DOCSLIB.ORG

Phosphine Fumigation of Stored Agricultural Commodity: Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phosphine Fumigation of Stored Agricultural Commodity: Programmatic Environmental Assessment PHOSPHINE FUMIGATION OF STORED AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2013 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared under USAID’s Global Environmental Management Support (GEMS) project. Cover photos: Phosphine fumigation monitoring equipment (top left), DIMEGSA Pest Control staff in Guatemala (top right), USAID food commodities stored in a warehouse (bottom). PHOSPHINE FUMIGATION OF STORED AGRICULUTAL COMMODITY PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FEBRUARY 2014 Contract No.: AID-OAA-M-11-00021 Prepared for: Office of Food for Peace Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance United States Agency for International Development Prepared under: The Global Environmental Management Support Project (GEMS), Award Number AID-OAA-M-11-00021. The Cadmus Group, Inc., prime contractor (www.cadmusgroup.com). Sun Mountain International, principal partner (www.smtn.org). DISCLAIMER Until and unless this document is approved by USAID as a 22 CFR 216 Programmatic Environmental Assessment, the contents may not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................... I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... III SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... IV Purpose of the Programmatic Environmental Assessment ................................................................ iv Approach of the PEA .................................................................................................................................. v Findings of the PEA ..................................................................................................................................... vi Procedures and Use of the PEA ............................................................................................................. vii 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose of the PEA ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Goals of the PEA .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Overview of Fumigants in Food Aid ............................................................................................ 3 1.4 Overview of Reporting Requirements per USAID Environmental Regulations ................ 4 1.5 Application of the PEA for Partner Programs ........................................................................... 4 1.6 Methodology of the PEA ................................................................................................................ 5 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 15 2.1. USAID FFP Title II Food Aid Program ..................................................................................... 15 2.2 USAID Title II Food Aid Value Chain ....................................................................................... 17 2.3 Introduction to Phosphine Fumigation and Phosphine Chemistry .................................... 19 3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................... 23 3.1. Description of the Proposed Action: Fumigation of food aid commodity using aluminum/magnesium phosphide ........................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Description of Alternatives to Phosphine Fumigation .......................................................... 26 3.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Analysis and Rationale for Eliminating Them .................... 34 3.4 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ....................................................... 38 4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 40 4.1 Geographic Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 40 4.2 Social Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 41 4.3 Environmental Characteristics: Physical and Biological Resources .................................... 44 4.4 Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................... 45 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 47 5.1 Environmental Consequences of Phosphine Fumigation ...................................................... 48 5.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .................................................. 67 5.3 Means to Mitigate Adverse Health and Environmental Impacts ......................................... 68 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 74 6.1 Major Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 74 6.2 Data Gaps ....................................................................................................................................... 77 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 79 WEBLINKS ...................................................................................................................................................... 