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.