
(
Gammarus
fasciatus),
which
has
a
96­
hour
LC
50
of
0.16
(
0.08­
0.32)
:
g/
L
(
Table
3.20).
Crayfish
may
be
relatively
less
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl.
Azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates.

Table
3.20
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
invertebrates.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
48­
h
LC50
(:
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Scud
Gammarus
fasciatus
TGAI
93
0.16­
0.25
(
2
tests)
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40098001
Water
flea
Daphnia
magna
TGAI
91
1.13
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
00068678
Guthion
50WP
4.8
(
2.4
a.
i.)
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40301302
Glass
shrimp
Palaemonetes
kadiakemsis
TGAI
93
1.2a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40098001
Stonefly
Pteronarcys
californica
TGAI
93
1.9a
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40098001
Sowbug
Asellus
brevicaudus
TGAI
93
21a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40098001
Crayfish
Procambarus
sp.
TGAI
93
56a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40098001
a
96­
h
test
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
Bivalves,
such
as
the
Eastern
oyster,
may
be
slightly
more
tolerant
to
azinphos
methyl
than
other
aquatic
invertebrates
(
Table
3.21).
The
mysid
shrimp
is
the
most
sensitive
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate,
with
an
LC
50
of
0.21
:
g/
L.
This
flow­
through
study
(
MRID
40380502)
evaluated
the
acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
mysid
shrimp
at
mean­
measured
concentrations
of
0.13,
0.26,
0.63,
48
1.1,
and
1.8
:
g/
L.
The
LC
50
was
estimated
to
be
0.21
(
±
0.04)
:
g/
L
with
a
probit
slope
of
5.8.
The
NOAEC
was
determined
to
be
less
than
the
lowest
concentration
tested,
0.13
:
g/
L.

Table
3.21
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(:
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Mysid
shrimp
Mysidopsis
bahia
88.8
0.21
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40380502
22.3
Guthion
2L
0.26
a.
i.
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
41202002
98
0.29
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
Morton
et
al.
1997
Brown
shrimp
Penaeus
aztecus
96
2.4
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40228401
Blue
crab
Callinectes
sapidus
96
320
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40228401
Eastern
oyster
Crassostrea
virginica
96
1000
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40228401
88.8
>
3100
not
determined
Acceptable
40452001
b.
Chronic
Effects
Freshwater
Fish
Azinphos
methyl
triggers
adverse
effects
on
the
normal
life
processes
(
i.
e.
growth,
reproduction)
of
fish
at
very
low
levels
(
less
than
one
part
per
billion).
Chronic
toxicity
information
is
available
for
the
rainbow
trout
from
a
fish
early
life
stage
study
(
Table
3.22).
Rainbow
trout
were
exposed
to
mean­
measured
azinphos
methyl
treatments
of
0.051,
0.14,
0.23,
0.44,
and
0.98
:
g/
L
for
60
days.
Larval
survival
was
reduced
by
65%
at
the
LOAEC
(
0.98
:
g/
L).

Table
3.22
Chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
fish
during
an
early
life­
stage
toxicity
test
Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(:
g/
L)
LOAEC
(:
g/
L)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
Classification
Rainbow
trout
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
88.8
0.44a
0.98
Larval
survival,
length,
and
growth
at
day
60
40579601
Acceptable
a
NOAEC
for
behavioral
effects
(
lethargy)
is
0.23
:
g/
L
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Available
data
indicate
that
chronic
exposure
to
low
levels
(
less
than
one
part
per
billion)
of
azinphos
methyl
adversely
affects
survivorship
and
reproduction
of
the
sheepshead
minnow,
an
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
Table
3.23).
In
a
28­
day,
flow­
through
fish
early
life
stage
toxicity
test
(
Morton
et
al.,
1997),
sheepshead
minnows
were
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
at
the
following
nominal
(
measured
±
standard
deviation)
treatments:
0
(
control),
0
(
solvent
control),
0.12
(
0.17
±
49
0.03),
0.25
(
0.34
±
0.07),
0.50
±
(
0.62
±
0.04),
1.0
(
1.2
±
0.13),
and
2.0
(
2.3
±
0.29)
:
g/
L.
Recoveries
ranged
from
79
to
107%.
After
28
days,
the
mortality
rate
was
100%
for
fish
exposed
to
1.2
and
2.3
:
g/
L.
The
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
for
survival
were
0.17
and
0.34
:
g/
L,
respectively.
There
were
no
statistically
significant
effects
on
growth
(
weight,
length)
at
concentrations
below
0.62
:
g/
L.

Table
3.23
Chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
Species
Test
Type
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(:
g/
L)
LOAEC
(:
g/
L)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
MRID
Sheepshead
minnow
Cyprinodon
variegatus
Early
Life
Stage
98
0.17
0.34
Survival
Acceptable
Morton
et
al.
1997
Life­
cycle
92.5
0.20
0.41
2nd
generation
embryo
survival;
hatchling
success
Acceptable
42021601
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Available
data
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
also
adversely
affects
the
normal
life
processes
of
a
common
freshwater
zooplankton,
Daphnia
magna.
Sublethal
effects
in
freshwater
invertebrates
and
fish
are
triggered
at
approximately
the
same
level
of
azinphos
methyl.
Daphnids
were
exposed
to
five
test
concentrations
(
0.070,
0.12,
0.24,
0.42,
and
0.97
:
g/
L)
in
a
21­
day
flow­
through
chronic
toxicity
study.
Survivorship,
length,
and
fecundity
(
mean
number
of
young
per
adult
per
reproductive
day)
were
significantly
reduced
in
the
0.40
and
0.99
:
g/
L
(
meanmeasured
treatments
(
Table
3.24).

Table
3.24
Chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
invertebrates
during
a
life­
cycle
toxicity
test
Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(:
g/
L)
LOAEC
(:
g/
L)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
MRID
Water
flea
Daphnia
magna
99.6
0.25
0.40
Adult
length,
survival,
no.
young/
adult/
day
Acceptable
00073606
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Chronic
toxicity
information
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
is
available
in
the
open
literature
(
Table
3.25).
Morton
et
al.
(
1997)
performed
a
26­
day,
flow­
through
test
with
mysid
shrimp
to
assess
the
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
at
the
following
nominal
(
measured
±
standard
deviation)
treatments:
0
(
control),
0
(
solvent
control),
0.022
(
0.020),
0.036
(
0.030
±
0.005),
0.06
(
0.061
±
0.022),
0.10
(
0.097
±
0.026),
0.17
(
0.18
±
0.054),
and
0.28
(
0.28
±
0.072)
:
g/
L.
Recoveries
were95
to
109%.
The
mean
day
of
first
brood
release
in
the
pooled
control
was
day
19.2,
and
initiation
of
reproduction
was
not
significantly
affected
by
azinphos
methyl
exposure.
Survival
was
significantly
affected
at
0.18
and
0.28
:
g/
L;
mortality
was
100%
in
the
0.28
:
g/
L
treatment
group.
Thus,
the
NOAEC
for
mortality
was
0.097
:
g/
L.
Fecundity
(
number
of
young/
female)
was
significantly
reduced
in
the
0.030,
0.061,
and
0.097
:
g/
L
treatment
groups.
Mysids
in
the
0.030
:
g/
L
group
produced
an
average
of
4.6
offspring,
about
one­
third
fewer
than
50
their
control
counterparts,
which
produced
an
average
of
6.9.
The
NOAEC
for
sublethal
(
reproductive)
effects
was
0.020
:
g/
L.

Table
3.25
Chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(:
g/
L)
LOAEC
(:
g/
L)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
Reference
Mysid
Shrimp
Mysidopsis
bahia
98
0.02
0.03
Fecundity
(
Number
of
offspring/
female)
Acceptable
Morton
et
al.
1997
c.
Sublethal
Effects
Several
studies
have
shown
that
very
low
levels
of
azinphos
methyl
and
other
organophosphates
inhibit
cholinesterase
(
ChE)
activity
in
aquatic
animals,
such
as
fish
and
frogs.
Ferrari
et
al.
(
2004)
reported
that
the
azinphos
methyl
IC
50
(
i.
e.
concentration
that
produces
50%
cholinesterase
inhibition)
for
rainbow
trout,
is
0.4
(
±
0.1)
:
g/
L,
which
is
approximately
one
order
of
magnitude
below
the
LC
50
.
The
IC
50
for
the
toad
(
Bufo
arenarum)
is
5610
(
±
810)
:
g/
L,
which
is
about
half
of
the
LC
50
.
Sublethal
ChE
inhibition
of
70­
90%
has
been
observed
in
other
fish
species
as
well
(
Gruber
and
Munn,
1998;
Varó
et
al.,
2003).

The
relationship
between
sublethal
ChE
inhibition
and
the
ultimate
fitness
of
a
given
aquatic
species
is
not
well
understood
(
Fulton
and
Key,
2001).
However,
Beauvais
et
al.
(
2000)
reported
that
two
organophosphate
insecticides
altered
the
normal
behavior
of
larval
rainbow
trout
through
cholinesterase
inhibition.
As
cholinesterase
activity
declined,
fish
swimming
speed
and
distance
were
significantly
reduced.
These
types
of
behavioral
responses
have
the
potential
trigger
serious
ecological
consequences
by
altering
predator/
prey
relationships,
reproductive
strategies,
migration
patterns,
etc.

d.
Field
Studies
Sierszen
and
Lozano
(
1997)
studied
the
effects
of
a
single
application
of
0.2,
1.0,
4.0,
and
20.0
:
g/
L
azinphos
methyl
on
natural
zooplankton
communities
using
littoral
ecosystem
enclosures.
Mean­
measured
concentrations
were
1.33,
4.72,
and
20.4
:
g/
L
in
the
1.0,
4.0,
and
20.0
:
g/
L
nominal
treatments,
respectively.
(
The
0.2
nominal
treatment
was
below
the
LOQ
:
g/
L).
Zooplankton
were
sampled
10
times 
twice
pre­
treatment
and
8
times
post­
treatment.
Of
the
three
main
groups
of
zooplankton
(
cladocerans,
copepods,
and
rotifers),
cladocerans
were
most
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl.
Cladoceran
taxa
accounted
for
82%
of
all
significant
treatment
effects
on
individual
taxa.
Most
of
the
effects
were
observed
at
the
20
:
g/
L
treatment
level;
however,
8
of
the
12
cladoceran
taxa
were
significantly
affected
at
the
4
:
g/
L
treatment.
Azinphos
methyl
exposure
did
not
elicit
consistent,
adverse
effects
on
copepods,
rotifers,
or
ostracods.
Taxon
richness
(
diversity)
decreased
with
increasing
azinphos
methyl
exposure
and
was
significantly
different
in
the
4.0
and
20.0
:
g/
L
treatments.
Recovery
of
populations
and
communities
ranged
from
one
month
(
at
4.0
:
g/
L)
to
longer
than
78
days
(
at
20
:
g/
L)
following
51
a
single
application
of
azinphos
methyl.

Schulz
and
Thiere
(
2002)
evaluated
the
impacts
of
azinphos
methyl
on
stream
macroinvertebrate
communities
using
a
combined
microcosm
and
field
approach.
Stones
were
collected
from
the
Lourens
River
(
South
Africa)
from
a
control
site
(
free
of
pesticide
contamination)
upstream
of
a
400­
ha
orchard
and
transferred
to
outdoor
microcosms
so
that
each
microcosm
had
12
core
macroinvertebrate
species
and
approximately
350
individuals.
Microcosms
were
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
at
0
(
control),
0.2,
1,
5,
or
20
:
g/
L
(
meanmeasured
concentrations
were
<
0.01
(
LOQ),
0.2,
1.0,
4.9,
and
19.2
:
g/
L).
Survivorship
was
assessed
6
days
after
treatment.
Microcosms
treated
with
4.9
and
19.2
:
g/
L
had
significantly
lower
invertebrate
densities.
Species
diversity
was
significantly
lower
in
the
19.2
:
g/
L
treatment
group,
which
had
an
average
of
9.7
species
compared
to
14
in
the
control
group.
Schulz
and
Thiere
conducted
a
parallel
macroinvertebrate
survey
at
the
control
site
and
a
contaminated
site
(
downstream
of
the
orchard)
on
the
Lourens
River.
Species
number
was
similar
at
both
sites,
but
abundance
and
diversity
were
significantly
different.
Five
of
the
eight
species
that
were
affected
by
azinphos
methyl
in
the
microcosm
studies
occurred
at
significantly
lower
densities
or
were
completely
absent
at
the
contaminated
field
site.
Of
the
four
species
that
were
unaffected
by
azinphos
methyl
in
the
microcosm
studies,
all
of
them
occurred
at
significantly
higher
densities
at
the
contaminated
field
site.

To
evaluate
the
potential
impacts
of
pesticide
exposure
and
other
abiotic
factors
on
species
abundance
and
diversity
in
the
Lourens
River,
Thiere
and
Schulz
(
2004)
surveyed
stream
macroinvertebrates
above
and
below
a
400­
ha
orchard
area.
The
sampling
site
above
the
orchard
(
LR1)
was
free
of
pesticide
contamination,
and
the
site
4000
m
downstream
of
the
orchard
(
LR2)
received
transient
peaks
of
azinphos
methyl,
chlorpyrifos,
malathion,
and
endosulfan.
The
two
sampling
sites
were
similar
in
bottom
substrate
composition
and
most
abiotic
factors,
except
turbidity
and
pesticide
concentration.
The
macroinvertebrate
communities
were
similar
in
terms
of
number
of
total
individuals,
but
LR1
had
significantly
more
taxa
(
11.7)
compared
to
LR2
(
8.9).
Seven
out
of
17
taxa
occurred
had
a
significantly
reduced
population
or
were
completely
absent
at
LR2.
Based
on
a
community
indices
for
water
quality
bioassessment,
LR2
had
a
less
sensitive
community
structure,
indicating
poorer
water
quality
compared
to
LR1.
The
authors
concluded
that
pesticide
exposure
and
increased
turbidity
were
the
most
important
factors
impacting
community
structure.

2.
Terrestrial
Effects
Characterization
Relevant
acute
data
are
derived
from
standardized
toxicity
tests
with
lethality
as
the
primary
endpoint.
These
tests
are
conducted
with
what
is
generally
accepted
as
the
most
sensitive
life
stage
and
with
species
that
are
usually
among
the
most
sensitive.
Acute
toxicity
tests
with
birds
and
mammals
are
intended
to
statistically
derive
a
median
effect
level
for
acute
oral
exposure
(
LD
50
)
and
subacute
dietary
exposure
(
LC
50
).
Based
on
these
endpoints,
toxicity
categories
can
be
assigned
(
Table
3.26).
52
Table
3.26
Qualitative
descriptors
for
avian
and
mammalian
toxicity
(
US
EPA,
2001)

Toxicity
Category
Oral
LD50
Dietary
LC50
Very
highly
toxic
<
10
mg/
kg
<
50
ppm
Highly
toxic
10
­
50
mg/
kg
50
­
500
ppm
Moderately
toxic
51
­
500
mg/
kg
501
­
1000
ppm
Slightly
toxic
501
­
2000
mg/
kg
1001
­
5000
ppm
Practically
non­
toxic
>
2000
mg/
kg
>
5000
ppm
Available
laboratory
and
field
toxicity
data
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
terrestrial
animals,
including
birds
and
mammals.
The
acute
oral
LD
50
for
the
most
sensitive
bird
(
bobwhite
quail)
is
32
mg/
kg,
and
for
the
most
sensitive
mammal
the
laboratory
rat,
the
LD
50
is
7.8
mg/
kg.
Subacute
dietary
LC
50
is
488
ppm
for
the
bobwhite
quail
and
406
ppm
for
the
graytailed
vole.
The
NOAEC
for
sublethal
effects
on
growth,
development,
and
reproduction
occur
at
10.5
ppm
for
the
mallard
duck
and
5
ppm
for
the
laboratory
rat.
Field
studies
have
confirmed
the
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
non­
target
terrestrial
animals,
and
several
adverse
terrestrial
incidents
have
provided
additional
corroboration.

Azinphos
methyl
exhibits
high
acute
toxicity
due
to
irreversible
inhibition
of
cholinesterase
enzymes.
As
with
humans,
exposure
of
wildlife
to
cholinesterase
inhibiting
pesticides
disrupts
normal
neuromuscular
control.
Death
can
occur
rapidly,
due
primarily
to
respiratory
failure.
Organophosphate
exposure
can
also
result
in
chronic
effects
in
animals
such
as
reproduction
impairment
and
delayed
neuropathy.

a.
Acute
Effects
Birds
Acute
oral
toxicity
data
are
available
for
a
number
of
avian
species.
These
studies
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
ranges
from
moderately
to
highly
toxic
to
birds
(
Table
3.27).
The
most
sensitive
species,
the
bobwhite
quail,
has
an
LD
50
of
32
(
25­
41)
mg/
kg
with
a
probit
slope
of
8.8.
In
this
study
(
MRID
40254801),
adult
(
15­
week)
bobwhite
quail
were
exposed
to
5.6,
11.2,
23.0,
45.0,
and
90.0
mg
a.
i./
kg
bw.
The
NOAEL
for
mortality
was
11.2
mg/
kg.
Sublethal
effects
including
ataxia,
wing
drop,
wing
spasms,
hyporeactivity,
immobility,
labored
breathing,
salivation,
and
convulsion
were
observed
in
all
treatments
except
the
lowest
dose;
thus,
the
NOAEL
for
clinical
signs
of
toxicity
was
5.6
mg/
kg.
53
Table
3.27
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
birds.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LD50
(
mg
a.
i./
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
TGAI
88.8
32
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40254801
TGAI
Not
specified
33
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40605801
TGAI
90
60
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
TGAI
90
136
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Ring­
necked
pheasant
Phasianus
colchicus
TGAI
90
74.9
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Formulation
Not
specified
283
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Chukar
Alectoris
chukar
TGAI
90
84.2
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Bobwhite
quail
is
also
the
most
sensitive
avian
species
on
a
subacute
dietary
toxicity
basis,
with
an
LC
50
of
488
(
394­
601)
ppm
(
Table
3.28).
Based
on
this
endpoint,
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
birds
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.

Table
3.28
Subacute
dietary
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
birds.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Northern
bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
TGAI
92
488
highly
toxic
Acceptable
00022923
Japanese
Quail
Coturnix
japonica
TGAI
92
639
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00022923
Ring­
necked
pheasant
Phasianus
colchicus
TGAI
92
1821
slightly
toxic
Acceptable
00022923
Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
TGAI
92
1940
slightly
toxic
Acceptable
00022923
Acute
oral
toxicity
studies
indicate
that
the
most
sensitive
mammalian
species
is
the
laboratory
rat,
which
has
an
LD
50
of
7.8
mg/
kg
(
Table
3.29)
for
azinphos
methyl.
Based
on
this
endpoint,
azinphos
methyl
is
categorized
as
very
highly
toxic
to
mammals.

Table
3.29
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
mammals.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LD50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID/
Reference
Laboratory
rat
Rattus
norvegicus
85
7.8
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40280101
House
mouse
(
wild)
Mus
musculus
99.1
10
highly
toxic
Supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Table
3.29
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
mammals.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LD50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID/
Reference
54
Laboratory
mouse
Mus
musculus
99.1
11
highly
toxic
Supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Gray­
tailed
vole
Microtus
canicaudus
99.1
32
highly
toxic
Supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Deer
mouse
Peromyscus
maniculatus
99.1
48
highly
toxic
Supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Subacute
dietary
toxicity
data
are
available
for
three
mammalian
species
(
Table
3.30).
These
data
suggest
that
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
mammals
on
a
subacute
dietary
toxicity
basis.
The
gray­
tailed
vole
is
the
most
sensitive
species,
with
a
5­
day
LC
50
of
406
(
312­
858)
ppm
(
Meyers
and
Wolff,
1994).

Table
3.30
Subacute
dietary
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
mammals.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LC50
(
ppm)
Slope
(
SE)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID/
Reference
Gray­
tailed
vole
Microtus
canicaudus
99.1
406
1.93
(
0.6)
highly
toxic
supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Laboratory
mouse
Mus
musculus
99.1
543
2.57
(
0.84)
moderately
toxic
supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Deer
mouse
Peromyscus
maniculatus
99.1
2425
1.45
(
0.35)
slightly
toxic
supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
92
>
5000
­­
practically
nontoxic
supplemental
40858301
Terrestrial
Invertebrates
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
agricultural
crops
may
result
in
exposure
to
non­
target
beneficial
insects,
such
as
the
honey
bee.
Given
that
azinphos
methyl
acts
as
an
insecticide,
it
is
not
surprising
that
this
chemical
is
highly
toxic
to
beneficial
insects
as
well
as
pest
insects.
Acute
oral
and
contact
studies
suggest
that
azinphos
methyl
highly
toxic
to
honey
bees
(
Table
3.31).
In
addition,
a
foliar
residue
study
with
Guthion
50WP
indicates
that
toxic
residues
can
persist
on
vegetation
for
up
to
13
days
post­
treatment.
55
Table
3.31
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
honey
bees.
(
TGAI
=
Technical
Grade
Active
Ingredient)

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
Test
Type
Results
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Honey
bee
Apis
mellifera
TGAI
acute
contact
(
48­
h
LD50)
LD50
=
0.063
µ
g/
bee
highly
toxic
Acceptable
05004151
TGAI
acute
oral
(
48­
h
LD50)
LD50
=
0.15
µ
g/
bee
highly
toxic
Acceptable
05004151
TGAI
(%
NR)
acute
contact
(
48­
h
LD50)
LD50
=
0.423
µ
g/
bee
highly
toxic
Acceptable
00066220
Guthion
50
WP
foliar
residue
(
3
lb
ai/
A)
Residues
highly
toxic
for
4­
13
days
post­
treatment
not
applicable
Acceptable
40466301
Additional
toxicity
data
for
non­
target
soil
and
surface
insects
and
mites
are
available
(
Table
3.32).
Results
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
non­
target
beneficial
insects,
including
bees,
wasps,
beetles,
and
mites.