93 LIST OF ACRONYMS ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance AchE Acetyl cholinesterase AE Aerosol AI Active Ingredient APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) ARS Agricultural Research Service BEO Bureau Environmental Officer (USAID) BEST Bellmon Estimation Studies for Title II project (USAID) BP Best Practices BFS Bureau for Food Security (USAID) CA Certified Applicator CATAMA Committee on Aviation Toxicology, Aero Medical Association CCC Commodity Credit Corporation CFR Code of Federal Regulations (US) CCOHS Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety CO2 Carbon dioxide CRG Commodity Reference Guide CRS Catholic Relief Services CSB Corn soy blend DCHA Bureau for Democracy, Conflict & Humanitarian Assistance (USAID) DHHS Department of Health and Human Services (US) EC Emulsifiable Concentrate EWG Environmental Working Group (USAID) ESR Environmental Status Report FACG Food Aid Consultative Group FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations FAS Foreign Agricultural Service FDA Food and Drug Administration (DHHS) FFP Food for Peace (USAID) FGIS Federal Grain Inspection Service (US) FGPFS Food Grain Protection and Fumigation Specialist FHI Food for the Hungry International or Feed the Hungry International FMP Fumigation Management Plan FSA Farm Service Agency (USDA) FSP Fumigation service provider FtF Feed the Future (USAID) FY Fiscal Year GAO Government Accountability Office (US) GEMS Global Environmental Management Support GMO Genetically modified organism GUP General Use Pesticide HDPE High density polyethylene HHRE Human Health Risk Evaluation IEE Initial Environmental Examination IFADC International Food Aid and Development Conference IGR Insect Growth Regulator IO International organization IPM Integrated Pest Management i IRIS Integrated Risk Information System ITSH Internal Transport, Shipping and Handling KCCO Kansas City Commodity Office LOE Level of Effort MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (Uganda) MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration (US) MOE Margin of Exposure MT Metric Ton N2 Nitrogen NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (US) NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level O2 Oxygen OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (US) PBO piperonyl butoxide PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment PEL Permissible Exposure Limit PERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan P.L. 480 Public Law 480 (US) Ppb Parts per billion PPE Personal protective equipment Ppm Parts per million PSA Participatory Stakeholder Analyst PVC Poly vinyl chloride PVO Private Voluntary Organization RED Reregistration Eligibility Decision (published by USEPA) RUP Restricted Use Pesticide SC Soluble Concentrate SIA Social Impact Assessment SOP Standard Operating Procedure SOW Scope of Work UN United Nations UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USDHHS United States Department of Health and Human Services WBSCM Web Based Supply Chain Management WFP World Food Programme (of the UN) WP Wettable Powder WV World
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • RR Program's RCL Spreadsheet Update
    RR Program’s RCL Spreadsheet Update March 2017 RR Program RCL Spreadsheet Update DNR-RR-052e The Wisconsin DNR Remediation and Redevelopment Program (RR) has updated the numerical soil standards in the August 2015 DNR-RR- 052b RR spreadsheet of residual contaminant levels (RCLs). The RCLs were determined using the U.S. EPA RSL web- calculator by accepting EPA exposure defaults, with the exception of using Chicago, IL, for the climatic zone. This documentThe U.S. provides EPA updateda summary its Regionalof changes Screening to the direct-contact Level (RSL) RCLs website (DC-RCLs) in June that2015. are To now reflect in the that March 2017 spreadsheet.update, the The Wisconsin last page ofDNR this updated document the has numerical the EPA exposuresoil standards, parameter or residual values usedcontaminant in the RCL levels calculations. (RCLs), in the Remediation and Redevelopment program’s spreadsheet of RCLs. This document The providesU.S. EPA a RSL summary web-calculator of the updates has been incorporated recently updated in the Julyso that 2015 the spreadsheet.most up-to-date There toxicity were values no changes for chemi - cals madewere certainlyto the groundwater used in the RCLs,RCL calculations. but there are However, many changes it is important in the industrial to note that and the non-industrial web-calculator direct is only a subpartcontact of the (DC) full RCLsEPA RSL worksheets. webpage, Tables and that 1 andthe other 2 of thissubparts document that will summarize have important the DC-RCL explanatory changes text, generic tablesfrom and the references previous have spreadsheet yet to be (Januaryupdated.
