Table Of ContentHistoric, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
aSB945
G9G97
.
1995
v 4
.
Gypsy Moth Management
in the United States:
a cooperative approach
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
Volume IV of V
G
Appendix
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
November 1995
United States
Department
of Agriculture
Forest Service
Animal and Plant
Health Inspection
Service
The complete final environmental impact statement, Gypsy Moth Management in the United
States: a cooperative approach, consists offive volumes:
Volume Summary
I.
Volume II. Chapters 1-9 and Appendixes A-E
Volume III. Appendix F, Human Health RiskAssessment
Volume IV. Appendix G, Ecological RiskAssessment
Volume V. Appendix H, Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, and Responses
The record ofdecision is a separate document published and available 30 days or longerafter
the notice ofavailability forthe final environmental impact statement is published in the
Federal Register (40 CFR Part 1506.10).
Assessment
Ecological Risk
for the
Gypsy Moth
National
Management Program
CATALOGINGPREP.
Prepared by:
Environmental Analysis and Documentation
Biotechnology, Biologies, and Environmental Protection
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA
with the assistance of
Dr. Robert Campbell (College of Environmental Science and Forestry, SUNY)
Dr. Steven Bartell (SENES Oakridge, Inc.), and
Dr. Anthony Gray (Syracuse Research Corp.)
Published by:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry
Radnor, PA
2.8.3. Susceptible Stands (Greater than 60 Percent
Defoliation) 2-49
2.8.4. Responses by Selected Habitat Generalists 2-53
2.9. Summary ................................. 2-54
2.10. References 2-55
.
3. Characterization of Active Management Strategies and Treatments . 3-1
3.1. Description of Active Gypsy Moth Management Strategies .... 3-1
3.1.1. Suppression 3-2
.
3.1.2. Eradication 3-2
3.1.3. Slow-The-Spread 3-3
3.2. Description of Active Gypsy Moth Management Treatments 3-4
. . .
3.3. References 3-6
4. Description of Program Areas
4.1. The Two Ecosystem Approach 4-1
4.2. The Development Continuum 4-2
4.3. Physical Characteristics 4-2
4.3.1. Climate 4-3
4.3.2. Soils 4-3
4.3.3. Hydrology 4-4
4.4. Biotic Characteristics 4-5
4.4.1. Flora 4-5
4.4.2. Terrestrial Fauna 4-6
4.4.3. Aquatic Fauna 4-8
4.5. Summary 4-8
4.6. References 4-10
5. Hazard Analysis
5.1. Toxicity Data 5-1
5.1.1. Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 5-1
5.1.2. Diflubenzuron 5-2
5.1.3. Nucleopolyhedrosis Vims 5-3
5.1.4. Dichlorvos 5-4
5.1.5. Disparlure 5-5
5.2. Terrestrial Field Studies 5-5
5.2.1. Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 5-5
5.2.2. Diflubenzuron 5-10
5.2.3. Gypsy Moth Nucleopolyhedrosis Vims 5-18
5.2.4. Dichlorvos 5-18
5.2.5. Disparlure 5-19
iv
5.3. Aquatic Field Studies 5-19
5.3.1. Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 5-19
5.3.2. Diflubenzuron 5-20
5.3.3. NPV, Dichlorvos, and Disparlure 5-21
5.4. References 5-25
6. Endpoint Selection 6-1
6.1. Change in Forest Health .6-1
6.2. Change in Numbers of Nontarget Species Or
Their Populations 6-2
6.3. Change in Water Quality 6-2
6.4. Change in Microclimate 6-3
6.5. Change in Soil Fertility, Productivity, Or
Stability 6-3
6.6. Summary 6-3
7. The Fate and Transport of Insecticides in the Environment 7-1
7.1. Diflubenzuron 7-1
7.1.1. Fate in the Canopy 7-2
7.1.2. Fate on the Ground 7-3
7.1.3. Fate in the Water 7-5
7.1.4. Metabolites 7-9
7.1.5. Fate of Metabolites in the Canopy and in Soils 7-9
7.1.6. Fate of Metabolites in Water 7-11
7.1.7. Summary — Undeveloped Forest 7-12
7.1.8. Summary — Developed Forest 7-13
7.2. Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk) 7-14
7.2.1. B.t.k. on Land 7-15
7.2.2. B.t.k. in Water 7-16
7.2.3. Summary — Undeveloped Forest 7-17
7.2.4. Summary — Developed Forest 7-17
7.3. Nucleopolyhedrosis virus 7-18
7.3.1. Fate and Location 7-18
7.3.2. Transport and Transmission 7-19
7.3.3. Summary - NPV 7-19
7.3.4. Summary - Undeveloped Forest 7-20
.