Table
3.32
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
non­
target
beneficial
insects
(
other
than
honey
bees).

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
Application
Rate
Results
MRID
Parasitic
wasp
Aphytis
melinus
Guthion
50
WP
380
ppm
(
on
lemons)
Highly
toxic
05004003
Predaceous
beetles
(
2
spp.)
Parasitic
wasps
(
2
spp.)
Guthion
25
WP
0.0477%
a.
i.
(
in
honey
bait)
Highly
toxic
05005640
Predaceous
beetles
(
6
spp.)
Predaceous
wasps
(
5
spp.)
Guthion
25
WP
0.5
lb
ai/
100
gal
(
on
waxed
paper)
Highly
toxic
05003978
Predaceous
mite
Amblyseius
hibisci
Guthion
25
WP
0.5
lb
ai/
100
gal
Highly
toxic
05004148
b.
Chronic
Effects
Birds
Chronic
avian
toxicity
data
are
available
for
two
species
(
Table
3.33).
The
most
sensitive
species
is
the
mallard
duck,
with
a
reproductive
NOAEC
of
10.5
ppm.
This
one­
generation
reproduction
study
(
MRID
40844201)
evaluated
the
chronic
dietary
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
18­
week
old
mallard
ducks
at
mean­
measured
treatment
concentrations
of
10.5,
32.5,
and
96.5
ppm.
No
treatment­
related
mortalities
or
clinical
signs
of
toxicity
were
observed
in
adults
throughout
the
course
of
the
study.
Females
in
the
32.5
and
96.5
ppm
groups
weighed
significantly
(
approximately
20%)
less
than
their
control
counterparts.
56
Table
3.33
Chronic
avian
toxicity
information
for
azinphos
methyl
Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(
ppm)
LOAEC
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
MRID
Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
88.8
10.5
32.5
Female
weight
gain
Acceptable
40844201
Northern
bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
88.8
36.5
87.4
Eggs
laid
Eggs
set
Viable
embryos
Surviving
embryos
Surviving
hatchlings
Acceptable
41056101
Mammals
Chronic
mammalian
data
are
available
for
one
species,
the
laboratory
rat
(
Table
3.34).
In
a
two­
generation
reproduction
study
in
Wistar
rats
(
MRID
40332601),
azinphos
methyl
(
87.2%)
was
administered
at
dietary
concentrations
of
0,
5,
15,
or
45
ppm
(
equivalent
to
0.25,
0.75,
or
2.25
mg/
kg/
day).
The
systemic
parental
NOAEL
was
15
ppm
(
0.75
mg/
kg/
day),
based
upon
mortality
of
dams,
decreased
body
weight
for
P
males
and
F1
males
and
females,
and
clinical
signs
of
toxicity,
including
poor
condition
and
convulsions,
at
the
systemic
LOAEL
of
45
ppm
(
2.25
mg/
kg/
day).
The
reproductive
(
offspring)
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
were
5
and
15
ppm
(
0.25
and
0.75
mg/
kg/
day),
respectively.
The
LOAEL
was
based
on
a
reduction
in
pup
viability
and
lactation
indices
(
death
of
the
offspring
between
the
time
periods
of
postnatal
days
0­
5
and
5­
28)
and
decreased
mean
total
litter
weights
at
weaning
on
postnatal
Day
28.
No
cholinesterase
measurements
were
taken
for
either
parental
animals
or
pups.

Table
3.34
Chronic
mammalian
toxicity
information
for
azinphos
methyl
Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(
ppm)
LOAEC
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
MRID
Laboratory
rat
Rattus
norvegicus
87.2
5
15
Pup
mortality,
viability,
lactation,
litter
weight
Acceptable
40332601
c.
Sublethal
Effects
Burgess
et
al.
(
1999)
investigated
the
impact
of
azinphos
methyl
spray
applications
in
apple
orchards
on
ChE
activity
of
tree
swallows
(
Tachycineta
bicolor)
and
Eastern
bluebirds
(
Sialia
sialis)
nesting
in
the
application
area.
Mean
plasma
ChE
levels
in
adult
tree
swallows
were
significantly
inhibited
41%
after
a
second
application
of
azinphos
methyl.
In
nestlings,
brain
ChE
activity
post­
spray
often
fell
below
predicted
activity
from
control
siblings.
Survivorship
appeared
not
to
be
compromised
as
a
result
of
the
observed
ChE
inhibition.

Gill
et
al.
(
2000)
assessed
azinphos
methyl
exposure
to
American
robins
in
fruit
orchards
by
measuring
plasma
ChE
activities
in
nestlings
before
and
after
spray
events
and
brain
ChE
in
dead
nestlings
as
well
as
azinphos
methyl
residues
deposited
in
model
nests
placed
in
trees
for
57
spray
events.
After
standardizing
for
age
variations,
plasma
and
brain
ChE
levels
in
nestlings
sampled
from
1
to
4
days
post
exposure
were
significantly
lower
than
those
sampled
before
spraying.
One
day
after
the
spray
event,
plasma
and
brain
ChE
levels
in
nestling
robins
were
significantly
inhibited;
maximum
inhibition
for
plasma
(
34.5%)
and
brain
(
53.8%)
occurred
4
days
after
exposure.
A
number
of
reproductive
endpoints
were
assessed,
but
only
one
significant
effect
was
observed 
the
proportion
of
nests
with
unhatched
eggs
was
significantly
higher
in
exposed
orchards.

Gill
et
al.
(
2004)
evaluated
the
effects
of
azinphos
methyl
on
ChE
activity
and
general
health
in
zebra
finches
(
Taeniopygia
guttata)
that
were
previously
exposed
to
p,
p'­
DDE
(
a
commonly
detected
metabolite
of
DDT).
Zebra
finches
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
exhibited
a
dose­
response
increase
in
brain
and
plasma
ChE
inhibition.
Maximum
brain
ChE
inhibition
(
42.9%)
was
observed
at
45.3
mg/
kg,
the
highest
dose
tested.
Birds
in
this
treatment
group
did
not
behave
abnormally
or
die.
Given
that
the
LD
50
for
other
songbirds
is
considerably
lower
(
e.
g.
red­
winged
blackbird
LD
50
=
8.5
mg/
kg;
European
starling
LD
50
=
27
mg/
kg),
the
zebra
finch
appears
to
be
relatively
less
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl.
The
authors
also
found
that
pretreatment
of
p,
p'­
DDE
followed
by
azinphos
methyl
exposure
did
not
change
azinphos
methyl
ChE
inhibition.
Immunostimulation
was
observed
in
birds
dosed
1­
year
previously
with
p,
p'­
DDE,
and
anemia
was
observed
when
p,
p'­
DDE
and
azinphos
methyl
were
combined;
these
effects
were
not
dose­
dependent.

d.
Field
Studies
An
extensive
literature
exists
regarding
the
adverse
ecological
impacts
of
azinphos
methyl
on
terrestrial
wildlife.
Field
studies
conducted
in
apple
orchards
in
Washington
(
MRID
41139701)
and
Michigan
(
MRID
41195901)
suggest
that
spray
azinphos
methyl
(
Guthion
35WP)
applications
can
result
in
the
poisoning
of
a
variety
of
terrestrial
animals,
including
birds,
mammals,
and
reptiles.
Other
studies
have
indicated
that
azinphos
methyl
can
elicit
populationlevel
effects
on
gray­
tailed
voles
(
Microtus
canicaudus)
and
deer
mice
(
Peromyscus
maniculatus)
(
Edge
et
al.,
1996;
Peterson,
1996;
Schauber
et
al.,
1997).
For
a
complete
discussion
of
these
studies
see
the
1999
EFED
azinphos
methyl
ecological
risk
assessment
(
Holmes
et
al.,
1999).

Matz
et
al.
(
1998)
compared
avian
toxicity
results
from
a
controlled
field
study
to
those
from
a
dietary
toxicity
laboratory
test.
In
the
field
study,
12­
day
old
northern
bobwhite
quail
were
enclosed
in
alfalfa
fields
and
exposed
to
spray
applications
of
azinphos
methyl
at
0
(
control),
0.77,
and
3.11
kg
a.
i./
ha
(
equivalent
to
0.69
and
2.75
lb
a.
i./
A).
Chick
survival
was
significantly
reduced
in
the
3.11
kg
a.
i./
ha
treatment
group
up
to
5
days
postspray
and
at
both
application
rates
from
6
to
10
days
postspray
(
p
<
0.05).
Brain
acetylcholinesterase
(
AChE)
activity,
growth,
and
weight
of
crop
contents
(
measure
of
food
consumption)
were
significantly
lower
at
both
treatment
concentrations.
Based
on
the
Kenaga
nomogram
employed
by
OPP
to
estimate
terrestrial
exposures,
the
authors
performed
a
5­
day
laboratory
dietary
toxicity
test
with
10­
day
old
northern
bobwhite
quail
using
equivalent
azinphos
methyl
treatments:
0,
150
(
equivalent
to
0.77
kg
a.
i./
A),
240,
380,
and
600
(
equivalent
to
3.11
kg
a.
i./
A)
ppm.
Survivorship
was
significantly
lower
for
58
chicks
exposed
to
600
ppm,
and
brain
AChE
and
growth
were
significantly
reduced
at
all
azinphos
methyl
concentrations.
Chick
survival,
brain
AChE,
and
growth
in
the
field
were
significantly
lower
compared
to
equivalent
exposures
in
the
laboratory
due
to
differences
in
exposure
routes
(
i.
e.
inhalation,
dermal),
behavioral
responses,
spatial/
temporal
variability,
and
indirect
effects.

IV.
Risk
Characterization
Exposure
and
toxicity
effects
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
non­
target
species.
For
the
assessment
of
azinphos
methyl
risks,
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
was
used
to
compare
exposure
and
measured
toxicity
values.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
divided
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values
(
Table
4.1).
RQs
are
typically
calculated
using
the
most
sensitive
species
in
a
given
taxonomic
group;
in
this
case,
RQs
calculated
with
other
species
are
also
discussed
in
the
Risk
Description
(
Section
IV.
B).
RQs
are
compared
to
the
Agency's
pre­
determined
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
These
LOCs
are
the
Agency's
interpretive
policy
and
are
used
to
analyze
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
These
criteria
are
used
to
indicate
when
a
pesticide's
use
as
directed
on
the
label
has
the
potential
to
elicit
adverse
effects
on
non­
target
organisms.
Appendix
C
of
this
document
summarizes
the
LOCs
used
in
this
risk
assessment.

Table
4.1
Summary
of
toxicity
endpoints
for
ecological
risks
assessment
of
azinphos
methyl
Assessment
Endpoint
Most
Sensitive
Toxicity
Endpoint
1.
Abundance
(
survival,
reproduction,
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
birds
1a.
Northern
bobwhite
quail
acute
oral
LD50
=
32
mg
a.
i./
kg
1b.
Northern
bobwhite
quail
subacute
dietary
LC50
=
488
ppm
1c.
Mallard
duck
chronic
reproduction
NOAEC
=
10.5
ppm
2.
Abundance
(
survival,
reproduction,
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
mammals
2a.
Lab
rat
acute
oral
LD50
=
7.8
mg
a.
i./
kg
2b.
Gray­
tailed
vole
subacute
dietary
LC50
=
406
ppm
2c.
Lab
rat
developmental
and
chronic
NOAEC
=
5
ppm
3.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
populations
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
3a.
Northern
pike
acute
LC50
=
0.36
:
g
a.
i./
L
3b.
Rainbow
trout
chronic
reproduction
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
3c.
Gammarus
fasciatus
acute
LC50
=
0.16
:
g
a.
i./
L
3d.
Daphnia
magna
chronic
reproduction
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
4.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
populations
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
4a.
Sheepshead
minnow
acute
LC50
=
2.0
:
g
a.
i./
L
4b.
Mysid
shrimp
acute
LC50
=
0.21
:
g
a.
i./
L
4c.
Sheepshead
minnow
chronic
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
4d.
Mysid
shrimp
chronic
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
5.
Survival
of
individuals
and
populations
of
amphibians
5a.
Fowler's
toad
LC50
=
109
:
g
a.
i./
L
6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insect
populations
6a.
Honeybee
acute
contact
LD50
=
0.063
:
g
a.
i./
La
a
Risks
to
beneficial
insects
were
evaluated
qualitatively
(
i.
e.
RQs
were
not
calculated)
59
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
To
assess
risk
of
azinphos
methyl
to
non­
target
aquatic
animals,
surface
water
EECs
for
azinphos
methyl
were
modeled
using
the
tier
2
model
PRZM/
EXAMS
based
on
the
labelrecommended
usage
scenarios
for
almonds,
apples,
blueberries,
brussels
sprouts,
cherries,
grapes,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts.
Aquatic
exposures
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
nursery
stock
and
parsley
were
assessed
qualitatively
(
see
the
Risk
Description
(
Section
IV.
B)
for
discussion
of
the
qualitative
aquatic
assessments).
This
risk
assessment
uses
the
highest
peak
24­
hour
concentration
in
surface
water
generated
from
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
model
to
represent
acute
exposure
to
fish,
aquatic
invertebrates,
and
aquatic­
phase
amphibians.
Chronic
exposures
for
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
are
estimated
by
the
60­
day
mean
EEC
and
the
21­
day
mean
EEC,
respectively.

Acute
Risks
Based
on
the
projected
aquatic
EECs
(
from
PRZM/
EXAMS),
peak
azinphos
methyl
exposures
for
almonds,
apples,
blueberries,
brussels
sprouts,
cherries,
grapes,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts
(
all
of
the
modeled
uses)
will
likely
exceed
acute
toxicity
thresholds
(
i.
e.
LC
50
)
for
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
each
of
these
crops
poses
acute
risks
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
(
Table
4.2).
Estimated
peak
exposures
range
from
26
to
121
times
higher
than
the
LC
50
for
a
common
freshwater
amphipod,
the
scud,
and
from
12
to
54
times
higher
than
the
LC
50
for
the
Northern
pike.
For
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
the
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
all
uses
except
brussels
sprouts.

Table
4.2
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl.

Use
Scenario
Peak
(:
g/
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Amphibiane
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
Almonds
CA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
7.5
21
47
4
36
0.07
Apples
PA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
15.1
42
94
8
72
0.14
OR,
aerial,
50'
buffer
19.4
54
121
10
92
0.18
OR,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
9.9
28
62
5
47
0.09
Blueberries
MI,
aerial,
50'
buffer
6.9
19
43
3
33
0.06
MI,
air
blast,
25'

buffer,
irrigated
6.8
19
43
3
33
0.06
60
MI,
air
blast,
25'

buffer,

unirrigated
4.2
12
26
2
20
0.04
Brussels
Sprouts
CA,
ground
spray,
25'
buffer
4.5
13
28
2
21
0.04
Cherries
MI,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
5.3
15
33
3
25
0.05
Grapes
CA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer,
irrigated
6.8
19
42
3
32
0.06
Pears
OR,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
6.8
19
43
3
32
0.06
Pistachios
CA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
5.0
14
31
3
24
0.05
Walnuts
CA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
5.8
16
36
3
28
0.05
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
Northern
pike
LC
50
=
0.36
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
scud
LC
50
=
0.16
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
LC
50
=
2.0
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on
mysid
shrimp
LC
50
=
0.21
:
g
a.
i./
L
e
Amphibian
RQ
based
on
Fowler's
toad
LC
50
=
109
:
g
a.
i./
L
Chronic
Risks
Based
on
the
projected
aquatic
EECs
(
from
PRZM/
EXAMS),
chronic
exposures
resulting
from
azinphos
methyl
use
on
almonds,
apples,
blueberries,
brussels
sprouts,
cherries,
grapes,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts
(
all
of
the
assessed
uses)
will
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
i.
e.
reproductive
NOAEC)
for
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
All
uses
pose
chronic
risks
to
listed
and
non­
listed
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
(
Table
4.3).
In
the
absence
of
chronic
data
for
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
it
is
assumed
that
they
are
approximately
as
sensitive
as
freshwater
fish;
thus,
chronic
risks
to
amphibians
cannot
be
precluded.

Table
4.3
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
60­
day
mean
EEC
for
fish
RQ
calculations;
21­
day
mean
EEC
for
aquatic
invertebrate
calculations
Use
Scenario
EEC
(:
g/
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
Almonds
CA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
6.1
4.1
9
24
24
305
Apples
PA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
11.6
8.5
19
46
50
580
OR,
aerial,
50'
buffer
15.2
10.6
24
61
62
760
OR,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
8.0
5.7
13
32
34
400
Blueberries
MI,
aerial,
50'
buffer
5.4
3.8
9
22
22
270
61
MI,
air
blast,
25'

buffer,
irrigated
5.8
4.0
9
23
24
290
MI,
air
blast,
25'

buffer,

unirrigated
3.2
2.2
5
13
13
160
Brussels
Sprouts
CA,
ground
spray,
25'
buffer
3.9
2.8
6
16
16
195
Cherries
MI,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
4.1
3.1
7
16
18
205
Grapes
CA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer,
irrigated
5.0
3.2
7
26
19
250
Pears
OR,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
5.4
3.6
8
22
21
270
Pistachios
CA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
3.6
2.2
5
14
13
180
Walnuts
CA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer
4.7
3.0
7
19
18
235
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
The
EFED
terrestrial
exposure
model
T­
REX
was
used
to
estimate
exposures
and
risks
in
conservative
scenarios
to
avian
species
for
four
forage
food
types
and
to
mammalian
species
for
five
forage
food
types
for
application
rates
of
azinphos
methyl
to
all
of
the
assessed
uses
as
described
in
Section
3a
of
the
Exposure
Characterization.
Risk
quotients
were
calculated
using
upper­
bound
EECs
for
each
of
these
usage
scenarios.
Appendix
D
provides
specific
dose­
and
dietary­
based
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
terrestrial
animals
(
birds,
mammals).

Both
the
dose­
and
dietary­
based
acute
risk
quotients
are
reported;
however,
for
azinphos
methyl,
the
dose­
based
RQs
are
likely
a
better
estimate
of
actual
risk.
In
general,
for
pesticides
(
i.
e.
azinphos
methyl)
with
LD
50
values
less
than
or
equal
to
50
mg/
kg,
the
LD
50
is
a
better
indicator
of
acute
toxicity
to
birds
than
the
LC
50
value
(
Urban
2000).
This
is
due
to
the
inherent
uncertainties
associated
with
the
subacute
dietary
tests,
in
which
dose
is
a
function
of
how
much
food
is
consumed.
In
addition,
Matz
et
al.
(
1998)
demonstrated
that
laboratory
dietary
toxicity
tests
for
azinphos
methyl
may
underestimate
toxic
effects
because
they
fail
to
account
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
and
behavioral
responses
(
for
study
details
see
Section
III.
C.
2.
D).
Thus,
for
azinphos
methyl,
dose­
based
avian
acute
RQs
are
preferred
over
dietary­
based.

All
of
the
assessed
azinphos
methyl
uses
(
almonds,
apples,
blueberries,
brussels
sprouts,
cherries,
grapes,
nursery
stock,
parsley,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts)
are
likely
to
result
in
dietary
exposures
that
exceed
lethal
and
sublethal
(
reproductive)
toxicity
thresholds
for
non­
target
terrestrial
animals.
Acute
and
chronic
RQs
exceed
the
LOCs
for
listed
and
non­
listed
birds
(
which
62
are
also
surrogates
for
reptiles)
and
mammals
(
Table
4.4).
Birds
and
mammals
of
all
sizes
(
up
to
1000
g)
may
be
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
Dietary
exposures
and
RQs
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
apples
are
the
highest
of
all
uses.