    [Show full text]
  • Sound Management of Pesticides and Diagnosis and Treatment Of
    * Revision of the“IPCS - Multilevel Course on the Safe Use of Pesticides and on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Presticide Poisoning, 1994” © World Health Organization 2006 All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use. CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgement Part I. Overview 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives 2. Overview of the resource tool 2.1 Moduledescription 2.2 Training levels 2.3 Visual aids 2.4 Informationsources 3. Using the resource tool 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Training trainers 3.2.1 Organizational aspects 3.2.2 Coordinator’s preparation 3.2.3 Selection of participants 3.2.4 Before training trainers 3.2.5 Specimen module 3.3 Trainers 3.3.1 Trainer preparation 3.3.2 Selection of participants 3.3.3 Organizational aspects 3.3.4 Before a course 4.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Board of Pesticides Control 28 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333 Paul R
    STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY BOARD OF PESTICIDES CONTROL 28 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 PAUL R. LEPAGE WALTER E. WHITCOMB GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER Memorandum To: Board of Pesticides Control From: Pam Bryer, Toxicologist Subject: Question from June 6, 2018 Board Meeting Date: May 18, 2018 At the June 6, 2018 board meeting the question of whether Bt is toxic to lobsters was asked. Here is a brief answer to that question. Not surprisingly, the answer is we don’t know. Question: Is Bt harmful to lobsters? Answer: Bt has not been tested on lobsters. Attached is a table based on available pesticide toxicity data for lobsters. Few compounds have been tested on any species of lobsters. Both lobsters and Bt are fairly unique entities so generalizations are not helpful in extrapolating to other pesticides exposure scenarios. Reasonable follow-up question: Since Bt targets insects and lobsters are closely related can we assume that lobsters would be just as sensitive? Answer: Typically, shared phylogeny could help predict toxicity, however, the marine environment places a different set of physical constraints on digestive physiology and since Bt is a stomach poison we should not speculate. Marine organisms typically have modified intestinal tracts to deal with maintaining the homeostatic balance of outside-saltwater to internal-body composition. PHONE: (207) 287-2731 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING WWW.THINKFIRSTSPRAYLAST.ORG The above figure shows the uptake of Bt endospore into the larval gut demonstrating how Bt’s mechanism of action centers around cells lining the intestinal tract. Table 1. Preliminary literature search results on the toxicity of pesticides on lobsters (Homarus spp) Contaminant Concentration Duration Experimental Primary Effects Source (ug/L) Notes Organochlorines Endosulfan -decr survival & metamorphosis Bauer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report
    SERA TR-052-02-02c Malathion Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-06-0012 SERA Internal Task No. 52-02 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com May 12, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi List of Attachments........................................................................................................................ vi ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS ............................................................... vii COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................... x CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cockroach Control Manual
    COCKROACHCOCKROACH CONTROLCONTROL MANUALMANUAL (Photo by J. Kalisch) Barb Ogg, Extension Educator, Lancaster County Clyde Ogg, Extension Educator, Pesticide Safety Education Program Dennis Ferraro, Extension Educator, Douglas & Sarpy Counties Extension is a Division of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln cooperating with the Counties and the United States Department of Agriculture. ® University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension’s educational programs abide with the nondiscrimination policies of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the United States Department of Agriculture. Table of Contents 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Chapter 2: Know Your Enemy 9 Chapter 3: Cockroach Biology 15 Chapter 4: Locate Problem Areas 23 Chapter 5: Primary Control Strategies: Modify Resources 31 Chapter 6: Low-Risk Control Strategies 37 Chapter 7: Insecticide Basics 45 Chapter 8: Insecticides and Your Health 53 Chapter 9: Insecticide Applications 59 Chapter 10: Putting a Management Plan Together i Cockroach Control Manual Preface It has been more than 10 years since the first edition of the Cockroach Control Manual was completed. While the basic steps for effective and safe cockroach control are still the same, there are more types of control products available than there were 10 years ago. This means you have even more choices in your arsenal to help fight roaches. The Cockroach Control Manual is a practical reference for persons who have had little or no training in insect