7.4. Disparlure 7-20
7.5. Dichlorvos 7-20
7.5.1. Dichlorvos in Air 7-21
7.5.2. Dichlorvos on the Ground 7-21
7.6. Environmental Fate And Transport Modeling 7-21
7.6.1. Methodology 7-22
v
7.6.2. Results and Discussion 7-32
7.7 References 7-34
8. Exposure Assessment 8-1
8.1. Diflubenzuron 8-1
8.1.1. Exposure Through Ingestion of Diflubenzuron 8-1
8.1.2. Exposure Through Dermal Contact of Diflubenzuron ... 8-3
8.1.3. Exposure to Diflubenzuron in Aquatic Environments 8-3
. . .
8.1.4. Summary
8.2. 4-Chloroaniline (Degradation Product of Diflubenzuron) 8-4
8.3. Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (B.t.k.) 8-4
8.3.1. Exposure through ingestion of B.t.k 8-5
8.3.2. Exposure to B.t.k. in Aquatic Environments 8-5
8.3.3. Summary 8-5
8.4. Disparlure 8-6
8.5. Nucleopolyhedrosis Virus 8-6
8.6. Dichlorvos 8-6
8.7. References 8-8
9. Risk Analysis 9-1
9.1. Diflubenzuron 9-1
9.1.1. Methodology for Nontarget Species Endpoint 9-1
9.1.2. Results 9-4
9.2. Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 9-9
9.2.1. Methodology 9-9
9.2.2. Results 9-10
9.3. Disparlure 9-13
9.3.1. Nontarget Species 9-13
9.3.2. Forest Health, Water Quality, Microclimate, Soil
Productivity and Fertility 9-13
9.4. Nucleopolyhedrosis Virus 9-13
9.4.1. Nontarget Species 9-13
9.4.2. Forest Health, Water Quality, Microclimate, Soil
Productivity and Fertility 9-14
9.5. Dichlorvos 9-14
9.5.1. Nontarget Species 9-14
9.5.2. Forest Health, Water Quality, Microclimate, Soil
Productivity and Fertility 9-14
9.6 References 9-15
vi
111
10. Conclusions
10.1. Comparative Risks Between Treatments 10-1
.
10.2. Factors Affecting the Risk Associated with the
Treatments 10-3
10.3. Comparative Risk Between Strategies 10-5
10.4. Comparative Risk Between Alternatives 10-5
.
Glossary Glossary-
Subject Index Subject Index-
Species Index Species Index-
vii
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Comparison of European and Asian Strain of Gypsy Moths 2-81
.
Table 2-2. European Gypsy Moth Host Susceptibility 2-82
Table 2-3. Short-term (st) and long-term (It) changes expected in
various ecosystem components, assuming a moderate
intensity outbreak (30-60 percent defoliation) that
persists for 1, 2, or 3 successive years 2-83
Table 2-4. Short-term (st) and long-term (It) changes expected in
various ecosystem components, assuming a high
intensity outbreak (30-60 percent defoliation) that
persists for 1, 2, or 3 successive years 2-85
Table 3-1. Treatment Rates Used in Eradication, Suppression and
Slow-the-Spread 3-8
Table 5-1. Toxicity data of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 5-50
Table 5-2. Toxicity data of diflubenzuron 5-54
Table 5-3. Toxicity data of nucleopolyhedrosis Virus 5-64
Table 5-4. Toxicity data of dichlorvos 5-67
Table 5-5. Toxicity data of disparlure 5-69
Table 5-6. Effects of B.t.k. on nontarget Lepidoptera 5-70
Table 5-7. Effects of B.t.k. on parasites of Lepidoptera 5-74
Table 5-8. Effects of B.t.k. on birds 5-77
Table 5-9. Effects of diflubenzuron on nontarget Lepidoptera 5-78
Table 5-10. Effects of diflubenzuron on predators and parasites of
insects other than gypsy moths 5-80
Table 5-11. Effects of diflubenzuron on predators and parasites of
gypsy moths 5-86
Table 5-12. Effect of diflubenzuron on honey bees 5-88
Table 5-13. Effect of diflubenzuron on other nontarget invertebrates 5-90
. . .
Table 5-14. Effects of diflubenzuron on birds 5-94
.
Table 5-15. Toxicity data of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki
to aquatic organisms 5-96
Table 5-16. Toxicity data of diflubenzuron to aquatic organisms 5-97
Table 6-1. Ecological endpoints and their indicators 6-4
Table 7-1. FSCBG model parameters 7-48
Table 7-2. Summary of PRZM input parameters 7-49
Table 7-3. Diflubenzuron estimated environmental residues 7-53
Table 7-4. Multiple applications of diflubenzuron within the same year 7-55
.
Table 7-5. Estimated diflubenzuron concentrations in various
environmental components l.Ooz/ac 7-56
Table 7-6. Estimated diflubenzuron concentrations in various
environmental components 0.5 oz/ac 7-57
viii