Table
4.4
Acute
and
Chronic
Terrestrial
RQs
for
Azinphos
Methyl
Uses
Use
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Number
of
Apps.
Minimum
Interval
(
Days)
Acute
RQsa
Chronic
RQsb
Birds
Mammals
Birds
Mammals
Apples
1.5
3
7
<
0.1
­
36
0.11
­
40
4
­
68
9
­
1233
Blueberries
0.75
2
10
<
0.1
­
14
<
0.1
­
15
2
­
26
3
­
465
Brussels
Sprouts
0.75
1
NA
<
0.1
­
9
<
0.1
­
10
1
­
17
2
­
311
Cherries
0.75
2
14
<
0.1
­
12
<
0.1
­
14
1
­
24
3
­
427
Grapes
1
3
14
<
0.1
­
18
<
0.1
­
20
2
­
35
4
­
626
Nursery
Stock
1.0
4
10
<
0.1
­
22
<
0.1
­
25
3
­
42
6
­
770
Nuts
(
Almonds,
Pistachios,
Walnuts)
2.0
1
NA
<
0.1
­
24
<
0.1
­
27
3
­
46
6
­
830
Parsley
0.5
3
7
<
0.1
­
12
<
0.1
­
13
0.8
­
23
2
­
411
Pears
1.5
2
7
<
0.1
­
29
<
0.1
­
32
3
­
55
7
­
1002
a
Acute
risk
LOC
=
0.5;
restricted
use
LOC
=
0.2;
endangered
species
LOC
=
0.1
b
Chronic
LOC
=
1
EFED
currently
does
not
compute
RQs
for
non­
target
insects.
However,
based
on
the
high
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
all
insects,
including
beneficial
ones
(
i.
e.
honey
bees,
wasps,
beetles,
mites),
risks
are
likely.
Toxicity
information
indicates
that
the
acute
contact
LD
50
for
the
honey
bee
is
as
low
as
0.063
µ
g/
bee
(
MRID
05004151).
In
addition,
there
are
a
number
of
adverse
ecological
incidents
that
have
documented
beneficial
insect
kills,
particularly
in
and
around
apple
orchards.
Given
the
application
rates,
if
non­
target
beneficial
insects
are
present
when
azinphos
methyl
is
applied
to
any
of
the
assessed
uses,
lethal
exposures
are
likely.
Risks
to
listed
terrestrial
invertebrates
cannot
be
precluded.

B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
Summary
The
results
of
this
ecological
risk
assessment
suggest
that
direct
adverse
effects
to
nontarget
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
may
occur
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
all
of
the
assessed
uses
(
almonds,
apples,
blueberries
(
low­
and
highbush),
brussels
sprouts,
cherries,
grapes,
nursery
stock,
parsley,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts).
Acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
birds,
and
mammals
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs.
Azinphos
methyl
also
poses
a
risk
to
terrestrial
beneficial
insects
(
i.
e.
honey
bees).
Listed
and
non­
listed
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
that
are
found
in
areas
where
azinphos
methyl
is
used
may
be
at
risk
for
acute
(
mortality)
and/
or
sublethal
(
growth,
reproductive,
developmental)
effects
as
a
result
of
these
azinphos
methyl
uses.
These
risk
conclusions
are
supported
by
several
field
and
pen
toxicity
studies
on
various
agricultural
sites
as
well
as
an
extensive
history
of
ecological
incidents
(
mostly
in
aquatic
systems)
associated
with
azinphos
63
methyl
use.

1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Animals
Based
on
current
label
application
rates
and
mandatory
buffer
zones,
direct
adverse
effects
to
non­
target
fish
and
invertebrates
may
occur
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
all
of
the
assessed
uses
(
almonds,
apples,
blueberries
(
low­
and
highbush),
brussels
sprouts,
cherries,
grapes,
nursery
stock,
parsley,
pears,
pistachios,
and
walnuts).
Acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs.
For
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
the
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
all
of
the
assessed
uses
except
brussels
sprouts,
and
chronic
risks
cannot
be
precluded
at
this
time.

Screening
risk
assessment
typically
relies
on
a
selected
toxicity
endpoint
(
i.
e.
LC
50
)
from
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.
In
this
case,
acute
risk
quotients
for
freshwater
fish
were
calculated
using
the
northern
pike
LC
50
of
0.36
µ
g/
L,
the
most
sensitive
endpoint
from
the
available
data
set.
This
endpoint
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
sensitivity
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
a
given
environment;
in
reality,
the
most
sensitive
species
may
be
more
or
less
sensitive.
In
an
effort
to
provide
a
lower­
bound
for
acute
risk
estimates,
RQs
have
been
also
been
calculated
for
other
freshwater
fish
species
when
applicable.

Azinphos
methyl
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
thresholds,
resulting
in
individual
mortality
or
sublethal
effects
(
i.
e.
reduced
fecundity
or
growth).
Aquatic
animals
that
survive
initial
(
peak)
exposures
may
be
vulnerable
to
sublethal
effects
on
normal
life
processes,
such
as
growth
and
reproduction.
Dramatic
reductions
in
offspring
production
are
known
to
occur
at
very
low
levels
of
azinphos
methyl
(
e.
g.
rainbow
trout
larval
survival
is
reduced
by
65%
at
1
:
g/
L).
Widespread
mortality
and/
or
reproductive
impairment
in
a
given
population
could
have
profound
ecological
consequences.
A
dramatic
change
in
population
size
can
lead
to
instability
in
the
trophic
cascade
(
i.
e.
food
web)
and
alteration
of
predator­
prey
relationships.
Furthermore,
azinphos
methyl
is
known
to
affect
zooplankton
communities
at
levels
similar
to
those
predicted
by
PRZM/
EXAMS
(
Sierzen
and
Lozano,
1997),
which
may
result
in
a
shift
toward
less
sensitive
species
and
reduce
biodiversity.
Depending
on
the
magnitude
of
the
effect,
ecosystem
function
may
be
compromised.
These
risk
conclusions
are
supported
by
an
extensive
history
of
adverse
aquatic
incidents
that
have
resulted
in
the
deaths
of
hundreds
of
thousands
of
aquatic
animals
(
Appendix
F).

Because
of
the
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
animals
identified
in
the
IRED
and
subsequent
litigation,
a
risk
assessment
was
conducted
to
determine
whether
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
threatened
and
endangered
Pacific
anadromous
salmonids
and
their
designated
critical
habitat
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
in
spite
of
the
mitigation
measures
taken
(
i.
e.
reduction
of
maximum
application
rates,
cancellations,
phase­
outs),
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
25
out
of
26
salmonid
evolutionarily
significant
units
(
ESUs)
of
concern.
Effect
determinations
for
listed
salmonids
were
made
based
on
total
azinphos
methyl
usage;
however,
some
inferences
can
be
made
regarding
the
assessed
azinphos
methyl
64
uses.

a.
Almonds
Summary:
Risk
quotients
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
and
listed
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
as
a
result
of
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
almonds
(
1
application
at
2.0
lbs.
a.
i./
A
with
a
25­
foot
buffer).
Even
if
spray
drift
could
be
reduced
to
1%,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
would
still
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern.
This
risk
conclusion
is
primarily
based
on
aquatic
toxicity
information
and
the
likelihood
for
aquatic
exposure
resulting
from
air
blast
spray
application
to
almonds
and
is
further
supported
by
the
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003)
endangered
species
assessment
for
salmonids
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
species,
including
(
but
not
limited
to)
salmonids
(
Appendix
E).

Almonds
are
grown
predominantly
in
California's
Central
Valley
(
Figure
2),
and
aquatic
systems
(
i.
e.
rivers,
reservoirs,
etc.)
adjacent
to
or
downstream
of
the
application
site
have
the
potential
to
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
via
runoff
and/
or
drift.
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
almonds
will
likely
result
in
aquatic
exposures
that
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds.
In
an
effort
to
further
characterize
the
magnitude
and
significance
of
these
risks,
risk
quotients
have
been
calculated
using
less
conservative
exposure
scenarios,
and
potential
risks
to
less
sensitive
species
have
been
considered.
Even
if
drift
is
assumed
to
be
1%,
the
peak
EEC
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
almonds
is
5.1
:
g/
L,
a
level
that
is
high
enough
to
elicit
significant
fish
kills
($
50%)
for
several
fish
species
(
Table
4.5).
Chronic
exposures
using
this
same
drift
scenario
(
1%)
would
also
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
Table
4.6).

Table
4.5
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
ALMONDS
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Invertebrate
Fish
Invertebrate
CA,
air
blast,
1%

drift
5.1
Northern
Pike:
14
Brook
Trout:
4
Black
Crappie:
2
Largemouth
Bass:
1.1
Scud:
32
Daphnia:
5
Stonefly:
3
Sheepshead
Minnow:
3
Striped
Mullet:
2
Mysid
Shrimp:
24
Brown
Shrimp:
2
Table
4.6
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
ALMONDS
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
65
CA,
air
blast,

1%
drift
3.8
2.4
5
15
14
190
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
California
counties
where
almonds
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
four
salmonid
ESUs
(
Table
4.7).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
almond­
producing
counties
in
California
(
Appendix
E).
66
Table
4.7
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Almond­
producing
Counties
in
California
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Almonds)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

Butte
(
1458*)
Colusa
(
1924*)
Glenn
(
1389*)
Merced
(
525*)
Solano
(
48*)
Stanislaus
(
2473*)
Tehama
(
813*)
Yolo
(
100*)
Yuba
(
269*)
Steelhead
Central
California
Coast
California
Central
Valley
Chinook
salmon
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
Central
Valley
spring­
run
*
Acres
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
b.
Apples
Summary:
Multiple
lines
of
evidence
suggest
that
azinphos
methyl
use
on
apples
poses
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
listed
and
non­
listed
aquatic
animals.
Aquatic
toxicity
information,
estimated
exposure
concentrations,
surface
water
monitoring
data,
an
endangered
species
assessment
for
salmonids
in
the
Pacific
Northwest,
and
reported
adverse
aquatic
incidents
all
support
this
risk
conclusion.
Risk
quotients
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
and
listed
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
as
a
result
of
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
apples.
Even
if
spray
drift
could
be
completely
eliminated
(
0%),
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
would
still
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
species,
including
(
but
not
limited
to)
salmonids
(
Appendix
E).

Apples
are
grown
across
the
United
States
(
Figure
3),
and
fresh­
and
saltwater
ecosystems
may
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
via
runoff
and
spray
drift.
In
fact,
a
recent
study
by
Ebbert
and
Embry
(
2002)
reported
that
azinphos
methyl
was
the
most
widely
detected
insecticide
in
the
Yakima
River
Basin
(
Washington),
with
a
65%
detection
rate.
Aquatic
exposures
were
modeled
for
western
(
OR;
Figure
10)
and
eastern
(
PA;
Figure
11)
apples,
and
various
drift
scenarios
were
considered.
Exposures
for
air
blast
applications
are
higher
for
the
eastern
(
PA)
apple
scenario
since
there
is
more
precipitation
and
potential
runoff
in
this
part
of
the
country.
Aerial
applications,
which
are
limited
to
Idaho
apples,
result
in
the
highest
estimated
environmental
exposures.
67
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Peak
4­
day
Mean
21­
day
Mean
60­
day
Mean
90­
day
Mean
Azinphos
Methyl
Aquatic
EEC
(
ug/
L)
OR,
aerial,
50'
buf
fer,
9.2%
drif
t,
unirrigated
OR,
air
blast
25'
buf
fer,
4.5%
drif
t
OR,
aerial,
4.5%
drif
t
OR,
aerial,
0%
drif
t
OR,
aerial,
50'
buf
fer,
9.2%
drif
t,
irrigated
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Peak
4­
day
Mean
21­
day
Mean
60­
day
Mean
90­
day
Mean
Azinphos
Methyl
Aquatic
EEC
(
ug/
L)

PA,
air
blast,
25'
buffer,
4.5%
drift
PA,
air
blast,
1%
drift
PA,
air
blast,
0%
drift
Figure
10.
Aquatic
EECs
for
Western
(
OR)
apples.

Figure
11.
Aquatic
EECs
for
Eastern
(
PA)
apples.

The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
apples
(
eastern
and
western)
will
likely
result
in
aquatic
exposures
that
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds.
In
an
effort
to
further
characterize
the
magnitude
and
significance
of
these
risks,
risk
quotients
have
been
calculated
using
less
conservative
exposure
scenarios,
and
potential
risks
to
less
sensitive
species
have
been
considered.
Even
if
drift
could
be
completely
eliminated
(
i.
e.
0%),
the
peak
EEC
for
azinphos
68
methyl
use
on
eastern
(
PA)
apples
is
8.9
:
g/
L,
and
the
peak
EEC
for
western
(
OR)
apples
(
airblast
application)
is
2.3
:
g/
L.
These
exposures
are
high
enough
to
elicit
significant
fish
kills
($
50%)
for
several
fish
species
(
Table
4.8).
Chronic
exposures
for
apples
assuming
no
(
0%)
drift
would
also
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
Table
4.9).

Table
4.8
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
APPLES
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Invertebrate
Fish
Invertebrate
PA,
0%
drift
8.9
Northern
Pike:
25
Brook
Trout:
7
Black
Crappie:
3
Largemouth
Bass:
2
Scud:
56
Daphnia:
8
Stonefly:
5
Sheepshead
Minnow:
4
Striped
Mullet:
3
Mysid
Shrimp:
42
Brown
Shrimp:
4
OR,
0%
drift
2.3
Northern
Pike:
6
Brook
Trout:
2
Black
Crappie:
0.8
Largemouth
Bass:
0.5
Scud:
14
Daphnia:
2
Stonefly:
1
Sheepshead
Minnow:
1
Striped
Mullet:
0.7
Mysid
Shrimp:
11
Brown
Shrimp:
1
Table
4.9
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
APPLES
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
PA,
0%
drift
6.6
4.7
11
26
28
330
OR,
0%
drift
1.8
1.0
2
7
6
90
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
Ecological
Monitoring
The
presumption
of
acute
risks
to
aquatic
animals
is
supported
by
an
adverse
ecological
incidents
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
apples.
Details
of
this
fish
kill
are
summarized
in
Table
4.10.
69
Table
4.10
Adverse
Ecological
Incident
Associated
With
the
Use
of
Azinphos
Methyl
on
Apples
EIIS
Incident
No.
(
Date)
Location
Species
Affected
Magnitude
of
Effect
Incident
Summary
Certainty
Index
I004374­
006
(
01
June
1996)
Jackson,
MO
Bluegill
Sunfish
Fathead
Minnow
300
25
Nearby
apple
orchard
was
sprayed
with
azinphos
methyl;
rain
storm
led
to
runoff
to
affected
pond;
chemical
analyses
were
not
complete
at
time
of
report
Probable
Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
counties
where
apples
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
many
salmonid
ESUs
(
Table
4.11).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
apple­
producing
counties
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
(
Appendix
E).

Table
4.11
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Apple­
producing
Counties
in
California,
Idaho,
Oregon,
and
Washington,
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Apples)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

California:
Butte
(
260*)
Contra
Costa
(
2618*)
Lake
(
123*)
Los
Angeles
(
38*)
Mendocino
(
104*)
Merced
(
120*)
Monterey
(
35*)
Placer
(
14*)
Riverside
(
15*)
Sacramento
(
137*)
San
Benito
(
100*)
San
Joaquin
(
3172*)
San
Luis
Obispo
(
507*)
Shasta
(
29*)
Solano
(
145*)
Sonoma
(
40*)
Stanislaus
(
1016*)
Sutter
(
125*)
Tehama
(
10*)
Yolo
(
159*)
Yuba
(
21*)
Steelhead
Southern
California
South
Central
California
Central
California
Coast
California
Central
Valley
Northern
California
Chinook
salmon
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
Central
Valley
spring­
run
California
Coastal
Coho
Salmon
Central
California
Coast
Southern
Oregon/
Northern
California
coastal
Idaho:
Benewah
(
6)
Idaho
(
6)
Lemhi
(
6)
Steelhead
Snake
River
Basin
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
fall­
run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer
Run
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
70
Oregon:
Clackamas
(
167)
Columbia
(
39)
Coos
(
28)
Curry
(
27)
Douglas
(
148)
Hood
River
(
2592)
Jackson
(
360)
Jefferson
(
4)
Josephine
(
181)
Lane
(
174)
Lincoln
(
22)
Linn
(
133)
Marion
(
555)
Multnomah
(
51)
Polk
(
157)
Umatilla
(
3927)
Union
(
39)
Wallowa
(
8)
Wasco
(
463)
Washington
(
279)
Wheeler
(
23)
Yamhill
(
310)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Middle
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
Fall­
run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer
Run
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Chum
Salmon
Columbia
River
Coho
Salmon
Southern
Oregon/
Northern
California
coastal
Oregon
coast
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
Washington:
Adams
(
345)
Asotin
(
24)
Benton
(
18,425)
Chelan
(
17,096)
Clallam
(
29)
Clark
(
33)
Cowlitz
(
14)
Franklin
(
9000)
Grant
(
33,615)
Island
(
18)
Jefferson
(
5)
King
(
64)
Kitsap
(
21)
Kittitas
(
1859)
Klickitat
(
516)
Lewis
(
77)
Mason
(
5)
Okanogan
(
24,164)
Pierce
(
61)
San
Juan
(
64)
Skagit
(
357)
Skamania
(
75)
Snohomish
(
47)
Spokane
(
227)
Thurston
(
23)
Walla
Walla
(
5222)
Whitman
(
19)
Yakima
(
75,264)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Middle
Columbia
River
Chum
Salmon
Hood
Canal
summer­
run
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
Fall­
run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer
Run
Puget
Sound
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
*
Acres
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
c.
Blueberries
Summary:
Risk
quotients
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
and
listed
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
as
a
result
of
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
high­
and
lowbush
blueberries.
Aquatic
exposures
were
modeled
for
Michigan
blueberries
(
2
aerial
applications,
10
days
apart
at
0.75
lbs.
a.
i./
A,
with
a
50­
foot
buffer),
and
various
drift
scenarios
were
considered.
Even
if
spray
drift
could
be
reduced
to
1%,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
would
still
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
71
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
aquatic
animals
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
blueberries
(
Appendix
E).

Blueberries
are
grown
across
the
United
States
(
Figure
4),
and
fresh­
and
saltwater
ecosystems
may
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
via
runoff
and
spray
drift.
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
blueberries
(
high­
and
lowbush)
will
likely
result
in
aquatic
exposures
that
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
listed
and
non­
listed
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
In
an
effort
to
further
characterize
the
magnitude
and
significance
of
these
risks,
risk
quotients
have
been
calculated
using
less
conservative
exposure
scenarios,
and
potential
risks
to
less
sensitive
species
have
been
considered.
Even
if
drift
is
assumed
to
be
1%
for
air
blast
applications,
the
peak
EECs
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
blueberries
are
4.8
and
2.3
:
g/
L,
for
irrigated
and
unirrigated
systems,
respectively.
If
drift
is
assumed
to
be
5%
for
aerial
application,
the
peak
EEC
is
4.4
:
g/
L.
These
levels
are
high
enough
to
elicit
significant
fish
kills
($
50%)
for
several
fish
species
(
Table
4.12).
Chronic
exposures
using
these
same
drift
scenarios
would
also
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
Table
4.13).

Table
4.12
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
BLUEBERRIES
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Invertebrate
Fish
Invertebrate
MI,
air
blast,
1%
drift,
irrigated
4.8
Northern
Pike:
13
Brook
Trout:
4
Black
Crappie:
2
Largemouth
Bass:
1
Scud:
30
Daphnia:
4
Stonefly:
3
Sheepshead
Minnow:
2
Striped
Mullet:
2
Mysid
Shrimp:
23
Brown
Shrimp:
2
MI,
aerial,
5%
drift
4.4
Northern
Pike:
12
Brook
Trout:
4
Black
Crappie:
1.5
Largemouth
Bass:
0.9
Scud:
28
Daphnia:
4
Stonefly:
2
Sheepshead
Minnow:
2
Striped
Mullet:
1.4
Mysid
Shrimp:
21
Brown
Shrimp:
2
MI,
air
blast,
1%
drift,
unirrigated
2.3
Northern
Pike:
6
Brook
Trout:
2
Black
Crappie:
0.8
Largemouth
Bass:
0.5
Scud:
14
Daphnia:
2
Stonefly:
1.2
Sheepshead
Minnow:
1.2
Striped
Mullet:
0.7
Mysid
Shrimp:
11
Brown
Shrimp:
1
Table
4.13
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
BLUEBERRIES
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
MI,
air
blast,
1%
drift,
irrigated
4.1
2.9
7
16
17
205
MI,
aerial,
5%
drift
3.4
2.4
5
14
14
170
MI,
air
blast,
1%
drift,
unirrigated
1.6
1.0
2
6
6
80
72
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
d.
Brussels
Sprouts
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
brussels
sprouts
will
likely
result
in
aquatic
exposures
that
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds.
In
an
effort
to
further
characterize
the
magnitude
and
significance
of
these
risks,
risk
quotients
have
been
calculated
using
less
conservative
exposure
scenarios,
and
potential
risks
to
less
sensitive
species
have
been
considered.
Even
if
drift
is
assumed
to
be
1%,
the
peak
EEC
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
brussels
sprouts
is
4.5
:
g/
L,
a
level
that
is
high
enough
to
elicit
significant
fish
kills
($
50%)
for
several
fish
species
(
Table
4.14).
Chronic
exposures
using
this
same
drift
scenario
(
1%)
would
also
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
Table
4.15).