identification, biology or control methods. We know most people want low toxic methods used inside their homes so we are emphasizing low-risk strategies even more than in the original edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 213/Friday, November 4, 2005/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Notices 67167 UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone define the need for improvements and registrant of a pesticide product may at (214) 665–7165. make recommendations to the full any time request that any of its pesticide NDWAC accordingly; (2) develop registrations be amended to delete one Larry Wright, language for communicating the risk of or more uses. FIFRA further provides Acting Director, Water Quality Protection lead in drinking water and a suggested that, before acting on the request, EPA Division (6WQ). response to the public; and (3) define must publish a notice of receipt of any [FR Doc. 05–22032 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] the delivery means to the public. The request in the Federal Register. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P NDWAC established a target date of May DATES: The deletions are effective on 2006 to complete these tasks. The WGPE December 5, 2005, unless the Agency is comprised of 16 members from ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION receives a written withdrawal request drinking water industries, stakeholder AGENCY on or before December 5, 2005. The organizations, state and local officials, Agency will consider withdrawal [FRL–7993–9] public health officials, environmental requests postmarked no later than organizations, and risk communication December 5, 2005. National Drinking Water Advisory experts. Users of these products who desire Council’s Working Group on Public Public Comment: An opportunity for continued use on crops or sites being Education Requirements of the Lead public comment will be provided deleted should contact the applicable and Copper Rule Meeting during the WGPE meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • RRAC Guidelines on Anticoagulant Rodenticide Resistance Management Editor: Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) of Croplife International Aim
    RRAC guidelines on Anticoagulant Rodenticide Resistance Management Editor: Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) of CropLife International Aim This document provides guidance to advisors, national authorities, professionals, practitioners and others on the nature of anticoagulant resistance in rodents, the identification of anticoagulant resistance, strategies for rodenticide application that will avoid the development of resistance and the management of resistance where it occurs. The Rodenticide Resistance Action Committee (RRAC) is a working group within the framework of CropLife International. Participating companies include: Bayer CropScience, BASF, LiphaTech S. A., PelGar, Rentokil Initial, Syngenta and Zapi. Senior technical specialists, with specific expertise in rodenticides, represent their companies on this committee. The RRAC is grateful to the following co-authors: Stefan Endepols, Alan Buckle, Charlie Eason, Hans-Joachim Pelz, Adrian Meyer, Philippe Berny, Kristof Baert and Colin Prescott. Photos provided by Stefan Endepols. Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Classification and history of rodenticide compounds ..............................................................................................3 3. Mode of action of anticoagulant rodenticides, resistance mechanisms, and resistance mutations ......................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Pest Management Procedure Manual
    SSC Facilities Services at Texas A&M University Integrated Pest Management Procedure Manual revised 6/2018 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE MANUAL SSC Services for Education 600 Agronomy Road College Station, Texas 77843 Written by: Amanda J. Bakken Under the direction of: Bryan McGee Layout and Design by: Barbara Musgrove PURPOSE OF BOOK The purpose of this Integrated Pest Management (IPM) book is to educate pest management technicians and the Texas A&M University (TAMU) campus on the newly adopted IPM plans and policies. This book includes the IPM policies, objectives, recordkeeping, and requirements that will be used by technicians. This book is not comprehensive, but an ongoing work in progress that is meant to be updated as more effective techniques, technologies, and methods become available to properly maintain and prevent pests. Pest-specific examples, including visual references, are given and should be referenced as needed. SSC Services for Education and TAMU take the safety and well-being of students, faculty, staff, and visitors seriously. Dangers associated with pesticides exist to humans, animals, and the environment, but by following this plan many of these risks can be mitigated and effective management of pests and diseases can be exacted. DEFINITION OF IPM AND PROCEDING POLICIES Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques. Techniques include mechanical control, genetic manipulation and control, regulatory practices, biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties of plants. Pesticides are used only after surveillance and/or monitoring indicates they are needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ingleby Prohibited Pesticides May 2018