Table
4.14
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
BRUSSELS
SPROUTS
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Invertebrate
Fish
Invertebrate
CA,
ground
spray,
1%
drift
4.5
Northern
Pike:
13
Brook
Trout:
4
Black
Crappie:
2
Largemouth
Bass:
0.9
Scud:
28
Daphnia:
4
Stonefly:
2
Sheepshead
Minnow:
2
Striped
Mullet:
1.4
Mysid
Shrimp:
21
Brown
Shrimp:
2
Table
4.15
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
BRUSSELS
SPROUTS
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
CA,
ground
spray,
1%
drift
3.7
2.7
6
15
14
185
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
California
counties
where
brussels
sprouts
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
four
salmonid
ESUs
(
Table
4.16).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
brussels
73
sprouts­
producing
counties
in
California
(
Appendix
E).

Table
4.16
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Brussels
Sprouts­
producing
Counties
in
California
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Brussels
Sprouts)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

San
Mateo
(
134*)
Santa
Cruz
(
263*)
Steelhead
South
Central
California
Central
California
Coast
California
Central
Valley
Chinook
salmon
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
*
Acres
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
e.
Cherries
Summary:
Risk
quotients
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
and
listed
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
as
a
result
of
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
sweet
and
tart
cherries.
Aquatic
exposures
were
modeled
for
Michigan
cherries
(
2
air
blast
applications,
14
days
apart
at
0.75
lbs.
a.
i./
A,
with
a
25­
foot
buffer),
and
various
drift
scenarios
were
considered.
Even
if
spray
drift
could
be
eliminated,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
would
still
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
species,
including
(
but
not
limited
to)
salmonids
(
Appendix
E).

Cherries
are
grown
across
the
United
States
(
Figures
5
and
6),
and
fresh­
and
saltwater
ecosystems
may
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
via
runoff
and
spray
drift.
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
cherries
(
sweet
and
tart)
will
likely
result
in
aquatic
exposures
that
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds.
In
an
effort
to
further
characterize
the
magnitude
and
significance
of
these
risks,
risk
quotients
have
been
calculated
using
less
conservative
exposure
scenarios,
and
potential
risks
to
less
sensitive
species
have
been
considered.
Even
if
drift
could
be
completely
eliminated
(
i.
e.
0%),
the
peak
EEC
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
cherries
is
3.7
:
g/
L.
This
exposure
is
high
enough
to
elicit
significant
fish
kills
($
50%)
for
several
fish
species
(
Table
4.17).
Chronic
exposures
for
cherries
assuming
no
(
0%)
drift
would
also
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
Table
4.18).
74
Table
4.17
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
CHERRIES
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Invertebrate
Fish
Invertebrate
MI,
0%
drift
3.7
Northern
Pike:
10
Brook
Trout:
3
Black
Crappie:
1
Largemouth
Bass:
0.8
Scud:
23
Daphnia:
3
Stonefly:
2
Sheepshead
Minnow:
1.9
Striped
Mullet:
1
Mysid
Shrimp:
18
Brown
Shrimp:
2
Table
4.18
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
CHERRIES
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
MI,
0%
drift
2.7
1.9
4
11
11
135
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
counties
where
cherries
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
many
salmonid
ESUs
(
Table
4.19).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
cherry­
producing
counties
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
(
Appendix
E).

Table
4.19
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Apple­
producing
Counties
in
California,
Idaho,
Oregon,
and
Washington,
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Cherries)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

California:
San
Joaquin
(
10*)
Steelhead
California
Central
Valley
Idaho:
Latah
(
19)
Steelhead
Snake
River
Basin
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
Fall­
run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer
Run
75
Oregon:
Benton
(
18)
Clackamas
(
53)
Columbia
(**)
Coos
(
11)
Curry
(**)
Douglas
(
60)
Hood
River
(**)
Jackson
(
22)
Josephine
(
9)
Lane
(
158)
Linn
(**)
Marion
(
1459)
Multnomah
(
7)
Polk
(
1888)
Umatilla
(**)
Union
(**)
Wasco
(**)
Washington
(
211)
Yamhill
(
1140)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Middle
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
Fall­
run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer
Run
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Chum
Salmon
Columbia
River
Coho
Salmon
Oregon
Coast
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
Washington:
Adams
(**)
Asotin
(
17)
Benton
(
3219)
Chelan
(
3704)
Clallam
(
11)
Clark
(**)
Cowlitz
(
2)
Douglas
(
1842)
Franklin
(
2165)
Grant
(
3470)
King
(
8)
Kitsap
(
6)
Kittitas
(**)
Klickitat
(
457)
Lewis
(
10)
Lincoln
(
1)
Okanogan
(
1003)
Pacific
(**)
Pierce
(
5)
San
Juan
(
1)
Skagit
(**)
Snohomish
(
3)
Spokane
(
50)
Walla
Walla
(
280)
Whatcom
(
4)
Whitman
(**)
Yakima
(
6129)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Middle
Columbia
River
Chum
Salmon
Hood
Canal
Summer­
run
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
Fall­
run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer
Run
Puget
Sound
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
*
Acres
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
**
USDA
withheld
acreage
because
county
acreage
is
limited
to
less
than
a
few
farms
f.
Grapes
Summary:
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
grapes
will
likely
result
in
aquatic
exposures
that
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds.
In
an
effort
to
further
characterize
the
magnitude
and
significance
of
these
risks,
risk
quotients
have
been
calculated
using
less
conservative
exposure
scenarios,
and
potential
risks
to
less
sensitive
species
have
been
considered.
Even
if
drift
is
assumed
to
be
1%,
the
peak
EEC
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
grapes
is
1.5
:
g/
L,
a
level
that
is
high
enough
to
elicit
significant
fish
kills
($
50%)
for
several
fish
species
(
Table
4.20).
Chronic
exposures
using
this
same
drift
scenario
(
1%)
would
also
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
Table
4.21).
76
Table
4.20
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
GRAPES
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Invertebrate
Fish
Invertebrate
CA,
air
blast,

1%
drift
1.5
Northern
Pike:
4
Brook
Trout:
1
Black
Crappie:
0.5
Largemouth
Bass:
0.3
Scud:
9
Daphnia:
1
Stonefly:
0.8
Sheepshead
Minnow:
0.8
Striped
Mullet:
0.5
Mysid
Shrimp:
7
Brown
Shrimp:
0.6
Table
4.21
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
GRAPES
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
CA,
1%
drift
1.1
0.72
2
4
4
55
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
counties
where
grapes
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
two
salmonid
ESUs
(
Table
4.22).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
these
ESUs.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
counties
that
produce
grapes
(
Appendix
E).

Table
4.22
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Grape­
producing
Counties
in
California
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Grapes)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

Lake
(
19*)
Steelhead
Northern
California
Chinook
Salmon
California
coastal
*
Acres
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
g.
Nursery
Stock
Summary:
Nursery
stock
operations
are
located
across
the
country,
and
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
bodies
adjacent
to
or
downstream
of
the
application
site
have
the
potential
to
be
77
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
via
runoff
and/
or
drift.
Estimated
aquatic
exposures
were
not
modeled
for
this
use;
however,
the
weight
of
the
evidence
suggests
that
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
animals
are
likely
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
application
to
nursery
stock
(
4
applications,
1.0
lbs
a.
i./
A,
at
least
10
days
apart).
This
risk
conclusion
is
primarily
based
on
aquatic
toxicity
information
and
the
likelihood
for
aquatic
exposure
resulting
from
air
blast
spray
application
to
nursery
stock.
It
is
further
supported
by
the
history
of
adverse
aquatic
incidents,
and
an
endangered
species
assessment
(
see
below).
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
species,
including
(
but
not
limited
to)
salmonids
(
Appendix
E).

Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
counties
where
nursery
crops
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
many
salmonid
ESUs
(
Table
4.23).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
counties
that
produce
nursery
crops
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
(
Appendix
E).

Table
4.23
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Nursery
Crops
in
Counties
in
Oregon
and
Washington
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Nursery
Crops)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

Oregon:
Benton
(
149)
Clackamas
(
10,503)
Clatsop
(
3)
Columbia
(**)
Coos
(
21)
Curry
(**)
Douglas
(
125)
Hood
River
(**)
Jackson
(
39)
Lane
(
325)
Lincoln
(**)
Linn
(
155)
Marion
(
7090)
Multnomah
(
2609)
Polk
(**)
Umatilla
(**)
Washington
(
4130)
Yamhill
(
3444)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Middle
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer­
run
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Southern
Oregon/
Northern
California
coastal
Chum
Salmon
Columbia
River
Coho
Salmon
Oregon
coast
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
78
Washington:
Benton
(
161)
Chelan
(
12)
Clallam
(
27)
Clark
(
122)
Cowlitz
(
54)
Douglas
(
7)
Franklin
(**)
Grant
(
1562)
Grays
Harbor
(**)
Island
(
14)
Jefferson
(
17)
King
(
328)
Kitsap
(
88)
Lewis
(**)
Okanogan
(
25)
Pacific
(**)
Pierce
(
160)
San
Juan
(**)
Skagit
(
359)
Snohomish
(
414)
Spokane
(
128)
Whatcom
(
396)
Yakima
(
408)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Middle
Columbia
River
Chum
Salmon
Hood
Canal
Summer­
run
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
Fall­
run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer­
run
Puget
Sound
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
*
Acres
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
**
USDA
withheld
acreage
because
county
acreage
is
limited
to
less
than
a
few
farms
h.
Parsley
Summary:
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
parsley
is
limited
to
New
Jersey
and
Ohio.
Freshwater
bodies
adjacent
to
or
downstream
of
the
application
site
have
the
potential
to
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
via
runoff
and/
or
drift.
Estimated
aquatic
exposures
were
not
modeled
for
this
use;
however,
the
weight
of
the
evidence
suggests
that
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
animals
are
likely
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
application
to
parsley
(
3
applications,
0.5
lbs
a.
i./
A,
minimum
interval
not
specified).
This
risk
conclusion
is
primarily
based
on
aquatic
toxicity
information
and
the
likelihood
for
aquatic
exposure
resulting
from
ground
spray
application
to
parsley.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
aquatic
animals
(
Appendix
E).

i.
Pears
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
pears
will
likely
result
in
aquatic
exposures
that
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds.
In
an
effort
to
further
characterize
the
magnitude
and
significance
of
these
risks,
risk
quotients
have
been
calculated
using
less
conservative
exposure
scenarios,
and
potential
risks
to
less
sensitive
species
have
been
considered.
Even
if
drift
is
assumed
to
be
1%,
the
peak
EEC
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
pears
is
2.1
:
g/
L,
a
level
that
is
high
enough
to
elicit
significant
fish
kills
($
50%)
for
several
fish
species
(
Table
4.24).
Chronic
exposures
using
this
same
drift
scenario
(
1%)
would
also
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
Table
4.25).
79
Table
4.24
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
PEARS
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Invertebrate
Fish
Invertebrate
OR,
air
blast,

1%
drift
2.1
Northern
Pike:
6
Brook
Trout:
2
Black
Crappie:
0.7
Largemouth
Bass:
0.4
Scud:
13
Daphnia:
2
Stonefly:
1
Sheepshead
Minnow:
1.1
Striped
Mullet:
0.7
Mysid
Shrimp:
10
Brown
Shrimp:
0.9
Table
4.25
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
PEARS
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
OR,
1%
drift
1.6
1.1
3
6
6
80
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
counties
where
pears
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
many
salmonid
ESUs
(
Table
4.26).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
counties
that
produce
pears
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
(
Appendix
E).
80
Table
4.26
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Pear­
producing
Counties
in
California,
Oregon,
and
Washington
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Pears)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

California:
Contra
Costa
(
47*)
Colusa
(
35*)
Lake
(
2722*)
Los
Angeles
(
17*)
Mendocino
(
985*)
Merced
(
5*)
Placer
(
10*)
Sacramento
(
4112*)
San
Joaquin
(
173*)
Santa
Clara
(
6*)
Solano
(
1118*)
Sutter
(
538*)
Yolo
(
769*)
Yuba
(
2517*)
Steelhead
Southern
California
South
Central
California
Central
California
Coast
California
Central
Valley
Northern
California
Chinook
Salmon
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
Central
Valley
Spring­
run
California
Coastal
Coho
Salmon
Central
California
Coast
Southern
Oregon/
Northern
California
coast
Oregon:
Grant
(**)
Steelhead
Middle
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
Fall­
run
Washington:
Asotin
(
6)
Benton
(
472)
Chelan
(
8298)
Clark
(
75)
Cowlitz
(
3)
Douglas
(
1104)
Franklin
(
156)
Grant
(
998)
Kittitas
(
331)
Klickitat
(
923)
Okanogan
(
3280)
San
Juan
(
5)
Skamania
(
477)
Snohomish
(
27)
Spokane
(
24)
Whatcom
(
15)
Whitman
(
2)
Yakima
(
10,190)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Steelhead
Middle
Columbia
River
Chum
Salmon
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
Fall­
run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer­
run
Puget
Sound
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
*
Acres
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
**
USDA
withheld
acreage
because
county
acreage
is
limited
to
less
than
a
few
farms
j.
Pistachios
Summary:
Risk
quotients
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
and
listed
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
as
a
result
of
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
pistachios
(
1
application
at
2.0
lbs.
a.
i./
A
with
a
25­
foot
buffer).
Even
if
spray
drift
could
be
reduced
to
1%,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
would
still
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern.
This
risk
conclusion
is
primarily
based
on
aquatic
toxicity
information
and
the
likelihood
for
aquatic
exposure
resulting
from
air
blast
spray
application
to
81
almonds
and
is
further
supported
by
the
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003)
endangered
species
assessment
for
salmonids
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
species,
including
(
but
not
limited
to)
salmonids
(
Appendix
E).

Pistachios
are
grown
predominantly
in
California's
Central
Valley,
and
aquatic
systems
(
i.
e.
rivers,
reservoirs,
etc.)
adjacent
to
or
downstream
of
the
application
site
have
the
potential
to
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
via
runoff
and/
or
drift.
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
pistachios
will
likely
result
in
aquatic
exposures
that
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds.
In
an
effort
to
further
characterize
the
magnitude
and
significance
of
these
risks,
risk
quotients
have
been
calculated
using
less
conservative
exposure
scenarios,
and
potential
risks
to
less
sensitive
species
have
been
considered.
If
drift
is
assumed
to
be
1%,
the
peak
EEC
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
pistachios
is
1.1
:
g/
L
(
Table
4.27).
Even
though
this
is
the
lowest
aquatic
exposure
estimate
for
all
of
the
modeled
uses,
it
still
exceeds
lethal
and
sublethal
toxicity
thresholds
for
aquatic
animals.
Chronic
exposures
using
this
same
drift
scenario
(
1%)
would
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
Table
4.28).

Table
4.27
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
PISTACHIOS
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Invertebrate
Fish
Invertebrate
CA,
1%

drift
1.1
Northern
Pike:
3
Brook
Trout:
0.9
Black
Crappie:
0.4
Largemouth
Bass:
0.2
Scud:
7
Daphnia:
1
Stonefly:
0.6
Sheepshead
Minnow:
0.6
Striped
Mullet:
0.3
Mysid
Shrimp:
5
Brown
Shrimp:
0.5
Table
4.28
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
PISTACHIOS
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
CA,
1%
drift
0.82
0.51
1.2
3
3
41
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
there
is
one
California
county
where
pistachios
are
grown
that
overlaps
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
one
salmonid
82
ESUs
(
Table
4.29).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
this
ESU,
the
California
Central
Valley
steelhead.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
pistachio­
producing
counties
in
California
(
Appendix
E).

Table
4.29
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Pistachio­
producing
Counties
in
California
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
this
ESU
County
(
Acres
of
Pistachios)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

Merced
(
156*)
Steelhead
California
Central
Valley
*
Acres
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
k.
Walnuts
Summary:
Risk
quotients
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
and
listed
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
as
a
result
of
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
walnuts
(
1
application
at
2.0
lbs.
a.
i./
A
with
a
25­
foot
buffer).
Even
if
spray
drift
could
be
reduced
to
1%,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
would
still
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern.
This
risk
conclusion
is
primarily
based
on
aquatic
toxicity
information
and
the
likelihood
for
aquatic
exposure
resulting
from
air
blast
spray
application
to
almonds
and
is
further
supported
by
the
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003)
endangered
species
assessment
for
salmonids
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
species,
including
(
but
not
limited
to)
salmonids
(
Appendix
E).

Walnuts
are
grown
predominantly
in
California's
Central
Valley
(
Figure
8),
and
aquatic
systems
(
i.
e.
rivers,
reservoirs,
etc.)
adjacent
to
or
downstream
of
the
application
site
have
the
potential
to
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
via
runoff
and/
or
drift.
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
walnuts
will
likely
result
in
aquatic
exposures
that
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds.
In
an
effort
to
further
characterize
the
magnitude
and
significance
of
these
risks,
risk
quotients
have
been
calculated
using
less
conservative
exposure
scenarios,
and
potential
risks
to
less
sensitive
species
have
been
considered.
Even
if
drift
is
assumed
to
be
1%,
the
peak
EEC
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
walnuts
is
3.2
:
g/
L,
a
level
that
is
high
enough
to
elicit
significant
fish
kills
($
50%)
for
several
fish
species
(
Table
4.30).
Chronic
exposures
using
this
same
drift
scenario
(
1%)
would
also
likely
exceed
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
(
Table
4.31).
83
Table
4.30
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
WALNUTS
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Invertebrate
Fish
Invertebrate
CA,
1%

drift
3.2
Northern
Pike:
9
Brook
Trout:
3
Black
Crappie:
1
Largemouth
Bass:
0.7
Scud:
20
Daphnia:
3
Stonefly:
2
Sheepshead
Minnow:
1.6
Striped
Mullet:
1
Mysid
Shrimp:
15
Brown
Shrimp:
1.3
Table
4.31
Risk
Characterization 
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
WALNUTS
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
Scenario
EEC
(:
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
21­
day
60­
day
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
CA,
1%
drift
2.3
1.6
4
9
9
115
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.44
:
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
:
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
:
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
:
g
a.
i./
L
Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
counties
where
walnuts
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
many
salmonid
ESUs
(
Table
4.32).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
counties
that
produce
walnuts
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
(
Appendix
E).

Table
4.32
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Walnut­
producing
Counties
in
California,
Oregon,
and
Washington
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Walnuts)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

California:
Butte
(
619*)
Contra
Costa
(
149*)
Glenn
(
125*)
Lake
(
20*)
Merced
(
120*)
San
Joaquin
(
1154*)
Stanislaus
(
1138*)
Sutter
(
334*)
Yolo
(
172*)
Steelhead
Central
California
Coast
California
Central
Valley
Chinook
salmon
Sacramento
River
winter­
run
Central
Valley
spring­
run
California
Coastal
84
Oregon:
Benton
(
23)
Clackamas
(
51)
Columbia
(
11)
Douglas
(
171)
Lane
(
105)
Linn
(
55)
Marion
(
155)
Multnomah
(
2)
Polk
(
33)
Washington
(
679)
Yamhill
(
608)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Middle
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
fall­
run
Snake
River
spring/
summer­
run
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Chum
Salmon
Columbia
River
Coho
Salmon
Southern
Oregon/
Northern
California
coastal
Oregon
coast
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
Washington:
Benton
(
41)
Chelan
(**)
Clark
(
51)
Cowlitz
(
5)
Franklin
(**)
Grant
(
5)
King
(
3)
Klickitat
(**)
Lewis
(
4)
Okanogan
(
29)
Yakima
(
11)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Middle
Columbia
River
Chum
Salmon
Columbia
River
Chinook
Salmon
Snake
River
fall­
run
Snake
River
spring/
summer­
run
Puget
Sound
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
*
Acres
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Animals
Like
other
organophosphate
pesticides,
azinphos
methyl
exhibits
high
acute
toxicity
by
irreversibly
inhibiting
cholinesterase
enzymes,
which
can
lead
to
a
disruption
of
normal
neuromuscular
control
in
terrestrial
animals.
Significant
inhibition
of
brain
and
blood
cholinesterase
by
azinphos
methyl
can
occur
at
doses
as
low
as
1
ppm
in
rats,
and
mammalian
fecundity
is
significantly
reduced
at
levels
as
low
as
15
ppm.

Results
from
risk
estimation
for
terrestrial
animals
suggest
that
birds
(
surrogate
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles)
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
dietary
residues
that
exceed
known
mortality
and
sublethal
(
i.
e.
reproduction,
growth)
effects
85
thresholds.
Based
on
maximum
and
mean
predicted
terrestrial
exposures,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs
for
herbivorous
and
insectivorous
birds
and
mammals
for
all
of
the
assessed
uses.
Although
risks
to
terrestrial
invertebrates
were
not
quantitatively
assessed,
risks
to
non­
target
(
beneficial)
insects
cannot
be
precluded.
The
48­
hour
acute
contact
LD
50
=
0.063
µ
g/
bee;
any
chemical
with
an
acute
contact
LD
50
of
less
than
2
µ
g/
bee
is
considered
"
highly
toxic."

Further
risk
mitigation
measures,
such
as
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
applications,
an
increase
in
the
minimum
application
interval,
and/
or
a
decrease
in
the
maximum
single
application,
are
unlikely
to
significantly
alter
these
acute
and
chronic
terrestrial
risk
conclusions.
Given
the
high
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
birds
and
mammals,
virtually
every
efficacious
use
pattern
for
azinphos
methyl
will
yield
terrestrial
risk
quotients
that
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs.

Depending
on
the
magnitude
of
the
effects
on
individual
fitness,
higher­
level
ecological
impacts
on
populations,
communities,
and/
or
ecosystems
are
possible.
Terrestrial
field
and
pen
studies
have
documented
the
population­
level
effects
on
a
variety
of
avian
and
mammalian
species
(
i.
e.
gray­
tailed
voles,
deer
mice,
northern
bobwhite
chicks)
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
exposure
in
fruit
orchards
has
been
documented.
Azinphos
methyl
has
been
linked
to
several
incidents
in
which
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
and
beneficial
insects
have
been
killed
(
Appendix
F).
Azinphos
methyl
has
been
implicated
in
14
adverse
ecological
incidents
in
which
honey
bee
colonies/
hives
were
destroyed.
Adverse
behavioral
and
reproductive
effects
have
also
been
linked
to
azinphos
methyl
exposure
in
the
field.

There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
federally­
listed
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians,
and
terrestrial
invertebrates
that
inhabit
areas
where
these
crops
are
grown
(
Appendix
F).
Listed
terrestrial
animals
are
known
to
occur
in
the
vicinity
of
the
assessed
uses.

a.
Apples
Terrestrial
exposures
for
apples
were
estimated
using
the
application
rate
of
3
applications
7
days
apart
at
1.5
lbs
a.
i./
acre.
As
stated
previously
(
Terrestrial
Exposure
section),
since
the
label
specifies
a
maximum
of
4
lbs.
a.
i./
A
per
year,
these
dietary
residues
are
slightly
overestimated.
However,
if
the
T­
REX
model
was
capable
of
modeling
the
actual
labeled
rate
for
apples
(
i.
e.
first
2
applications
at
1.5
lbs.
a.
i./
A
followed
by
a
third
application
at
1.0
lbs.
a.
i./
A),
the
estimated
dietary
exposures
would
be
the
highest
of
all
of
the
assessed
uses.

Dietary
exposures
associated
with
apples
are
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
two
months
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
12).
86
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
Figure
12.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
apples:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

The
mean
dietary
residues,
which
range
from
21
­
253
ppm,
are
also
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
For
birds,
acute
RQs
associated
with
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
13,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
2
­
24.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
associated
with
the
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
14,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
3
­
437.

Ecological
Monitoring
There
are
several
adverse
terrestrial
incidents
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
apples
(
Table
4.33).
The
presumption
of
acute
risks
to
terrestrial
invertebrates
is
supported
by
these
incidents.
Although
not
quantitatively
assessed,
risks
to
terrestrial
invertebrates
are
presumed,
and
risks
to
listed
terrestrial
invertebrates
cannot
be
precluded.
87
Table
4.33
Adverse
Terrestrial
Incidents
Associated
With
the
Use
of
Azinphos
Methyl
on
Apples
EIIS
Incident
No.
(
Date)
Location
Species
Affected
Magnitude
of
Effect
Incident
Summary
Certainty
Index
I014341­
001
(
1996)
Yakima,
WA
Honey
bee
9
hives
Honey
bees
onsite
of
unspecified
orchard;
chemical
residues
of
azinphos
methyl
in
bees
range
from
0.5
­
2
ppm
Probable
I014341­
003
(
1996)
Yakima,
WA
Honey
bee
430
hives
Honey
bees
onsite
of
unspecified
orchard;
chemical
residue
of
azinphos
methyl
in
bees
was
0.23
ppm;
two
other
insecticides
were
also
detected
Possible
I014341­
002
(
1996)
Yakima,
WA
Honey
bee
76
hives
Honey
bees
onsite
of
unspecified
orchard;
chemical
residue
of
azinphos
methyl
in
bees
was
0.03­
0.23
ppm;
two
other
insecticides
were
also
detected
Possible
I014405­
028
(
03
June
1996)
Yakima,
WA
Honey
bee
Not
reported
Honey
bees
onsite
of
unspecified
orchard;
azinphos
methyl
detected
in
bees
(
levels
not
reported);
orchards
were
sprayed
when
weeds
were
blooming,
and
honey
bees
that
were
attracted
to
the
area
were
killed
Probable
I013883­
032
(
1997)
Yakima,
WA
Honey
bee
20
colonies
Honey
bees
onsite
of
unspecified
orchard;
orchards
were
sprayed
when
weeds
were
blooming,
and
honey
bees
that
were
attracted
to
the
area
were
killed;
no
chemical
residue
analysis
reported
Possible
I014341­
030
(
1999)
Grant,
WA
Honey
bee
150
hives
Honey
bees
onsite
of
unspecified
orchard;
chemical
residues
of
azinphos
methyl
in
bees
ranged
from
0.17­
18
ppm;
one
other
insecticide
was
detected
at
levels
up
to
1
ppm
Possible
Furthermore,
as
previously
mentioned
in
the
Effects
Characterization
section,
field
studies
in
apple
orchards
have
documented
the
poisoning
of
a
variety
of
terrestrial
animals
following
exposure
to
spray
applications
of
azinphos
methyl
at
rates
similar
to
the
current
label
rate.
In
Washington
(
Johnson
et
al.
1989,
MRID
41139701),
eight
orchards
were
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
at
the
current
label
application
rate.
In
all,
173
(
23
species)
birds,
mammals,
and
reptiles
were
found
dead,
and
94%
of
the
mortalities
were
post­
treatment.
In
Michigan
(
Sheeley
et
al.,
1989,
MRID
41195901),
eight
apple
orchards
were
treated
with
four
1.5
lb
ai/
acre
applications
at
7
to
10­
day
intervals.
Twenty­
seven
animals
were
found
dead
post­
treatment.
88
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
These
studies
also
show
that
there
is
concordance
between
the
predicted
residues
based
on
the
Kenaga
nomogram
and
actual
measured
residues
in
the
field.
In
some
cases,
measured
residues
from
these
studies
actually
exceed
those
predicted
by
the
Kenaga
nomogram.
Residues
on
apple
tree
foliage
were
measured
within
24
hours
of
spray
blast
applications,
and
meanmeasured
residues
were
199
(
82­
393)
and
236
(
105­
476)
ppm,
for
Washington
and
Michigan,
respectively.
In
Washington,
measured
residues
after
the
second
and
third
application
were
312
ppm
(
123­
564
ppm)
and
328
ppm
(
122­
611
ppm),
respectively.
In
Michigan,
residues
measured
after
the
second
and
third
applications
were
429
ppm
(
111­
1499
ppm)
and
536
ppm
(
208­
1747
ppm),
respectively.
Predicted
residues
based
on
the
Kenaga
nomogram
range
from
45­
713
ppm
for
the
so­
called
"
upper­
bound"
estimate
and
from
21­
253
ppm
for
the
mean
estimate.
Measured
residues
on
other
orchard
vegetation
averaged
26­
47%
of
those
on
the
apple
tree
foliage.
Insects
were
sampled
24
to
48
hours
after
application,
but
few
were
found,
presumably
due
to
high
mortality.
However,
residues
on
exposed
insects
on
apple
trees
likely
would
be
comparable
to
those
on
the
apple
tree
foliage
immediately
after
application.

b.
Blueberries
Terrestrial
exposures
for
blueberries
were
estimated
using
the
maximum
application
rate
(
i.
e.
2
applications
10
days
apart
at
0.75
lbs
a.
i./
acre).
Dietary
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
40
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
13).

Figure
13.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
blueberries:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).
89
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
Furthermore,
the
mean
dietary
residues,
which
range
from
8
­
95
ppm,
are
also
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
For
birds,
acute
RQs
associated
with
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
5,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
<
1
­
9.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
associated
with
the
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
5,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
1
­
165.

c.
Brussels
Sprouts
Terrestrial
exposures
for
brussels
sprouts
were
estimated
using
the
maximum
application
rate
(
i.
e.
1
application
at
0.75
lbs
a.
i./
acre).
Dietary
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
30
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
14).

Figure
14.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
brussels
sprouts:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Furthermore,
the
mean
dietary
residues,
which
range
from
5
­
64
ppm,
are
also
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
For
birds,
acute
RQs
associated
with
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
3,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
<
1
­
6.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
associated
with
the
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
3,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
<
1
­
110.
90
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
d.
Cherries
Terrestrial
exposures
for
sweet
and
tart
cherries
were
estimated
using
the
maximum
application
rate
(
i.
e.
2
applications
14
days
apart
at
0.75
lbs
a.
i./
acre).
Dietary
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
40
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
15).

Figure
15.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
cherries:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Furthermore,
the
mean
dietary
residues,
which
range
from
7
­
87
ppm,
are
also
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
For
birds,
acute
RQs
associated
with
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
4,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
<
1
­
8.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
associated
with
the
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
5,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
1
­
151.

e.
Grapes
Terrestrial
exposures
for
grapes
were
estimated
using
the
maximum
application
rate
(
i.
e.
3
applications
14
days
apart
at
1
lb
a.
i./
acre).
Dietary
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
91
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
60
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
16).

Figure
16.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
grapes:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Furthermore,
the
mean
dietary
residues,
which
range
from
11
­
128
ppm,
are
also
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
For
birds,
acute
RQs
associated
with
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
6,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
<
1
­
12.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
associated
with
the
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
7,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
2
­
222.

f.
Nuts
(
Almonds,
Pistachios,
Walnuts)

Terrestrial
exposures
for
almonds,
pistachios,
and
walnuts
were
estimated
using
the
maximum
application
rate
(
i.
e.
1
application
at
2
lbs
a.
i./
acre).
Dietary
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
40
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
17).
92
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
Figure
17.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
almonds,
pistachios,
and
walnuts:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Furthermore,
the
mean
dietary
residues,
which
range
from
14
­
170
ppm,
are
also
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
For
birds,
acute
RQs
associated
with
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
9,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
1
­
16.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
associated
with
the
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
9,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
2
­
294.

g.
Nursery
Crops
Terrestrial
exposures
for
nursery
crops
were
estimated
using
the
maximum
application
rate
(
i.
e.
4
applications
10
days
apart
at
1
lbs
a.
i./
acre).
Dietary
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
65
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
18).
93
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
Figure
18.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
nursery
crops:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Furthermore,
the
mean
dietary
residues,
which
range
from
13
­
158
ppm,
are
also
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
For
birds,
acute
RQs
associated
with
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
8,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
1
­
15.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
associated
with
the
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
9,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
2
­
272.

h.
Parsley
Terrestrial
exposures
for
parsley
were
estimated
using
the
maximum
application
rate
(
i.
e.
3
applications
7
days
apart
at
0.5
lbs
a.
i./
acre).
Dietary
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
20
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
19).
94
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
4
8
12
16
20
2
4
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
6
4
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
Figure
19.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
parsley:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Furthermore,
the
mean
dietary
residues,
which
range
from
7
­
84
ppm,
are
also
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
For
birds,
acute
RQs
associated
with
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
4,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
<
1
­
8.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
associated
with
the
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
5,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
1
­
146.

i.
Pears
Terrestrial
exposures
for
pears
were
estimated
using
the
maximum
application
rate
(
i.
e.
2
applications
7
days
apart
at
1.5
lbs
a.
i./
acre).
Dietary
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
20
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
20).
95
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
Figure
20.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
pears:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Furthermore,
the
mean
dietary
residues,
which
range
from
17
­
205
ppm,
are
also
likely
to
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
For
birds,
acute
RQs
associated
with
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
10,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
2
­
20.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
associated
with
the
mean
residues
range
from
<
0.1
­
11,
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
3
­
355.

C.
Assumptions,
Limitations,
Uncertainties,
and
Data
Gaps
1.
General
Exposure
a.
Maximum
Use
Scenario
The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
focuses
on
characterizing
potential
ecological
risks
resulting
from
a
maximum
use
scenario,
which
is
determined
from
labeled
statements
of
maximum
flonicamid
application
rate
and
number
of
applications
with
the
shortest
time
interval
between
applications.
The
frequency
at
which
actual
uses
approach
this
maximum
use
scenario
may
be
dependant
on
insecticide
resistance,
timing
of
applications,
cultural
practices,
and
market
forces.

b.
Additive
and/
or
Synergistic
Effects
Effects
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms
only
considered
exposure
to
azinphos
methyl
insecticide.
Ecological
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
a
mixture
of
azinphos
methyl
and
its
96
degradates,
other
pesticides,
adjuvants,
heavy
metals,
industrial
chemicals,
pharmaceuticals,
etc.
were
not
considered
in
this
risk
assessment.
There
are
no
ecotoxicity
data
available
to
assess
the
potential
additive
and/
or
synergistic
effects
of
azinphos
methyl
in
combination
with
other
chemical
stressors.

2.
Terrestrial
Assessment
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
For
this
screening­
level
terrestrial
risk
assessment,
a
generic
bird
or
mammal
was
assumed
to
occupy
either
the
treated
field
or
adjacent
areas
receiving
azinphos
methyl
at
the
treatment
rate
on
the
field.
Actual
habitat
requirements
of
any
particular
terrestrial
species
were
not
considered,
and
it
was
assumed
that
species
occupy,
exclusively
and
permanently,
the
modeled
treatment
area.
Spray
drift
model
predictions
suggest
that
this
assumption
leads
to
an
overestimation
of
exposure
to
species
that
do
not
occupy
the
treated
field
exclusively
and
permanently.

b.
Routes
of
Exposure
This
screening­
level
terrestrial
assessment
for
spray
applications
of
azinphos
methyl
only
considered
dietary
exposure.
Other
routes
of
exposure
that
were
not
considered
in
the
assessment
are
incidental
soil
ingestion
exposure,
inhalation
exposure,
dermal
exposure,
and
drinking
water
exposure.

c.
Incidental
Releases
Associated
With
Use
This
risk
assessment
was
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
entire
treatment
area
is
subject
to
pesticide
application
at
the
rates
specified
on
the
label.
Uneven
application
of
the
pesticide
through
changes
in
calibration
of
application
equipment,
spillage,
and
localized
releases
at
specific
areas
of
the
treated
field
that
are
associated
with
specifics
of
the
type
of
application
equipment
were
not
accounted
for
in
this
assessment.

d.
Residue
Levels
Selection
The
Agency
relies
on
the
work
of
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
for
setting
the
assumed
pesticide
residues
in
wildlife
dietary
items.
These
residue
assumptions
are
believed
to
reflect
a
realistic
upper­
bound
residue
estimate,
although
the
degree
to
which
this
assumption
reflects
a
specific
percentile
estimate
is
difficult
to
quantify.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
field
measurement
efforts
used
to
develop
the
Fletcher
estimates
of
exposure
involve
highly
varied
sampling
techniques.
It
is
entirely
possible
that
much
of
these
data
reflect
residues
averaged
over
entire
above
ground
plants
in
the
case
of
grass
and
forage
sampling.
Depending
upon
a
specific
wildlife
species'
foraging
habits,
whole
aboveground
plant
samples
may
either
underestimate
or
overestimate
actual
exposure.
97
e.
Dietary
Intake
It
was
assumed
that
ingestion
of
food
items
in
the
field
occurs
at
rates
commensurate
with
those
in
the
laboratory.
Although
the
screening
assessment
process
adjusts
dry­
weight
estimates
of
food
intake
to
reflect
the
increased
mass
in
fresh­
weight
wildlife
food
intake
estimates,
it
does
not
allow
for
gross
energy
differences.
Direct
comparison
of
a
laboratory
dietary
concentrationbased
effects
threshold
to
a
fresh­
weight
pesticide
residue
estimate
would
result
in
an
underestimation
of
field
exposure
by
food
consumption
by
a
factor
of
1.25
­
2.5
for
most
food
items.

Differences
in
assimilative
efficiency
between
laboratory
and
wild
diets
suggest
that
current
screening
assessment
methods
do
not
account
for
a
potentially
important
aspect
of
food
requirements.
Depending
upon
species
and
dietary
matrix,
bird
assimilation
of
wild
diet
energy
ranges
from
23
­
80%,
and
mammal's
assimilation
ranges
from
41
­
85%
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1993).
If
it
is
assumed
that
laboratory
chow
is
formulated
to
maximize
assimilative
efficiency
(
e.
g.,
a
value
of
85%),
a
potential
for
underestimation
of
exposure
may
exist
by
assuming
that
consumption
of
food
in
the
wild
is
comparable
with
consumption
during
laboratory
testing.
In
the
screening
process,
exposure
may
be
underestimated
because
metabolic
rates
are
not
related
to
food
consumption.

Finally,
the
screening
procedure
does
not
account
for
situations
where
the
feeding
rate
may
be
above
or
below
requirements
to
meet
free
living
metabolic
requirements.
Gorging
behavior
is
a
possibility
under
some
specific
wildlife
scenarios
(
e.
g.,
bird
migration)
where
the
food
intake
rate
may
be
greatly
increased.
Kirkwood
(
1983)
has
suggested
that
an
upper­
bound
limit
to
this
behavior
might
be
the
typical
intake
rate
multiplied
by
a
factor
of
5.
In
contrast,
there
may
be
potential
for
avoidance
(
animals
respond
to
the
presence
of
noxious
chemicals
in
food
by
reducing
consumption
of
treated
dietary
elements).
This
response
is
seen
in
nature
where
herbivores
avoid
plant
secondary
compounds.

Risk
quotients
calculated
using
the
dose­
based
toxicity
values
are
generally
higher
than
RQs
calculated
using
the
dietary­
based
toxicity
values.
The
dose­
based
approach
considers
the
uptake
and
absorption
kinetics
of
a
gavage
toxicity
study
to
approximate
exposure
associated
with
uptake
from
a
dietary
matrix.
Toxic
response
is
a
function
of
duration
and
intensity
of
exposure.
For
many
compounds
a
gavage
dose
represents
a
very
short­
term
high
intensity
exposure.
Although
the
dose­
based
estimates
may
not
reflect
reality
in
that
animals
do
not
receive
a
gavage
while
feeding,
it
is
possible
that
a
short­
duration,
high­
intensity
exposure
could
occur
associated
with
feeding
on
a
agricultural
field
since
many
birds
may
gorge
themselves
when
food
items
are
available.
On
the
other
hand,
the
dietary­
based
approach
assumes
that
animals
in
the
field
are
consuming
food
at
a
rate
similar
to
that
of
confined
laboratory
animals
despite
the
fact
that
energy
content
in
food
items
differs
between
the
field
and
the
laboratory
as
does
the
energy
requirements
of
wild
and
captive
animals.
Also,
the
design
of
dietary­
based
studies
precludes
the
estimation
of
food
consumption
on
a
per­
bird
basis
since
birds
are
group
housed
and
tend
to
spill
feed
further
confounding
any
estimates
of
food
consumption.
98
3.
Effects
Assessment
a.
Sublethal
Effects
For
an
acute
risk
assessment,
the
screening
risk
assessment
relies
on
the
acute
mortality
endpoint
as
well
as
a
suite
of
sublethal
responses
to
the
pesticide,
as
determined
by
the
testing
of
species
response
to
chronic
exposure
conditions
and
subsequent
chronic
risk
assessment.
Consideration
of
additional
sublethal
data
in
the
assessment
is
exercised
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
only
after
careful
consideration
of
the
nature
of
the
sublethal
effect
measured
and
the
extent
and
quality
of
available
data
to
support
establishing
a
plausible
relationship
between
the
measure
of
effect
(
sublethal
endpoint)
and
the
assessment
endpoints.

b.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
Testing
of
juvenile
organisms
may
overestimate
toxicity
at
older
age
classes
for
pesticidal
active
ingredients
that
act
directly
(
without
metabolic
transformation)
because
younger
age
classes
may
not
have
the
enzymatic
systems
associated
with
detoxifying
xenobiotics.
However,
the
influence
of
age
may
not
be
uniform
for
all
compounds,
and
compounds
requiring
metabolic
activation
may
be
more
toxic
in
older
age
classes.
The
risk
assessment
uses
the
most
sensitive
life­
stage
information
as
the
conservative
screening
endpoint.
99
Appendix
A
 
Aquatic
Exposure
Model
Input
File
Names
Table
C­
1.
Input
files
archived
for
azinphos
methyl
applied
to
pome
fruits.