    1[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Acaricides Cyhexatin Acaricide Parathion-ethyl Acaricide/Insecticide Tetradifon Acaricide Tebufenpyrad Acaricide Fumigants 1,2-Dibromoethane Fumigant 1,2-dichloroethane Fumigant Fungicides 2-Aminobutane (aka sec-butylamine) Fungicide Allyl alcohol Fungicide Benomyl Fungicide Binapacryl Fungicide Bitertanol Fungicide Blasticidin-S Fungicide Cadmium Fungicide Captafol Fungicide Chloranil Fungicide Chloromethoxypropyl-mercuric-acetate (CPMA) Fungicide Chlozolinate Fungicide Di(phenylmercury)dodecenylsuccinate (PMDS) Fungicide Diammonium ethylenebis Fungicide DNOC Fungicide / Herbicide /Insecticide Edifenphos Fungicide Fenarimol Fungicide Fentin acetate Fungicide Flusilazole Fungicide Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Fungicide Hexaconazole Fungicide Iminoctadine Fungicide Leptophos Fungicide Maneb Fungicide Mercuric oxide Fungicide Mercurous chloride (calomel) Fungicide Mercury compounds Fungicide Nickel bis Fungicide Nuarimol Fungicide Oxadixyl Fungicide Penconazole Fungicide Ingleby Farms & Forests May 2018 Prohibited Active Ingredients 2[5] INGLEBY PROHIBITED PESTICIDES MAY 2018 Active ingredient Type Fungicides (continued) Phenylmercury acetate Fungicide/Herbicide Phenylmercuric oleate [PMO] Fungicide Prochloraz Fungicide Procymidone Fungicide Propineb Fungicide Pyrazophos Fungicide Pyrifenox Fungicide Tecnazene Fungicide Tricyclazole Fungicide Tridemorph Fungicide Vinclozolin Fungicide Zineb Fungicide Herbicides 2,4,5-T Herbicide Acifluorfen Herbicide Alachlor Herbicide Arsenic
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. EPA, Pesticides, Label, GASTOXIN FUMIGATION TABLETS
    EPA Reg. Date of u.s. ENVIRONMENTAL Number: Issuance: PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Pesticide Programs Registration Division (7505P) 43743-1 JlJl- 82010 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Terms of Issuance: Unconditional NOTICE OF PESTICIDE: __ Registration XX Reregistration Name of Pesticide Product: (under FIFRA, as amended) GastoxinR ~.~J~OVl Tablets Name and Address of Registrant (include ZXP Code): Bernardo Chemicals, Inc. P.O. Box 1632 Turlock, CA 95381 Note: Changes in labeling differing in substance from that accepted in connection with this registration must be submitted to and accepted by the Registration Division prior to use of the label in commerce. In any correspondence on this product always refer to the above EPA registration number. On the basis of information furnished by the registrant, the above named pesticide is hereby reregistered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Registration is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of this product by the Agency. In order to protect health and the environment, the Administrator, on his motion, may at any time suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the Act. The acceptance of any name in connection with the registration of a product under this Act is not to be construed as giving the registrant a right to exclusive use of the name or to its use if it has been covered by . others. Based on your response to the Reregistration Eligibility Document, EPA has reregistered the product listed above. This action is taken under the authority of section 4(g)(2)(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended.
    [Show full text]
  • An Integrated Pest Management Strategic Plan for Treasure Valley Onions: Oregon and Idaho
    OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE An Integrated Pest Management Strategic Plan for Treasure Valley Onions: Oregon and Idaho Photo: Capital Press, used with permission Katie Murray, Stuart Reitz, and Paul Jepson This publication was revised in September 2019. The updated version (EM 9254) is available at: https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/em9254 EM 9187 February 2018 Table of Contents Introductory pages Planting to crop emergence 24 Process for this Vegetative growth 27 Integrated Pest Management Strategic Plan 3 Lifting, harvest, and storage 30 Work Group Members 4 Invasive and Emerging Pests 32 Top-priority Critical Needs 5 References 33 Treasure Valley Onion Production Overview 6 Appendix IPM Overview in Onion Production 7 Activity tables for Treasure Valley onions 35 IPM Critical Needs 9 Seasonal Pest Management 36 List of Major Onion Pests 12 Onion Pesticide Risk Management 37 Onion Pest Management Timing by Crop Stage 13 Efficacy ratings tables Major Onion Pest Descriptions 14 Insect and Nematode Management 42 Insects and nematodes 14 Diseases and pathogens 15 Disease and Pathogen Management 43 Weeds 18 Weed Management 45 Onion Pest Management by Crop Stage 19 Using PAMS Terminology 47 Field preparation to preplant 20 Contact: Katie Murray Integrated Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University 2040 Cordley Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-2915 [email protected] This publication is a summary of a workshop held on February 6, 2017 in Ontario, Oregon. The project was sponsored with funding from the Applied Research and Development Program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture. The “IPMSP” format is research in progress.
    [Show full text]