File
Name
Date
Description
w.
dvf
July
3,
2002
w.
dvf
July
3,
2002
w14737.
dvf
July
3,
2002
weather
for
Pennsylvania
apple
scenario
(
Allentown,
PA)

W14850.
dvf
July
3,
2002
weather
for
Michigan
cherry
scenario
(
Traverse
City,
MI)

W23232.
dvf
weather
for
CA
almonds
scenarios
(
Sacramento,
CA)

W23273.
dvf
July
3,
2005
weather
for
CA
brussels
sprouts
simulations
(
Santa
Maria,
CA)

W24229.
dvf
July
3,
2002
weather
for
Oregon
apple
scenario
(
Portland,
OR)

w93193.
dvf
July
3,
2002
weather
for
California
grapes
scenario
(
Fresno,
CA)

CaalmondIC.
txt
October
12,
2002
PE4
scenario
file
for
CA
almonds,
irrigated
Caalmond0C.
txt
June
17,
2004
PE4
scenario
file
for
CA
almonds,
unirrigated
CagrapeIC.
txt
October
12,
2002
PE4
scenario
file
for
irrigated
CA
grapes
Cagrape0Ctxt
June
17,
2004
PE4
scenario
file
for
unirrigated
CA
grapes
CALettuceC.
txt
PE4
scenario
file
for
CA
lettuce,
unirrigated,
used
to
represent
brussels
sprouts
ORAppleIC.
txt
August
9,
2005
PE4
scenario
file
for
Oregon
apples,
irrigated
ORappleC.
txt
October
12,
2002
PE4
scenario
file
for
Oregon
apples,
unirrigated
PAappleC.
txt
October
12,
2002
PE4
scenario
file
for
Pennsylvania
apples
Pond298.
exv
August
29,
2002
standard
pond
scenario
for
exams
PE4
simulation
input
files
(.
PZR
extension)

058001
CA
almond
01
August
9,
2005
CA
almonds,
spray
blast,
25
ft
buffer,
unirrigated
058001
CA
almond
02
August
9,
2005
CA
almonds,
spray
blast,
25
ft
buffer,
irrigated
058001
CA
brussels
sprouts
02
August
10,
2005
CA
brussels
sprouts,
25
ft
buffer,
unirrigated
058001
CA
grape
01
September
27,
2005
CA
grapes,
25
ft
buffer,
unirrigated
058001
CA
grape
02
September
27,
2005
CA
grapes,
1%
drift,
unirrigated
058001
CA
grape
03
September
27,
2005
CA
grapes,
25
ft
buffer,
irrigated
058001
PA
apple
01
August
4,
2005
PA
apples,
spray
blast,
25
ft
buffer
(
4.5%
drift)

058001
PA
apple
02
August
4,
2005
PA
apples,
spray
blast,
(
1%
drift)

058001
PA
apple
03
August
4,
2005
PA
apples,
no
drift
058001
OR
apple
01
August
4,
2005
OR
apples,
aerial,
50
ft
buffer
(
9.2%
drift)

058001
OR
apple
02
August
4,
2005
OR
apples,
spray
blast,
25
ft
buffer
(
4.5%
drift)

058001OR
apple
03
August
4,
2005
OR
apples,
aerial
(
5%
drift)

058001
OR
apple
05
August
22,
2005
OR
apples,
spray
blast
(
1%
drift)

058001
OR
apple
04
August
4,
2005
OR
apples,
no
drift
058001
OR
apple
05
August
9,
2005
OR
apples,
aerial,
50
ft
buffer
(
9.2%
drift),
irrigated
100
058001
OR
pear
01
August
10,
2005
OR
pears,
spray
b.
ast,
25
ft
buffer
(
4.5%
drift,
unirrigated)

Appendix
B
 
Estimated
Exposures
and
Risk
Quotients
for
Terrestrial
Animals
1.
Introduction
This
spreadsheet
based
model
calculates
the
decay
of
a
chemical
applied
to
foliar
surfaces
for
single
or
multiple
applications.
It
uses
the
same
principle
as
the
batch
code
models
FATE
and
TERREEC
for
calculating
terrestrial
estimates
exposure
(
TEEC)
concentrations
on
plant
surfaces
following
application.
A
first
order
decay
assumption
is
used
to
determine
the
concentration
at
each
day
after
initial
application
based
on
the
concentration
resulting
from
the
initial
and
additional
applications.
The
decay
is
calculated
by
from
the
first
order
rate
equation:

C
T
=
C
i
e­
kT
or
in
log
form:
ln
(
C
T
/
C
i
)
=
kT
Where:

CT
=
concentration
at
time
T
=
day
zero.

Ci
=
concentration,
in
parts
per
million
(
PPM)
present
initially
(
on
day
zero)
on
the
surfaces.
Ci
is
calculated
based
on
Kenaga
and
Fletcher
by
multiplying
the
Ci
based
on
the
Kenaga
nomogram
(
Hoerger
and
Kenaga,
(
1972)
as
modified
Fletcher
(
1994).
For
maximum
concentration
the
application
rate,
in
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre,
is
multiplied
by
240
for
Short
Grass,
110
for
Tall
Grass,
and
135
for
Broad
leafed
plants/
small
insects
and
15
for
fruits/
pods/
lg
insects.
Additional
applications
are
converted
from
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
to
PPM
on
the
plant
surface
and
the
additional
mass
added
to
the
mass
of
the
chemical
still
present
on
the
surfaces
on
the
day
of
application.

k
=
If
the
foliar
dissipation
data
submitted
to
EFED
are
found
scientifically
valid
and
statistically
robust
for
a
specific
pesticide,
the
90%
upper
confidence
limit
of
the
mean
half­
lives
should
be
used.
When
scientifically
valid,
statistically
robust
data
are
not
available
TETT
recommends
the
using
a
default
half­
life
value
of
35
days.
The
use
of
the
35
day
half­
life
is
based
on
the
highest
reported
value
(
36.9
days)
reported
by
Willis
and
McDowell
(
Pesticide
persistence
on
foliage,
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol,
100:
23­
73,
1987).

T
=
time,
in
days,
since
the
start
of
the
simulation.
The
initial
application
is
on
day
0.
The
simulation
is
designed
to
run
for
365
days.

The
program
calculates
concentration
on
each
type
of
surface
on
a
daily
interval
for
one
year.
The
maximum
concentration
during
the
year
are
calculated
for
both
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
inputs
used
to
calculate
the
amount
of
the
chemical
present
are
in
highlighted
in
light
blue
on
the
spread
sheet.
Outputs
are
in
yellow.
The
inputs
required
are:
101
Application
Rate:
The
maximum
label
application
rate
(
in
pounds
ai/
acre)
Half­
life:
The
degradation
half­
life
for
the
dominate
process(
in
days)
Frequency
of
Application:
The
interval
between
repeated
applications,
from
the
label
(
in
days)
Maximum
#
Applications
per
year:
From
the
label
2.
Avian
Species
For
calculating
dose­
based
RQs
in
birds,
the
upper
bound
and
mean
Kenaga
residue
values
are
adjusted
for
avian
class
and
food
consumption
based
on
the
following
scaling
factor
(
USEPA,
1993):

FI
(
g/
d)
=
0.648
(
g
bw)^
0.651
For
the
3
avian
weight
classes
considered
(
20,
100
and
1000
g),
this
results
in
%
body
weight
consumption
of:

Weight(
g)
FI
wet
FI
%
bw
consumed
20
4.555599463
22.77799731
114
100
12.98897874
64.94489369
65
1000
58.15338588
290.7669294
29
A.
Dose­
Based
Acute
RQs
Dose­
based
acute
RQs
are
then
calculated
using
the
formula:

RQ
=
adjusted
EEC/
LD
50
or
NOAEL
where
the
adjusted
EEC
is
considered
to
be
the
daily
dose
weighted
for
%
body
weight
consumed
of
a
given
food
source.

B.
Dietary­
Based
RQs
For
dietary­
based
RQs,
two
values
are
given
for
each
food
group.
First,
the
consumptionweighted
RQ
for
each
weight
class
(
20,
100,
and
1000g
birds)
is
displayed
and
calculated
using
the
equation:

RQ
=
EEC/((
LC
50
or
NOAEC)/(%
bw
consumed))

In
the
second
method,
no
adjustment
is
made
for
consumption
differences
among
the
weight
classes.
This
RQ
is
calculated:
102
RQ
=
EEC/
LC
50
or
NOAEC
3.
Mammalian
Species
A.
Dose­
Based
RQs
For
calculating
dose­
based
RQs
in
mammals,
the
upper
bound
and
mean
Kenaga
values
are
adjusted
for
mammalian
class
and
food
consumption
(
0.95,
0.66
and
0.15
body
weight
for
herbivores
and
insectivores
and
0.21,
0.15,
and
0.03
body
wt.
for
granivores).
Dose­
based
acute
and
chronic
RQs
are
then
calculated
by
dividing
the
adjusted
EECs
(
daily
dose)
by
the
LD
50
or
NOAEL.

B.
Dietary­
Based
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
are
calculated
using
the
equation:

RQ
=
EEC/((
LC
50
or
NOAEC)/(%
bw
consumed))

4.
New
Version
Notes
A
new
look
is
used
in
this
update
in
an
effort
to
decrease
confusion
and
increase
transparency
in
the
risk
assessment
process.
This
version
of
T­
REX
(
v1.1)
incorporates
the
ability
to
calculate
EECs
and
RQs
for
upper
bound
and
mean
residues.
Mean
residues
are
calculated
exactly
as
the
upper
bound
residues
are,
except
the
corresponding
Kenaga
values
are:
85
for
Short
Grass,
36
for
Tall
Grass,
and
45
for
Broad
leafed
plants/
small
insects
and
7
for
fruits/
pods/
lg
insects.

5.
References
Fletcher,
J.
S.,
J.
E.
Nellesson
and
T.
G.
Pfleeger.
1994.
Literature
review
and
evaluation
of
the
EPA
food­
chain
(
Kenaga)
nomogram,
an
instrument
for
estimating
pesticide
residues
on
plants.
Environ.
Tox.
and
Chem.
13(
9):
1383­
1391.

Hoerger,
F.
and
E.
E.
Kenaga.
1972.
Pesticide
residues
on
plants:
correlation
of
representative
data
as
a
basis
for
estimation
of
their
magnitude
in
the
environment.
IN:
F.
Coulston
and
F.
Corte,
eds.,
Environmental
Quality
and
Safety:
Chemistry,
Toxicology
and
Technology.
Vol
1.
Georg
Theime
Publishers,
Stuttgart,
Germany.
pp.
9­
28.

USEPA.
1993.
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
Volume
I
of
II.
EPA/
600/
R­
93/
187a.
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Willis
and
McDowell.
1987.
Pesticide
persistence
on
foliage.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
100:
23­
73.
103
Appendix
C
 
Definitions
of
Levels
of
Concern
for
Risk
Assessment
TERRESTRIAL
BIRDS
AND
WILD
MAMMALS
Risk
Presumption
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)

Acute
Risk
EEC1/
LC50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LD50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
LC50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1
AQUATIC
ANIMALS
Risk
Presumption
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)

Acute
Risk
EEC2/
LC50
or
EC50
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
MATC
or
NOAEC
1
TERRESTRIAL
AND
SEMI­
AQUATIC
PLANTS
Risk
Presumption
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)

Acute
Risk
EEC3/
EC25
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1
AQUATIC
PLANTS
Risk
Presumption
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)

Acute
Risk
EEC2/
EC50
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1
1
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
2
ppm
or
ppb
in
water
3
lbs
a.
i./
A
104
Appendix
D
 
Detailed
Terrestrial
Risk
Quotients
The
following
tables
summarize
the
avian
and
mammalian
acute
and
chronic
RQs
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
a
variety
of
agricultural
crops.
For
each
of
these
tables,
the
following
coding
system
is
used
emphasize
LOC
exceedences:

***
RQ
exceeds
acute
risk
(
0.5),
acute
restricted
use
(
0.2),
AND
the
acute
endangered
species
(
0.1)
LOCs
**
RQ
exceeds
acute
restricted
use
(
0.2)
AND
the
acute
endangered
species
(
0.1)
LOCs
*
RQ
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
(
0.1)
LOC
+
exceeds
the
chronic
LOC
(
1)

APPLES
Apples:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
35.89***
16.07***
5.08***
1.46***
67.92+
Tall
Grass
16.45***
7.37***
2.33***
0.67***
31.13+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
20.19***
9.04***
2.86***
0.82***
38.21+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
2.24***
1.00***
0.32**
0.09
4.25+

Apples:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
39.52***
1233.04+
33.93***
1058.75+
17.83***
556.32+
Tall
Grass
18.11***
565.14+
15.55***
485.26+
8.17***
254.98+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
22.23***
693.59+
19.09***
595.55+
10.03***
312.93+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
2.47***
77.07+
2.12***
66.17+
1.11***
34.77+
Seeds
0.55***
17.04+
0.48**
15.04+
0.22**
6.95+

Apples:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
1.76***
142.63+

Tall
Grass
0.81***
65.37+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.99***
80.23+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.11**
8.91+

BLUEBERRIES
(
Low­
and
Highbush)

Blueberries:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
13.52***
6.06***
1.91***
0.55***
25.59+
105
Tall
Grass
6.20***
2.78***
0.88***
0.25**
11.73+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
7.61***
3.41***
1.08***
0.31**
14.40+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.85***
0.38**
0.12*
0.03
1.60+

Blueberries:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
14.89***
464.64+
12.79***
398.96+
6.72***
209.63+
Tall
Grass
6.83***
212.96+
5.86***
182.86+
3.08***
96.08+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
8.38***
261.36+
7.19***
224.42+
3.78***
117.92+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.93***
29.04+
0.80***
24.94+
0.42**
13.10+
Seeds
0.21**
6.42+
0.18*
5.67+
0.08
2.62+

Blueberries:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.66***
53.75+

Tall
Grass
0.30**
24.63+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.37**
30.23+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.04
3.36+

BRUSSELS
SPROUTS
Brussels
Sprouts:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
9.06***
4.06***
1.28***
0.37**
17.14+
Tall
Grass
4.15***
1.86***
0.59***
0.17*
7.86+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
5.10***
2.28***
0.72***
0.21**
9.64+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.57***
0.25**
0.08
0.02
1.07+

Brussels
Sprouts:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
9.97***
311.22+
8.56***
267.22+
4.50***
140.41+
Tall
Grass
4.57***
142.64+
3.93***
122.48+
2.06***
64.36+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
5.61***
175.06+
4.82***
150.31+
2.53***
78.98+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.62***
19.45+
0.54***
16.70+
0.28**
8.78+
Seeds
0.14*
4.30+
0.12*
3.80+
0.06
1.76+

Brussels
Sprouts:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.44**
36.00+

Tall
Grass
0.20**
16.50+
106
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.25**
20.25+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.03
2.25+

CHERRIES
Cherries:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
12.42***
5.56***
1.76***
0.51***
23.51+
Tall
Grass
5.69***
2.55***
0.81***
0.23**
10.78+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
6.99***
3.13***
0.99***
0.28**
13.23+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.78***
0.35**
0.11*
0.03
1.47+

Cherries:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
13.68***
426.83+
11.75***
366.50+
6.17***
192.58+
Tall
Grass
6.27***
195.63+
5.38***
167.98+
2.83***
88.26+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
7.70***
240.09+
6.61***
206.16+
3.47***
108.32+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.86***
26.68+
0.73***
22.91+
0.39**
12.04+
Seeds
0.19*
5.90+
0.17*
5.21+
0.08
2.41+

Cherries:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.61***
49.37+

Tall
Grass
0.28**
22.63+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.34**
27.77+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.04
3.09+

GRAPES
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
18.23***
8.17***
2.58***
0.74***
34.50+

Tall
Grass
8.36***
3.74***
1.18***
0.34**
15.81+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
10.25***
4.59***
1.45***
0.42**
19.41+
Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.14***
0.51***
0.16*
0.05
2.16+

Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
20.08***
626.38+
17.24***
537.84+
9.06***
282.61+
Tall
Grass
9.20***
287.09+
7.90***
246.51+
4.15***
129.53+
107
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
11.29***
352.34+
9.70***
302.53+
5.10***
158.97+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.25***
39.15+
1.08***
33.61+
0.57***
17.66+
Seeds
0.28**
8.65+
0.24**
7.64+
0.11*
3.53+

Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.89***
72.46+

Tall
Grass
0.41**
33.21+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.50***
40.76+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.06
4.53+

NURSERY
STOCK
Nursery
Stock:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
22.41***
10.04***
3.17***
0.91***
42.42+

Tall
Grass
10.27***
4.60***
1.45***
0.42**
19.44+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
12.61***
5.65***
1.78***
0.51***
23.86+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.40***
0.63***
0.20**
0.06
2.65+

Nursery
Stock:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
24.68***
770.08+
21.19***
661.22+
11.14***
347.44+
Tall
Grass
11.31***
352.95+
9.71***
303.06+
5.10***
159.24+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
13.88***
433.17+
11.92***
371.94+
6.26***
195.43+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.54***
48.13+
1.32***
41.33+
0.70***
21.71+
Seeds
0.34**
10.64+
0.30**
9.39+
0.14*
4.34+

Nursery
Stock:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
1.10***
89.08+

Tall
Grass
0.50***
40.83+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.62***
50.11+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.07
5.57+

NUTS
(
Almonds,
Pistachios,
Walnuts)

Nuts:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
108
Short
Grass
24.15***
10.82***
3.42***
0.98***
45.71+
Tall
Grass
11.07***
4.96***
1.57***
0.45**
20.95+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
13.59***
6.09***
1.92***
0.55***
25.71+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.51***
0.68***
0.21**
0.06
2.86+

Nuts:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
26.60***
829.91+
22.84***
712.60+
12.00***
374.43+
Tall
Grass
12.19***
380.38+
10.47***
326.61+
5.50***
171.62+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
14.96***
466.82+
12.85***
400.84+
6.75***
210.62+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.66***
51.87+
1.43***
44.54+
0.75***
23.40+
Seeds
0.37**
11.47+
0.32***
10.12+
0.15*
4.68+

Nuts:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
1.18***
96.00+

Tall
Grass
0.54***
44.00+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.67***
54.00+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.07
6.00+

PARSLEY
Parsley:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
11.96***
5.36***
1.69***
0.49**
22.64+

Tall
Grass
5.48***
2.46***
0.78**
0.22**
10.38+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
6.73***
3.01***
0.95***
0.27**
12.74+
Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.75***
0.33**
0.11*
0.03
1.42+

Parsley:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
13.17***
411.01+
11.31***
352.92+
5.94***
185.44+
Tall
Grass
6.04***
188.38+
5.18***
161.75+
2.72***
84.99+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
7.41***
231.20+
6.36***
198.52+
3.34***
104.31+
Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.82***
25.69+
0.71***
22.06+
0.37**
11.59+
Seeds
0.18*
5.68+
0.16*
5.01+
0.07
2.32+

Parsley:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
109
Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.59***
47.54+

Tall
Grass
0.27**
21.79+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.33**
26.742+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.04
2.97+

PEARS
Pears:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
29.16***
13.06***
4.12***
1.19***
55.18+
Tall
Grass
13.36***
5.99***
1.89***
0.54***
25.29+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
16.40***
7.35***
2.32***
0.67***
31.04+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.82***
0.82***
0.26**
0.07
3.45+

Pears:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
32.11***
1001.81+
27.57***
860.20+
14.49***
451.99+
Tall
Grass
14.72***
459.16+
12.64***
394.26+
6.64***
207.16+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
18.06***
563.52+
15.51***
483.86+
8.15***
254.24+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
2.01***
62.61+
1.72***
53.76+
0.91***
28.25+
Seeds
0.44**
13.84+
0.39**
12.22+
0.18*
5.65+

Pears:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
1.43***
115.88+

Tall
Grass
0.65***
53.11+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.80***
65.19+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.09
7.24+
110
Appendix
E
 
Federally
Listed
Species
Associated
With
Assessed
Uses
(
LOCATES
Database;
Accessed
July
2005)

ALMONDS
Arizona
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
14
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
21
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
154
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Georgia
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Illinois
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Indiana
111
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kentucky
The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Missouri
The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nevada
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Mexico
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oklahoma
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oregon
112
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Carolina
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Texas
The
taxa
Bird
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Utah
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Virginia
The
taxa
Clam
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Washington
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
113
APPLES
Alabama
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
29
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arizona
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arkansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

All
States
The
taxa
Clam
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
114
The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
28
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
175
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Colorado
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Connecticut
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Delaware
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
115
The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Florida
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
20
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Georgia
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
14
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Hawaii
The
taxa
Bird
has
21
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
133
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Idaho
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
116
The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Illinois
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Indiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Iowa
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kansas
117
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kentucky
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
21
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Louisiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maine
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maryland
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
118
The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Massachusetts
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Michigan
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Minnesota
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Mississippi
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
119
The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Missouri
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Montana
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nebraska
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nevada
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
23
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Hampshire
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
120
The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Jersey
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Mexico
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
York
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Carolina
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
121
The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
26
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Dakota
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Ohio
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oklahoma
The
taxa
Bird
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oregon
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
122
The
taxa
Fish
has
19
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Pennsylvania
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Rhode
Island
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Carolina
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
19
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Dakota
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
123
The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Tennessee
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
29
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
14
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
19
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Texas
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Arachnid
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Utah
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
24
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Vermont
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
124
The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Washington
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

West
Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wisconsin
125
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wyoming
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

BLUEBERRIES
(
TAME,
WILD)

Alabama
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
26
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arkansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
126
The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
101
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Connecticut
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Florida
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
127
The
taxa
Plant
has
41
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Georgia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
14
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Idaho
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Illinois
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Indiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
128
The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Iowa
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kentucky
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
19
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Louisiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maine
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
129
The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maryland
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Massachusetts
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Michigan
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Minnesota
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
130
The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Mississippi
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Missouri
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Montana
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nevada
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Hampshire
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
131
The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Jersey
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
York
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Carolina
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
26
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Ohio
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
132
The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oklahoma
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oregon
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Pennsylvania
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Rhode
Island
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
133
South
Carolina
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Tennessee
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
27
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Texas
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Utah
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
134
Vermont
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Washington
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

West
Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
135
Wisconsin
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

BRUSSELS
SPROUTS
California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
110
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Connecticut
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Delaware
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Illinois
The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
136
Maine
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Massachusetts
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Michigan
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Minnesota
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Hampshire
The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Jersey
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
York
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Ohio
137
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oregon
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Pennsylvania
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Rhode
Island
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Vermont
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Washington
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wisconsin
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
138
CHERRIES
(
SWEET,
TART)

Alabama
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arizona
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arkansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
28
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
139
The
taxa
Insect
has
20
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
173
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Colorado
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Connecticut
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Delaware
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Georgia
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
140
The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Idaho
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Illinois
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Indiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Iowa
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
141
The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kentucky
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Louisiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maine
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
142
Maryland
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Massachusetts
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Michigan
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Minnesota
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
143
Mississippi
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Missouri
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Montana
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nebraska
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nevada
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Hampshire
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
144
The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Jersey
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Mexico
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
York
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Carolina
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
145
The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Dakota
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Ohio
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oklahoma
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oregon
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Pennsylvania
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
146
The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Rhode
Island
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Carolina
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Dakota
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Tennessee
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Texas
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
147
The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Utah
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
21
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Vermont
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Washington
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
148
The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

West
Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wisconsin
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wyoming
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

NURSERY
STOCK
Alabama
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
29
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
149
The
taxa
Snail
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arizona
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arkansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
24
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
21
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
169
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
150
Colorado
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Connecticut
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Delaware
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Florida
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
14
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
54
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
151
The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Georgia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Hawaii
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
32
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
268
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Idaho
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Illinois
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
152
The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Indiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Iowa
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kentucky
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
153
The
taxa
Clam
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Louisiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maine
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maryland
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Massachusetts
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
154
The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Michigan
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Minnesota
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Mississippi
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Missouri
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
155
The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Montana
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nebraska
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nevada
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Hampshire
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Jersey
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
156
The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Mexico
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
York
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Carolina
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
27
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
157
The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Dakota
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Ohio
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oklahoma
The
taxa
Bird
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oregon
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
158
Pennsylvania
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Rhode
Island
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Carolina
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
19
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Dakota
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Tennessee
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
159
The
taxa
Clam
has
28
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Texas
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Arachnid
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
21
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Utah
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
20
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Vermont
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
160
Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Washington
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

West
Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wisconsin
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
161
The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wyoming
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

PARSLEY
New
Jersey
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Ohio
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

PEARS
Alabama
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
30
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
162
The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arizona
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arkansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
27
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
21
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
167
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
163
The
taxa
Reptile
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Colorado
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Connecticut
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Delaware
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Florida
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
164
Georgia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
14
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Idaho
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Illinois
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Indiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
165
The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Iowa
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kentucky
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
21
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Louisiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
166
The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maine
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maryland
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Massachusetts
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Michigan
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
167
Minnesota
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Mississippi
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Missouri
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Montana
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nebraska
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
168
The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nevada
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Hampshire
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Jersey
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Mexico
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
York
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
169
The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Carolina
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Ohio
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oklahoma
The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
170
The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oregon
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
19
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Pennsylvania
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Rhode
Island
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Carolina
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
19
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
171
South
Dakota
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Tennessee
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
19
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Texas
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Arachnid
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Utah
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
20
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
172
The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Vermont
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Washington
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

West
Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
173
The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wisconsin
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wyoming
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

PISTACHIOS
Arizona
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
129
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
174
The
taxa
Reptile
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nevada
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Mexico
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Texas
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Utah
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

WALNUTS,
ENGLISH
175
Alabama
The
taxa
Clam
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arizona
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
26
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
20
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
175
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Connecticut
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Idaho
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
176
The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Illinois
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Indiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Iowa
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Snail
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kentucky
The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
177
Maine
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maryland
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Massachusetts
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Michigan
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Minnesota
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Mississippi
The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
178
Nebraska
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Hampshire
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Jersey
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
York
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Ohio
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oregon
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
179
The
taxa
Plant
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Pennsylvania
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Tennessee
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Clam
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Texas
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Utah
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Vermont
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Washington
180
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

West
Virginia
The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.
181
Appendix
F
 
Summary
of
Adverse
All
Known
Ecological
Incidents
Associated
With
Azinphos
methyl
Use
in
the
United
States
(
Source:
EFED
Ecological
Incident
Information
System;
Accessed
29
March
05)

Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
1
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
015
LA
7/
28/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

ST
JAMES
MA
16000
TERRESTRIAL/
AQUATIC
1
Count:

2
I014341­
002
WA
1/
1/
1996
Yakima
UN
76
hives
TERRESTRIAL
15
Count:

Agricultural
Area
3
I003826­
014
NC
6/
21/
199
N/
R
POLK
UN
UNKNOWN
Agricultural
Area
2
I002508­
001
AR
8/
10/
199
Spray
Emulsifiable
Conc.

JEFFERSON
RU
14
Bean
2
I014341­
017
WA
1/
1/
1998
Chelan
UN
102
hives
N/
R
3
I014405­
029
WA
6/
5/
1996
Yakima
UN
N/
R
2
I013587­
009
WA
6/
10/
199
Grant
UN
Unknown
ORCHARD
1
I003654­
013
NC
6/
10/
199
Spray
LINCOLN
RU
UNKNOWN
ORCHARD
1
I003654­
014
NC
6/
16/
199
Spray
HENDERSON
RU
UNKNOWN
ORCHARD
4
I003654­
017
NC
8/
17/
199
Spray
HENDERSON
UN
UNKNOWN
ORCHARD
1
I003826­
022
NC
6/
26/
199
N/
R
POLK
RU
UNKNOWN
Orchard
(
unspecified)
2
I014341­
001
WA
1/
1/
1996
Yakima
UN
9
bee
hives
Orchard
(
unspecified)
2
I014341­
003
WA
1/
1/
1996
Yakima
UN
430
hives
Orchard
(
unspecified)
3
I014405­
028
WA
6/
3/
1996
Yakima
UN
Orchard
(
unspecified)
2
I013883­
032
WA
5/
15/
199
Yakima
RU
20
Colonies
Orchard
(
unspecified)
2
I014341­
030
WA
1/
1/
1999
Grant
UN
150
hives
3
I013587­
010
WA
7/
2/
1999
Chelan
M
N/
R
PLANTS
2
Count:

Apple
2
I013883­
033
WA
5/
15/
199
Direct
Yakima
RU
Not
given
2
I013436­
001
CA
10/
16/
20
SAN
JOAQUIN
UN
Several
thousand
AQUATIC
148
Count:

Agricultural
Area
3
I000109­
001
LA
7/
2/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

MA
THOUSANDS
Agricultural
Area
3
I000109­
007
LA
7/
8/
1991
N/
R
IBERIA
UN
500
Agricultural
Area
3
I000203­
003
LA
6/
27/
199
AERIAL
FLOWABLE
IBERIA
RU
6000
Agricultural
Area
4
I000203­
002
LA
7/
6/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
RU
1000
Agricultural
Area
4
I000203­
001
LA
7/
10/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

AVOYELLES
RU
20000
Agricultural
Area
3
I001863­
003
LA
9/
2/
1994
AERIAL
AVOYELLES
RU
4000
Apple
3
I004374­
006
MO
6/
1/
1996
JACKSON
RU
325
BUILDING
2
I011662­
003
TX
5/
15/
200
SPILL
LIQUID
WHARTON
MA
UNKNOWN
CITRUS
3
I002363­
001
FL
5/
13/
199
N/
R
N/
R
ST
LUCIE
RU
THOUSANDS
182
Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
2
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
Corn,
sweet
3
B0000­
501­
28
GA
9/
10/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
THOUSANDS
Corn,
sweet
2
B0000­
500­
61
GA
9/
13/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

RU
THOUSANDS
Corn,
sweet
3
B0000­
500­
93
GA
9/
16/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
249­
01
AL
8/
20/
197
Spray
RU
17000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
89
GA
9/
2/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
ALL
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
27
GA
9/
5/
1987
Spray
COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
77
GA
9/
5/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
2500
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
17
GA
9/
6/
1987
Spray
BROOKS
RU
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
36
GA
9/
6/
1987
Spray
THOMAS
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
71
GA
9/
6/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TIFT
UN
10,000
TO
12,000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
18
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
COOK
RU
SEVERAL
HUNDR
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
23
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
COLQUITT
RU
2500
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
78
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
SEVERE
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
79
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
80
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
UN
ALL
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
82
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
85
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
ALL
Cotton
3
B00000000037
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
BROOKS
RU
100%
fish
kill
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
37
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
COLQUITT
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
74
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
ALL
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
84
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
400
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
90
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
94
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
25
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
19
GA
9/
9/
1987
Spray
COLQUITT
RU
200
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
88
GA
9/
10/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
HUNDREDS
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
95
GA
9/
10/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

LOWNDES
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
81
GA
9/
11/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
86
GA
9/
11/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
29
GA
9/
11/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

THOMAS
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
22
GA
9/
12/
198
Spray
RU
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
70
GA
9/
12/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

THOMAS
RU
4000
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
31
GA
9/
12/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
64
GA
9/
13/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
69
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
63
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
ALL
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
73
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
183
Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
3
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
76
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
300
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
30
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TURNER
RU
ALL
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
26
GA
9/
15/
198
COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
91
GA
9/
15/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TIFT
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
92
GA
9/
15/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
UN
HUNDREDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
26
GA
9/
15/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

WILCOX
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
20
GA
9/
17/
198
Spray
TIFT
RU
1000
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
25
GA
9/
17/
198
Spray
UN
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
28
GA
9/
17/
198
Spray
LANIER
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
24
GA
9/
18/
198
Spray
CRISP
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
33
GA
9/
18/
198
Spray
DOOLY
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
35
GA
9/
18/
198
Spray
TIFT
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
68
GA
9/
18/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BERRIEN
RU
1500
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
55
GA
9/
19/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
10000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
62
GA
9/
19/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
60
GA
9/
22/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

LANIER
RU
60%
TO
70%

Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
49
GA
9/
23/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TIFT
RU
3
Cotton
3
B00000000048
GA
9/
24/
198
Spray
BLECKLEY
RU
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
72
GA
9/
24/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

DOOLY
RU
LARGE
NUMBER
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
52
GA
9/
26/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
HUNDREDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
53
GA
9/
28/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
67
GA
9/
28/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BLECKLEY
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
66
GA
9/
28/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
48
GA
9/
29/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
55
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
50
GA
10/
2/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

THOMAS
RU
HUNDREDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
54
GA
10/
5/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
500
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
38
GA
10/
6/
198
Spray
CALHOUN
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
51
GA
10/
13/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
8
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
39
GA
10/
18/
19
Spray
BAKER
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
40
GA
10/
25/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
HUNDREDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
47
GA
10/
26/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

PULASKI
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
45
GA
10/
27/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TURNER
RU
SEVERAL
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
41
GA
10/
28/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

OCONEE
RU
EXTENSIVE
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
42
GA
10/
28/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

THOMAS
RU
125
Cotton
B0000­
500­
43
GA
10/
28/
19
Emulsifiable
conc.

CALHOUN
LARGE
NUMBER
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
65
GA
10/
30/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BLECKLEY
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
46
GA
11/
4/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
UNKNOWN
184
Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
4
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
COTTON
3
I000592­
001
TX
6/
13/
199
AERIAL
MILAM
RU
40
COTTON
3
I000721­
001
MS
6/
29/
199
N/
R
N/
R
TALLAHATCHIE
MA
NUMEROUS
COTTON
3
I000603­
001
TX
7/
29/
199
N/
R
MILAM
UN
UNKNOWN
Agricultural
Area
3
I002211­
001
MS
8/
7/
1994
AERIAL
RANKIN
MA
3000
COTTON
2
I001838­
001
TN
8/
16/
199
RU
UNKNOWN
COTTON
3
I002338­
001
TN
6/
7/
1995
SPRAY
FLOWABLE
MADISON
RU
N/
R
COTTON
3
I004875­
004
LA
8/
2/
1996
N/
R
RICHLAND
RU
150000
COTTON
2
I004668­
011
LA
8/
7/
1996
RICHLAND
UN
600
Cranberries
2
I013530­
001
MA
7/
14/
200
N/
R
Plymouth
UN
More
than
1000
Equipment
Washing
3
B0000­
501­
43
LA
8/
29/
199
Emulsifiable
conc.

AVOYELLES
M
200
FOREST
3
I003439­
001
AR
5/
4/
1996
AERIAL
PULASKI
MA
UNKNOWN
Golf
course
4
I015523­
001
2/
13/
200
Spill
MA
4.16
tons
N/
R
3
I005148­
001
NY
N/
R
N/
R
UN
UNKNOWN
N/
R
3
I005148­
002
NY
N/
R
UN
UNKNOWN
N/
R
3
I005148­
003
WA
N/
R
N/
R
UN
N/
R
N/
R
2
B0000­
300­
50
LA
7/
9/
1970
Spray
Granular
UN
ALL
N/
R
3
I000109­
013
LA
7/
17/
199
N/
R
VERMILION
MA
UNKNOWN
N/
R
3
I000109­
025
LA
8/
1/
1991
N/
R
TERREBONNE
UN
N/
R
N/
R
3
I000109­
019
LA
8/
5/
1991
N/
R
ST
MARY
MA
6560
N/
R
3
I000200­
037
WI
7/
1/
1992
N/
R
N/
R
UN
450
N/
R
3
I000454­
014
LA
8/
10/
199
N/
R
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
UN
N/
R
N/
R
3
B0000­
501­
45
LA
8/
2/
1993
Emulsifiable
conc.

TERREBONNE
UN
50
N/
R
3
B0000­
501­
44
LA
8/
9/
1993
Emulsifiable
conc.

MOREHOUSE
UN
400
N/
R
3
I004875­
011
LA
8/
7/
1996
N/
R
RICHLAND
UN
600
N/
R
3
I010460­
009
MI
6/
30/
200
AERIAL
N/
R
MUSKEGON
MA
THOUSANDS
NURSERY
3
I002335­
001
GA
5/
22/
199
N/
R
FLOWABLE
GRADY
MA
N/
R
Nut
2
I000769­
001
CA
7/
26/
199
FLOWABLE
GLENN
RU
2000
ORCHARD
3
I000799­
006
NC
7/
13/
199
Spray
MC
DOWELL
MA
THOUSANDS
PEACH
3
I003622­
001
MO
5/
31/
199
N/
R
Wettable
Powder
JACKSON
RU
UNKNOWN
Potato
3
B0000­
300­
51
ME
7/
14/
197
U/
K
RU
750
Potato
3
I012265­
003
7/
26/
199
N/
R
N/
R
RU
2000
Potato
2
I012265­
004
7/
21/
199
N/
R
N/
R
RU
MORE
THAN
2100
Potato
3
I012265­
002
7/
23/
199
N/
R
N/
R
RU
UNKNOWN
Potato
4
I012265­
001
7/
19/
199
N/
R
N/
R
RU
OVER
1200
STREAM
4
I000109­
003
LA
7/
2/
1991
RINSATE
RELEA
VERMILION
MA
EXTENSIVE
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
010
LA
AERIAL
IBERIA
MA
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
002
LA
6/
27/
199
AERIAL
IBERIA
MA
5000
185
Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
5
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
004
LA
7/
6/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

LAFOURCHE
MA
133837
Sugarcane
2
I000109­
008
LA
7/
6/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
MA
3000
Sugarcane
2
I000109­
005
LA
7/
6/
1991
AERIAL
ST
JAMES
UN
26400
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
006
LA
7/
8/
1991
AERIAL
VERMILION
MA
3000
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
009
LA
7/
8/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERVILLE
RU
2365
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
012
LA
7/
13/
199
AERIAL
IBERIA
MA
50
Sugarcane
3
I000114­
001
LA
7/
21/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

AVOYELLES
UN
15000
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
032
LA
8/
1/
1991
EC
Emulsifiable
Conc.

TERREBONNE
MA
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
016
LA
8/
5/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

ASSUMPTION
MA
200000
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
030
LA
8/
7/
1991
AERIAL
TERREBONNE
RU
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
017
LA
8/
12/
199
N/
R
ASSUMPTION
MA
500
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
018
LA
8/
15/
199
AERIAL
N/
R
ST
MARY
RU
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
001
LA
7/
18/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

AVOYELLES
RU
15000
Sugarcane
3
I000114­
002
LA
8/
5/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
RU
4500
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
002
LA
8/
8/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
UN
1000
Sugarcane
3
I000114­
003
LA
8/
9/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
UN
N/
R
Sugarcane
3
I000247­
004
LA
8/
15/
199
AERIAL
N/
R
LAFOURCHE
RU
2
MILES
LONG
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
004
LA
8/
16/
199
N/
R
Emulsifiable
Conc.

LAFOURCHE
RU
NUMEROUS
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
005
LA
8/
17/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

ST
JAMES
RU
133
Sugarcane
3
I000247­
003
LA
8/
17/
199
AERIAL
N/
R
ST
JAMES
RU
133
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
006
LA
8/
18/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

LAFOURCHE
RU
LARGE
KILL
Sugarcane
3
I001849­
010
LA
8/
10/
199
N/
R
N/
R
MA
20
Sugarcane
3
I001863­
002
LA
8/
10/
199
AERIAL
ST
LANDRY
RU
32
Sugarcane
3
I001849­
011
LA
9/
6/
1994
N/
R
N/
R
RU
1000
Sugarcane
2
I001929­
001
LA
2/
21/
199
AERIAL
MA
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane/
Soybean
3
I000146­
003
LA
8/
5/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
RU
5,000­
6,000
Tomato
3
I003659­
001
VA
7/
1/
1996
Spray
ACCOMACK
UN
THOUSANDS
166
Total
Number
of
Incidents
186
Appendix
G
 
Literature
Cited
Beauvais,
S.
L.,
S.
B.
Jones,
S.
K.
Brewer,
and
E.
E.
Little.
2000.
Physiological
measures
of
neurotoxicity
of
diazinon
and
malathion
to
larval
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
and
their
correlation
with
behavioral
measures.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
19:
1875­
1880.

Bell,
D.
K.,
D.
E.
Yarborough,
and
J.
Dill.
1999.
Crop
Profile
for
Blueberries
(
Wild)
in
Maine.
http://
www.
ipmcenters.
org/
cropprofiles/
docs/
MEblueberries­
wild.
html
Beyers,
D.
W.,
T.
J.
Keefe,
and
C.
A.
Carlson.
1994.
Toxicity
of
carbaryl
and
malathion
to
two
federally
endangered
fishes,
as
estimated
by
regression
and
ANOVA.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
13:
101­
107.

Bryant,
D.
2002.
Beekeepers
launch
California
almond
pollination
season.
Western
Farm
Press,
February
4,
2002.
http://
westernfarmpress.
com/
news/
farming_
beekeepers_
launch_
california/

Burns,
L.
A.
1997.
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(
EXAMSII)
Users
Guide
for
Version
2.97.5,
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
GA.

Burgess,
N.
M.,
K.
A.
Hunt,
C.
Bishop,
and
D.
V.
(
Chip)
Weseloh.
1999.
Cholinesterase
inhibition
in
tree
swallows
(
Tachycineta
bicolor)
and
eastern
bluebirds
(
Sialia
sialis)
exposed
to
organophosphorus
insecticides
in
apple
orchards
in
Ontario,
Canada.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
18:
708­
716.

Carsel,
R.
F.
,
J.
C.
Imhoff,
P.
R.
Hummel,
J.
M.
Cheplick
and
J.
S.
Donigian,
Jr.
1997.
PRZM­
3,
A
Model
for
Predicting
Pesticide
and
Nitrogen
Fate
in
Crop
Root
and
Unsaturated
Soil
Zones:
Users
Manual
for
Release
3.0;
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
GA.

Connell,
J.
H.
1999.
Crop
Profile
for
Almonds
in
California.
http://
www.
ipmcenters.
org/
cropprofiles/
docs/
caalmonds.
html
Dionne,
E.
1991.
Guthion
­
The
Chronic
Toxicity
to
the
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus).
Report
No.
101297.
Prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.,
Wareham,
MA.
Submitted
by
Mobay
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
EPA
MRID
No.
420216­
01.

Dwyer,
F.
J.,
D.
K.
Hardesty,
C.
E.
Henke,
C.
G.
Ingersoll,
G.
W.
Whites,
D.
R.
Mount,
and
C.
M.
Bridges.
1999.
Assessing
contaminant
sensitivity
of
endangered
and
threatened
species:
Toxicant
classes.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Report
No.
EPA/
600/
R­
99/
098,
Washington,
DC.
15
p.

Edge,
W.
D.,
R.
L.
Carey,
J.
O.
Wolff,
L.
M.
Ganio,
and
T.
Manning.
1996.
Effects
of
Guthion
®
187
2S
on
Microtus
canicaudus:
a
risk
assessment
validation.
J.
Appl.
Ecol.
33:
269­
278.

Ebbert,
J.
C.
and
Embrey,
S.
S.
2002.
Pesticides
in
surface
water
of
the
Yakima
River
Basin,
Washington,
1999 
2000 
Their
occurrence
and
an
assessment
of
factors
affecting
concentrations
and
loads:
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
Water­
Resources
Investigations
Report
01 
4211,
49
p.

Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division.
2002.
Guidance
for
Selecting
Input
Parameters
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticides,
Version
II.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Washington,
D.
C.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models
water/
input_
guidance2_
28_
02.
htm/

Erickson,
W.,
and
Turner,
L.
2003.
Azinphos
methyl:
Analysis
of
Risks
to
Endangered
and
Threatened
Salmon
and
Steelhead.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Field
Branch.

Ferrari
A.,
O.
L.
Anguiano,
J.
Soleño,
A.
Venturino,
A.
M.
Pechen
de
D'Angelo.
2004.
Different
susceptibility
of
two
aquatic
vertebrates
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
and
Bufo
arenarum)
to
azinphos
methyl
and
carbaryl.
Comp.
Biochem.
Phys.,
Part
C
139:
239­
243.

Forbis,
A.
D.
1984.
Chronic
Toxicity
of
14C­
Guthion
to
Daphnia
magna
Under
Flow­
Through
Test
Conditions;
Final
Report
#
31802;
Prepared
by
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Chemical
Corp.,
17745
Metcalf,
Stilwell,
Kansas
66085.
EPA
Accession
No.
073606.

Fulton
M.
H.
and
P.
B.
Key.
2001.
Acetylcholinesterase
inhibition
in
estuarine
fish
and
invertebrates
as
indicator
of
organophosphorus
insecticide
exposure
and
effects.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
20:
37­
45.

Gill,
H.,
T.
D.
Williams,
C.
A.
Bishop,
K.
M.
Cheng,
and
J.
E.
Elliott.
2004.
Effects
of
azinphosmethyl
on
cholinergic
responses
and
general
health
in
zebra
finches
(
Taeniopygia
guttata)
after
previous
treatment
with
p,
p'­
DDE.
Arch.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
48:
118­
126.

Gill,
H.,
L.
K.
Wilson,
K.
M.
Cheng,
S.
Trudeau,
and
J.
E.
Elliott.
2000.
Effects
of
azinphos­
methyl
on
American
robins
breeding
in
fruit
orchards.
Bull.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
65:
756­
763.

Gruber,
S.
J.
and
M.
D.
Munn.
1998.
Organophosphate
and
carbamate
insecticides
in
agricultural
waters
and
cholinesterase
(
ChE)
inhibition
in
common
carp
(
Cyprinus
carpio).
Arch.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
35:
391­
396.

Gunther,
F.
A.,
Y.
Iwata,
G.
E.
Carman,
and
C.
A.
Smith.
1977.
The
citrus
reentry
problem:
Research
on
its
causes
and
effects
and
approaches
to
its
minimization.
Residue
Reviews
188
67:
1­
139.

Gusey,
W.
F.
and
Maturgo,
Z.
D.
1973.
Wildlife
utilization
of
croplands.
Shell
Oil
Company,
Houston,
TX.

Holmes,
J.,
D.
Jones,
W.
Erickson,
and
A.
Bryceland.
1999.
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Risk
Assessment:
Azinphos­
methyl.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division.

Hoskins,
W.
M.
1961.
Methods
for
expressing
the
persistence
of
pesticidal
residues
on
plants.
Final
Report
to
regional
project
W­
45.
Department
of
Entomology
and
Parasitology,
University
of
California,
Berkeley.

Hoy,
C.,
S.
Miller,
and
D.
Doohan.
1999.
Crop
Profile
for
Parsley
in
Ohio.
http://
www.
ipmcenters.
org/
cropprofiles/
docs/
ohparsley.
html
Johnson,
W.
and
M.
Finley.
1980.
Handbook
of
acute
toxicity
of
chemicals
to
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
USDI
Publication
No.
137.
Washington,
DC.
MRID
40094602.

Krewer,
G.,
H.
Scherm,
D.
Scott
NeSmith,
D.
L.
Horton,
and
H.
C.
Ellis.
1999.
Crop
Profile
for
Blueberries
in
Georgia.
http://
www.
ipmcenters.
org/
cropprofiles/
docs/
GAblueberries.
html
Matz,
A.
C.,
R.
S.
Bennett,
and
W.
G.
Landis.
1998.
Effects
of
azinphos­
methyl
on
bobwhite:
a
comparison
of
laboratory
and
field
results.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
17:
1364­
1370.

Mayer,
F.
1986.
Acute
Toxicity
Handbook
of
Chemicals
to
Estuarine
Organisms:
EPA/
600/
X­
86/
231.
Prepared
by
US
EPA
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
Gulf
Breeze,
FL.
MRID
No.:
40228401
Mayer,
F.
L.,
and
M.
R.
Ellersieck.
1986.
Manual
of
Acute
Toxicity:
Interpretation
and
Data
Base
for
410
Chemicals
and
66
Species
of
Freshwater
Animals.
U.
S.
Department
of
The
Interior,
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
Resource
Publication
60.
Washington,
D.
C.
MRID
No.:
40098001
McDowell,
L.
L.,
G.
H.
Willis,
L.
M.
Southwick,
and
S.
Smith.
1984.
Methyl
parathion
and
EPN
washoff
from
cotton
plants
by
simulated
rainfall.
Environ.
Sci.
Tech.
18(
6):
423­
427.

Meyers,
S.
M.
and
J.
O.
Wolff.
1994.
Comparative
Toxicity
of
Azinphos­
Methyl
to
House
Mice,
Laboratory
Mice,
Deer
Mice,
and
Gray­
Tailed
Voles.
Arch.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
26:
478­
482.

Morton,
M.
G.,
F.
L.
Mayer
(
Jr.),
K.
L.
Dickson,
W.
T.
Waller,
and
J.
C.
Moore.
1997.
Acute
and
chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos­
methyl
to
two
estuarine
species,
Mysidopsis
bahia
and
189
Cyprinodon
variegatus.
Arch.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
32:
436­
441.

Mosz,
N.,
2002a.
Pistachio
Timeline.
http://
pestdata.
ncsu.
edu/
cropTimelines/
pdf/
CApistachio.
pdf
Mosz,
N.
2002b.
Walnut
Timeline.
http://
pestdata.
ncsu.
edu/
croptimelines/
pdf/
CAwalnut.
pdf
NeSmith,
S.
2003.
Chilling
out
important
for
blueberry
varieties.
2003
UGA
CAES
Garden
Packet,
Volume
XXVIII,
Number
1,
Page
10.
http://
interests.
caes.
uga.
edu/
gardening/
gardenpacket/
spring03/
stories/
spg03_
10chillingout
.
htm
Peterson,
J.
A.
1996.
Gray­
tailed
vole
population
responses
to
inbreeding
and
environmental
stress.
Doctoral
dissertation,
University
of
California,
Berkeley.

Pree,
D.
J.,
K.
P.
butler,
E.
R.
Kimball,
and
D.
K.
R.
Stewart.
1976.
Persistence
of
foliar
residues
of
dimethoate
and
azinphos
methyl
and
their
toxicity
to
apple
maggot.
Journal
of
Economic
Entomology
69:
473­
478.

Ramos
D.
2002.
California
Walnut
Crop
Profile.
http://
pestdata.
ncsu.
edu/
cropprofiles/
docs/
cawalnuts.
html
Sances,
F.
1999.
Crop
Profile
for
Brussels
Sprouts
in
California.
http://
www.
ipmcenters.
org/
cropprofiles/
docs/
cabrusselssprouts.
html
Sappington,
L.
C.,
F.
L.
Mayer,
F.
J.
Dwyer,
D.
R.
Buckler,
J.
R.
Jones,
and
M.
R.
Ellersieck.
2001.
Contaminant
sensitivity
of
threatened
and
endangered
fishes
compared
to
standard
surrogate
species.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
20:
2869­
2876.

Schauber,
E.
M.,
W.
D.
Edge,
and
J.
O.
Wolff.
1997.
Insecticide
effects
on
small
mammals:
influence
of
vegetation
structure
and
diet.
Ecol.
App.
7:
143­
157.

Schulz
R.
and
G.
Thiere.
2002.
A
combined
microcosm
and
field
approach
to
evaluate
the
aquatic
toxicity
of
azinphosmethyl
to
stream
communities.
Env.
Toxicol.
Chem.
21:
2172­
2178.

Sierszen,
M.
E.
and
S.
J.
Lozano.
1997.
Zooplankton
population
and
community
responses
to
the
pesticide
azinphos­
methyl
in
freshwater
littoral
enclosures.
Env.
Toxicol.
Chem.
17:
907­
914.

Surprenant,
D.
C.
1987.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Technical
Grade
Azinphos
methyl
(
Trade
Name
Guthion)
to
Mysid
Shrimp
(
Mysidopsis
bahia)
Under
Flow­
Through
Conditions;
Study
No.
274.0587.6141.505;
Prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Corporation,
Stilwell,
Kansas.
EPA
MRID
No.
40380501.
190
Surprenant,
D.
C.
1987.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Technical
Grade
Azinphos
methyl
(
Trade
Name
Guthion)
to
Daphnids
(
Daphnia
magna)
Under
Flow­
Through
Conditions;
Study
No.
87­
8­
2466;
Prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Corporation,
Stilwell,
Kansas.
EPA
MRID
No.
40301302.

Surprenant,
D.
C.
1987.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Technical
Grade
Azinphos
methyl
(
Trade
Name
Guthion)
to
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus);
Study
No.
274.0487.6139.515;
Prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Corporation,
Stilwell,
Kansas.
EPA
MRID
No.
40380502.

Surprenant,
D.
C.
1987.
Fish
Early
Life
Stage
Toxicity
­
Rainbow
Trout
(
Onchorhyncus
mykiss);
Study
No.
274.0587.6150.121;
Prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Corporation,
Stilwell,
Kansas.
EPA
MRID
No.
40579601.

Thiere,
G.
and
R.
Schulz.
2004.
Runoff­
related
agricultural
impact
in
relation
to
macroinvertebrate
communities
of
the
Lourens
River,
South
Africa.
Water
Res.
38:
3092­
3102.

Urban,
D.
J.
2000.
Guidance
for
Conducting
Screening
Level
Avian
Risk
Assessments
for
Spray
Applications
of
Pesticides.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Ecological
Fate
and
Effects
Division.

United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)
Forest
Service.
1994.
Environmental
Impact
Statement:
Pest
Management
for
G.
F.
Erambert
and
Black
Creek
Seed
Orchards.

United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
(
USDA
NASS).
2002a.
Census
Of
Agriculture.
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
census/

United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
(
USDA
NASS).
2002.
Fruit
and
Tree
Nuts
Blooming,
Harvesting
and
Marketing
Dates.
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
ny/
Fruit/
treefruit.
htm
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
2001.
Ecological
Risk
Assessor
Orientation
Package.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Ecological
Fate
and
Effects
Division.
Draft
Version,
August
2001.

United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
2004.
Overview
of
the
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
Effects
Determinations,
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Washington,
D.
C.
100
pgs.
January
23.

Urban,
D.
J.
2000.
Guidance
for
Conducting
Screening
Level
Avian
Risk
Assessments
for
Spray
191
Applications
of
Pesticides.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division.

Varó,
I.,
J.
C.
Navarro,
F.
Amat,
and
L.
Guilhermino.
2003.
Effects
of
dichlorvos
on
cholinesterase
activity
of
European
sea
bass
(
Dicentrarchus
labrax).
Pestic.
Biochem.
Physiol.
75:
61­
72.

Wang,
G.,
J.
O.
Wolff,
and
W.
D.
Edge.
1999.
Gray­
tailed
voles
do
not
move
to
avoid
exposure
to
the
insecticide
Guthion
®
2S.
Env.
Toxicol.
Chem.
18:
1824­
1828.

Willis,
G.
H.,
W.
F.
Spencer,
and
L.
L.
McDowell.
1980.
Chapter
18.
The
interception
of
applied
pesticides
by
foliage
and
their
persistence
and
washoff
potential.
p
595­
606.
In
Knisel,
G.,
editor.
1980.
CREAMS:
A
Field
Scale
Model
for
Chemicals,
Runoff,
and
Erosion,
from
Agricultural
Management
Systems.
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Conservation
Research
Report
No.
26,
640
p.

Willis,
G.
H.,
and
L.
L.
McDowell.
1987.
Pesticide
Persistence
on
Foliage
in
Reviews
of
Env.
Contam.
Toxicol.
100:
23­
73.

Winterlin,
W.,
C.
Mourer,
and
J.
B.
Bailey.
1974.
Degradation
of
four
organophosphate
insecticides
in
grape
tissues.
Pesticide
Monitoring
Journal
8:
59­
65.

Zaugg,
S.
D.,
M.
W.
Sandstrom,
S.
G.
Smith,
and
K.
M.
Fehlberg.
1995.
Methods
of
Analysis
by
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
National
Water
Quality
Laboratory
­
Determination
of
Pesticides
in
Water
by
C­
18
Solid­
Phase
Extraction
and
Capillary­
Column
Gas
Chromatography/
Mass
Spectrometry
with
Selected
Ion
Method.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
Open
File
Report
No.
95­
181.

MRID
436498­
01.
J.
C.
Lin.
1995.
Guthion
Use
on
Almonds:
An
Aquatic
Exposure
Assessment
with
Consideration
of
Mitigation
Measures.
submitted
by
Miles,
Inc.,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Report
No.
106903.

MRID
442665­
01.
M.
G.
Dobbs.
1997.
Summary
of
Aquatic
Exposure
Issues
for
Guthion
Use
on
Apples.
Submitted
by
Bayer
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Bayer
Report
107708.

MRID
444118­
01.
R.
Fritz.
1988.
Aerobic
Metabolism
of
Azinphos­
methyl
in
the
Aquatic
Environment.
Submitted
by
Mobay
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Report
99195.

MRID
444118­
02.
J.
C.
Lin.
1997.
An
Aquatic
Exposure
Assessment
of
Azinphos
methyl:
Guthion
Use
on
Apples.
Submitted
by
Bayer
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Bayer
Report
107680.

MRID
444118­
03.
C.
G.
Crabtree,
E.
B.
Henrickson,
S.
A.
Kay,
and
R.
S.
Pearson.
1997.
192
Proximity
of
Apple
Orchards
to
Aquatic
Habitat.
Submitted
by
Bayer
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Bayer
Report
107698.

MRID
444118­
04.
Jeffrey
G.
Arnold,
Ranjan
S.
Muttah,
and
Raghavan
Srinivasan.
1997.
Watershed
Assessment
of
Guthion
Application
in
Apple
Orchards.
Submitted
by
Bayer
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Bayer
Report
107699.

D190581.
R.
David
Jones.
1995.
Review
of
Two
Unsolicited
Small
Plot
Runoff
Studies
,
with
a
Concurrent
Pond
Monitoring
Study
and
a
Fish
Kill.

MRID
00029885.
S.
Atwell
and
C.
Close.
1976.
Leaching
Characteristics
of
Guthion
on
Aged
Soil.
ChemAgro
Agricultural
Division.
April
30,
1976.
Accession
No.
099216.
Tab
No.
48466.

MRID
00029899.
Wilkes,
L.
C.,
J.
P.
Wargo,
and
R.
R.
Gronberg.
1979.
Dissipation
of
Guthion
in
Buffered
Aqueous
Solution.
Analytical
Development
Crop.,
Monument,
Colorado.
ADC
Project
378­
F,
notebook
reference
79­
R­
126,127,
Acc.
No.
099216,
Tab
No.
67983.

MRID
00029887.
M.
F.
Lenz.
1979.
Soil
Adsorption
and
Desorption
of
Guthion.
Mobay
Chemical
Corp.
April
11,
1979.
Accession
No.
099216.
Tab
No.
66848.

MRID
00029900.
Gronberg,
R.
R.,
R
.
J.
Polluck
and
J.
P.
Wargo.
1979.
The
Metabolism
of
Guthion
in
sandy
loam
soil.
Mobay
Chemical,
August
27,
1979,
Accession
No.
099216,
Tab
No
68030.

MRID
40297001.
J.
G.
Morgan.
The
Aqueous
Photolysis
of
GUTHION­
Phenyl­
UL­
14C.
Report
No.
94709.
14
July
1987.
Accession
No.
4029701.

MRID
40297002.
J.
G.
Morgan.
The
Photodegradation
of
GUTHION­
Phenyl­
UL­
14C
on
soil.
Report
No.
94708.
13
July
1987.
Accession
No.
4029702.

MRID
42647901.
Grace,
T.
J.
and
Cain,
K.
S.
1990.
Dissipation
of
azinphos­
methyl
in
California
soils.
PSI
Project
Nos.
89.026
and
89.035;
Ricerca
Project
No.
89­
0082;
Siemer
Project
Nos.
892010.1­
9;
Mobay
Project
Nos.
GU830089R01
and
ML022101;
and
Mobay
Report
No.
100164.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Plant
Sciences,
Inc.,
Watsonville,
CA;
Ricerca,
Inc.,
Painesville,
OH;
Siemer
and
Associates,
Inc.
Fresno,
CA;
and
Mobay
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.

MRID
425167­
01
P.
N.
Coody,
March
5,
1992.
Field
Measurement
of
Azinphos
methyl
Fate
and
Runoff
from
a
Cotton
Field
in
Benoit,
Mississippi.
Bayer
Report
Number
102619.

MRID
425167­
02
P.
N.
Coody,
May
28,
1991.
Field
Measurement
of
Azinphos
methyl
Fate
and
Runoff
from
a
Cotton
Field
in
Georgia.
Bayer
Report
Number
101333.
193
MRID
00068678.
1984.
Acute
Toxicity
to
Azinphos
methyl
(
Guthion)
Technical
to
Daphnia
magna
(
68678).
(
Unpublished
study
conducted
May
1,
1980,
received
10­
30­
84,
submitted
by
Mobay
Chemical
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO:
CDL
25241).

Water
Resources
D189129.
Jones,
R.
David.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Cotton.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
July
11,
1994.

D189505.
Jones,
R.
David.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Pome
Fruits.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
May
3,
1994.

D189494.
Jones,
R.
David.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Potatoes.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
July
25,
1994.

D189497.
Jones,
R.
David
.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Stone
Fruits.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
June
27,
1995.

D189508.
Jones,
R.
David
.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Nuts.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
August
31,
1994.

Barrett,
M.
1997.
Sci­
Grow.
Initial
Tier
Screening
for
Ground
Water
Concentrations
Using
the
SCI­
GROW
Model.
Internal
EPA
Document
dated
June
30,
1997.

Hoheisel,
Constance,
Joan
Karrie,
Susan
Lees,
Leslie
Davies­
Hilliard,
Patrick
Hannon,
Roy
Bingham,
Elizabeth
Behl,
David
Wells,
and
Estella
Waldman.
1992.
Pesticides
in
Ground
Water
Database,
A
Compilation
of
Monitoring
Studies:
1971­
1991,
National
Summary.
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
EPA
734­
12­
92­
001.

Goodell,
H.
Grant.
1987.
The
Effects
of
Agricultural
Chemicals
on
Ground
Water
Quality
in
the
Northern
Shenandoah
Valley,
Virginia.
Final
Report
to
the
Virginia
Environmental
Endowment,
Richmond,
Virginia,
dated
December
18,
1987.

Jones,
R.
David.
Revised
Tier
2
EEC's
for
Azinphos
methyl.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
date
April
11,
1995.

Jones,
R.
David.
Revised
Tier
2
EEC's
for
Azinphos
methyl.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Barry
O'Keefe
dated
xxxxx,
1998.

Miles,
C.
J.
and
R.
J.
Pfeuffer.
1994.
Pesticide
Residue
Monitoring
in
Sediment
and
Surface
Waters.
South
Florida
Water
Management
District.

Miles,
C.
J.
and
R.
J.
Pfeuffer.
1997.
Pesticide
in
Canals
of
South
Florida.
Archives
of
194
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology
32:
337­
345.

Thurman,
E.
Michael,
Lisa
R.
Zimmerman,
Elisabeth
A.
Scribner,
and
Richard
H.
Coupe,
Jr.
1998.
Occurrence
of
Cotton
Pesticides
in
Surface
Water
of
the
Mississippi
Embayment.
USGS
Fact
Sheet
FS­
022­
98
Leahy,
P.
P.
and
Thompson
T.
H.,
1994.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
Program.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
Open
File
Report
94­
70.

United
States
Geological
Survey
National
Synthesis
Project.
1998a.
Pesticides
in
Surface
and
Ground
Water
of
the
United
States:
Preliminary
Results
of
the
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
Program
(
NAWQA).
http://
water.
wr.
usgs.
gov.
pnsp/
gwsw1.
html
dated
3/
27/
98
United
States
Geological
Survey
National
Synthesis
Project.
1998b.
Pesticides
Analyzed
in
NAWQA
Samples:
Use
Chemical
Analyses,
And
Water
Quality
Criteria.
http://
water.
wr.
usgs.
gov/
pnsp/
anstrat/
dated
3/
27/
98
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1990.
National
Survey
of
Pesticides
in
Drinking
Water
Wells:
Phase
1
Report.
EPA
570/
9­
90­
015
November
1990.
